NationStates Jolt Archive

:eek:

- In 2003, the ACLU urged the National Park Service to remove plaques inscribed with Bible verses from three overlooks at the Grand Canyon but did not protest the names of park buttes -- Brahma Temple, Vishnu Temple, Shiva Temple, Osiris Temple and others -- commemorating Hindu and Egyptian deities.

- With $48 million in annual revenue, the ACLU, now with 400,000 members in 50 state affiliates, counts $125 million in net assets. It gave $57,830 to Democratic candidates last year, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. The largest contribution ($18,730) went to John Kerry. No ACLU money went to Republicans.

- ACLU’s Founder, Roger Baldwin: "I am for socialism, disarmament, and, ultimately, for abolishing the state itself... I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and the sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal."

- No one should doubt the threat that the ACLU's lawsuit against the Mojave Desert veterans memorial represents: it is the first time in history that private parties have been allowed to sue a veterans memorial to remove a religious symbol. The same legal principles the court followed under the "establishment clause" to order that solitary cross in the desert removed are applicable to all the crosses and Stars of David in our national cemeteries, and the 9,000 at Normandy Beach.

- The ACLU sues over a cross honoring fallen soldiers--and cashes in.

BY CHRISTOPHER LEVENICK
Friday, May 27, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT
Just west of the California-Nevada border, 11 miles south of the freeway that connects San Diego with Las Vegas, a small hill rises above the sun-baked floor of the Mojave Desert. Atop that hill stands a six-foot cross, fashioned out of four-inch-diameter steel pipe. That dusty hilltop and its lonely marker just might become the scene of the most significant church-state controversy since last year's fight over the Pledge of Allegiance.
In 1934, a gritty prospector named J. Riley Bembry gathered a couple of his fellow World War I veterans at Sunrise Rock. Together they erected the cross, in honor of their fallen comrades. The memorial has been privately maintained ever since, with small groups still occasionally meeting to remember the nation's veterans.
A wrinkle developed in 1994, when the federal government declared the surrounding area a national preserve. With the cross now located on newly public land, the memorial soon caught the attention of the American Civil Liberties Union. Working with Frank Buono, a retired park ranger turned professional activist, the ACLU demanded that the National Park Service tear down the cross.
Mr. Buono insists that his seeing the monument ("two to four times a year") violates his civil rights. A federal district court found in his favor, and the decision was subsequently upheld by the Ninth Circuit. Last-ditch attempts to deed Sunrise Rock over to the local Veterans of Foreign Wars were struck down in April. Defenders of the memorial hope to appeal, but their options are narrowing.
The ACLU, however, has made out quite nicely. Not only has it prevailed in the courts to date, but it has managed to pocket $63,000. Owing to a quirk in civil-rights law, the taxpayer once again ended up paying the ACLU for pressing a highly controversial church-state lawsuit.
The Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Award Act of 1976 specifies that anyone bringing an even partly successful civil-rights suit may have the defendant pay all legal fees for both parties, a discretionary award that is routinely granted. Such fee-reversals are not permitted to successful defendants. Congress meant for the law to help citizens with little or no money, but since then wealthy and powerful organizations have perverted that intention. They use the specter of massive attorney fees to force their secularist agenda on small school districts, cash-strapped municipalities and, now, veterans' memorials. According to Rees Lloyd, a former ACLU staff lawyer, such litigation is "manifestly in terrorem," intended to terrify defendants into settling out of court.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110006747

:eek:

- In 2003, the ACLU urged the National Park Service to remove plaques inscribed with Bible verses from three overlooks at the Grand Canyon but did not protest the names of park buttes -- Brahma Temple, Vishnu Temple, Shiva Temple, Osiris Temple and others -- commemorating Hindu and Egyptian deities.

Well, there's a difference between place-names and Bible quotations. What's the trouble differentiating between the two?

- With $48 million in annual revenue, the ACLU, now with 400,000 members in 50 state affiliates, counts $125 million in net assets. It gave $57,830 to Democratic candidates last year, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. The largest contribution ($18,730) went to John Kerry. No ACLU money went to Republicans.

Not only do I call bullshit on that, but there was a rather exhaustive thread on NS pertaining to this very untruthful non-issue. Check into it all you like, I'm not the candyman of links, here.

- ACLU’s Founder, Roger Baldwin: "I am for socialism, disarmament, and, ultimately, for abolishing the state itself... I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and the sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal."

Good for him. It's always best to have personal goals. Now what does that have to do with the goals of the ACLU?

I always knew the ACLU were out to get us!! :mad: :mad:
Down wit the ACLU :mp5: :sniper: :mp5: :sniper: :gundge: :gundge:

I always knew the ACLU were out to get us!! :mad: :mad:
Down wit the ACLU :mp5: :sniper: :mp5: :sniper: :gundge: :gundge:

About the response I was expecting.

Damn clever.

dobbs, these trolls aren't worth feeding...

dobbs, these trolls aren't worth feeding...

Too true. What was I thinking? (slaps own head)

Not being American, I might have missed the relevance of the post.

Civil liberty is served, nationalizing a park including a private religious memorial should be deemed 'an omission'. Getting it removed isn't an act against history or anything like that is it?

And that legal fee thing seems appropriate to me.

I totally agree with that the ACLU is out to get control. And communism is a very, very bad thing.

And hey if the ACLU is always talking about that Consevatives need to be open minded, then why wont they listen to Conservatives sometimes??? And if they are allways talking about things,a nd people being equal I think God deserves an equal chance.

I always knew the ACLU were out to get us!! :mad: :mad:
Down wit the ACLU :mp5: :sniper: :mp5: :sniper: :gundge: :gundge:
And with every gun smily somehow weight is subtracted from the validity of your opinion

:eek: :eek: :eek: :D


ACLU distorts our past and subverts our future


Fran Quigley’s Friday guest column and its inaccurate conclusions cannot go unchallenged.

The ACLU and its affiliates have twisted the original intent of the First Amendment. They have taken words from Thomas Jefferson and wrenched them out of context. Sadly, nobody in the mainstream press has called the ACLU on their misapplication of the Constitution.

Quigley wrote, “Madison and the framers deliberately steered away from church-state entanglement.” They steered away from sectarianism.

Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, appointed by Madison at age 32 because of his constitutional scholarship, said in his commentary on the Constitution: “The real object of the First Amendment was not to countenance, much less advance, Mohammedanism or Judaism or infidelity by prostrating Christianity, but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects and to prevent any national ecclesiastical patronage of the national government.”

Story also said, “We are not to attribute this prohibition of a national religious establishment to an indifference to religion in general, and especially to Christianity . . . Any attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation.”

Patrick Henry, the firebrand of the revolution, said, “It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not upon religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason, peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.”

James Madison said, “We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government; upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves and to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.”

Those are the very Commandments which the ACLU and their ilk are feverishly fighting to remove from all public property. What do you suppose Madison would have to say about that? As I have related in previous columns, this perverted interpretation of the Constitution did not happen until the “Everson” decision in 1947. It should also be noted that an ACLU lawyer named Leo Phoeffer wrote a friend-of-the-court brief for “Everson” and gave it to Hugo Black’s law clerk, who put it on Black’s desk. The words “wall of separation between church and state” were in that brief, lifted completely out of the context of Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists. We shouldn’t be surprised, however. ACLU founder Roger Baldwin was a communist who said he “would stand with Russia against the world.” It shouldn’t be any wonder that the ACLU would labor to subvert our heritage and Constitution.

I leave you with George Washington’s words from his farewell address: “Of all the dispositions and habits that lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens.”

That is exactly what the ACLU is doing. So whenever you hear someone from the ACLU talk about the Constitution, bear that in mind!

http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/newssentinel/news/editorial/11910716.htm

And? No one is surprised when Fred Phelps or some other radical right moron threatens homosexuals with imminent death and hellfire

Whoa... I respect the ACLU even more.

Especially the founder. He's my kind of guy, standing up for peace and equality and human brotherhood.

Though I get the feeling that wasn't the result Greenland wanted. I figure this thread will just attract trolls, so let's just not feed them, eh?

- The ACLU sues over a cross honoring fallen soldiers -
Most of us have known for quite some time where the ACLU stands on this sort of thing. Given that the US is a pluralistic society, removing specific references to a particular religion from publicly owned property seems appropriate to me. However, in this case removing the memorial, which was constructed before the land was designated a national preserve, seems to me to be ex post facto. I also fail to see the harm in leaving the memorial standing; who is harmed by simply allowing the memorial to remain?

ACLU

Bringing Anarchy Chaos and Lawlessness to a city near U :D

And hey if the ACLU is always talking about that Consevatives need to be open minded, then why wont they listen to Conservatives sometimes??? And if they are allways talking about things,a nd people being equal I think God deserves an equal chance.

Wow. When it comes to the first amendment, the ACLU applies its policies blindly. Haven't you heard about the ACLU defeding members of the KKK, neo-nazis, and the biggest ACLU hater - Rush Limbaugh. Defence of the 1st amendment requires application across the board. The ACLU defends conservatives. But I'll tell you why the ACLU doesn't listen to Conservatives. Because Conservatives want to falsely invoke and stake claim to a fundamentalist christian society.

- With $48 million in annual revenue, the ACLU, now with 400,000 members in 50 state affiliates, counts $125 million in net assets. It gave $57,830 to Democratic candidates last year, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. The largest contribution ($18,730) went to John Kerry. No ACLU money went to Republicans.


PSSST hey buddy. The Republicans like stuff like the Patriot Act. Why would they give money to the Republicans. Never mind the fact my BS buzzer is going off. Have you looked at their ledgers?


- ACLU’s Founder, Roger Baldwin: "I am for socialism, disarmament, and, ultimately, for abolishing the state itself... I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and the sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal."

Turns off the BS buzzer.

PSST hey buddy. Sure he said that and may have belived it. However, if you looked into the cases they have fought, it hardly looks like they are working for that goal.


- No one should doubt the threat that the ACLU's lawsuit against the Mojave Desert veterans memorial represents: it is the first time in history that private parties have been allowed to sue a veterans memorial to remove a religious symbol. The same legal principles the court followed under the "establishment clause" to order that solitary cross in the desert removed are applicable to all the crosses and Stars of David in our national cemeteries, and the 9,000 at Normandy Beach.


Ok you need to take a few breaths. Have you seen the memorial? The article you listed has a lack of photos. For all you know the monument's design could be say 80% about God and %20 about the veterens. You shouldn't get fired up on an opinion piece.

As to Normandy. Come on. It's France!!!!!!!!!!! The Constitution doesn't apply there!

"I was pleased last year to proclaim 1983 the year of the Bible. But you know, a group called the ACLU severely criticized me for doing that. Well, I wear their indictment like a badge of honor". - President Reagan, January 1984

How many lawsuits can one organization file? The ACLU appears to be nothing more than a money making machine that constantly ties up the legal system to further it's promotion of anti-American views. If the issue at hand is cutting edge liberal or outrageous, you will find the ACLU supporting the cause. How could anyone justify the validity of a group that supports an international pedophile organization known as NAMBLA?

ACLU

Bringing Anarchy Chaos and Lawlessness to a city near U :D
Assuring Continued Lawfull Universal freedom :p

How many lawsuits can one organization file? The ACLU appears to be nothing more than a money making machine that constantly ties up the legal system to further it's promotion of anti-American views. If the issue at hand is cutting edge liberal or outrageous, you will find the ACLU supporting the cause. How could anyone justify the validity of a group that supports an international pedophile organization known as NAMBLA?
As many as they want ... thats their whole point fighting to make sure the law is fair for freedom of speach

And it could be justified by the their opinion that it is detestable to limit freedom of speech just because they dont agree with someones MESSAGE (which is compleatly different then the act of statitory rape)

How many lawsuits can one organization file? The ACLU appears to be nothing more than a money making machine that constantly ties up the legal system to further it's promotion of anti-American views. If the issue at hand is cutting edge liberal or outrageous, you will find the ACLU supporting the cause. How could anyone justify the validity of a group that supports an international pedophile organization known as NAMBLA?

Anti-American? The ACLU is Pro-American. What right-wing organization defends our civil liberties?

Oh, wait. The right is out to destroy them. Silly me.

All Communists Love Us
:fluffle:

All Communists Love Us
:fluffle:

I'm failing to see why that's a bad thing.

I totally agree with that the ACLU is out to get control. And communism is a very, very bad thing.

And hey if the ACLU is always talking about that Consevatives need to be open minded, then why wont they listen to Conservatives sometimes??? And if they are allways talking about things, and people being equal I think God deserves an equal chance.
Excuse me?

Since when does an imaginary idea (which might or might not really exist) has the same rights as a person? Besides, when God shows up and speak his mind, we'll see if the ACLU listens. In the meantime, it's not God who's speaking.

And that is all irrelevent since the constitution says that there should be a separation between church and state anyways.

I'm failing to see why that's a bad thing.
Because like the term NAZI they seem to use it as a synonym for bad rather then an actual description for a political or philosophical view

I'm failing to see why that's a bad thing.

Didn't like that one eh? How 'bout this then...

Advancing Crybaby Litigation Universally


:p

How many lawsuits can one organization file?

As many as it takes.


The ACLU appears to be nothing more than a money making machine that constantly ties up the legal system to further it's promotion of anti-American views.

:rolleyes:


If the issue at hand is cutting edge liberal or outrageous,

You lost credibility with the liberal as a dirty word argument.


you will find the ACLU supporting the cause.

Yea! They even supported Rush! Those bastards!


How could anyone justify the validity of a group that supports an international pedophile organization known as NAMBLA?

Well you might get your facts right.

The ACLU doesn't support pedophilia. They support the message NAMBLA is trying to preech which is lowering the age of consent. Freedom of Speech means bullshit still gets to be heard. When we start deciding what speech is proper then we have lost the right.

I don't know much about the ALCU but I don't understand how seeing a religious monument infringes a person's civil rights. I see Mosques, Hindu Temples and Synagogues all the time and I don't feel it infringes on my civil liberties.

Didn't like that one eh? How 'bout this then...

Advancing Crybaby Litigation Universally


:p

So, people who are upset over the fact that our civil liberties are being violated for the "cause" of (largely unnecessary) counter-terrorism are "crybabies"?

Most of us have known for quite some time where the ACLU stands on this sort of thing. Given that the US is a pluralistic society, removing specific references to a particular religion from publicly owned property seems appropriate to me. However, in this case removing the memorial, which was constructed before the land was designated a national preserve, seems to me to be ex post facto. I also fail to see the harm in leaving the memorial standing; who is harmed by simply allowing the memorial to remain?

I have to agree here.

If the article is correct, this memorial was put up and maintained by private funds. It is now on national property, but was not when it was first put up. As long as it continues to be maintained by private funds, I see no problem with leaving it.

I totally agree with that the ACLU is out to get control. And communism is a very, very bad thing.


Ahh the ACLU is communism? :rolleyes:


And if they are allways talking about things,a nd people being equal I think God deserves an equal chance.

:rolleyes:

There is this pesky little thing called the Establishment Clause.

I don't know much about the ALCU but I don't understand how seeing a religious monument infringes a person's civil rights. I see Mosques, Hindu Temples and Synagogues all the time and I don't feel it infringes on my civil liberties.

Are those religious buildings funded by government funds?

The real issue here, I think, is whether or not the government began paying for the monument when they relabeled the land. If they did, there may be a violation of the first amendment. If they, however, sort of grandfathered it in and the same organization that has always kept it up continues to do so, there really isn't.

"While the ACLU was taking aim at the Catholic Church's tax exempt status, the Union affiliate in Providence, Rhode Island, came out in favor of a tax exemption for Satanists."

I don't know much about the ALCU but I don't understand how seeing a religious monument infringes a person's civil rights. I see Mosques, Hindu Temples and Synagogues all the time and I don't feel it infringes on my civil liberties.

Because Places of worship does not fall under the establishment clause. Well unless the State start's building them.

"While the ACLU was taking aim at the Catholic Church's tax exempt status, the Union affiliate in Providence, Rhode Island, came out in favor of a tax exemption for Satanists."

Ahhh you don't even know the cases; do you?

So, people who are upset over the fact that our civil liberties are being violated for the "cause" of (largely unnecessary) counter-terrorism are "crybabies"?

Tell me, good sir. How are your rights being violated? Specifically please.

Personally, if my rights were "violated" for the sake of my country's safety, I would definitely comply.

My problem with the ACLU is their inequity concerning who they target. For example, they are quick to remove any Christian symbol or artifact from public areas, but any other religion is just fine and dandy. Furthermore, their agenda is strictly political (socialist) and ideological (atheistic) which normally would be fine. However, they claim to be attempting to uphold civil rights of EVERYONE, rather than resort to bias. They simply don't do this. They are just another political machine used to expouse certain beliefs and denounce all others.

I don't know much about the ALCU but I don't understand how seeing a religious monument infringes a person's civil rights. I see Mosques, Hindu Temples and Synagogues all the time and I don't feel it infringes on my civil liberties.

Exactly. That gets right to my first point. Many people who claim that their rights are being violated don't really mean it.

Ahh the ACLU is communism?

It's founder is virtually a communist. And plus, you have to admit, it has a very liberal agenda.

Are those religious buildings funded by government funds?

The real issue here, I think, is whether or not the government began paying for the monument when they relabeled the land. If they did, there may be a violation of the first amendment. If they, however, sort of grandfathered it in and the same organization that has always kept it up continues to do so, there really isn't.

I'm not from the U.S. so I'm not too familiar with your laws but I found this through google. Is this accurate?

The First Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Wow. When it comes to the first amendment, the ACLU applies its policies blindly. Haven't you heard about the ACLU defeding members of the KKK, neo-nazis, and the biggest ACLU hater - Rush Limbaugh. Defence of the 1st amendment requires application across the board. The ACLU defends conservatives. But I'll tell you why the ACLU doesn't listen to Conservatives. Because Conservatives want to falsely invoke and stake claim to a fundamentalist christian society.

But our society is fundamentally Christian. Why do you think people who do things like murder their wives or unborn children are so reviled? Why do you think perversion of marrige and culture is illegal? Why do you think we produce no suicide jihadi bombers? Why is toying with the human genome illeagal? Why is love the highest beauty for most Americans? Why do people still have families instead of extra money?

Oh and don't give me your spiel about those things being common to all men. The ONLY places like that are Christian.

The fact of the matter is, while no one should be forced to accept it, Christianity is still TRUE. Therefore a Christian country making laws to PROTECT its own culture from the attacks on ITS culture on the minds of its children is laudable. When we protect Christianity in our culture i.e. Crosses on graves, we do so in self defense. You have a right to hold your own beliefs, but you do not have a right to destroy our great American way, our way, simply becuase it follows the way of the one true God.

I'm not from the U.S. so I'm not too familiar with your laws but I found this through google. Is this accurate?

The First Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Sounds right

Assault Christian Liberties Unmercifully

:eek:

Tell me, good sir. How are your rights being violated? Specifically please.

Well until the recent changes; there was the ability to enter a home when nobody was around and snoop for evidence of possible terrorism or intelligence. I forget the term for it

Wiretap laws were changed.....


Personally, if my rights were "violated" for the sake of my country's safety, I would definitely comply.

Ewww now that is a scary stance to have.

Ben Franklin said it best

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."


My problem with the ACLU is their inequity concerning who they target. For example, they are quick to remove any Christian symbol or artifact from public areas, but any other religion is just fine and dandy.


*Buzzer sound* I am sorry but you have to offer proof for that.


Furthermore, their agenda is strictly political (socialist) and ideological (atheistic) which normally would be fine.

Sorry that is not true.


However, they claim to be attempting to uphold civil rights of EVERYONE, rather than resort to bias. They simply don't do this. They are just another political machine used to expouse certain beliefs and denounce all others.

Again you have to offer proof.

Tell me, good sir. How are your rights being violated? Specifically please.

I need only name one thing: The Patriot Act.

Personally, if my rights were "violated" for the sake of my country's safety, I would definitely comply.

A man named Benjamin Franklin would have a bone to pick with you.

My problem with the ACLU is their inequity concerning who they target. For example, they are quick to remove any Christian symbol or artifact from public areas, but any other religion is just fine and dandy. Furthermore, their agenda is strictly political (socialist) and ideological (atheistic) which normally would be fine. However, they claim to be attempting to uphold civil rights of EVERYONE, rather than resort to bias. They simply don't do this. They are just another political machine used to expouse certain beliefs and denounce all others.

1: They remove religious symbols from public areas, because they're unconstitutional. Remember a little thing called Separation of Church and State?

2: No, no. When was the last time you ever saw a group put up a statue of Buddha in front of a courthouse? When was the last time you ever saw a group of Muslims construct a plaque containing a Koran on the plaza of a State Capitol?

3: Yes, they do maintain civil rights for everyone. Remember how they defended Rush Limbaugh and the KKK?

4: Seems to me that you just don't like their intent. I don't see why, though.

Exactly. That gets right to my first point. Many people who claim that their rights are being violated don't really mean it.

Of course, a bunch of churches, synagogues, mosques, and temples all over the place aren't violating anybody's rights. However, if they're on public (government) property, they're violating the Constitution. What's it good for if it's thrown by the wayside?

I have to agree here.

If the article is correct, this memorial was put up and maintained by private funds. It is now on national property, but was not when it was first put up. As long as it continues to be maintained by private funds, I see no problem with leaving it.

But... see, the ACLU does. In most of the small towns I've lived in, the Manger/nativity scenes were paid for out of private funds as well-and ACLU has consistently attacked them. Same with most of the "Ten Commandments" plaques, statues, etc. etc.

I guess every organisation has its share of knee-jerk reactions. ACLU doesn't like Crosses for some reason, or references to Christian Mythology.

The civil action directed at the specific memorial noted in the article just looks petty to me- more or less doing a thing not because it's right, but because they can.

an occasional 'token right-winger' defended by that group doesn't make up for incidents of outright petty bullshit, especially when there are other violations of civil rights that actually affect people and they won't touch it. (PATRIOT ACT!!!)
Before a "Defender" kicks in with the resources argument, maybe the ACLU would have more resources if they stopped trying to expunge a specific portion of the culture, and focused on keeping a leash on the feds!!!

By the way: when is the ACLU going to take a case to overturn the suspension of Habeas Corpus involved in IRS "Tax courts". thousands of minor suspects are abused by that system every year-a lot more than you find people offended by the ten-commandments or a cross in the middle of nowhere. That's right, they won't. Might hurt their own tax-exempt status or something, right?

James Madison said, “We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government; upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves and to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.”

The First Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

If this is a correct copy of the 1st Ammendment then it would seem that in removing the plaques the government is actually violating the constitution by prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

Wow. When it comes to the first amendment, the ACLU applies its policies blindly. Haven't you heard about the ACLU defeding members of the KKK, neo-nazis, and the biggest ACLU hater - Rush Limbaugh. Defence of the 1st amendment requires application across the board. The ACLU defends conservatives. But I'll tell you why the ACLU doesn't listen to Conservatives. Because Conservatives want to falsely invoke and stake claim to a fundamentalist christian society.
The problem with the ACLU is not its defense of Rights, it is its selective defense of rights.

They claim to represent all of the US's Civil Liberties, yet institutionally refuse to recognise any Right to self defense, using the most narrow definition of the 2nd Amendment possible. Contrast that with their Absolute and Broad definition of the 1st (and other Amendments). I find their position hipocritical. If they held all US Rights to be Absolute and treated them equally I would have very few issues with them. But they don't, so I do. And I will not support them financially.

The First Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

If this is a correct copy of the 1st Ammendment then it would seem that in removing the plaques the government is actually violating the constitution by prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

Read: Separation of Church and State.

ACLU founder Roger Baldwin was a communist who said he “would stand with Russia against the world.” It shouldn’t be any wonder that the ACLU would labor to subvert our heritage and Constitution.

George Washington’s words from his farewell address: “Of all the dispositions and habits that lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens.”

Read: Separation of Church and State.

I typed in Separation of Church and State into google and I got a lot of websites that seemed to talk about different issues. Is their a website you could recommend?

But... see, the ACLU does.

And I disagree with them on this count. Is there a rule that if I support the basic cause behind an organization, I must agree with every single thing they do?

In most of the small towns I've lived in, the Manger/nativity scenes were paid for out of private funds as well-and ACLU has consistently attacked them.

So long as any religious groups has completely equal access to the public grounds and can also (even at the same time) put up something espousing their views, I have no problem with this.

Same with most of the "Ten Commandments" plaques, statues, etc. etc.

Most of these have actually not been privately maintained. The famous one in Alabama, for instance, was put up by the judge, without proper approval (which would be necessary for erecting a monument), and snuck in during the night as if he knew he were breaking the rules.

The civil action directed at the specific memorial noted in the article just looks petty to me- more or less doing a thing not because it's right, but because they can.

I suspect they feel that they are right. In this case, however, I feel that they are going a bit too far. If, as the article says, this monument is maintained by private funds - and it was there before the land became public, I think it is beyond the scope of the ACLU's mission.

an occasional 'token right-winger' defended by that group doesn't make up for incidents of outright petty bullshit, especially when there are other violations of civil rights that actually affect people and they won't touch it. (PATRIOT ACT!!!)

Last I checked, the ACLU has been after the patriot act since its very inception.

The First Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

If this is a correct copy of the 1st Ammendment then it would seem that in removing the plaques the government is actually violating the constitution by prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

Sure, if you ignore the first part. If the government pays for such plaques, then the government is establishing a government-sponsored religion. By removing the plaques from public land and public funds, the government simply says "We can't do anything with these." It does not say that the citizens who wish to display them cannot do so - they simply can't use public funds to do so.

Read: Separation of Church and State.

I found this in Wikipedia:

The phrase separation of church and state does not appear in any founding American document. It is, however, a common interpretation of the first clause of the First Amendment, which reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...."

Congressional Emergency

Urge passage of HR 2679, The Public Expression of Religion Act of 2005. What this bill does, is to remove the ability for the award of federal funds for the purpose of recovering legal fees in Establishment Clause challanges to the 1st Amendment. These suits are often taken pro bono. But once won, the attorneys are able to recover legal fees from the government.

We need to get groups like the ACLU off the Taxpayers' Dime. Call, write, or email your Congressman and Senators and urge passage of this bill!!!

P.E.R.A trumps A.C.L.U.! :cool:

Sure, if you ignore the first part. If the government pays for such plaques, then the government is establishing a government-sponsored religion. By removing the plaques from public land and public funds, the government simply says "We can't do anything with these." It does not say that the citizens who wish to display them cannot do so - they simply can't use public funds to do so.

From what I understood the plaques were already there, therefore the government is maintaining, not establishing their existence.

By physically removing the plaques the government is ending their existence, which inevitably interferes with the people's ability to worship.

If this is a correct copy of the 1st Ammendment then it would seem that in removing the plaques the government is actually violating the constitution by prohibiting the free exercise of religion.
You seem to have a problem with the word excercise. Preventing Christianity from being thrown in everywhere does not inhibit the freedom of worship

Ahhh so much static.

But our society is fundamentally Christian.

Depends on where you live.


Why do you think people who do things like murder their wives or unborn children are so reviled?

Ahh but what about the murder of children and men?


Why do you think perversion of marrige and culture is illegal?

Ahh what?


Why do you think we produce no suicide jihadi bombers?
:rolleyes: I guess you miss all the news reports of guys killing a bunch of people and then shoot themselves. Forgot Columbine already?


Why is toying with the human genome illeagal?

Wow the labs have closed down? News to me.....

Why is love the highest beauty for most Americans? Why do people still have families instead of extra money?


Ahhhh wow......


Oh and don't give me your spiel about those things being common to all men. The ONLY places like that are Christian.

Ahh you don't like hearing facts do you?


The fact of the matter is, while no one should be forced to accept it,

Then stop trying to force it on everybody.


Christianity is still TRUE. Therefore a Christian country making laws to PROTECT its own culture from the attacks on ITS culture

The founders would disagree with you.


on the minds of its children is laudable.

My Children are my responcibility. Not yours.


When we protect Christianity in our culture i.e. Crosses on graves,

What the hell are you talking about?


we do so in self defense. You have a right to hold your own beliefs, but you do not have a right to destroy our great American way, our way, simply becuase it follows the way of the one true God.

Somebody fell asleep during the lessons on the Constitution!

From what I understood the plaques were already there, therefore the government is maintaining, not establishing their existence.

By physically removing the plaques the government is ending their existence, which inevitably interferes with the people's ability to worship.
By maintaining the plaque, they are effectively using public fund to maintain a religous paraphenalia. If they do so to ALL religious plaques, then it's all good. As it is not doing so, it effectively grant special status to this specific religion that others don't have.

And that is contrary to the constitution as it establish a religion above others.

From what I understood the plaques were already there, therefore the government is maintaining, not establishing their existence.p

Ah, I see the problem. I thought you were talking about other cases. There are no plaques involved in this case. There is a very large cross.

Of course, public funds can also not be used to maintain it - at least most likely not. However, as I said, if the government would like to allow the private organization to continue to maintain it, I have no problem with that.

By physically removing the plaques the government is ending their existence, which inevitably interferes with the people's ability to worship.

Can you not remove something without destroying it? In truth, if the case came to a compromise in which the monument were moved to non-public lands, that might be good. It would be difficult, however, so I think the best answer is to grandfather it in and allow the private organization to continue its maintenance.

James Madison said, “We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government; upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves and to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.”

Now you are getting pathetic. That statement does not exist!

http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/capital.asp

James Madison, the fourth president, known as "The Father of Our Constitution" made the following statement "We have staked the whole of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."

* Actually, this statement appears nowhere in the writings or recorded utterances of James Madison and is completely contradictory to his character as a strong proponent of the separation of church and state.

By maintaining the plaque, they are effectively using public fund to maintain a religous paraphenalia. If they do so to ALL religious plaques, then it's all good. As it is not doing so, it effectively grant special status to this specific religion that others don't have.

And that is contrary to the constitution as it establish a religion above others.

Based on what I read, the 1st Ammendment doesn't seem to denounce maintenance. So wouldn't it be better to provide maintenance for all religious paraphenalia (within reason) than to destroy something that is a part of history and culture?

Based on what I read, the 1st Ammendment doesn't seem to denounce maintenance. So wouldn't it be better to provide maintenance for all religious paraphenalia (within reason) than to destroy something that is a part of history and culture?

Use of government funds to maintain it would be use of government funds to acknowledge that one religion as important - hence establishing it.

Unless the government is going to put equal funds into monuments that revere every single possible religion, it would be showing favortism.

Well, there's a difference between place-names and Bible quotations. What's the trouble differentiating between the two?Except that the fact that the Place names are on every map/souvioner of the Grand Canyon and thus in the public eye (printed and used to support a government own porperty.) They are used as landmarks and thus mentioned by guides and anyone who is reporting an event ("the Hiker was last seen at the base of Shiva's Temple..." and not "the hiker was last seen at the plaque of John 3:16...") While the plauques are stationary and only viewed by people who go there, and also only by people who wish to read them, the names of Shiva, Osiris, Brahma... are mentioned by almost every tour guide to every visitor.. By having such names on a NATIONAL monument, it is by inference, the same as having a statue of the ten commandments on Government Property. After all, if they want to remove a Cross from a Memorial, (Arlington National Cemetary is also a Memorial) then where would the line be drawn.

Good for him. It's always best to have personal goals. Now what does that have to do with the goals of the ACLU?
People find it difficult to keep their personal goals from affecting the organization they run.

for example. People here have threads accusing the President of pushing his Christian Values on the citizens of the US. So the same can be said about the personal goals of the founder who has a hand in writing up the bylaws/vision/direction the ACLU takes.

Congressional Emergency Not.
Urge passage of HR 2679, The Public Expression of Religion Act of 2005. What this bill does, is to remove the ability for the award of federal funds for the purpose of recovering legal fees in Establishment Clause challanges to the 1st Amendment. These suits are often taken pro bono. But once won, the attorneys are able to recover legal fees from the government.

We need to get groups like the ACLU off the Taxpayers' Dime. Call, write, or email your Congressman and Senators and urge passage of this bill!!!
<snip>
This I can agree with. The US Government should not be paying ANYONE's legal fees except their own. If they did not bring the charges or were the defendants, they have no business paying (awarding) the legal costs of anything.

Im wondering...
How exactly does a plaque commemerating vetrans with a cross on it (or whatever it looks like) come under the definition of a 'law'? Or the signs at the Grand Canyon? Or, to drag up an old subject, the ten commandments plaques?
They dont look like laws. They arent written down and they dont make anybody do anything, you can be charged under the Small Vetrans Memorial With a Cross On act.
As far as I know, they dont stop anybody else from practicing their own religion, they dont have little Hindu-sensitive laser cannons that blast anybody trying to pray to Vishnu nearby. They dont explode when a Muslim wanders by.

BTW, this is the Vetrans Memorial in question:
http://www.death-valley.us/articles/cross.jpg
I beleive there is a base with the names of some people on it and a bit of poetry, there is no mention of Hindu-zapping lasers though.

Ah, I see the problem. I thought you were talking about other cases. There are no plaques involved in this case. There is a very large cross.

Of course, public funds can also not be used to maintain it - at least most likely not. However, as I said, if the government would like to allow the private organization to continue to maintain it, I have no problem with that.



Can you not remove something without destroying it? In truth, if the case came to a compromise in which the monument were moved to non-public lands, that might be good. It would be difficult, however, so I think the best answer is to grandfather it in and allow the private organization to continue its maintenance.

I will use the cross example then.

Based on what you say it seems there is a third option. Leave it and not maintain it. This would seem to be the choice most in keeping with the 1st Ammendment.

Based on what I read, the 1st Ammendment doesn't seem to denounce maintenance. So wouldn't it be better to provide maintenance for all religious paraphenalia (within reason) than to destroy something that is a part of history and culture?
I don't disagree. But then, a law must be enacted to do so, funds must be spent, people need to be hired, etc... It would meet stiff resistance.

As it is now, you can't pick and choose which you maintain. Without a good reason, it still establishes one religion over the others because funds are allocated there and not everywhere.

But understand that removing a plaque is not necessarily destroying it. Neither is it destoying a part of history (we are talking about a religious plaque) or culture.

Use of government funds to maintain it would be use of government funds to acknowledge that one religion as important - hence establishing it.

Unless the government is going to put equal funds into monuments that revere every single possible religion, it would be showing favortism.

What would be wrong with the government putting out equal funds to all religions?

Im wondering...
How exactly does a plaque commemerating vetrans with a cross on it (or whatever it looks like) come under the definition of a 'law'? Or the signs at the Grand Canyon? Or, to drag up an old subject, the ten commandments plaques?

The budget that gets passed every year is a law. And if that budget supports one religion above another, it is certainly respecting an establishment of religion...

I don't disagree. But then, a law must be enacted to do so, funds must be spent, people need to be hired, etc... It would meet stiff resistance.

As it is now, you can't pick and choose which you maintain. Without a good reason, it still establishes one religion over the others because funds are allocated there and not everywhere.

But understand that removing a plaque is not necessarily destroying it. Neither is it destoying a part of history (we are talking about a religious plaque) or culture.

I don't understand the last part, are you saying religion isn't part of history?

What would be wrong with the government putting out equal funds to all religions?
The government shoudn't be giving money out at all...

What would be wrong with the government putting out equal funds to all religions?

Separation of Church and Sate.

What would be wrong with the government putting out equal funds to all religions?

(a) There simply isn't enough money. Can you imagine the raise in taxes necessary to get every single possible religion?

(b) All possible religions are not known. Even within a religion, people disagree, thus you would have to equally support every possible denomination - even personal ones. You would also have to equally support every personal religion - whether it is established or not. In the end, this simply isn't possible. We don't know every possible religion, and more are constantly coming into being.

The budget that gets passed every year is a law. And if that budget supports one religion above another, it is certainly respecting an establishment of religion...
Wasnt this supported by private funds?
If not, perhaps somebody should try requesting that a monument for some other religion be built nearby. Im sure that would balance thigns out ;)

I don't understand the last part, are you saying religion isn't part of history?
Let me put it this way:

a plaque reads "Basilica Whatever: Founded 1876." It is history.

a plaque reads "Ezekiel 25:17: "The path of the righteous man is beset....". It is not history. It is a religous plaque with no basis in history.

I have no problem with the first one. Understand my point better?

Separation of Church and Sate.

If this was intended to be a link to a web site I think you're missing the ending.

Wasnt this supported by private funds?
If not, perhaps somebody should try requesting that a monument for some other religion be built nearby. Im sure that would balance thigns out ;)

Nope. You'd have to put a monument to every single religion that requested it, including Satanists, cultists, and the religion of Me. Otherwise, it's promoting one religion over others.

Wasnt this supported by private funds?
If not, perhaps somebody should try requesting that a monument for some other religion be built nearby. Im sure that would balance thigns out ;)

According to the article, yes - which is why I don't think the fight to remove it is very worthy. So long as the private funds are still maintaining it, I see no problem with it remaining.

ACLU founder Roger Baldwin was a communist who said he “would stand with Russia against the world.” It shouldn’t be any wonder that the ACLU would labor to subvert our heritage and Constitution.


:rolleyes:

So? There is proof that Robert Baden Powell was attracted to little boys. Do we abolish all scouting because of that?


George Washington’s words from his farewell address: “Of all the dispositions and habits that lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens.”

And your point? If you noticed, he didn't say Christianity. Washington neve spoke against Religion.

If you are going to quote Washington, you might want to look into the man first. He was not exactly the most ardent Christian. More of A diest.

http://www.virginiaplaces.org/religion/religiongw.html

If this was intended to be a link to a web site I think you're missing the ending.

I'm not missing anything. You're missing the point entirely.

(a) There simply isn't enough money. Can you imagine the raise in taxes necessary to get every single possible religion?

(b) All possible religions are not known. Even within a religion, people disagree, thus you would have to equally support every possible denomination - even personal ones. You would also have to equally support every personal religion - whether it is established or not. In the end, this simply isn't possible. We don't know every possible religion, and more are constantly coming into being.

Point taken, however what do you think about the third option mentioned in post 66?

ACLU Defends NAMBLA???!!!??? :eek:



NAMBLA is "not just publishing material that says it's OK to have sex with children and advocating changing the law," says Larry Frisoli, a Cambridge attorney who is arguing the Curleys case in federal court. NAMBLA, he says, "is actively training their members how to rape children and get away with it. They distribute child pornography and trade live children among NAMBLA members with the purpose of having sex with them."
Frisoli cites a NAMBLA publication he calls "The Rape and Escape Manual." Its actual title is "The Survival Manual: The Man's Guide to Staying Alive in Man-Boy Sexual Relationships."

"Its chapters explain how to build relationships with children," Frisoli tells me. "How to gain the confidence of children's parents. Where to go to have sex with children so as not to get caught...There is advice, if one gets caught, on when to leave America and how to rip off credit card companies to get cash to finance your flight. It's pretty detailed."
"In his diary, Jaynes said he had reservations about having sex with children until he discovered NAMBLA," Frisoli continues. "It's in his diary in 1996, around the time he joined NAMBLA, one year before the death of Jeffrey Curley."

The practical, step-by-step advice Jaynes followed goes far beyond appeals to sway public opinion in favor of pedophilia. Such language aids and abets felonious conduct. If such conspiracy results in homicide, it is reasonable for NAMBLA to face civil liability if not criminal prosecution.
Ohio's Court of Appeals found NAMBLA complicit in an earlier child-rape case. NAMBLA's literature, discovered in a defendant's possession, reflected "preparation and purpose," according to the Buckeye State's top bench.

The ACLU has offered material support to those who openly preach pedophilia and arguably encourage kidnapping, rape, and murder. Yet this legal group is energetically hostile to an organization that tries to turn boys into men, with sex alien to the process.

Since 1915, the Boy Scouts have managed land within San Diego's Balboa Park. It has built a swimming pool, a 600-seat amphitheater, and a camping facility that accommodates 300. Camp Balboa serves some 12,000 Boy Scouts annually through daylong events and weekend sleepovers. The Scouts' tie to this land is a 50-year lease offered by the San Diego City Council and signed in 1957. In exchange for their stewardship — including private investment for maintenance and development — the Scouts hand the city an annual lease payment of $1.00.

This arrangement is too much for the ACLU to swallow. It sued the City of San Diego to expel the Boy Scouts from Balboa Park. The ACLU contends that the Scouts are a religious organization and thus should be dislodged from the facility. Never mind that the Scouts did not bar other groups from using the park. In fact, according to Hans Zeiger, an 18-year-old Eagle Scout who has written about this controversy, Balboa Park hosted last summer's San Diego Gay Pride Festival.

The ACLU's supporters should contemplate where this organization has placed itself vis-à-vis NAMBLA and the Boy Scouts. The ACLU seemingly believes that everyone deserves a lawyer, no matter how odious his case. Perhaps, although it would be nice to see NAMBLA siphon its own bank account rather than the ACLU's to justify its evil ways. The ACLU decides for itself where to devote its finite resources. Hence, its leaders freely chose to stand with cheerleaders for pederasty while torpedoing those who mentor rather than rape little boys.
http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock200402270920.asp

Let me put it this way:

a plaque reads "Basilica Whatever: Founded 1876." It is history.

a plaque reads "Ezekiel 25:17: "The path of the righteous man is beset....". It is not history. It is a religous plaque with no basis in history.

I have no problem with the first one. Understand my point better?

Let's say that tomorrow something happens that disproves the Christian faith and suddenly no one believes in Christianity. Should the government maintain the religious paraphenalia then?

*snip*
1. All that about NAMBLA? Complete bull hockey. They do not publish that manual: It is distributed and published by someone else.
2. The Scouts recently declared themselves a relgious organization to dodge anti-discrimination laws, and therefore the ACLU went after them.

I'm not missing anything. You're missing the point entirely.

Which is why I asked for a web site.

Let's say that tomorrow something happens that disproves the Christian faith and suddenly no one believes in Christianity. Should the government maintain the religious paraphenalia then?
I don't understand your question...

Are you asking me if the government should stop maintaining an historical monument (say a house) if the monument is a religious temple and the faith is no longer worshipped?

I'd say that they should not maintain it in the first place. However! Some historical monuments have an historic value in addition to their religious connotation. If a house is maintained because it was where the founders signed the declaration of independance, I don't really care if it's a church of a dead religion. It should be maintained.

1. All that about NAMBLA? Complete bull hockey. They do not publish that manual: It is distributed and published by someone else.
2. The Scouts recently declared themselves a relgious organization to dodge anti-discrimination laws, and therefore the ACLU went after them.

Beat me to it! ;)

Hmmm should we tell him about the pedophile they recently nailed on the main council?

Preventing Christianity from being thrown in everywhere does not inhibit the freedom of worship

Fine, let's give this a little edit and see that the same logic applies:

Preventing opinions from being thrown in everywhere does not inhibit freedom of speech.

Point taken, however what do you think about the third option mentioned in post 66?

Well, that is essentially what I am proposing. The government should really just leave it alone altogether.

Now, if you were suggesting that not even the private organization should maintain it, I don't see why they can't. It wouldn't be the first private area owned and maintained by private citizens on public lands. Some people who lived on areas that later became national parks, for instance, have been allowed to keep and maintain their homes there. This would be much like that. I would hate to see a monument waste away if there were those who (privately) wished to maintain it.

Let me put it this way:

a plaque reads "Basilica Whatever: Founded 1876." It is history.

a plaque reads "Ezekiel 25:17: "The path of the righteous man is beset....". It is not history. It is a religous plaque with no basis in history.

I have no problem with the first one. Understand my point better?

So what's so damn offensive about the second one? Seriously it's just a few words.

I don't understand your question...

Are you asking me if the government should stop maintaining an historical monument (say a house) if the monument is a religious temple and the faith is no longer worshipped?

I'd say that they should not maintain it in the first place. However! Some historical monuments have an historic value in addition to their religious connotation. If a house is maintained because it was where the founders signed the declaration of independance, I don't really care if it's a church of a dead religion. It should be maintained.

From post 1:

In 1934, a gritty prospector named J. Riley Bembry gathered a couple of his fellow World War I veterans at Sunrise Rock. Together they erected the cross, in honor of their fallen comrades. The memorial has been privately maintained ever since, with small groups still occasionally meeting to remember the nation's veterans.

The cross is a religious symbol, but it is being used to commemorate a historic event.

Fine, let's give this a little edit and see that the same logic applies:

Preventing opinions from being thrown in everywhere does not inhibit freedom of speech.

Doesn't work. You would have to pick a specific opinion out of all possible opinions and claim that it was alright for the government to establish that opinion and support it more than other speech.

Freedom of religion and speech are individual rights, not governmental rights.

But how is a cross or ten commandments establishing a religion? They're religious symbols, NOT the religion - it isn't making a state religion now is it? And it's not that big of a deal - there's a difference between making someone a religion and just putting up a religious symbol.

Well, that is essentially what I am proposing. The government should really just leave it alone altogether.

Now, if you were suggesting that not even the private organization should maintain it, I don't see why they can't. It wouldn't be the first private area owned and maintained by private citizens on public lands. Some people who lived on areas that later became national parks, for instance, have been allowed to keep and maintain their homes there. This would be much like that. I would hate to see a monument waste away if there were those who (privately) wished to maintain it.

So if the third option applies does this mean the ALCU is asking the government to violate the 1st Ammendment?

So what's so damn offensive about the second one? Seriously it's just a few words.
Never said it was offensive. I was explaining the distinction between a religous plaque and a historic plaque. One can be maintained by the US government, the other can't.

From post 1:

In 1934, a gritty prospector named J. Riley Bembry gathered a couple of his fellow World War I veterans at Sunrise Rock. Together they erected the cross, in honor of their fallen comrades. The memorial has been privately maintained ever since, with small groups still occasionally meeting to remember the nation's veterans.

The cross is a religious symbol, but it is being used to commemorate a historic event.
Took a bit of time to get there, eh?

But let's be specific here: the ACLU is against it. I didn't state an opinion on it, yet. I'm with Dempublescent1 (sp?) here. I find this specific case to be extremely borderline and splitting hairs.

So if the third option applies does this mean the ALCU is asking the government to violate the 1st Ammendment?

Not really. I just think that there are other options.

The option proposed by the ACLU (so long as the monument was allowed to be moved to another site) would certainly be in keeping with the ammendment - I just don't think it is necessary to go that far.

But how is a cross or ten commandments establishing a religion? They're religious symbols, NOT the religion - it isn't making a state religion now is it? And it's not that big of a deal - there's a difference between making someone a religion and just putting up a religious symbol.
It establishes that some religions are worthy of public fund bot not others. It put a preferential treatment of one (or more) religion above others. It is preferential treatment and against the first amendment.

It's nothing against the cross per se. It's against preferential treatment.

Took a bit of time to get there, eh?

But let's be specific here: the ACLU is against it. I didn't state an opinion on it, yet. I'm with Dempublescent1 (sp?) here. I find this specific case to be extremely borderline and splitting hairs.

Eh? ;)

Eh? ;)
Canadian habit :)

Okay, erm.

Yes, I'm with the folks that said the taking down of the Cross at the memorial site was wrong. It's what those people felt in correlation with that event, you know? If they feel like plastering Bugs Bunny all over the place, let them. They were in it, and that's how they feel about it.
The plaques(sp) needed to come down. They obviously offend people.
Yes, the place names could offend people, too- but that's taking it a bit far, don't you think? If you were to change place names so as not to offend anyone, you'de have to change the names of citite, too. Once cities were made universally non-offensive (Assuming there's a way to do that, of course.), you'd work your way up to people's names. Et cetera, Et cetera.

>.<!

<snip> If you were to change place names so as not to offend anyone, you'de have to change the names of citite, too. Once cities were made universally non-offensive (Assuming there's a way to do that, of course.), you'd work your way up to people's names. Et cetera, Et cetera.
>.<!
They already do that. "They" are actively petitioning to remove the word "Squaw" (offensive to (some) Amerinds) from any place name.

"They" regularly change the names of roads when the Nameee becomes pollitically incorrect. (think Civil War names)

"They" change the historic names of things all the time because sombody gets their panties in a bunch.

It's called Political Correctness.

It establishes that some religions are worthy of public fund bot not others. It put a preferential treatment of one (or more) religion above others. It is preferential treatment and against the first amendment.

It's nothing against the cross per se. It's against preferential treatment.
-Where's the first amendment say anything about preferential treatment? Someone want to point that out to me where is says that? How silly, it doesn't say any such thing.



-The American Civil Liberties Union is engaged in a long-term, relentless and well-funded campaign to remove every vestige of Christian expression from America's government, schools and public property.
But that much you already know.
What you probably don't know is that the ACLU is using your money to do it – such as when it received close to half a million taxpayer dollars after successfully suing to have the 10 Commandments removed from Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore's courthouse.
That's the stunning, in-depth, investigative story told for the first time in the December edition of Whistleblower, titled "EXTORTION: How the ACLU is destroying America using your money."
The headlines assault us daily: "Silent Night" can't be sung at school; the Defense Department must stop sponsoring Boy Scout troops; a tiny Christian cross must be removed from the Los Angeles County seal; Nativity scenes on a courthouse lawn are unconstitutional. Americans' heads are spinning, as they wonder what the next judicial outrage will be: Removing "In God We Trust" from U.S. currency? Firing all military chaplains? Expunging all references to God in America's founding documents?

-Good Reading Material…
"Buying the 'big lie' of church-state separation" by David Kupelian. How did ACLU radicals and activist judges manage to convert Christianity – the original basis of America's laws, culture and institutions – into a forbidden behavior? This in-depth examination shows exactly how, when and why Americans "bought into" the unconstitutional myth of "the separation of church and state."

What you probably don't know is that the ACLU is using your money to do it – such as when it received close to half a million taxpayer dollars after successfully suing to have the 10 Commandments removed from Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore's courthouse.
Anyone claiming the ACLU is the villain there is apeshit or has no knowledge of the case other than "OMG THEY MADE HIM REMOVE A CHRISTIAN MONUMENT, THEY ARE ATTACKING CHRISTIANITY"

Moore was using tax payer dollars because the STATE had to support him while he was gaining hundreds of thousands of dollars by maknig appearances in southern churches and selling copies of the videotape of him ILLEGALLY putting the monument there in the middle of the night. The ACLU or some one last I heard was trying to sue to force him to pay back the state for legal expenses

I should write a book, I will call it "Activist judges and how they support the radical right"

Read this you poor brainwashed member of the flock...

"Former ACLU attorney now crusades to de-fund it," by Rees Lloyd. Once a staff attorney for the ACLU of Southern California, and honored by the group for his "pioneering efforts in the area of workers' rights," Lloyd is today pioneering a very different effort – one to stop the ACLU, which he calls "the Taliban of American liberal secularism." Lloyd points to specific legislation that will – if passed – stop the unwilling taxpayer support of the ACLU once and for all.

Read this you poor brainwashed member of the flock...

"Former ACLU attorney now crusades to de-fund it," by Rees Lloyd. Once a staff attorney for the ACLU of Southern California, and honored by the group for his "pioneering efforts in the area of workers' rights," Lloyd is today pioneering a very different effort – one to stop the ACLU, which he calls "the Taliban of American liberal secularism." Lloyd points to specific legislation that will – if passed – stop the unwilling taxpayer support of the ACLU once and for all.
Do you have anything to support your ranting and raving other than offcenter cites of random people who dont like the aclu?

Ihatevacations']Do you have anything to support your ranting and raving other than offcenter cites of random people who dont like the aclu?

"The ACLU is never going to change," says WND Editor Joseph Farah. "It is an anti-American organization. It is a group that seeks to destroy all that makes America a unique experiment in freedom. It is an organization in league with all of America's enemies. It is an organization that hates God, hates what is right, decent and morally upright."

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has long enjoyed a reputation among many people as a watchdog of freedom, but critics say the group is abandoning that role on school choice, a reform favored by many poor minority families trapped in failing public schools.

The ACLU is fighting Florida's school voucher plan, which allows children in poorly performing public schools to attend private schools using state-funded "opportunity scholarships." The group's lawsuit says vouchers paid for with taxpayer money could be used at private religious schools, which the ACLU believes violates the separation of church and state.

That's absurd, according to Clint Bolick, vice president of the Institute for Justice, a public interest law firm based in Washington, D. C.

"[The ACLU's] logic would overturn the G. I. Bill, Pell Grants, day-care vouchers, private-school aid for disabled students, and even tax exemptions for religious institutions," Bolick recently wrote in The Wall Street Journal.
http://www.questforexcellentschools.org/pubs/mer/article.asp?ID=2502

Read this you poor brainwashed member of the flock...

"Former ACLU attorney now crusades to de-fund it," by Rees Lloyd. Once a staff attorney for the ACLU of Southern California, and honored by the group for his "pioneering efforts in the area of workers' rights," Lloyd is today pioneering a very different effort – one to stop the ACLU, which he calls "the Taliban of American liberal secularism." Lloyd points to specific legislation that will – if passed – stop the unwilling taxpayer support of the ACLU once and for all.

I'll be working backward to disprove the many lies, half-truths, and misleading statements you have posted here.

It is true Rees Lloyd once worked for a chapter of the ACLU -- for 2 years about 25 years ago. :eek:

Immediately after graduating from law school in 1979, he worked for the ACLU of Southern California in Los Angeles on employment rights issues until he left by 1981.

Sorry, but the view of one disgruntled former brief employee of one chapter of the ACLU is hardly compelling -- let alone conclusive. :rolleyes:

Ihatevacations]
Do you have anything to support your ranting and raving other than offcenter cites of random people who dont like the aclu?"The ACLU is never going to change," says WND Editor Joseph Farah. "It is an anti-American organization. It is a group that seeks to destroy all that makes America a unique experiment in freedom. It is an organization in league with all of America's enemies. It is an organization that hates God, hates what is right, decent and morally upright."

So .... That would be "no."

Columnist Donald Kaul calls us "Bible-thumping evangelists/braying hypocrites," akin to the Taliban of Asia. (Others have made that same comparison, such as one local writer who exalts the ACLU. He says the ACLU (the Anti-Christian League of Unbelievers) is all about fairness, "existing so we are all treated fairly under the law, including First Amendment rights of speech, association, assembly ... etc."

Their primary goal is to drive Christianity totally out of any public forum. Extortion is their primary tool; they threaten expensive lawsuits against anyone who defies their anti-Christian demands. Because of their economic strength, their targets easily cave. Headline examples:

"ACLU plans intelligent design lawsuit"; "Air Force Academy to stifle Christian speech"; "Pentagon warns military not to support Scouts" (their oath affirms God); "ACLU targets abstinence education program" (calling it religious); "ACLU threatens child services over Gospel Concert."

Teachers are being prohibited by school administrations from teaching - even reading - our Declaration of Independence, the faith writings of some of our great leaders, from singing Christmas carols or any other manifestation of traditional Christmas. The ACLU targets the removal of any kind of Christian symbol or representation, including crosses and the 10 Commandments, regardless of where and how long they have been exhibited. Our Constitution guarantees our right to free religious expression.

http://www.theunion.com/article/20041225/OPINION/112250072

WARNING! WARNING! CUT-N-PASTE TROLL SPOTTED!

REFRAIN FROM ATTEMPTING LOGIC! :headbang:

A opinion column writer quoting another opinion columnist, very clever Mr Bond, but can you handle - SNAKES! *tosses snakes everywhere*

As an Australian, I'm gonna say why don't ya split the US into two already! Its like that graphic map gif that was circulated. Jesusland is the south, integrate every other state to a USCanada hybrid nation.

If you're a liberal living in Jesusland, move north. If you're a conservative living in USCanada move south.

Yay for everybody.

Ihatevacations']A opinion column writer citing and opinion of some other guy, very clever Mr Bond, but can you handle - SNAKES! *tosses snakes everywhere* first people want links and proof... then when they get links and proof, its "where's your thoughts..."

I'll just say the ACLU does some great things. But like everything/everyone else, it's far from perfect.

One question to everyone tho. Please answer honestly...

Have you ever seen these plaques at the Grand Canyon?

Have you been forced to read them or did you read them out of choice?

Were you truely offended by these religous quotes?

the couple of times I went to the Grand Canyon, I've only seen one plaque once... and I wasn't offended. (Neither was I offended by the Peaks bearing the names of Hindu/Egyptian Gods.)

400,000 extremist athiests forcing their will on 300 million people at activist judge gun point.
Sounds alot like the ACLU is trying to impose a communist dictatorship.

400,000 extremist athiests forcing their will on 300 million people at activist judge gun point.
Sounds alot like the ACLU is trying to impose a communist dictatorship.
Activist judges and how they work for the radical right.

Communist dictatorship? Sounds like the perfect rival for the theocratic dictatorship teh activist judges working for the radical right as pushing for

-
-The American Civil Liberties Union is engaged in a long-term, relentless and well-funded campaign to remove every vestige of Christian expression from America's government, schools and public property.

And yet Moses and the 10 commandments remain in the SCOTUS. And yet there are some local towns that have a manger scene up on goverment property

When an an icon/whatnot is placed for the sole reason of promoting a religion; it should be removed. When it is generic or all religions can place stuff, then it's ok(for me anyway).


But that much you already know.
What you probably don't know is that the ACLU is using your money to do it – such as when it received close to half a million taxpayer dollars after successfully suing to have the 10 Commandments removed from Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore's courthouse.


Oh so instead of blaming Moore who had that statue installed it's the ACLU's fault? Isn't that like blaiming the drug dealer for the drug user?


That's the stunning, in-depth, investigative story told for the first time in the December edition of Whistleblower, titled "EXTORTION: How the ACLU is destroying America using your money."
The headlines assault us daily: "Silent Night" can't be sung at school; the Defense Department must stop sponsoring Boy Scout troops;

That you can blame some of the hard core christians that have infected the council. They are hardly innocent as to mention an example. A gay scout master. The scouts knew he was gay and were ok with it. The parents knew he was gay and was ok with it. The main council got him booted. End cost. The troop folded.

I am an Eagle Scout BTW.....


a tiny Christian cross must be removed from the Los Angeles County seal;

That one is a tough call. I only followed it a tiny bit and got the impression it was on their since the original seal. For me that is a historical thing as LA is what over 150 years old?


Nativity scenes on a courthouse lawn are unconstitutional.

Yes as are minoras, etc.


Americans' heads are spinning, as they wonder what the next judicial outrage will be:

Psst. That's congress.


Removing "In God We Trust" from U.S. currency?

Yup.


Firing all military chaplains? Expunging all references to God in America's founding documents?

*SNIFF* Smells like a lie to me.


-Good Reading Material…
"Buying the 'big lie' of church-state separation" by David Kupelian. How did ACLU radicals and activist judges manage to convert Christianity – the original basis of America's laws, culture and institutions – into a forbidden behavior? This in-depth examination shows exactly how, when and why Americans "bought into" the unconstitutional myth of "the separation of church and state."
Just read it and it's actually kind of piss poor. He selectivly quotes Madison for his argument. Which misrepresents Madison's true opinion.

The fact that Reinquest's opinin on that case was throughly debunked kind of shows he doesn't research or he and again is just taking stuff that he likes.

I am reading his other stuff and my goodness is is a tad fanatical. Thank god the establishment clause protects us from people like him.

But let's not mention there is about 150 years of case law that he left out....

As an Australian, I'm gonna say why don't ya split the US into two already! Its like that graphic map gif that was circulated. Jesusland is the south, integrate every other state to a USCanada hybrid nation.

If you're a liberal living in Jesusland, move north. If you're a conservative living in USCanada move south.

Yay for everybody.
Won't work. The "Blue" states are almost uniformly Urban/Suburban Costal, while the "Red" states are almost uniformly Sub-Sub Urban/Rural Central.

Most Urban areas in general went Blue. It's because they don't understand where their Food comes from...

Patrick Henry, the firebrand of the revolution, said, “It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not upon religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason, peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.”

400,000 extremist athiests forcing their will on 300 million people at activist judge gun point.
Sounds alot like the ACLU is trying to impose a communist dictatorship.

Speaking of fanatics!

Hmmm your numbers don't jive with the 77% Christian numbers that were published here.....

I do believe Patrick Henry refused to be involved in teh creation of the United States of America because it centralized the power instead of allowing teh states to do what they want like under teh Articles, nice try though, go again

"The ACLU is never going to change," says WND Editor Joseph Farah. "It is an anti-American organization. It is a group that seeks to destroy all that makes America a unique experiment in freedom. It is an organization in league with all of America's enemies. It is an organization that hates God, hates what is right, decent and morally upright."

Ewww WND; now there is a pillar of truth........

Hmmm I guess he forgot the cases where the ACLU *SHOCK* defendend a few religious groups.

first people want links and proof... then when they get links and proof, its "where's your thoughts..."

An op-ed piece isn't factual?

I totally agree with that the ACLU is out to get control. And communism is a very, very bad thing.

And hey if the ACLU is always talking about that Consevatives need to be open minded, then why wont they listen to Conservatives sometimes??? And if they are allways talking about things,a nd people being equal I think God deserves an equal chance.

About having former Republican Majority Leader Dick Armey as a consultant?

Conservative firebrand Bob Barr (former Republican Congressman from GA and leader of the impeachment of Bill Clinton) is a consultant. clicky (http://www.aclu.org/LesbianGayRights/LesbianGayRights.cfm?ID=15989&c=101) and clicky (http://www.aclu.org/Privacy/Privacy.cfm?ID=11449&c=39).

The ACLU has currently defending Rush Limbaugh and formerly worked for Ollie North. The ACLU has worked closely with a number of conservative groups over the years. The ACLU has cooperated frequently with the NRA.

In most of the separation of Church and State cases, major religions organizations -- including major Christian denominations -- have sided with the ACLU.

The ACLU has stood up for the rights of religious groups, including Christians on numerous occasions. They have repeatedly defended the rights of anti-abortion protesters.

There are scores upon scores of other actions in which the ACLU has defended or cooperated with Conservatives and Christian groups. Here are just a very small sample:
Following Threat of ACLU of Virginia Lawsuit, Officials to Agree Not to Ban Baptisms in Public Parks (http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=15897&c=141)
Iowa Civil Liberties Union Defends Right of Students to Wear Anti-Abortion T-Shirts (http://www.aclu.org/StudentsRights/StudentsRights.cfm?ID=18159&c=159) (note many other examples of defending Christians given in the artice)
Speech by James Ziglar, conservative and Bush's INS Commissioner, to the Membership Meeting of the American Civil Liberties Union (http://www.aclu.org/Conference/Conference.cfm?ID=12896&c=256)
After ACLU Intervention on Behalf of Christian Valedictorian, Michigan High School Agrees to Stop Censoring Religious Yearbook Entries (http://www.aclu.org/StudentsRights/StudentsRights.cfm?ID=15680&c=159)
ACLU of New Jersey Successfully Defends Right of Religious Expression by Jurors (http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=17237&c=29)
ACLU backs students on Confederate shirts (http://cnnstudentnews.cnn.com/2001/fyi/teachers.ednews/05/09/confederate.shirts.ap/)
West Virginia School Officials Violated Student’s Rights By Punishing Him Over a T-Shirt, Court Rules (http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=18399&c=42)
ACLU of Nebraska Defends Presbyterian Church Facing Eviction by the City of Lincoln (http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=16295&c=142)
Michigan Court Punishes Catholic Man for Refusing Conversion to Pentecostal Faith in Drug Rehab Program (http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=16138&c=142)

Do I need to continue or can we set aside the silly canards that the ACLU is anti-Christian or purely leftist?

<snip>Do I need to continue or can we set aside the silly canards that the ACLU is anti-Christian or purely leftist?
Nah. You don't NEED to continue, but it might be fun.

I, however, am still waiting for a good (and non-hipocritical) answer as to why the ACLU uses Broad and Absolute definitions for Amendments 1,3,4,5,6,7,8,9, & 10 and the narrowest possible definition of #2. :(

WARNING! WARNING! CUT-N-PASTE TROLL SPOTTED!

REFRAIN FROM ATTEMPTING LOGIC! :headbang:

You are correct.

This is simply lying and misleading spam. I'm not going to respond to most of Greenlander's bullshit.

Please, people, don't believe the hype.

Nah. You don't NEED to continue, but it might be fun.

I, however, am still waiting for a good (and non-hipocritical) answer as to why the ACLU uses Broad and Absolute definitions for Amendments 1,3,4,5,6,7,8,9, & 10 and the narrowest possible definition of #2. :(

Hmpf.

Why don't you offer an example or two?

I would think #1 would be a good place to start as this much of the threadstarters BS centers around it.....

Hmpf. Why don't you offer an example or two?
I would think #1 would be a good place to start as this much of the threadstarters BS centers around it.....
Well, how about the examples given on this thread of all the times/ways the ACLU has champoined the Freedom of Expression - no matter how outlandish.

Of how the ACLU champions even Rush's right to privacy (aren't they using a #4 argument Cat?)

Of all the various attempts to strike at the Patriot Act's abuse of #4,5,6 & 8

But I guess, on reflection, they do a pretty piss poor job of championing 9 & 10 too...

But hey, 7 out of 10 ain't bad I suppose...

Nah. You don't NEED to continue, but it might be fun.

:D

I think I proved my point. At least to anyone vaguely interested in facts.

I, however, am still waiting for a good (and non-hipocritical) answer as to why the ACLU uses Broad and Absolute definitions for Amendments 1,3,4,5,6,7,8,9, & 10 and the narrowest possible definition of #2. :(

1. The ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control and the Second Amendment. It accepts the prevailing interpretation of the Second Amendment by the courts.

More is explained here (http://www.aclu.org/PolicePractices/PolicePractices.cfm?ID=9621&c=25).

2. I don't want to divert into a separate debate about whether the ACLU is wrong regarding its view of the Second Amendment. Obviously, they may be. I would note that this interpretation is far from unreasonable:

A. This interpretation of the Second Amendment is not only that adopted by the Supreme Court (although some would dispute this), but by at least 10 of the 11 U.S. Courts of Appeal. It has been the prevailing law of the land for at least 75 years.

B. The American Bar Association (http://www.abanet.org/gunviol/secondamend.html), conservative former Chief Justice Warren Burger, and arch-conservative Judge Robert Bork are among those that agree with this interpretation.

3. There are numerous other organizations devoted solely to defending gun rights and opposing firearms restrictions and litigating/lobbying re the Second Amendment issues. The ACLU cooperates with such groups, like the NRA, on non-2nd Amendment issues. The ACLU just is neutral on the 2nd Amendment.

4. It is far from true that the ACLU uses "absolute" interpretations of the other provisions of the Bill of Rights.

:D <snip>1. The ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control and the Second Amendment. It accepts the prevailing interpretation of the Second Amendment by the courts. <snip> Which, IMO is sad, because they don't operate that way with #1,4,5,6 or 8.
2. I don't want to divert into a separate debate about whether the ACLU is wrong regarding its view of the Second Amendment. Obviously, they may be. I would note that this interpretation is far from unreasonable:<snip> Oh, I don't consider their position to be unreasonable, just inconsistant with the way they operate in other venues.
3. There are numerous other organizations devoted solely to defending gun rights and opposing firearms restrictions and litigating/lobbying re the Second Amendment issues. The ACLU cooperates with such groups, like the NRA, on non-2nd Amendment issues. The ACLU just is neutral on the 2nd Amendment.Which, given their Zealousness on the other Amendments is as good as being against it IMO...
4. It is far from true that the ACLU uses "absolute" interpretations of the other provisions of the Bill of Rights.But you must admit that they hold a much broader view of what must be protected (at government reimbursable expense) on the other Amendments than they do for #2, 9 & 10.

Which, IMO is sad, because they don't operate that way with #1,4,5,6 or 8.
Oh, I don't consider their position to be unreasonable, just inconsistant with the way they operate in other venues.
Which, given their Zealousness on the other Amendments is as good as being against it IMO...
But you must admit that they hold a much broader view of what must be protected (at government reimbursable expense) on the other Amendments than they do for #2, 9 & 10.

The ACLU litigates a wide range of issues. They don't happen to advocate your view on this one particular issue. They are only being inconsistent if you assume they are wrong in their view of the 2nd Amendment. It is rather different than the other provisions of the Bill of Rights -- both in its wording and its history.

There is a rather large difference between not being for something and being against it. :rolleyes:

They have litigated, by the way, on behalf of the 9th and 10th Amendments.

The part about "government reimbursable expense" is a red herring. That is based on federal and state laws that apply to all prevailing plaintiffs on certain types of civil rights cases. Conservative organizations and individual plaintiffs routinely benefit from these laws. The law is neutral and extremely justifiable.

I appreciate that you are being very reasonable on this issue, btw. :)

<snip>
There is a rather large difference between not being for something and being against it. :rolleyes:
<snip>
Oh, I know. It's just in the comparison that it looks really bad. I'm a Libertarian and think they should be Zealous for all 10.

I appreciate that you are being very reasonable on this issue, btw. :)
Why wouldn't I be reasonable? (gunsgunsgunsgunsgunsgunsguns...) :p :D

-James Madison talks to the UCLA…
“Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government.”

-James Madison talks to the overly zealous legislation cause by endless ACLU challenges…
“It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood.”

-James Madison talks to the anti-gun nuts…
“The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation where the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”

James Madison talks to the pious…
“It is impossible for the man of pious reflection not to perceive in it [the Constitution] a finger of that Almighty hand which has been so frequently and signally extended to our relief in the critical stages of the revolution.”

Let's have a look-see about what Thomas Jefferson's input about the constitution of the United States... Seeing as how the ACLU has convicned the world that we should use something he wrote about it...

Looking down the roster here... hmmmm

:eek:

He wasn't even there!

Connecticut
William. Samuel Johnson
Roger Sherman
Oliver Ellsworth (Elsworth)*

Delaware
George Read
Gunning Bedford, Jr.
John Dickinson
Richard Bassett
Jacob Broom

Georgia
William Few
Abraham Baldwin
William Houston*
William L. Pierce*

Maryland
James McHenry
Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer
Daniel Carroll
Luther Martin*
John F. Mercer*

Massachusetts
Nathaniel Gorham
Rufus King
Elbridge Gerry*
Caleb Strong*

New Hampshire
John Langdon
Nicholas Gilman

New Jersey
William Livingston
David Brearly (Brearley)
William Paterson (Patterson)
Jonathan Dayton
William C. Houston*

New York
Alexander Hamilton
John Lansing, Jr.*
Robert Yates*

North Carolina
William. Blount
Richard. Dobbs Spaight
Hugh Williamson
William R. Davie*
Alexander Martin*

Pennsylvania
Benjamin Franklin
Thomas Mifflin
Robert Morris
George Clymer
Thomas Fitzsimons (FitzSimons; Fitzsimmons)
Jared Ingersoll
James Wilson
Gouverneur Morris

South Carolina
John Rutledge
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney
Charles Pinckney
Pierce Butler

Virginia
John Blair
James Madison Jr.
George Washington
George Mason*
James McClurg*
Edmund J. Randolph*
George Wythe*

Rhode Island
Rhode Island did not send any delegates to the Constitutional Convention.

(* indicates people there that didn't sign)

Let's have a look-see about what Thomas Jefferson's input about the constitution of the United States... Seeing as how the ACLU has convinced the world that we should use something he wrote about it...

*snip*

ROTFLASTC

1. Care to explain how the evil ACLU convinced the Supreme Court that what Jefferson's phrase "wall of separation of Church and State" was an "authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [First] amendment" 42 years before the ACLU existed?

The ACLU was founded in 1920.

In 1878, the US Supreme Court explained the history of the First Amendment and the involvement of James Madison and Thomas Jefferson. The Court then said:

Accordingly, at the first session of the first Congress the amendment now under consideration was proposed with others by Mr. Madison. It met the views of the advocates of religious freedom, and was adopted. Mr. Jefferson afterwards, in reply to an address to him by a committee of the Danbury Baptist Association (8 id. 113), took occasion to say: 'Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions,-I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore man to all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.' Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment thus secured.

Reynolds v. United States (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/98/145.html ), 98 US 145 (1878).

2. Although the particular phrase from Jefferson's letter of a "wall of separation of Church and State" is commonly cited, the concept and the language of separation of Church and State was commonly used by other Founding Fathers. James Madison, in particularly, repeatedly referred to and advocated a "perfect separation" of Church and State. Here are just a few examples (emphasis added):

"The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State" (Letter to Robert Walsh, Mar. 2, 1819).

"Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and & Gov't in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history" (Detached Memoranda, circa 1820).

"Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together" (Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822).

I must admit moreover that it may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency to a usurpation on one side or the other or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them will be best guarded against by entire abstinence of the government from interference in any way whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order and protecting each sect against trespasses on its legal rights by others. (Letter Rev. Jasper Adams, Spring 1832).

Unlike many of the quotes that you have provided, these are all genuine.

Threads like this make me proud of the money I give to the ACLU, our constitution's great champion and defending wall against the vandal horde.

Big BIG wall between acknowledgement of the supreme being and establishing a state run church... Like? Oh, they aren't even related...



"Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor, and Whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me "to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanks-giving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness."

George Washington, City of New York, October 3, 1789

I keep seeing people on here making reference to the Grand Canyon plaques and asking if people were really offended by them. It's not that they're offensive to anyone, it's not that Christianity is offensive to the ACLU it's that the state has no business funding the placing and maintenance of these plaques.

You can't have one religion placing things on public land without allowing every other one to do the same - it's unconstitutional. I can see a huge outcry if someone wanted to quote a passage of the Qu'ran on a plaque at the Grand Canyon, never mind all the tiny lunatic fringe religions.

If you let one do it, you must let all. As letting all is impossible and/or foolish, you can't let any. No attack on anyone's faith, just a defence of everyone's liberties.

It's unconstituional? Really, based on what? On what the ACLU says? Nah, unless the governemnt turns the grand canyon into a church that we are all forced to join, it's not unconstitutional...

"To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the encrease of science among them and Us, and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best."
George Washington...


"-- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."
Abraham Lincoln
November 19, 1863

"To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the encrease of science among them and Us, and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best."
George Washington...
Who wrote no part of the constitution and only sat in on the proceedings as a figurehead


"-- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."
Abraham Lincoln
November 19, 1863
a politician if there ever was one.

Have you even read the Federalist Papers?

As I have mentioned many times, Madison spent the later part of his life arguing against statement of his that were taken out of context. Even today it seems to continue.

-James Madison talks to the UCLA…
“Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government.”


Ok this one I know but I can't site where it came from. Rather tired these days as my kid is waking up several times a night.

Now the others are easy as they are part of the Federalist papers.


-James Madison talks to the overly zealous legislation cause by endless ACLU challenges…
“It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood.”


This is from Federalist #48 which discussed The Senate

:rolleyes: Sorry but he didn't say that at all. What he was discussion was the passing of laws on the whim of the moment. Creating laws without review so bloated that they cause problems. There is much more that can be said. Lets look at the whole passage.

"The internal effects of a mutable policy are still more calamitous. It poisons the blessing of liberty itself. It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is to-day, can guess what it will be to-morrow. Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed?"




-James Madison talks to the anti-gun nuts…
“ which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation where the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”


Ok that quote in itself does not exist. It is chopped up bits from Federalist #46 which compared the Influence of the state and federal Governments. The parts taken discuss the founding of an army and spoke of the militias which would help keep ambitious plans of taking over in check.

"....Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it.



James Madison talks to the pious…
“It is impossible for the man of pious reflection not to perceive in it [the Constitution] a finger of that Almighty hand which has been so frequently and signally extended to our relief in the critical stages of the revolution.”

This has nothing to do with your implication that he was speaking of Christianity.

This was taken out of Federalist #37 which was addressed the deficulties of the Convention in devising a proper form of goverment. Rather then diviate from the discussion of the thread I will present his "edited" quote in is full form.

"Would it be wonderful if, under the pressure of all these difficulties, the convention should have been forced into some deviations from that artificial structure and regular symmetry which an abstract view of the subject might lead an ingenious theorist to bestow on a Constitution planned in his closet or in his imagination? The real wonder is that so many difficulties should have been surmounted, and surmounted with a unanimity almost as unprecedented as it must have been unexpected. It is impossible for any man of candor to reflect on this circumstance without partaking of the astonishment. It is impossible for the man of pious reflection not to perceive in it a finger of that Almighty hand which has been so frequently and signally extended to our relief in the critical stages of the revolution. We had occasion, in a former paper, to take notice of the repeated trials which have been unsuccessfully made in the United Netherlands for reforming the baneful and notorious vices of their constitution. The history of almost all the great councils and consultations held among mankind for reconciling their discordant opinions, assuaging their mutual jealousies, and adjusting their respective interests, is a history of factions, contentions, and disappointments, and may be classed among the most dark and degraded pictures which display the infirmities and depravities of the human character. If, in a few scattered instances, a brighter aspect is presented, they serve only as exceptions to admonish us of the general truth; and by their lustre to darken the gloom of the adverse prospect to which they are contrasted. In revolving the causes from which these exceptions result, and applying them to the particular instances before us, we are necessarily led to two important conclusions. The first is, that the convention must have enjoyed, in a very singular degree, an exemption from the pestilential influence of party animosities the disease most incident to deliberative bodies, and most apt to contaminate their proceedings. The second conclusion is that all the deputations composing the convention were satisfactorily accommodated by the final act, or were induced to accede to it by a deep conviction of the necessity of sacrificing private opinions and partial interests to the public good, and by a despair of seeing this necessity diminished by delays or by new experiments."

In 1731 Benjamin Franklin articulated a creed to live by, both personally and in public life:

"That there is one God, Father of the universe. That He is infinitely good, powerful and wise. That He is omnipresent. That He ought to be worshipped, by adoration prayer and thanksgiving both in public and private."

AND:

When it looked like no one would ever be able to agree for the creation of a national Constitution, Benjamin Franklin, an elder statesman by then took charge, stood to his feet, and although he was not known to be devoutly religious, he gave this contentious gathering a stirring call for prayer...

"I have lived, sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? ... I also believe that without His concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better, than the builders of Babel … Therefore, I beg leave to move that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations be held in this assembly every morning..."

ok i didn't read any of what anyone has said in this thread. but i saw the topic "the aclu does what??!" and heres your answer: STUPID THINGS.

Ihatevacations']Who wrote no part of the constitution and only sat in on the proceedings as a figurehead


a politician if there ever was one.

Yeah, and if you can quote Thomas Jefferson who wasn't even in the country at the time :rolleyes: , I can quote someone that was at least in the building :D

ok i didn't read any of what anyone has said in this thread. but i saw the topic "the aclu does what??!" and heres your answer: STUPID THINGS.

Profound.

ok i didn't read any of what anyone has said in this thread. but i saw the topic "the aclu does what??!" and heres your answer: STUPID THINGS.

Wow. That was insightful.

At least he was right... :)

From one point of view. Still, you wouldn't be happy if everyone started dropping into the middle of a conversation they hadn't been following made a statement and vanished.

ACLU Says Polygamy is just fine!!! :eek:


Utah case utilizing Lawrence v. Texas early last year, the ACLU filed suit on behalf of G. Lee Cook, a Salt Lake City polygamist who wanted his multiple marriages to be legally as well spiritually valid. Steven Clarke, the ACLU's Salt Lake City legal director, publicized his chapter's endorsement of this position by stating, "Talking to Utah's polygamists is like talking to gays and lesbians who really want the right to live their lives, and not live in fear because of whom they love. So certainly that kind of privacy expectation is something the ACLU is committed to protecting." ( :rolleyes: ) Ultimately, the court rejected the reasoning in this case, but the citizens of Hildale and Colorado City have not. Nor have those on the cutting edge of family law who seek to undermine marriage by opening it up to same-sex couples.
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/basham200504180745.asp

It's a valid point of view. Marriage in the sense of a legal contract (as opposed to the sacrament of any given church) should be possible between any 2 or more people who freely enter into the contract.


(Cat? May I introduce you to these pigeons? :) )

urge to kill ACLU rising.

Isn't the essential tenet of civil liberty that people should be free to live their life in the way they see fit providing that in so doing they don't compromise anyone else's rights? If so, how does someone else's marriage arrangements (freely entered into) affect anyone else?

Urge... To streak thread... Rising...

Urge... To streak thread... Rising...
*sets up cameras... just in case.*

Resist the ACLU:gundge: at your own Risk :eek: !!!

The best known case involves popular talk show host Sean Hannity. While interviewing volunteers of the Minuteman Project last April in Arizona, Hannity inadvertently crossed the US/Mexico border for a few minutes then immediately returned. It was a simple mistake and easily understood in light of the pathetic security of our borders. However the ACLU, which led the good fight by trying to obstruct the Minutemen and goad them into conflicts while enabling the rampant invasion of illegals into our nation, decided this was an offense that could not be tolerated. Apparently upset at Hannity's drawing interest to the good work of the Minutemen, Arizona State Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, under the auspices of the ACLU, demanded Hannity's arrest.

There are several other cases in recent weeks which further illustrate this trend. In Tangipahoa Parish, Louisiana, the ACLU has called for the arrest of school teachers and administrators because the ACLU does not feel they adequately exorcised all Judeo-Christian influences from their classrooms and cafeterias.

The ACLU is out of control. They can no longer even be pretending to support freedom, the Constitution and Bill of Rights. What once may have been an organization dedicated to high ideals has now degenerated into a literal threat to our liberty. They are going beyond just trying to prosecute every Boy Scout troop and are now moving on to either sue people just like you and me, or actually have us arrested and subjected to criminal prosecution. How ironic it is that a group who thinks terrorists should not be in prison feels that those who disagree with them should. Sounds a little like the ACLU is no longer endorsing civil liberties but political prisoners.

http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article4392.html

Everyone knows that ACLU stands for "american crimminal lovers union" since they will defend the worst murderers, child molestors and rapists out there.

Ah, yet more "evidence" from a group with a clear agenda. For each anecdotal excess there is another anecdotal example of moderation. What does this prove?

-snip-
Why not make someone who supports nutcases with guns watching the border see the insanity and the inconvenience of being so pissed off about the free market working and cheap labour fuelling the US economy?
What would have happened had he been a latino American? They would've sent him into detention and kept him there for hours, possibly longer.
I reckon it was just a little joke on behalf of the ACLU. Maybe he learnt something out of it, even if you didn't.

PS: This is my 400th post! :)

Wonder of wonders! Even Bill O'Reilly dosn't like the ACLU?!?! :D


§ The ACLU opposes the Patriot Act. But, in 2003, when asked by liberal Senator Dianne Feinstein to produce examples of government abuse under the act, the ACLU did not produce one.

§ The ACLU opposes the "No Fly List" complied by the Transportation Security Administration to keep known bad guys off American airliners.

§ The ACLU has sued to stop federal authorities from giving information about illegal aliens to state and local police agencies. You read that right. The ACLU does not want local authorities to know who is illegally living in their neighborhoods.

§ And the ACLU believes that terrorists captured wearing civilian clothing are entitled to the rights legitimate soldiers receive under the Geneva Convention. Thus, no coercive interrogation.
One final example. Mohammed Atta most likely loved the ACLU. The dead 9/11 hijacker was in the USA illegally and roamed around planning the deadly attack. If the feds had information on Atta in a database and a local Florida cop had managed to pick him up, the ACLU says the cop had no right to know any federal information about the illegal alien Atta. That extreme position sums up just how much the ACLU is looking out for all of us.
And that is not at all.

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/oreilly030705.asp

*sigh*

*streaks thread*

The ACLU did What?!... WHAT?!... YEAH!

:D

Greenlander:

You can produce all the quotes you want, but it was signed into law with the Treaty of Tripoli that the United States of America is not a nation based on Christianity, it is not a Christian nation in any sense except a large amount of its citizentry claim to be so.



As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

I didn't know the Treaty trumped the Declaration of Independence and Abraham Lincoln... Must be a big ol treaty... Kinda like the league of Nations...

Remember well, last January the ACLU Omited Religion From their online Constitution Tutorial ENTIRELY!!! THEY WANT IT GONE! :eek:

-The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) — often criticized for infringing on America’s free expression of religion — has been caught red-handed attempting to edit the First Amendment on its own website. Specifically, the organization’s website omitted any mention of religion in its discussion on the First Amendment.

According to Human Events magazine, the ACLU errantly explained that the “freedom of speech” was the first right guaranteed by the Constitution. In an attempt to elevate the freedom of speech in importance, the ACLU blatantly omitted any mention of religion in the First Amendment.

The ACLU Version of the First Amendment

“It is probably no accident that freedom of speech is the first freedom mentioned in the First Amendment: ‘Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.’ The Constitution’s framers believed that freedom of inquiry and liberty of expression were the hallmarks of a democratic society.”

While the ACLU offers only ellipses in respect to America’s freedom of religion, the framers actually placed this freedom as the first right guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment actually begins, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

Pressure Forces ACLU to Update Its Website

Following the article in Human Events, the ACLU altered its website to include religious liberties in the First Amendment. The Human Events Weekly Wrap-Up bragged that public outcry has forced the ACLU “to stop this specific distortion of the Bill of Rights.”

“Call this one a win for the good guys!” it added.

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=6387

See saved version of site the ACLU fixed…! :p

I didn't know the Treaty trumped the Declaration of Independence and Abraham Lincoln... Must be a big ol treaty... Kinda like the league of Nations...


Actually, it does trump the both of them. The Declaration of Independence has no legal bearing on the United States (it was supplanted first by the Articles of Confederation and second by the Federal Constitution of the United States of America) and the words of a single man, even if he is the president, have even less of a legal bearing. Only the legislative branch, our bicarmel congress, can make laws.

Oh, and also:

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/buckner_tripoli.html

Actually, it does trump the both of them. The Declaration of Independence has no legal bearing on the United States (it was supplanted first by the Articles of Confederation and second by the Federal Constitution of the United States of America) and the words of a single man, even if he is the president, have even less of a legal bearing. Only the legislative branch, our bicarmel congress, can make laws.


In the mind of the ACLU, I'm sure it does trump it... However, lets see for ourselves: The treaty was signed in 1796, yes, with an unreadable gibberish version of the treaty was written in Arabic and given to them so it didn't even say the same stuff and they couldn't hold us to it...THEN>

The Treaty was broken in 1801 by the pasha of Tripoli himself! :eek:
On April 27, 1805, Marines led by William Eaton stormed the Barbary pirates' harbor stronghold of Derna, Tripoli. It is in honor of this victory that the phrase "to the shores of Tripoli" is commemorated on the U.S. Marine Corps' flag and later in the Marine Hymn. :D Sounds like someone lied to you about how important that treaty is! :p It was renegotiated in 1805 after the First Barbary War, at which time Article 11 (the part you like so much) was removed.... :rolleyes: … Nice treaty though, I hope you don't mind if I clean my cannon rod with it seeing as how it's worth nothing but confetti at our victory parade after the war ...


More importantly... Back to the ACLU and the logic of convincing sheepish Americans to do their dirty work for them:


ACLU Says this about Children Murderers:
These rules have been established precisely because we believe that adolescents are less mature than adults and less capable of making good decisions. Why then under capital punishment laws, should juveniles be found to be the most culpable and worthy of the harshest punishment? Our knowledge that children are different than adults has been further confirmed by rapidly advancing technology in brain development research. Recent studies have shown that the parts of the brain that govern judgment, reasoning, and impulse control are not fully developed until the early 20's…

Okay, that makes sense…

But wait? What’s this then?
A State's interest in protecting immature minors will sustain a requirement of a consent substitute, either parental or judicial. It is clear, however, that "the State must provide an alternative procedure whereby a pregnant minor may demonstrate that she is sufficiently mature to make the abortion decision herself or that, despite her immaturity, an abortion would be in her best interests."


Maybe someone at the ACLU thinks you’re all just a bunch of chumps and you won’t notice this utter lack of logic? That or, maybe the ACLU just says, “logic and truth? They don’t win court cases. Who needs them?!?”

In the mind of the ACLU, I'm sure it does trump it... However, lets see for ourselves: The treaty was signed in 1796, yes, with an unreadable gibberish version of the treaty was written in Arabic and given to them so it didn't even say the same stuff and they couldn't hold us to it...THEN>

The Treaty was broken in 1801 by the pasha of Tripoli himself! :eek:
On April 27, 1805, Marines led by William Eaton stormed the Barbary pirates' harbor stronghold of Derna, Tripoli. It is in honor of this victory that the phrase "to the shores of Tripoli" is commemorated on the U.S. Marine Corps' flag and later in the Marine Hymn. :D Sounds like someone lied to you about how important that treaty is! :p It was renegotiated in 1805 after the First Barbary War, at which time Article 11 (the part you like so much) was removed.... :rolleyes: … Nice treaty though, I hope you don't mind if I clean my cannon rod with it seeing as how it's worth nothing but confetti at our victory parade after the war ...

Read it again.

It is a statement of being signed into law by the Congess of the United States of America that our nation was in no sense founded on the Christian Religion. It matters not the stance of the treaty on anything, it was a group of men who lived through the Revolution and participated in the writting of the Constitution who agreed to this. Indeed, for them it was no big step, no allusion to higher purpose, that America is a secular nation was a matter of course for them.

Now, if theocrats like you could go back to standing on soapboxes in the Bible Belt and stop bothering us forumites, all would be well.

Dude, they didn't even know if States trumped Feds yet... They didn't even know if they would survive the year out, or have a national bank, or what the supreme court would do, nor term limits nor this nor that nor anything else...

A treaty with Tripoli so ensure them that we weren't Europeans out with a vengeance (They were pirates mind you), and the two versions of the treaty that was different depending what version you were reading AND the version you are talking about AS a few months later on October 21 - In Boston Harbor, the 44-gun United States Navy frigate USS Constitution is launched to fight Barbary pirates off the coast of Tripoli with or without the treaty yet being broken...

Following the American Revolution, America was no longer under the protection of the British tribute treaties, resulting in the crippling of American commerce in the Mediterranean. Having no significant Navy, the U.S. decided to form tribute treaties with the Barbary states, such as this 1796 Treaty of Tripoli... WE would have sold our mothers to not have to fight but keep the trade ships moving :eek: And you act like it's more important than every state constitution written before or after a treaty paper obsolete almost minutes after it was signed...

And for crying out loud, you read like a ACLU member... As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen;

Does that mean anything to you? The European had been crusading and fighting holy war with these guys for hundreds of years, the Americans were making a gesture of goof will that we weren’t going to fight a religious war with them, we were not a making a document of religious faith. :rolleyes:

Dude, they didn't even know if States trumped Feds yet... They didn't even know if they would survive the year out, or have a national bank, or what the supreme court would do, nor term limits nor this nor that nor anything else...

A treaty with Tripoli so ensure them that we weren't Europeans out with a vengeance (They were pirates mind you), and the two versions of the treaty that was different depending what version you were reading AND the version you are talking about AS a few months later on October 21 - In Boston Harbor, the 44-gun United States Navy frigate USS Constitution is launched to fight Barbary pirates off the coast of Tripoli with or without the treaty yet being broken...

Following the American Revolution, America was no longer under the protection of the British tribute treaties, resulting in the crippling of American commerce in the Mediterranean. Having no significant Navy, the U.S. decided to form tribute treaties with the Barbary states, such as this 1796 Treaty of Tripoli... WE would have sold our mothers to not have to fight but keep the trade ships moving :eek: And you act like it's more important than every state constitution written before or after a treaty paper obsolete almost minutes after it was signed...

And for crying out loud, you read like a ACLU member... As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen;

Does that mean anything to you? The European had been crusading and fighting holy war with these guys for hundreds of years, the Americans were making a gesture of goof will that we weren’t going to fight a religious war with them, we were not a making a document of religious faith. :rolleyes:

Regardless of intent, the statement is clear and concise. It was signed into law that, historically, the United States was not founded upon Christianity.

And it should be stressed - by the people who wrote the Constitution. They said it wasn't founded on Christianity and they founded it, so they should know what they intended when they did so. Whatever the fate of the treaty, the sentiment expressed is valid.

Regardless of intent, the statement is clear and concise. It was signed into law that, historically, the United States was not founded upon Christianity.

Fine, you can't read what is says, "not founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen;"

Then you leave yourself open to all legal documents and even this is fair game:


THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
HOLY TRINITY CHURCH v. U.S.
143 U.S. 457, 12 S.Ct. 511, 36 L.Ed. 226
Feb. 29, 1892

Mr. Justice BREWER delivered the opinion of the court.
*snip ~ Cut to the chase~*

Even the constitution of the United States, which is supposed to have little touch upon the private life of the individual, contains in the first amendment a declaration common to the constitutions of all the states, as follows: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," etc., - and also provides in article 1, § 7, (a provision common to many constitutions,) that the executive shall have 10 days (Sundays excepted) within which to determine whether he will approve or veto a bill.

There is no dissonance in these declarations. There is a universal language pervading them all, having one meaning. They affirm and reaffirm that this is a religious nation. These are not individual sayings, declarations of private persons. They are organic utterances. They speak the voice of the entire people. While because of a general recognition of this truth the question has seldom been presented to the courts, yet we find that in Updegraph v. Comm., 11 Serg. & R. 394, 400, it was decided that, "Christianity, general Christianity, is, and always has been, a part of the common law of Pennsylvania; * * * not Christianity with an established church and tithes and spiritual courts, but Christianity with liberty of conscience to all men." And in People v. Ruggles, 8 Johns. 290, 294, 295, Chancellor KENT, the great commentator on American law, speaking as chief justice of the supreme court of New York, said: "The people of this state, in common with the people of this country, profess the general doctrines of Christianity as the rule of their faith and practice; and to scandalize the author of those doctrines in not only, in a religious point of view, extremely impious, but, even in respect to the obligations due to society, is a gross violation of decency and good order. * * * The free, equal, and undisturbed enjoyment of religious opinion, whatever it may be, and free and decent discussions on any religious [143 U.S. 457, 471] subject, is granted and secured; but to revile, with malicious and blasphemous contempt, the religion professed by almost the whole community is an abuse of that right. Nor are we bound by any expressions in the constitution, as some have strangely supposed, either not to punish at all, or to punish indiscriminately the like attacks upon the religion of Mahomet or of the Grand Lama; and for this plain reason that the case assumes that we are a Christian people, and the morality of the country is deeply ingrafted upon Christianity, and not upon the doctrines or worship of those impostors." And in the famous case of Vidal v. Girard's Ex'rs, 2 How. 127, 198, this court, while sustaining the will of Mr. Girard, with its provisions for the creation of a college into which no minister should be permitted to enter, observed: "it is also said, and truly, that the Christian religion is a part of the common law of Pennsylvania."

If we pass beyond these matters to a view of American life, as expressed by its laws, its business, its customs, and its society, we find everywhere a clear recognition of the same truth. Among other matters note the following: The form of oath universally prevailing, concluding with an appeal to the Almighty; the custom of opening sessions of all deliberative bodies and most conventions with prayer; the prefatory words of all wills, "In the name of God, amen;" the laws respecting the observance of the Sabbath, with the general cessation of all secular business, and the closing of courts, legislatures, and other similar public assemblies on that day; the churches and church organizations which abound in every city, town, and hamlet; the multitude of charitable organizations existing everywhere under Christian auspices; the gigantic missionary associations, with general support, and aiming to establish Christian missions in every quarter of the globe. These and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation. In the face of all these, shall it be believed that a congress of the United States intended to make it a misdemeanor for a church of this country to contract for the services of a Christian minister residing in another nation?

[143 U.S. 457, 472] Suppose, in the congress that passed this act, some member had offered a bill which in terms declared that, if any Roman Catholic church in this country should contract with Cardinal Manning to come to this country, and enter into its service as pastor and priest, or any Episcopal church should enter into a like contract with Canon Farrar, or any Baptist church should make similar arrangements with Rev. Mr. Spurgeon, or any Jewish synagogue with some eminent rabbi, such contract should be adjudged unlawful and void, and the church making it be subject to prosecution and punishment. Can it be believed that it would have received a minute of approving thought or a single vote? Yet it is contended that such was, in effect, the meaning of this statute. The construction invoked cannot be accepted as correct. It is a case where there was presented a definite evil, in view of which the legislature used general terms with the purpose of reaching all phases of that evil; and thereafter, unexpectedly, it is developed that the general language thus employed is broad enough to reach cases and acts which the whole history and life of the country affirm could not have been intentionally legislated against. It is the duty of the courts, under those circumstances, to say that, however {517} broad the language of the statute may be, the act, although within the letter, is not with the intention of the legislature, and therefore cannot be within the statute.



Then you can just argue with the Supreme Court that says otherwise... :p

And it should be stressed - by the people who wrote the Constitution. They said it wasn't founded on Christianity and they founded it, so they should know what they intended when they did so. Whatever the fate of the treaty, the sentiment expressed is valid.

What? you can't read either? :p Don't you guys know how to finish a sentence, and maybe even a entire paragraph before you pick and choose this word and that to say something new :rolleyes:

I'm gonna have to put that I'm an ACLU member in my sig. I love watching conservatives have an apolectic fit everytime it's mentioned.

Fine, you can't read what is says, "not founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen;"

Then you leave yourself open to all legal documents and even this is fair game:
*SNIP*

Then you can just argue with the Supreme Court that says otherwise... :p

Actually, all this supposes is that the American people are Christian. It never makes claim against the ToT supposition that the United States was not in any way founded upon the Christian religion.

The only thing I could find addressing the issue was this (http://www.positiveatheism.org/mail/eml9471.htm) website.

I'll be sure to check the Library of Congress on this issue next time I'm in Washington, though.

:eek: ACLU Thinks American's Should HATE Ourselves and We Had it Coming!:eek:

Burlingame also reports that Anthony Romero, ACLU executive director, "is pushing IFC organizers for exhibits that showcase how civil liberties in this country have been curtailed since September 11." Then there's billionaire Bush-basher George Soros, who Burlingame reports is an early founder and supporter of the IFC and whose spirit infuses this grievance-mongering enterprise.

Do we really want Ground Zero to be the playground of anti-war financiers, moral equivalence peddlers, and Guantanamo Bay alarmists? As Burlingame told me yesterday, "Ground Zero belongs to all the American people. If Ground Zero is lost, whether through negligence or malfeasance, it will be a loss that is felt for generations to come."

Richard Tofel, IFC president, is minimizing dissenters. In a statement, he told me that "we understand that a few do not" agree with the project's stated mission of promoting the "cause of freedom." The question is not whether most Americans support a monument to freedom, but whether they will stand by while saboteurs convert it into The Ultimate Guilt Complex.

The ACLU must think you are a bunch of ninnies :rolleyes:



-As the to the misreading of the Tripoli stuff, so the rest of you won’t be confused by the intentionally misapplied allusion the secularist want to use to confuse you...

The Founders did not intend to "found" a Christian nation. This is true.
America was already a Christian nation. If the Founders intended to found a secular nation, their constitution would have been utterly rejected.
The following historical facts have been taken from David Barton, Original Intent: The Courts, the Constitution, & Religion, 1996. Anyone who has not read the material in Barton's book simply is not qualified to discuss "the separation of church and state."

That treaty; one of several with Tripoli, was negotiated during the "Barbary Powers Conflict," which began shortly after the Revolutionary War and continued through the Presidencies of Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Madison. The Muslim Barbary Powers (Tunis, Morocco, Algiers, Tripoli, and Turkey) were warring against what they claimed to be the "Christian" nations (England, France, Spain, Denmark, and the United States). In 1801, Tripoli even declared war against the United States, thus constituting America's first official war under the Constitution.

Throughout this long conflict, the five Barbary Powers regularly attacked undefended American merchant ships. Not only were their cargoes easy prey but the Barbary Powers were also capturing and enslaving "Christian" seamen in retaliation for what had been done to them by the "Christians" of previous centuries (e.g., the Crusades and Ferdinand and Isabella's expulsion of Muslims from Granada).

In an attempt to secure a release of captured seamen and a guarantee of unmolested shipping in the Mediterranean, President Washington dispatched envoys to negotiate treaties with the Barbary nations. (Concurrently, he encouraged the construction of American naval warships to defend the shipping and confront the Barbary pirates -- a plan not seriously pursued until President John Adams created a separate Department of the Navy in 1798.) The American envoys negotiated numerous treaties of "Peace and Amity" with the Muslim Barbary nations to ensure "protection" of American commercial ships sailing in the Mediterranean. However; the terms of the treaties frequently were unfavorable to America, either requiring her to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars of "tribute" (i.e., official extortion) to each country to receive a "guarantee" of safety or to offer other "considerations" (e.g., providing a warship as a "gift" to Tripoli, a "gift" frigate to Algiers, paying $525,000 to ransom captured American seamen from Algiers, etc.).

The 1797 treaty with Tripoli was one of the many treaties in which each country officially recognized the religion of the other in an attempt to prevent further escalation of a "Holy War" between Christians and Muslims.

Consequently, Article XI of that treaty stated:
As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion as it has in itself no character of enmity [hatred] against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims] and as the said States [America] have never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

This article may be read in two manners. It may be distorted to read as the secularists want it to be read, concluded after the clause "Christian religion" or it may be read in its entirety and concluded where the punctuation so indicates.

But even if shortened and cut abruptly ("the government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion"), this is not an untrue statement since it is referring to the federal government. Recall that while the Founders themselves openly described America as a Christian nation, they did include a constitutional prohibition against a federal "establishment of religion"; establishing a religion was a matter left solely to the individual States. Therefore, if the article is read as a declaration that the federal government of the United States was not in any sense founded on the Christian religion, such a statement is not a repudiation of the fact that America was considered a Christian nation.

Reading the clause of the treaty in its entirety also fails to weaken this fact. Article XI simply distinguished America from those historical strains of European Christianity which held an inherent hatred of Muslims; it simply assured the Muslims that the United States was not a Christian nation like those of previous centuries (with whose practices the Muslims were very familiar) and thus would not undertake a religious holy war against them.

Read more here if you want… http://members.aol.com/endthewall/tripoli_barton.htm#n29


Are you gullible enough to believe what they've said :confused:

:p Not me! :D

ACLU

Bringing Anarchy Chaos and Lawlessness to a city near U :D

I prefer the American Communist Liars Union.

:eek: ACLU Thinks American's Should HATE Ourselves and We Had it Coming!:eek:

Burlingame also reports that Anthony Romero, ACLU executive director, "is pushing IFC organizers for exhibits that showcase how civil liberties in this country have been curtailed since September 11." Then there's billionaire Bush-basher George Soros, who Burlingame reports is an early founder and supporter of the IFC and whose spirit infuses this grievance-mongering enterprise.

Do we really want Ground Zero to be the playground of anti-war financiers, moral equivalence peddlers, and Guantanamo Bay alarmists? As Burlingame told me yesterday, "Ground Zero belongs to all the American people. If Ground Zero is lost, whether through negligence or malfeasance, it will be a loss that is felt for generations to come."

Richard Tofel, IFC president, is minimizing dissenters. In a statement, he told me that "we understand that a few do not" agree with the project's stated mission of promoting the "cause of freedom." The question is not whether most Americans support a monument to freedom, but whether they will stand by while saboteurs convert it into The Ultimate Guilt Complex.

snip

Ah, nifty rhetoric. But you have failed to put it in a negative light for anyone with reading comprehension who hasn't already made up their mind, thereby negating their need to actually read the words.

*snip*

Cut-and-paste, cut-and-paste, cut-and-paste.

Any lies, half-truths, and defamation against the ACLU. Cut-and-paste.

You've wildly veered over dozens of different topics -- mistating, twisting, or simply lying about ACLU actions or positions.

You've ignored where you've been flatly proven wrong and simply posted new scurrilous attacks and misinformation.

This is not debate. This is simply defamation and spam.

I'm not going to bother to refute every bullshit statement you've made in this thread. It isn't worth my time.

But, people, these posts are pure bullshit.


The following historical facts have been taken from David Barton, Original Intent: The Courts, the Constitution, & Religion, 1996. Anyone who has not read the material in Barton's book simply is not qualified to discuss "the separation of church and state."

ROTFLASTC.

Have you read Barton's book?

I have. It is a joke. Thoroughly discredited among scholars.

Barton has no credentials worthy of respect. He is not a scholar or legal expert. He is simply a religous zealot.

Although he is a self-proclaimed "expert," his own biography point only to the following credentials: "David holds a Bachelor of Arts degree from Oral Roberts University and an Honorary Doctorate of Letters from Pensacola Christian College." (The degree from Oral Roberts University is in Religious Education.)

Barton is Christian Reconstructionist. Reconstructionism is a political theology whose proponents argue that the U.S. should be a Christian theocracy, under "Biblical law." Barton is quoted as saying: "Whatever is Christian is legal; whatever is not is illegal."

Here is just some information on Barton:
Sects, Lies and Videotape: David Barton's Distorted History (http://members.tripod.com/~candst/boston1.htm)
A Critique of David Barton's Views on Church and State by the the Baptist Joint Committee on Religious Liberty (http://www.bjcpa.org/resources/pubs/pub_walker_barton.htm)

Fine, you can't read what is says, "not founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen;"

What could be clearer:
"The government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion... ."

Under Article VI of the Constitution, the Treaty of Tripoli was the supreme law of the land, second only to the Constitution.

And it is true. There is no reference to God or Christianity in the Constitution.

The Constitution not only does not base our nation on Christianity or religion, it expressly separates religion and government. It does so in the First Amendment, which bars laws "respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," and in Article VI, which prohibits "religious tests" for public office.

Then you leave yourself open to all legal documents and even this is fair game:


THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
HOLY TRINITY CHURCH v. U.S.
143 U.S. 457, 12 S.Ct. 511, 36 L.Ed. 226
Feb. 29, 1892

Mr. Justice BREWER delivered the opinion of the court.
*snip ~ Cut to the chase~*

*snip* and for this plain reason that the case assumes that we are a Christian people, and the morality of the country is deeply ingrafted upon Christianity, and not upon the doctrines or worship of those impostors." *snip*

Then you can just argue with the Supreme Court that says otherwise... :p

LOL.

1. Because you cut-and-pasted this from another website, you do not realize you got the citation wrong. The case is Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 US 457 (1892).

2. If you actually read the merits of the case, it is firmly based on the principle of separation of Church and State. In fact, as I already quoted, the Court in an earlier case had expressly adopted the phrase "wall of separation of Church and State" as exemplary of the meaning and scope of the First Amendment.

3. The dicta statements that "we are a Christian people" are merely statements about our history and the social role of religion in America. No one disputes that religion has played an important role in American history (sometimes for ill and sometimes for good). Nor would one deny that the U.S. population has been primarily inclined to Christianity -- although lumping all the Christian sects together and treating them as the same is rather insulting to each sect.

4. Justice Brewer himself later clarified his position. In a book titled, The United States: A Christian Nation (1905), Brewer says that the U.S. is "Christian" in that many of its traditions are rooted in Christianity- not that Christianity should receive legal privileges.

5. I can cite Supreme Court caselaw dating back to at least 1815 that consistently supports the separation of Church and State. Your feeble attempt at revisionism is silly.

..... Bachelor of Arts degree from Oral Roberts University and an Honorary Doctorate of Letters from Pensacola Christian College." (The degree from Oral Roberts University is in Religious Education.)...

Mwahahaha!! :D That's so funny, you're actually MAD that religious people educate themselves... How DARE THEY!!! :eek:

ROTFLASTC :confused: WTH is that? Is it:

R-earranging,
O-bfuscating,
T-ransposing,
F-rantically
L-ooking
A-t dispersal of
S-lly
T-echnical sounding
C-rap?

What a funny thing to confess to?

Anyway, back on topic:

Rabbis are telling us to watch out for the ACLU!

Any neutral observer can't help but see the blatant selectivity groups such as the ACLU use when deciding whose "rights" are worthy of defense, concerned, apparently, not for ordinary law-abiding citizens but mostly the hardened criminals, illegal aliens and, now, terrorists. The Non-American Civil Liberties Union is a more apt description of their mission.

The ever increasing crop of flashy "humanitarian" groups--- there seems to be a new one every week--- is a consequence of money being shoveled from the treasure troves of leftwing capitalists into the hands of those schooled in the legal thuggeries needed to bring down certain people (e.g. Donald Rumsfeld) and practices the sponsors don't like. Little things like federalism, republicanism, and checks and balances will not be allowed to stand in the way of those on the Left who consider themselves morally best suited for command and control.
Rabbi Aryeh Spero, Mar 17, 2005,
Rabbi Spero is a radio talk show host, a pulpit rabbi, and president of Caucus for America.

Even as a Rabbi, he speaks for nobody but himself. Being a rabbi doesn't add weight to his individual opinion and it doesn't mean he speaks for Jews or even for other rabbis. I'm pretty confident I can find a statement from another rabbi in support of the ACLU.

As for religious people educating themselves, I'm all for it, but you need to understand that education means "drawing out", not immersing in the same. Any degree can be judged on the merit of the institution awarding it, some are laughable, some are laudable. Just possessing a degree is meaningless unless you look at what it's in and where it's from.

Sigh. And people wonder why the ACLU seems paranoid about people like Greenlander.

You're not paranoid if they really are out to get you.

Greenlander: Pot, Kettle, Black.

I do not agree with everything the ACLU does, but they are not a danger to your way of life. Your ideas, however ARE a danger to the way of life of many, many peaceful, non-dangerous citizens of this country.

I will defend the ACLU before I defend your tripe.

Get a grip and learn to argue with your own miniscule brain rather than just Cut & Pasting other people's polemics.

:eek:

- In 2003, the ACLU urged the National Park Service to remove plaques inscribed with Bible verses from three overlooks at the Grand Canyon but did not protest the names of park buttes -- Brahma Temple, Vishnu Temple, Shiva Temple, Osiris Temple and others -- commemorating Hindu and Egyptian deities.

The ACLU recieved complaints about the plaques from visitors to the Park and from Park employees.

"The ACLU honestly didn't do anything but raise the question, and the local staff reacted to that inquiry," Interior spokesman David Barna said.

Based on advice from the Department of Justice, the plaques were removed, but were later returned. The Department of the Interior last summer overruled a decision by the Grand Canyon's Supt. Joe Alston to remove three bible plaques last July, after conferring with Park service officials and attorneys. The bronze plaques, bearing verses from Psalms 68:4, 66:4 and 104:24, were donated by the Evangelical Sisterhood of Mary in Phoenix in the 1960s, and were erected on viewing platforms at the South Rim. The plaques, which had been given back to the convent, were ordered returned to the national park by the Department of the Interior.

Park Service Deputy director Donald Murphy even apologized to the religious group.

Regardless, Biblical quotes added to official Park lookout points in the 1960s are obviously different that historical place-names. :rolleyes:


- With $48 million in annual revenue, the ACLU, now with 400,000 members in 50 state affiliates, counts $125 million in net assets. It gave $57,830 to Democratic candidates last year, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. The largest contribution ($18,730) went to John Kerry. No ACLU money went to Republicans.

Bullshit.

You were challenged to provide any evidence for this early in the thread. It is a flat-out lie. A lie you haven't even chosen to defend.

I searched the Center for Responsive Politics website. I couldn't find evidence of any donations by the ACLU to any candidate. I could find evidence of donations from some candidates to the ACLU.

The ACLU is officially non-partisan and has been throughout it's entire history.

- ACLU’s Founder, Roger Baldwin: "I am for socialism, disarmament, and, ultimately, for abolishing the state itself... I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and the sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal."

When and in what context did Mr. Baldwin say this?

It was not, and never has been, part of the mission of the ACLU.

And, you do realize that by 1939, Baldwin was firmly opposed to Soviet totalitarianism and forced Communists off the Board of the ACLU?

You would smear a great man with a single quote of unknown providence and unknown context.

And then you would further smear an entire organization with an 85-year history based on this one dubious quote from its founder.

Cute. Wanna apply the same standards to other organizations -- like the NRA or the United States of America?

- No one should doubt the threat that the ACLU's lawsuit against the Mojave Desert veterans memorial represents: it is the first time in history that private parties have been allowed to sue a veterans memorial to remove a religious symbol.

Flatly untrue.

Christian crosses erected on public land as so-called veteran's memorials have been challenged (successfully) on many occasions in the past.

In fact, such precendent is cited in the court opinions on the case. Clicky (http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F2DC42822BDB96A688256EAC0059531F/$file/0355032.pdf?openelement).

The same legal principles the court followed under the "establishment clause" to order that solitary cross in the desert removed are applicable to all the crosses and Stars of David in our national cemeteries, and the 9,000 at Normandy Beach.

More bullshit.

"The ACLU is not pursuing, nor has it ever pursued, the removal of religious symbols from personal gravestones. Personal gravestones are the choice of the family members, not the choice of the government. The ACLU celebrates this freedom to choose the religious symbol of your choice. Read more about the ACLU's stance on religious freedom."

http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLibertyMain.cfm

And, no, the "same legal principles" applied in the Mojave cross case would not lead to the removal of personal gravestones. That is an asinine assertion.

- The ACLU sues over a cross honoring fallen soldiers--and cashes in.

[various lies and half-truths from biased source]

From the decision in the case by the US Court of Appeals:

Similarly here, the cross at Sunrise Rock sits on publicly-owned land, and both it and its predecessors were privately erected. A cross was first placed on the site in 1934 by the Veterans of Foreign Wars, in memory of veterans who died during World War I; a plaque near the original cross identified it as a war memorial. Private parties have since replaced the original cross several times. Easter Sunrise services have been held at Sunrise Rock since at least 1935. The Park Service has not opened the cross site to other permanent
displays, nor are there other displays, religious or otherwise, in the area. In 1999, the Park Service denied a third-party request to erect a Buddhist stupa near the cross.

Clicky (http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F2DC42822BDB96A688256EAC0059531F/$file/0355032.pdf?openelement).

As to the ACLU's position:

"If any person was allowed to place a permanent, free-standing expression of his or her religious or political viewpoint at this site, we would have no objection,” said [Peter Eliasberg, staff attorney at the ACLU of Southern California and First Amendment specialist], “but that is not the case here. No other group is allowed to erect a religious symbol. This creates a situation in which the federal government favors Christian expression over any other."

Clicky (http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=7193&c=141)

Much of the controversy surrounding the cross concerned its status as a site where Christian veterans gather to remember war dead in special services.

But not all veterans are in agreement about the cross. Speaking at an ACLU news conference, Morris Radin, an 82-year old Jewish veteran of World War II, described his experience of fighting for the principles he believes this country was founded on.

"My father, Abe, was just eighteen when he came to America and became an American citizen," said Radin. "As an Orthodox Jew, he knew firsthand what happens when people are not free to practice their beliefs. He and my mother Sophie both left Russia to escape the pogroms. They never told me whether they had witnessed any of the atrocities born of that nation's inability to guarantee their freedom of religion. They drew a curtain on that period of their lives and faced a new life in a different place."

"They came to America without knowing the language," said Radin, "but knowing the larger language of America's promise. America is big enough for everyone to practice his or her own faith and where no one faith is privileged over any other or over none at all. Abe and Sophie Radin loved this country as passionately and profoundly as any citizen."

"The country they loved is the country I fought for and love as well," said Radin, "a country founded on principle, on freedom of conscience and religion, a country where the government isn't Christian or Jewish or Muslim, but can welcome all of these and more on a free and equal basis. That is the country I defend in supporting this legal action."

Mwahahaha!! :D That's so funny, you're actually MAD that religious people educate themselves... How DARE THEY!!! :eek:

Yeah, that is what I said. :rolleyes:

Nice job of defending Mr. Barton's utter lack of qualifications, credibility, or integrity.

ROTFLASTC :confused: WTH is that? Is it:

Rolling On The Floor Laughing And Scaring The Cat.

My cats are actually starting to get rather pissed at you for repeatedly causing this. They may file suit.


Rabbis are telling us to watch out for the ACLU!

Any neutral observer can't help but see the blatant selectivity groups such as the ACLU use when deciding whose "rights" are worthy of defense, concerned, apparently, not for ordinary law-abiding citizens but mostly the hardened criminals, illegal aliens and, now, terrorists. The Non-American Civil Liberties Union is a more apt description of their mission.

The ever increasing crop of flashy "humanitarian" groups--- there seems to be a new one every week--- is a consequence of money being shoveled from the treasure troves of leftwing capitalists into the hands of those schooled in the legal thuggeries needed to bring down certain people (e.g. Donald Rumsfeld) and practices the sponsors don't like. Little things like federalism, republicanism, and checks and balances will not be allowed to stand in the way of those on the Left who consider themselves morally best suited for command and control.
Rabbi Aryeh Spero, Mar 17, 2005,
Rabbi Spero is a radio talk show host, a pulpit rabbi, and president of Caucus for America.

Um. 1 Rabbi != Rabbis

This particular Rabbi is an arch-conservative loony. He was a former senior campaign advisor to and then presidential campaign co-chair for Pat Buchanan.

Most mainstream Jewish organizations usually join the ACLU in its legal positions, particularly on separation of Church and State.

- ACLU’s Founder, Roger Baldwin: "I am for socialism, disarmament, and, ultimately, for abolishing the state itself... I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and the sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal."

Cool, I knew they defended the oppressed, but I had no idea the ACLU was actually anarcho-communist!

Sigh. And people wonder why the ACLU seems paranoid about people like Greenlander.

You're not paranoid if they really are out to get you.

Greenlander: Pot, Kettle, Black.

I do not agree with everything the ACLU does, but they are not a danger to your way of life. Your ideas, however ARE a danger to the way of life of many, many peaceful, non-dangerous citizens of this country.

I will defend the ACLU before I defend your tripe.

Get a grip and learn to argue with your own miniscule brain rather than just Cut & Pasting other people's polemics.

*hands you a cookie*

*also hands Cat a cookie*

*hands you a cookie* YUMMY!

*also hands Cat a cookie*Um, I'm not sure Cat can accept gifts. He'll have to run it through the CA Bar first.

(dials CA Bar Assn... gets SeaOrg Ethics... hangs up and changes Name, phone number, moves and burns all forms of ID... before Tom Cruise goes all Mission Impossible on my arse...) :p

...
Most mainstream Jewish organizations usually join the ACLU in its legal positions....

Really, When were you appointed to speak for Most of the Jewish organizations as well as the ACLU? :eek: I had no idea... We better listen to you then huh, self appointed babbler of innuendo...


:eek: I thought the ACLU was supposed to be non-racist?!?! :eek:

-In R.A.V. v. St.Paul, the Supreme Court overturned the conviction of a teenager for "burning a crudely made cross on the lawn of an African American family." The Court held with the ACLU's position was that cross burning could be punished only where there was a true threat to the safety of another person, that cross burning in this instance was a form of expression protected by the First Amendment.

-"The enhanced penalty aspect of hate crime laws reached the Supreme Court in Wisconsin v. Mitchell." Several African-Americans assaulted a "white youth." Their motivation was clear "as they had shouted their intent to attack the victim on account of his race." "Accepting the ACLU's position," the Supreme court upheld the Wisconsin hate crime law which increased the assailants' sentence by several years.

Really, When were you appointed to speak for Most of the Jewish organizations as well as the ACLU? :eek: I had no idea... We better listen to you then huh, self appointed babbler of innuendo...


:eek: I thought the ACLU was supposed to be non-racist?!?! :eek:

-In R.A.V. v. St.Paul, the Supreme Court overturned the conviction of a teenager for "burning a crudely made cross on the lawn of an African American family." The Court held with the ACLU's position was that cross burning could be punished only where there was a true threat to the safety of another person, that cross burning in this instance was a form of expression protected by the First Amendment.

-"The enhanced penalty aspect of hate crime laws reached the Supreme Court in Wisconsin v. Mitchell." Several African-Americans assaulted a "white youth." Their motivation was clear "as they had shouted their intent to attack the victim on account of his race." "Accepting the ACLU's position," the Supreme court upheld the Wisconsin hate crime law which increased the assailants' sentence by several years.

Dude, I'm really beginning to think you're just doing this to take the piss. Absolutely ridiculous.

The ACLU recieved complaints about the plaques from visitors to the Park and from Park employees.

"The ACLU honestly didn't do anything but raise the question, and the local staff reacted to that inquiry," Interior spokesman David Barna said.

Based on advice from the Department of Justice, the plaques were removed, but were later returned. The Department of the Interior last summer overruled a decision by the Grand Canyon's Supt. Joe Alston to remove three bible plaques last July, after conferring with Park service officials and attorneys. The bronze plaques, bearing verses from Psalms 68:4, 66:4 and 104:24, were donated by the Evangelical Sisterhood of Mary in Phoenix in the 1960s, and were erected on viewing platforms at the South Rim. The plaques, which had been given back to the convent, were ordered returned to the national park by the Department of the Interior.

Park Service Deputy director Donald Murphy even apologized to the religious group.

Regardless, Biblical quotes added to official Park lookout points in the 1960s are obviously different that historical place-names. :rolleyes:




Bullshit.

You were challenged to provide any evidence for this early in the thread. It is a flat-out lie. A lie you haven't even chosen to defend.

I searched the Center for Responsive Politics website. I couldn't find evidence of any donations by the ACLU to any candidate. I could find evidence of donations from some candidates to the ACLU.

The ACLU is officially non-partisan and has been throughout it's entire history.



When and in what context did Mr. Baldwin say this?

It was not, and never has been, part of the mission of the ACLU.

And, you do realize that by 1939, Baldwin was firmly opposed to Soviet totalitarianism and forced Communists off the Board of the ACLU?

You would smear a great man with a single quote of unknown providence and unknown context.

And then you would further smear an entire organization with an 85-year history based on this one dubious quote from its founder.

Cute. Wanna apply the same standards to other organizations -- like the NRA or the United States of America?



Flatly untrue.

Christian crosses erected on public land as so-called veteran's memorials have been challenged (successfully) on many occasions in the past.

In fact, such precendent is cited in the court opinions on the case. Clicky (http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F2DC42822BDB96A688256EAC0059531F/$file/0355032.pdf?openelement).



More bullshit.

"The ACLU is not pursuing, nor has it ever pursued, the removal of religious symbols from personal gravestones. Personal gravestones are the choice of the family members, not the choice of the government. The ACLU celebrates this freedom to choose the religious symbol of your choice. Read more about the ACLU's stance on religious freedom."

http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLibertyMain.cfm

And, no, the "same legal principles" applied in the Mojave cross case would not lead to the removal of personal gravestones. That is an asinine assertion.



From the decision in the case by the US Court of Appeals:

Similarly here, the cross at Sunrise Rock sits on publicly-owned land, and both it and its predecessors were privately erected. A cross was first placed on the site in 1934 by the Veterans of Foreign Wars, in memory of veterans who died during World War I; a plaque near the original cross identified it as a war memorial. Private parties have since replaced the original cross several times. Easter Sunrise services have been held at Sunrise Rock since at least 1935. The Park Service has not opened the cross site to other permanent
displays, nor are there other displays, religious or otherwise, in the area. In 1999, the Park Service denied a third-party request to erect a Buddhist stupa near the cross.

Clicky (http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F2DC42822BDB96A688256EAC0059531F/$file/0355032.pdf?openelement).

As to the ACLU's position:

"If any person was allowed to place a permanent, free-standing expression of his or her religious or political viewpoint at this site, we would have no objection,” said [Peter Eliasberg, staff attorney at the ACLU of Southern California and First Amendment specialist], “but that is not the case here. No other group is allowed to erect a religious symbol. This creates a situation in which the federal government favors Christian expression over any other."

Clicky (http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=7193&c=141)


So, the real issue, is that the Buddhist Stupa was denied, isn't it? I think it could be argued that the dismantling of the cross is similar to knocking down a church merely because it happens to be on land taken by the Federal Government. Wasn't the sunrise rock site condemned for public use? I don't seem to recall it being donated willingly.
As the site was used for easter services long before being taken by the Feds, I think it might be argued that the taking itself of the site itself could be construed as suppression of free religious expression. Similar to condemning the site of a church then knocking it down to make way for a better view of the waterfront.
The Cross and the memorial were maintained by private funds, presumably, on a continuous basis for several years before the land was sucked up by the Federal monster.

Therefore, the action is legal-there's no argument here. perfectly legal. utter ly legal. The issue (unspoken) of this entire thread, though, is "Is the action MORAL, is it Ethically sound?"

Obviously, denying the Buddhists their little shrine is not soundly in-keeping with Equal Protection if you base the decision on that, without accounting for prior historical significance in the area. (the Cross and Plaque were, after all, originally put up not by descendents recently, but by the original vets, most of whom are now dead several decades ago... and it does pre-date the land being turned into a Federal zone...) But, there's no legal reason for the park-service not to knock it down, rather than approving a Buddhist shrine in the area.
After all, such unsightly and irritating displays of ignorant sentimentality should be expunged from all federal properties, right? I'm surprised the ACLU hasn't gone after the U.S. Army for maintaining Christian chapels on Military bases., or for using the symbols it does to denote members fo the Chaplain corps (itself an exclusive group-try becomign a "Satanic" chaplain...)

The real argument isn't about christianity, it's about how much of these activities are about the first-amenedment, and how much of them are about knee-jerk hostility to Religion of all types.

Let me clarify: There is a large segment of the population that is starting to believe that "Freedom of Religion" is being replaced by "Hostility To Religion", that Atheism is becoming the new State Sponsored Church.

While this reaction may be irrational, there may also be an undercurrent of truth to it in this era of "Zero Tolerance" policies and percieved Regulatory and Judicial capriciousness.

I'm not a Christian... but I can understand their perspective on this one. Plaques, symbols, landmarks, these things pose no threat to the free expression of other faiths, unless those faiths take it as an article that no other church should be permitted to display itself.
Such sects exist in Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, and any other faith that contains fundamentalist loonies.

As the gravestones and inscriptions at Arlington are publically funded, (particularly "The Tomb"), it's not a long step to see, with success, increased appetite. The ACLU has changed its positions before. It is simply not reasonable to assume that gravestones will be protected in the future, especially when discussing organisations made up of human beings.
(yes, I confess, Lawyers are humans too...)

:eek: We all know how the ACLU feels about the Patriot Act and GTMO Detainee rights, how Bush must be demonized for every real or perceived wrong done during his presidency … But the ACLU must only recently have been created because otherwise they sure seem selective about WHEN the government is oppressive and when it’s not…. :eek:

We should not forget the political bias that animates the ACLU. We saw that most clearly it in the violent arrests or attempted arrests during the Clinton adminstration--all directed at people who had done little or nothing and certainly nothing deserving of death. Being killed by one's government is the worst possible violation of civil liberties--at least for those who aren't the proud bearers of an ACLU card.

At Ruby Ridge, an FBI sniper acting under orders tried to kill an unarmed boy in his early teens and instead his high-powered rifle blew the face off a mother holding a baby. Under the Clinton administration, neither he nor those who gave that order received significant punishment.

Why wasn't the ACLU alarmed then? Why didn't they try to demonize Clintons administration? He and the on-scene FBI officials at Ruby Ridge certainly deserved it. And remember that in that case the "crime" of the father was, after much nagging, to supply an FBI informer with a shotgun that was 1/8 inch under the legal limit. That's all.

Similarly, Clinton's Attorney General Reno gave orders that directly led to the deaths of over 100 people outside Waco, Texas, many of them children. Yes, the cult leader was a sex addict who, like Clinton, liked to exploit young women from a position of power. But that hardly justified taking actions that, quite predictably, resulted in the deaths of those women. (The FBI knew that smashing holes in the wall with tanks to inject the tear gas would knock over the kerosene lanterns being used for lighting. They even waited almost ten minutes before calling in fire fighters.)

Never forget that the tear gas Clinton and Reno used was a "fired pyrotechnic tear gas grenades". One teenage girl died from that gas from convulsions so severe her bones were broken. That is the Reno who never set off strident civil liberty rhetoric from the ACLU.

Maybe you can decide for yourself what the ACLU's REAL motivations are? :confused:

:D

EDITED: Gas data, check here for more if you like: http://www.rickross.com/reference/waco/waco36.html

Damn, something smells.
Oh wait, it's that load of bull.

Almost every bit of that is wrong.
They don't even get the damn gas the Nazis used right!

<snip>Obviously, denying the Buddhists their little shrine is not soundly in-keeping with Equal Protection if you base the decision on that, without accounting for prior historical significance in the area. (the Cross and Plaque were, after all, originally put up not by descendents recently, but by the original vets, most of whom are now dead several decades ago... and it does pre-date the land being turned into a Federal zone...) But, there's no legal reason for the park-service not to knock it down, rather than approving a Buddhist shrine in the area.
<snip>
The real argument isn't about christianity, it's about how much of these activities are about the first-amenedment, and how much of them are about knee-jerk hostility to Religion of all types.

Let me clarify: There is a large segment of the population that is starting to believe that "Freedom of Religion" is being replaced by "Hostility To Religion", that Atheism is becoming the new State Sponsored Church.

While this reaction may be irrational, there may also be an undercurrent of truth to it in this era of "Zero Tolerance" policies and percieved Regulatory and Judicial capriciousness.

I'm not a Christian... but I can understand their perspective on this one. Plaques, symbols, landmarks, these things pose no threat to the free expression of other faiths, unless those faiths take it as an article that no other church should be permitted to display itself.
Such sects exist in Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, and any other faith that contains fundamentalist loonies.

As the gravestones and inscriptions at Arlington are publically funded, (particularly "The Tomb"), it's not a long step to see, with success, increased appetite. The ACLU has changed its positions before. It is simply not reasonable to assume that gravestones will be protected in the future, especially when discussing organisations made up of human beings. (yes, I confess, Lawyers are humans too...)
You know, this is probably the MOST rational anti-ACLU "anti-religion" comment I've ever read. And as such, I can't really comment on it a I don't have a proper stastical analysis to refute or support it.

Greenlander is easy. That is just irrational cut-n-paste. Yours I'll have to ponder on.

ACLU:gundge: Fights to have NAKED children and teens running around unsupervised at liberal nudist camps!!! :mad:

RICHMOND, Va. The American Civil Liberties Union urged a federal appeals court today to reinstate a lawsuit challenging a state law that scuttled plans for a nudist camp for children last summer.
U-S District Judge Richard Williams ruled the lawsuit was moot because organizers of the nudist camp withdrew their permit application after the law took effect.

But A-C-L-U attorney Rebecca Glenberg argued today that organizers still want to conduct the nudist camp for teens at White Tail Park this year and in future years. She said the new law makes that difficult.
The law requires parental supervision at nudist camps for juveniles. Glenberg says only eleven of the 35 children who planned to attend last year's camp would have been able to bring a parent or guardian.

John Byrum of the state attorney general's office urged the court to uphold Williams' ruling. He said the plaintiffs lack standing to sue because nudity is NOT a legally protected form of expression.
A ruling is expected in several weeks

http://www.wavy.com/Global/story.asp?S=3086336


EDIT: Why didn't anybody think to fight for the idea that NO children should be there supervised or not? :rolleyes:

Ohnoes! He said naked AND liberal, holy batshit batman, he msut be REALLY trying to rut the aclu

do yo uget thi shit at www.villifiytheaclu.com ?

ACLU:gundge: Fights to have NAKED children and teens running around unsupervised at liberal nudist camps!!! :mad:

RICHMOND, Va. The American Civil Liberties Union urged a federal appeals court today to reinstate a lawsuit challenging a state law that scuttled plans for a nudist camp for children last summer.
U-S District Judge Richard Williams ruled the lawsuit was moot because organizers of the nudist camp withdrew their permit application after the law took effect.

<snip>

EDIT: Why didn't anybody think to fight for the idea that NO children should be there supervised or not? :rolleyes:
Yes, this is silly - but only because people under the age of 18 are not legally able to enter into contracts... which is what an application to camp implies.

HOWEVER: Their parents CAN enter into contracts on their behalf, and if the PARENTS don't mind WHY SHOULD YOU (or the state)? You have no say in another person's parenting style - unless that "style" includes physical abuse.

GET A GRIP. I know it's hard for you to collect enough brain cells to form an actual argument, but Cut-N-Paste posting is simply Trolling.

I am tired of it. Since you obviously won't/can't debate your position logically, Consider yourself Reported. :mad:

I am tired of it ~ Consider yourself Reported. :mad:


Good for you, ljust BAN the guy because you don't like what he reports and he just keeps finding more and more stuff that you can't defend.

Fine, though, you go around telling everyone that it's perfectly OKAY to let your children run around naked in front of other people, even if they are teenagers... there's no abuse going on there

Good for you, lets just BAN the guy because we don't like what he reports and he just keeps finding more and more stuff that we can't defend it all!!!

:p

Fine, though, you go around telling everyone that it's perfectly OKAY to let your children run around naked in front of other people, even if they are teenagers... there's no abuse going on there

Actually much of his "postings" were defended rather well.

You weren't reported as a troll so why are you complaining? ;)

Damn, something smells.
Oh wait, it's that load of bull.

Almost every bit of that is wrong.
They don't even get the damn gas the Nazis used right!

It's tough to separate the dross from the wheat in the Waco and Ruby Ridge situations. Tough, but not impossible.

1. CS gas was used. CS is flammable. Combined with remnant gas in lines under those flimsy buildings (surplus WWII barracks buildings were the most prevalent structures at Waco. Not stable, and not sturdy, but firetraps to begin with.) released by "Gently" ramming them off thier piers with armoured vehicles, you're going to get a fire, and that's a fact. Injured people disoriented by gas in a burning building often can't find their way out. There were ten survivors.

BUT, it was probably not malicious. never attribute to malice what can be explained more readily by incompetence. The deaths at Waco were Incompetence made manifest-Koresh could have been popped much more easily and readily by sending the local sheriff, than sending in the goon-squad in their black uniforms,masks, and submachineguns.

fun fact: during the opening stages of the Assault, the Branch Davidians called the Cops!

This showed up both in the Congressional hearings, and in the trials of the survivors.

2. Ruby Ridge... Ruby Ridge was also what is commonly termed a "Clusterfuck of massive proportions." Again, instead of openly approaching the subject, Federal Agents tried to be sneaky, and took a casualty as a result. Now... Let's say you live ten miles from a compound full of idiot-fucks who dress up in camouflage and harass people with guns.
Let's say your dog is shot by a guy dressed in camouflage trespassing on your property.
Let's also assume you live two hours from the nearest law enforcement, and don't have a phone.

What do you do? The Federal Marshals didn't identify themselves until the siege was a going concern, and Vicky Weaver was room-temperature and rotting in the kitchen.

IIRC, the ACLU Did take the Weaver case. You will, I trust, note that three million dollars (the judgement awarded to Randy Weaver for the numerous violations of his and his family's civil rights) is hardly a replacement for his wife, and the mother of his children. Federal culpability was established in the Ruby Ridge case, as it should have been.

The issue of Larry Potts (the Agent-in-charge in both cases) is a separate one. The failure of the Clinton Administration to remove this idiot from the rolls in disgrace is an administrative matter. discussions as to why he was not removed and why he did not face a prison term in either incident, is pie-in-the-sky speculation influenced a bit too much by ones' political or social agenda.

The subject here, is neither Waco, nor Ruby Ridge. It's whether or not the ACLU has adopted a policy of promoting Atheism under the guise of the First Amendment's implied Separation of Church and State.

There is a strong case for it on both sides of the issue. However, the two cases (Waco, Ruby Ridge) were predicated not on the religious motivations of the subjects, but on legal violations of the Federal Statutes regarding Firearms.

this is a different set of topics altogether.

But our society is fundamentally Christian. Why do you think people who do things like murder their wives or unborn children are so reviled? Why do you think perversion of marrige and culture is illegal? Why do you think we produce no suicide jihadi bombers? Why is toying with the human genome illeagal? Why is love the highest beauty for most Americans? Why do people still have families instead of extra money?

Oh and don't give me your spiel about those things being common to all men. The ONLY places like that are Christian.

The fact of the matter is, while no one should be forced to accept it, Christianity is still TRUE. Therefore a Christian country making laws to PROTECT its own culture from the attacks on ITS culture on the minds of its children is laudable. When we protect Christianity in our culture i.e. Crosses on graves, we do so in self defense. You have a right to hold your own beliefs, but you do not have a right to destroy our great American way, our way, simply becuase it follows the way of the one true God.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Oh my, I really can't do anythign but laugh at how rediculous this post is.

:eek: Found this reported online, but is it TRUE?

Recently in my state, there was an easter Celebration at a local mall, but the
Easter Bunny wasn't allowed to attend.


Instead, thanks to an ACLU legal challenge, we get the Spring rabbit, the dumbed
down, lord forbid, nonreligious marked down version in yet another example of
the ACLU's agenda of traditional revisionism and efforts to deny people the
right to celebrate traditional holidays as they were intended. Instead we get
stuck with "their" vision of what the holiday should be. This is a classic
attempt by a minority to enforce their subversive agenda against the majority.
These people are the scummy bottom of the liberal barrel



*I think it's a a joke, but search for ACLU Jerks, it comes up :p

ACLU Schemes to Overthrow USA!?!? :eek:

Over the years, ACLU sponsored many lawsuits over free speech and it has been consistent in its efforts. It has taken the forefront in the fight against The PATRIOT I & II Acts and some other very controversial actions, most notoriously, to overturn the ban against a Nazi parade and demonstration in Skokie, Illinois. While those jerks shouldn't have been denied a permit for their parade, it should be noted that the intent of the Nazis was not to recruit or publicize their position, but to provoke. Skokie is home to many Jews and many survivors of the Holocaust lived there. The Skokie incident led to the resignation of many Jewish members. ACLU also has supported the rights of the Ku Klux Klan and the North American Man Boy Love Association. ACLU fought bans of James Joyce's Ulysses, an attempt by the NAACP to ban the movie Birth of a Nation, a Boston ban of H.L. Mencken's American Mercury and Margaret Sanger's public speaking on birth control.

As admirable as ACLU's consistency has been, it is important to realize that its original reasons may not have been so. Many if not most of ACLU's founders were searching for ways to protect themselves as they sought to replace the United States government, overthrow it, if necessary. It was a diabolically clever scheme to protect themselves with the very constitution that they wished to destroy. As the organization became more dominated by communists, this was to become a greater factor and since the purging of the 1940s, it has become a lesser one. However, ACLU has never relented in its hostility to anything even remotely religious, especially Christian and most especially Catholic, in public life or acknowledgment. Nothing is too picayune for ACLU to pursue and just when you think they've reached the very bottom, they come up with something even more ridiculous.

http://www.etherzone.com/2004/beam092104.shtml

<snip>

A mall is private property, and so anything you want can turn up there. It's a joke, and not a very funny or intellegent one at that.

Over the years, ACLU sponsored many lawsuits over free speech and it has been consistent in its efforts.

How evil of them


It has taken the forefront in the fight against The PATRIOT I & II Acts and some other very controversial actions, most notoriously, to overturn the ban against a Nazi parade and demonstration in Skokie, Illinois. While those jerks shouldn't have been denied a permit for their parade, it should be noted that the intent of the Nazis was not to recruit or publicize their position, but to provoke. Skokie is home to many Jews and many survivors of the Holocaust lived there.

This is meant to be attacking the ACLU?

ACLU also has supported the rights of the Ku Klux Klan and the North American Man Boy Love Association. ACLU fought bans of James Joyce's Ulysses, an attempt by the NAACP to ban the movie Birth of a Nation, a Boston ban of H.L. Mencken's American Mercury and Margaret Sanger's public speaking on birth control.

They defend thier right to say what they want. They do not support what they say.

As admirable as ACLU's consistency has been, it is important to realize that its original reasons may not have been so. Many if not most of ACLU's founders were searching for ways to protect themselves as they sought to replace the United States government, overthrow it, if necessary. It was a diabolically clever scheme to protect themselves with the very constitution that they wished to destroy. As the organization became more dominated by communists, this was to become a greater factor and since the purging of the 1940s, it has become a lesser one.

Thats right, destory the US by defending It's core principles. THis is just crazy.

However, ACLU has never relented in its hostility to anything even remotely religious, especially Christian and most especially Catholic, in public life or acknowledgment. Nothing is too picayune for ACLU to pursue and just when you think they've reached the very bottom, they come up with something even more ridiculous.

How many times has this to be repeated? THE ACLU ARE NOT ANTI-RELIGIOUS. Hell, the'll defend you if your right to practice is being restricted. What they are against is the placing of religious symbols on public ground.

ACLU:gundge: Fights to have NAKED children and teens running around unsupervised at liberal nudist camps!!! :mad:

RICHMOND, Va. The American Civil Liberties Union urged a federal appeals court today to reinstate a lawsuit challenging a state law that scuttled plans for a nudist camp for children last summer.
U-S District Judge Richard Williams ruled the lawsuit was moot because organizers of the nudist camp withdrew their permit application after the law took effect.

But A-C-L-U attorney Rebecca Glenberg argued today that organizers still want to conduct the nudist camp for teens at White Tail Park this year and in future years. She said the new law makes that difficult.
The law requires parental supervision at nudist camps for juveniles. Glenberg says only eleven of the 35 children who planned to attend last year's camp would have been able to bring a parent or guardian.

John Byrum of the state attorney general's office urged the court to uphold Williams' ruling. He said the plaintiffs lack standing to sue because nudity is NOT a legally protected form of expression.
A ruling is expected in several weeks

http://www.wavy.com/Global/story.asp?S=3086336


EDIT: Why didn't anybody think to fight for the idea that NO children should be there supervised or not? :rolleyes:


'Oh Noes!! Naked people! How terrible!

Honestly... If their parents give permission the kids have the right to be there. Nudity is not a crime on public property (and it shouldn't be one on private property.)

Honestly... You're born naked, clothes are a human invention they are neither necessary nor important, unless you attach meaning to them. Perhaps rather than forcing people to conform to your baseless standards you should stay out of it? Is it too much to ask that people have a right to live their way without being told what is "morally" correct at every turn?

'Oh Noes!! Naked people! How terrible!

Honestly... If their parents give permission the kids have the right to be there. Nudity is not a crime on public property (and it shouldn't be one on private property.)

Honestly... You're born naked, clothes are a human invention they are neither necessary nor important, unless you attach meaning to them. Perhaps rather than forcing people to conform to your baseless standards you should stay out of it? Is it too much to ask that people have a right to live their way without being told what is "morally" correct at every turn?

OMGosh, LOL, I can't even believe that anyone could support the idea of letting children (Children mind you) run around naked, in front of each other and adults and whatever :rolleyes: ... Hell, who needs child porn at all, just go to the nudy camp that lets kids run around naked without supervision and take your own pictures, or kids and whatnot... unbelievable.

AS IF you can even let your kids run around at the public park without supervision! It blows my mind that you guys would even think about it. Do you guys ever get out? You know, maybe watch the news once in awhile, children getting abducted out of their own bedrooms and you want to let them run around naked, unsupervised, and in the woods. :headbang:

Nudists are a faction of society, I doubt taking pictures is allowed in their private clubs because its bad etiquette for something like that. And there are few places where nudity is more taboo than in christian america, one being the middle east which is in the middle ages where the us is in puritan new england

Do you know any more about nudist camps than nude people are tehre? I doubt it

A mall is private property, and so anything you want can turn up there. It's a joke, and not a very funny or intellegent one at that.

I think his point was that it was called "Spring Bunny' instead of "Easter Bunny"...

Anyone know? Is Easter like Christmas now (oops, I mean Xmas) and not mentionable?

Ihatevacations']Nudists are a faction of society, I doubt taking pictures is allowed in their private clubs because its bad etiquette for something like that. And there are few places where nudity is more taboo than in christian america, one being the middle east which is in the middle ages where the us is in puritan new england

Do you know any more about nudist camps than nude people are tehre? I doubt it

What do I need to know? If I get a chance to enact or enforce any kind of law dealing witht that it is NOT going to be acceptable behavior for parents to do that to/with their kids! :rolleyes:

Forcing or even allowing their children just into puberty to be exposed in a co-ed community of adults or other adolescents, who are themselves naked, would be illegal, child endangerment, abuse and neglect. Throw the parents in jail on the first offense and then remove the children from their parents if it happened again.

You can pretend like you like living in the jungles of Brazil or whatever all you want, but to force your pubescent teens (and younger) children to do it in public with you is indefensible, because this ISN'T the Amazon jungle and the kids still have to live in this society the next day...

Aye aye captain puritan, though shouldn't you be posing for the cover of quaker oats instead of debating things you know nothing about?

Ihatevacations']Aye aye captain puritan, though shouldn't you be posing for the cover of quaker oats instead of debating things you know nothing about?

Puritan my butt, like you even know what that means.

Yea, *dance with hands in the air* sing-song voice like Micahael Jackson, "lets all pretend we live an fairy land and all the bad guys look like ogres so we'll know who they are just by looking at them! Okay?"

Grow up, nincompoops, it's a dangerous world out there...Risk yourself all you want but when you start risking the children though, even if they are yours, it's a different situation all around and society has a right, no, obligation, it interfere and stop you.

The ACLU should be ashamed of themselves.

6. Nudity and Sex are Natural

Under the guise of sex education or being "natural," preferential child molesters may "introduce" children to nudity through pictures, videos, language or activities such as skinny dipping. They are, in effect, telling the children that "nudity and sex are no big deal."

The complaints against Mr. X paint a portrait of a man who set about to desensitize boys to nudity. In between coaching, Mr. X also invited boys to play sports and shower at a health center, and to play in the nude in his pool and hot tub. Police say the activities were ploys to get boys to undress so he could secretly videotape them or give them body massages.
http://www.stopsexoffenders.com/childsafety/articles/childsafetyarticles3.shtml

I'm sorry I was laughing too hard at nincompoops to keep reading

Ihatevacations']I'm sorry I was laughing too hard at nincompoops to keep reading

Instead of nincompoop, would you prefer, imbecile, idiot, ne’er-do-well, dim-wit, numskull, nimrod, ninny or prig. Notice, though, I did put an ‘S’ at the end of it, you aren’t, after all, the ACLU lawyer in charge of the case are you? Because if you are, I can come up with some other more fitting names if need be.


Anyway, back on topic:

:eek: ACLU :gundge: Thinks Insurgents and Terrorists:mp5: have right to Anonymity on Public Streets! :eek:

Refusal to identify oneself to the police makes who more free? Makes who more safe? How does having a national ID card make anyone less free? Besides we already have National ID cards. They’re called Social Security Numbers. It's a little late to be complaining about national IDs now.

In a country that refuses to enforce immigration law and during an international war on terrorism where the enemy hides in the shadows, does anyone really believe this isn't a problem just waiting and looking for a place to be exposed?

The sheriff's department in Humboldt County, Nevada, received an afternoon telephone call reporting an assault. The caller reported seeing a man assault a woman in a red and silver GMC truck on Grass Valley Road. Deputy Sheriff Lee Dove was dispatched to investigate. When the officer arrived at the scene, he found the truck parked on the side of the road. A man was standing by the truck, and a young woman was sitting inside it. The officer observed skid marks in the gravel behind the vehicle, leading him to believe it had come to a sudden stop. The officer approached the man and explained that he was investigating a report of a fight. The man appeared to be intoxicated. The officer asked him if he had .any identification on [him],. which we understand as a request to produce a driver's license or some other form of written identification. The man refused and asked why the officer wanted to see identification. The officer responded that he was conducting an investigation and needed to see some identification.

What makes people less free is ACLU types that want to forcefully transgenderize the whole world, turn freedom of speech into a hate crime, and continue the legacy of institutionalized racism and sexism. Oh yeah, they want to remove all vestiges of religion from a society and government that was only made possible because of its religious heritage.

ACLU says this:
Ruling on Hiibel’s challenge to the arrest, the Nevada District Court determined it was "reasonable and necessary" for the officer to ask for Hiibel’s identification, and asserted that the public interest in requiring Hiibel to identify himself outweighed his right to remain silent.

A divided Nevada Supreme Court upheld Hiibel’s conviction, with three justices dissenting. Among other things, the dissenters pointed out that the same law used to convict Hiibel had previously been declared unconstitutional by a federal appeals court with jurisdiction over Nevada.

"What the majority fails to recognize," the dissenting justices concluded, "is that it is the observable conduct, not the identity, of a person, upon which an officer must legally rely when investigating crimes and enforcing the law."

Key to the ACLU’s brief is an analysis of the limits of a 1968 Supreme Court ruling, Terry v. Ohio, which allows police to "stop and frisk" suspects under certain limited circumstances. According to the ACLU brief, an individual subjected to a Terry stop cannot be compelled to answer questions. "Rather, this Court has repeatedly recognized that an individual has an absolute right under the Fourth Amendment not to respond to questions posed to him by a law enforcement officer," the brief said.

The ACLU urged the Justices to not only strike down the Nevada law, but also to uphold the limitations on police stops imposed by the Court in Terry. "The alleged benefits of a requirement that a person subject to a Terry stop identify himself...is substantially outweighed by the individual's countervailing interest in privacy and security," the ACLU said in its brief.

:rolleyes:

Actually much of his "postings" were defended rather well.

You weren't reported as a troll so why are you complaining? ;)

It just seemed odd and strangely unfair to me, that in a place like this forum, someone would cry about getting someone banned just because he didn't argue back...

Recently in my state, there was an easter Celebration at a local mall, but the Easter Bunny wasn't allowed to attend.
Instead, thanks to an ACLU legal challenge, we get the Spring rabbit, the dumbed down, lord forbid, nonreligious marked down version...

Erm, and the Easter Bunny's religious credentials are what???

*yawns*

gawd, is this thread still going?

It's just not worth it folks - there's no engaging an utter nutter. All you'll get is grief.

*rolls over*

Erm, and the Easter Bunny's religious credentials are what???


Well, categorical hostility towards rabbits is central to christian fundementalism.

You see, since leviticus gives false statements about hares chewing cud, christians, as a central tenet of their religion, force themself into the belief that rabbits are capable of many feats, including the laying of eggs.

When parents set easter eggs for their children, it is a somewhat subtle method of indocrinating them into the rabbit dogma they must one day embrace.

History of ACLU's :gundge: abhorrence of Christmas! :eek:

The Long and Ugly Trail of the Courts
As a 1948 article in the Reader’s Digest noted, “The spirit of Christmas is the Light of the World.” In spite of the will of the people demonstrating that the Christmas spirit is what makes America strong, numerous court decisions have shown a blatant disregard for the will of the people. Starting in 1948, when the courts ruled that voluntary religious instruction in public schools was illegal, there has been a systematic erosion of the 1st Amendment rights to the free exercise of religion. As you examine the list of court cases below, ask yourself one question, “Have these decisions make our country a better place to live, or, have they paralleled a downward cycle of moral bankruptcy?”

“In 1962, school prayer went out. In 1963, voluntary daily reading from the Bible was declared unconstitutional. In 1980, a Kentucky law that called for posting the Ten Commandments on the classroom walls was overturned because the Commandments served “no secular purpose.” In 1985, Alabama’s “moment of silence” at the start of the school day was declared unconstitutional. In 1989, the Supreme Court ordered a Nativity scene removed from the grounds of the Allegheny County Courthouse outside Pittsburgh. In 1992, all prayers at high school graduations were prohibited. In 2000, students were forbidden to pray over the loudspeakers at high school games….In 1996, the Ninth Circuit ruled that a large cross erected as a war memorial in a public park in Eugene, Oregon, violated the Constitution. In 1999, the Sixth Circuit ordered the Cleveland Board of Education to cease opening its meetings with a prayer, though Congress does every day. The Eleventh Circuit outlawed any invocations, prayers, or benedictions at high school graduations…

Read more of what Stephen D. Aloia, Ph.D., says here:
http://www.webspawner.com/users/amendment/christmastheacl.html

….
Such Sacrifice and Virtue
Of course the motives of the ACLU are so compelled by the spirit of the 1st Amendment that it has nothing to do with being anti-Christian. Of course, these individuals hurt inside and ache for the pain and suffering that the denial of public celebrations of Christmas has on young children, but their duty to the constitution must come first in spite of their own pain. Such nobility has never been witnessed in society. Of course these superior intellects realizing that there has been no harm to anyone from the public celebrations of Christmas for the past centuries still realize that their duty overwhelms them to take these costly and painful actions.

Get a grip! These self-professed “church-state separationists” are only motivated by hatred and Napoleonic ego complexes. They get some perverted thrill from sipping their white wine and waxing philosophic about how they alone know what is best for everyone and how and when they should do everything. These ACLU types were the kids who got picked on when they were in school and now they have the power of the courts to impose their perverted sense of revenge on anyone who opposes them.




Amen Brother, :D Don’t be shy, say it like it is!

Well, categorical hostility towards rabbits is central to christian fundementalism.

You see, since leviticus gives false statements about hares chewing cud, christians, as a central tenet of their religion, force themself into the belief that rabbits are capable of many feats, including the laying of eggs.

When parents set easter eggs for their children, it is a somewhat subtle method of indocrinating them into the rabbit dogma they must one day embrace.

I think his point was that it was called "Spring" Bunny instead of "Easter" Bunny...

Anyone know? Is Easter an evil word like Christmas is now (oops, I mean Xmas) and not mentionable even when you are talking about the pagan rabbit?!?! :confused:

That's ACLU :gundge: Extremism for ya. :rolleyes:

I think his point was that it was called "Spring" Bunny instead of "Easter" Bunny...

Anyone know? Is Easter an evil word like Christmas is now (oops, I mean Xmas) and not mentionable even when you are talking about the pagan rabbit?!?! :confused:

That's ACLU :gundge: Extremism for ya. :rolleyes:
Umm...

X-mas is an abbreviation for Christmas. X has been a symbol for christ for some time and for a long time it was primarily the followers of the religion who used that above the full out word... I don't get why you're so offended at the abbreviation now.

And at any rate, the reason winter holidays in school aren't called Christmas vacation anymore is quite simple: there are other holidays at the same time. Christmas vacation encompases Haunkah (sp? I can never spell it right) winter solstice, et c.

They get some perverted thrill from sipping their white wine and waxing philosophic about how they alone know what is best for everyone and how and when they should do everything.




Mmmm chateu d'yquem...

Umm...

X-mas is an abbreviation for Christmas. X has been a symbol for christ for some time and for a long time it was primarily the followers of the religion who used that above the full out word... I don't get why you're so offended at the abbreviation now.

And at any rate, the reason winter holidays in school aren't called Christmas vacation anymore is quite simple: there are other holidays at the same time. Christmas vacation encompases Haunkah (sp? I can never spell it right) winter solstice, et c.


Mwahahaha *wipes tear from eye*

Do you really, I mean, REALLY, beleive those reasons? X-mas is a cross so it's a religious supstitute for the word Christams that was a supstitute for CHRIST'sMass?

Hanukkah (I don't blame you for the spelling, its a pain) and Winter Solestice huh? Okay, good.... Right... It's got nothing, NOTHING to do with the ACLU and lawsuits, totally unrelated to why communities and school districts are afraid of celebrating Christmas now. :rolleyes:



FYI: Hanukkah moves, it will start on December 4th in 2007.


-----
The ACLU's :gundge: Crusade Against Christianity Continues :eek:

Let me get this straight. The ACLU are in a sweat to get the crosses off the Los Angeles County seal but I have not heard that they will be intervening to stop a mosque from blasting the Muslim call to worship 5 times daily on public loudspeakers in Detroit.

Could it be that the attack dog for the modern Humanist religion hates and fears Christianity so much *because it knows it is true*?

L.A. Story:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,121039,00.html

Detroit Story:
http://www.freep.com/news/religion/call25_20040525.htm

*yawns*

gawd, is this thread still going?

It's just not worth it folks - there's no engaging an utter nutter. All you'll get is grief.

*rolls over*

Nutter! I always liked that term and it's quite appropriate here!

*Yawns*

Mwahahaha *wipes tear from eye*

Do you really, I mean, REALLY, beleive those reasons? X-mas is a cross so it's a religious supstitute for the word Christams that was a supstitute for CHRIST'sMass?

Hanukkah (I don't blame you for the spelling, its a pain) and Winter Solestice huh? Okay, good.... Right... It's got nothing, NOTHING to do with the ACLU and lawsuits, totally unrelated to why communities and school districts are afraid of celebrating Christmas now. :rolleyes:



FYI: Hanukkah moves, it will start on December 4th in 2007.
I don't even live in the states... I live in Canada, there are so many religious groups with celebrations at that time of the year, likely because of the solstice, sun worship was very big in ancient times and it is likely that many modern religions have some basis in sun worship.

The ACLU has no place here and yet we call it mid-winter break.

And yes, the abbreviation x-mas has roots in early christian tradition. http://www.thehistoryofchristmas.com/trivia/xmas.htm
Xmas is an abbreviation for Christmas. It is derived from the word ΧΡΙΣΤΟΣ, transliterated as Christos, which is Greek for Christ. Greek is the language in which the whole New Testament was written.

Originally, Xmas was an abbreviation where the X represents the Greek letter chi, which is the first letter of Christ's name. However, because of the modern interpretations of the letter X, many people are unaware of this and assume that this abbreviation is meant to drop Christ from Christmas.

Now, will you stop avoiding issues others present you in favour of spouting your poorly founded insults and false accusations... care to contribute something of substance to this thread?

Nutter! I always liked that term and it's quite appropriate here!

*Yawns*

Hmmm? Nuts and Yawning with a wide open mouth in the same post? Incredulous. :confused:

Perhaps you are auditioning for an intern position at the ACLU Board of Directors? :eek:


:rolleyes:

Hmmm? Nuts and Yawning with a wide open mouth in the same post? Incredulous. :confused:

Perhaps you are auditioning for an intern position at the ACLU Board of Directors? :eek:


:rolleyes:
Yes, that is so mature... I have to wonder if that's flaming there...

?

Avoiding what? Okay, I'll reword it.


I asked a legitimate question, I asked if he really, REALLY, believed that the ACLU lawsuits had nothing to do with scaring the crap out of school board committees and communities in general from have nativity scene displays....

I mean really, the ACLU makes their money from being able to file more and more 1st amendment suits. Like a mass marketer, the system is broken right now and they make more money just from massive spamming of lawsuits since, for every one they win, the government has to pay them. They go with the SPAM theory, the more they file, the more money they get paid.

They’re sick.

Yes, that is so mature... I have to wonder if that's flaming there...

Not mature at all, and neither was their post. They added distraction innuendo, I added likewise...

Avoiding what? Okay, I'll reword it.


I asked a legitimate question, I asked if he really, REALLY, believed that the ACLU lawsuits had nothing to do with scaring the crap out of school boards and community from have nativity scene displays....

I mean really, the ACLU makes their money from being able to file more and more 1st amendment suits. Like a mass marketer, the system is broken right now and they make money from massive spamming of lawsuits since, for everyone they win, the government pays them. They can go with the SPAM theory, the more we file, the more we get paid.

They’re sick.
Why exactly should a school have a nativity scene? Unless it's a christian school, of course...

I mean, do you want them to put up mannorah's for hanukah, lights everywhere for dwali, whatever decorations (if there are any) for ramadan? et c? Unless a school is willing to accomodate the religion of every student at the school, they should not have any religious displays of any sort. It's only fair.

Hmmm? Nuts and Yawning with a wide open mouth in the same post? Incredulous. :confused:

Perhaps you are auditioning for an intern position at the ACLU Board of Directors? :eek:


:rolleyes:

Hey I am not the one who seems rabid about the subject. But hey Cut and paste all you like.....

Not mature at all, and neither was their post. They added distraction innuendo, I added likewise...
They didn't insinuate that you would be preforming sexual favours in order to get a position at a company you have repeatedly slandered in this thread with little or no basis and ignored all refutations of your statements in favour of posting new statements that are in turn, shown to be wrong and then you ignore those...

Is there really any point to this thread other than stroking your own ego and/or making an ass of yourself?

Why exactly should a school have a nativity scene? Unless it's a christian school, of course...

I mean, do you want them to put up mannorah's for hanukah, lights everywhere for dwali, whatever decorations (if there are any) for ramadan? et c? Unless a school is willing to accommodate the religion of every student at the school, they should not have any religious displays of any sort. It's only fair.

Yes I do. I want them to put up Menorahs, I want them to put up Nativity scenes, I want them to put up a special room for Ramadan celebration so that high school Muslims don't have to sit in the cafeteria during Ramadan, I want them to put up Native American pictures of Buffalo, Eagles, bears and wolves and explain their meanings... I want ALL holidays to be honored and respected and communicated to the children what they mean, what they stand for and why they exist...

It would be a hell of a lot better world if the school shared cultural communities one with another, instead of being forced to act like ostriches with their heads in the sand and act like secular, atheist, humanists ACLU choices were the only valid option for how the public community and education system in America was allowed to act.

Yes I do. I want them to put up Menorahs, I want them to put up Nativity scenes, I want them to put up a special room for Ramadan celebration so that high school Muslims don't have to sit in the cafeteria during Ramadan, I want them to put up Native American pictures of Buffalo, Eagles, bears and wolves and explain their meanings... I want ALL holidays to be honored and respected and communicated to the children what they mean, what they stand for and why they exist...

It would be a hell of a lot better world if the school shared cultural communities one with another, instead of being forced to act like ostriches with their heads in the sand and act like secular, atheist, humanists ACLU choices were the only valid option for how the public community and education system in America was allowed to act.
Do you really think that fundamentalist christian parents would agree to menorahs going up? Or Dwali being celebrated in the classroom? What about the wiccan kids who want to celebrate Hallowe'en properly?

And really, what about the kids who are atheist. What happens to them when everyone else gets their religious views out and they don't have any. Hell, what happens to the kid who came up with his own religion? Whatever you do, somebody's going to be unhappy, somebody's going to be left out. And really, what happens more often than not is that the christians are the only ones whose holidays are being celebrated, to the exclusion of all others.

edit: and so basically, you're fine with everyone getting to express their opinion and belonging, except the atheists? Is that what I'm getting here?

Do you really think that fundamentalist christian parents would agree to menorahs going up? Or Dwali being celebrated in the classroom? What about the wiccan kids who want to celebrate Hallowe'en properly?

And really, what about the kids who are atheist. What happens to them when everyone else gets their religious views out and they don't have any. Hell, what happens to the kid who came up with his own religion? Whatever you do, somebody's going to be unhappy, somebody's going to be left out. And really, what happens more often than not is that the christians are the only ones whose holidays are being celebrated, to the exclusion of all others.

edit: and so basically, you're fine with everyone getting to express their opinion and belonging, except the atheists? Is that what I'm getting here?

So, you didn't really, REALLY mean it did you? Thought I'd say no or what?

Menorahs are already up, Ramadan and Muslim Prayer rooms already exists, Native American culture is well respected and treated with respect...

Of course someone’s going to be left out. Of course someone is going to say something stupid like, I want to sacrifice this chicken on the steps of the school and drip blood on the doorway of every room to celebrate my Jamaican Voodoo heritage... and someone is going to say no, you can't do that.

But your way, NOBODY shares any cultural heritage with each other. Your way, NOBODY disperses the mystery and suspicion that mankind has one for another... the ACLU way is the way of isolation and suspicion, the way of ignorance for everyone is better than risking sharing everyones heritage one with another, just do as they say and everyone will be just fine as soon as we all forget who we are ans where we came from.

They are trying to drive out the very identity each and every culture brings to the table. Trying to blend the multitude of vibrant colors into a generic and cold and ugly ACLU grey....

Bore my ass off, they’ll have to lock me up and staple my mouth shut before I keep quiet in protest against them.

Christians have nothing to be ashamed of, and neither does anyone else... Stand up to the atheistic humanist know-it-alls and say, shut up you naysayers! We want to celebrate our individuality and still have community celebrations for one and all and we aren’t going to listen to your pessimist counsel anymore. Sure, everyone would be fairly deprived of their heritage in your dark and cold version through silence and ignorance, but we can do better, go sod off.

No, I meant it, and you also horribly misrepresented voodoo, by the way.

The thing is that school isn't just for religious studies and most schools would rather not risk leaving one group out while celebrating all the other groups and thus don't do anything for anyone.

And as I said, I live in Canada, public schools stopped really doing anything with obvious statements of christmas a long time ago. They still have all the stuff.. secret santas, holiday candy etc.


ANd fuck it, I'm going to bed. I was up at 6 am this morning and it's now 3, my brain has stopped working.

...Of course someone is going to say something stupid like, I want to sacrifice this chicken on the steps of the school and drip blood on the doorway of every room to celebrate my Jamaican Voodoo heritage...

Denis Leary recorded a song about somebody just like you.


Yes, that one.

Individuality? Individuality my ass. What you want to celebrate is your membership in the horde.

And you can't have religious views in school without celebrating everyone's views, and by definition atheists can't celebrate, and therefore religion is being elevated over them, and therefore you can't do that.

Individuality? Individuality my ass. What you want to celebrate is your membership in the horde.

And you can't have religious views in school without celebrating everyone's views, and by definition atheists can't celebrate, and therefore religion is being elevated over them, and therefore you can't do that.

LOL... :rolleyes: And what pray tell, would make us believe that you and your ACLU :gundge: ideology was a better horde than the horde the ACLU hates? What a silly thing to say!

Anyway I shouldn't be surprised should I? But lets notice it! There it is everyone, look closely, the asinine brainwashed mind of naivety ...' What exactly did the ACLU tell you that made you think Atheist can't celebrate every holiday without restriction?! But no, the ACLU spews forth poppycock drivel and you all sop it all up.

"How is it possible," I ask you, that an atheist's beliefs could be offended? What belief is being offensive to them exactly? Utter nonsense. :p I swear, what do they teach kids in school these days, obviously it's not basic logic.

Lets change the word religion/culture/ethnicity into something simple, like, say, slacks. With this word we can better understand what you have just said because we will be uninfluenced to believe a certain way first, to discuss what you say is the proper way to treat the issue fairly.

Because Joey's Dad doesn't have any pants for Joey, he wears a kilt, thus, now, the rest of us can't wear slacks to school either :eek: or else he might feel left out... LMAO What utter gobbledygook… :rolleyes: :p

In other words, only one person gets to decide the fate of the entire community, and it’s not even Joey, it’s Joey’s Dad and he doesn’t even wear a kilt himself… LOL ~ what rubbish, what garbage, what compost! The ACLU says the EXACT same thing about religion in schools. In their tormented logic Only the atheists have a right to tell everyone else what they can and cannot do.. :p

Incoherent drivel.

Incoherent drivel.

It would probably be best if you stopped listening to Denis Leary songs, it seems to have effected your cognitive abilities.


EDIT:
As to the silly voodoo accusation someone else made...

Animal sacrifice; this may be a goat, sheep, chicken, or dog. They are usually humanely killed by slitting their throat; blood is collected in a vessel. The possessed dancer may drink some of the blood. The hunger of the Loa is then believed to be satisfied. The animal is usually cooked and eaten.

:eek: The ACLU :gundge: had suddenly lost its advantage, and it went berserk. :eek:

In a hilarious effort to turn the tables, it accused the Justice Department of trying to spin the decision. "ACLU Blasts Justice Department's Attempts to Manipulate Truth About Patriot Act Ruling," screamed the headline of its next press release, issued the same day as the Times's and Post's corrections. "In what appears to be a concerted campaign to mislead the American public," the release continued, "the Department of Justice and some of its Republican allies in Congress are attempting to minimize the impact of a landmark ruling this week against so-called National Security Letters." Proof of this skullduggery? An email from a Senate Republican Policy Committee analyst to Senate leaders pointing out the fact that Doe v. Ashcroft had struck down the 1986 law creating NSLs (mentioned here for the first time in ACLU publicity materials), and thus should not be regarded as a rebuke to the Patriot Act.


The ACLU declared itself shocked by such allegedly deceptive practices. Ann Beeson called the Senate email message "desperate." What was in fact desperate was the ACLU's agonized response to this unaccustomed collision with the truth: "There is no question that the court struck down a provision of the law that was dramatically expanded by the Patriot Act," it whined, in a dramatic deflation of its original claims.

That the ACLU engages in non-stop deception about the war on terror is not news. But it is not every day that the eagerness of the elite media for such deception is so clearly exposed. The mainstream press already knows that the Patriot Act is a dangerous assault on civil liberties, so when the ACLU confirms this knowledge, why bother to check the facts?

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/_ws-taking_dictation.htm

It would probably be best if you stopped listening to Denis Leary songs, it seems to have effected your cognitive abilities.
You mean like those cognative abilities required to differentiate "effected" from "affected"? :rolleyes: Nice Flame BTW... How "cognative" of you.

Since you can't be bothered to actually open the One Stop Shop sticky & read the Rules for yourself... A note from our Sponsor: (Hi Cog & Fris...) (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=410573)


The problem is that you post articles in their entirety without adding any comments of your own or any analysis of your own. This qualifies as spam. ...or possibly even trolling (which is posting controversial material merely to ruffle feathers and make people mad).

Don't just copy-and-paste. State if you agree or disagree with the article. Describe why you agree or disagree. This is a political discussion forum; discuss any articles that you post or link to. Don't just reproduce them verbatim.Basically saying that if all you do if copy and paste an article into a thread, and post it, that is considered spam.
It is one thing to make some argument, however radical, by yourself, drawing on a range of references or one's own experience.

It is quite another to copy and paste some cheap BS from nutcase sites, and leave it at that, with no original or insightful comment.

High quantity of posts, low quality of posts, not even written by the individual posting them, complete absence of original material, a refusal to improve on this when asked over a period of god knows how many months, all these things will wear down one's patience.

This is not about sinister political conspiracies somehow magically agreed upon by a collective spanning pretty much the whole range from communist to fascist. No, this is one individual's refusal to accept any form of authority, irrespective of what form it takes. There are some people who will never accept the concept of authority, never accept the concept of guidelines, let alone rules. Tough s---. Like it or not, that's the system you have to work with.

Write something original, and keep it to a relatively small number of active threads. This is not an unreasonable demand - it is what I do.

Get the hint Greenlander? You are not supporting your views with debate, you are "supporting your view" with cut-n-past articles that mirror your own opinon.

You are Spam-Trolling.

Get the hint Greenlander? You are not supporting your views with debate, you are "supporting your view" with cut-n-past articles that mirror your own opinon.

You are Spam-Trolling.
Syniks (among others who commented on this) is correct. Knock off the continual quotes. Link to them, paraphrase them, I don't care. Copy/paste is not debating, it's spam.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Forum Moderator
The One-Stop Rules Shop

Anti-American? The ACLU is Pro-American. What right-wing organization defends our civil liberties?
Actually, many gun organizations would fall under this category, but because the ACLU is there they don't advertise themselves as such.

You mean like those cognative abilities required to differentiate "effected" from "affected"? :rolleyes: Nice Flame BTW... How "cognative" of you.

Hmm, are you sure you don't want to delete that? You know, spelling cognitive wrong directly after telling me to incorrectly use ‘affected’ when I used effected correctly?

Main Entry: 2effect
Function: transitive verb
1 : to cause to come into being
2 a : to bring about often by surmounting obstacles : ACCOMPLISH <effect a settlement of a dispute> b : to put into operation <the duty of the legislature to effect the will of the citizens>

Samples 1: The drug had an immediate effect on the pain. 2: The government's action had no effect on the trade



In the Spirit of: Syniks (among others who commented on this) is correct. Knock off the continual quotes. Link to them, paraphrase them, I don't care. Copy/paste is not debating, it's spam.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Forum Moderator
The One-Stop Rules Shop

I’ll just post links with Titles…

:eek: ACLU wants to legitimize prostitution :eek:
http://www.freedomofthought.com/archives/002040.php

The ACLU’s :gundge: been lying to you! Pictures galore… God and Religion represented in Washington D.C. all over the place!!!
http://www.geocities.com/truthsavvyonline/didyou.html




President Jefferson left us with a quote 1781:

”God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the Gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever.”

(EDITED: fixed 1871 to 1781 - as error was pointed out below)

and it is jefferson that wrote the 1st amendment guarantees a seperation of the church and state

Ihatevacations']and it is jefferson that wrote the 1st amendment guarantees a seperation of the church and state Thus, protecting the Church from the State, yes, what's your point?

\President Jefferson left us with a quote 1871:

”God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the Gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever.”

Psst Jefferson died in 1826.

Care to site the source of the reference. As I had shown from the Federalist papers; quoteing somebody says one thing, and then seeing the quote in context really means something else.

Let's not go into the fact that it appears Jefferson seems to have died an athiest. Towards the end of his life he had nasty things to say about religion, refused a Priest at his death bed, and didn't have anything Religious for his tombstone.

But that is tangential to the this threads theme of slandering the aclu.