NationStates Jolt Archive

Actually, many gun organizations would fall under this category, but because the ACLU is there they don't advertise themselves as such.

Another would be the A.C.L.J.

Actually, many gun organizations would fall under this category, but because the ACLU is there they don't advertise themselves as such.
I wish I could say "Truth" to this assertion, but I can't... even as a "Life Menber" of the NRA.

Unfortunately, there are far too many "pro-gun" orgs that are also (from a Libertarian standpoint) "anti-civil-liberties" in many other ways.

IMO Both the ACLU and the NRA/GOA/SAF are too focused on specific Ideals and not willing to work together enough to promote true Liberty - i.e. the Freedom to Do, Be & Possess as long as you don't (personally) hurt other people through your Actions.

Yes, I have issues with the ACLU. They purport to support all (US) Civil Liberties while basically ignoring the 2nd Ammendment. I find that hipocritical, so I do not financially support them, and even oppose their "reimbursement" from the US Government.

I financially support the NRA (as best I can on a less than $20K US income) because, despite the HUGE issues I have with their current financial/PR structuring, they do not claim to be anything other than a RKBA advocacy group.

There are many other RKBA groups that exist that I don't support - even though I agree more with their guiding philosophy (GOA for instance), but they do ot have the clout that the NRA does. Realpolitik is. We have to live under the constricts thereof.

But I am tired. It is late(ish), I am intoxicated, and the batteries on my laptop& cell phone are dying. I will leave the discussion untill the morrow.

Thus, protecting the Church from the State, yes, what's your point?
what is yours

Psst Jefferson died in 1826.

See, that's absolutely right, and one of the reasons I liked copy and paste better than typing myself... I type too fast. 1781 not 1871. :D

Thus, protecting the Church from the State, yes, what's your point?

Well what's your point?

See, that's absolutely right, and one of the reasons I liked copy and paste better than typing myself... I type too fast. 1781 not 1871. :D

No worries. I forgot the smiley. I am a dyslexic so I have to put in extra effort. :)

Well what's your point?

You won't let me copy and paste... you have to hold on already, I'm typing I'm typing!! :p

You won't let me copy and paste... you have to hold on already, I'm typing I'm typing!! :p

As Cog and Fris pointed out. Cut and past if fine. Just include the link so people can review the whole document.

News blips and opinion pieces? Ehhhh they tend to be one sided and don't always give references for their argument.

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

That is the single stupidest thing I have ever heard said on these boards, and I've heard a fair amount. Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither. Sound familiiar? Benjamin Franklin said it. It is the principle the United States' Revolutionary War was started over. What you said goes directly against that. Wow. What a retarded statement.

That is the single stupidest thing I have ever heard said on these boards, and I've heard a fair amount. Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither. Sound familiiar? Benjamin Franklin said it. It is the principle the United States' Revolutionary War was started over. What you said goes directly against that. Wow. What a retarded statement.

Amen, sah.

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? No, I don't. My typing skills aren't great, and my spelling slikks are worse. But, even while intoxicated while trying to get over a bout of insomnia, this requires a response...

It looks like you are a product of an NEA public school education.

According to you, Dennis Leary recordings have a deleterious Effect on cognition, therefore, Dennis Leary recordings Affect cognition deleteriously. See the difference?

Affect
1. af•fect (transitive verb) [Middle English, from affectus, past participle of afficere]
to produce an effect upon, as a: to produce a material influence upon or alteration in <paralysis affected his limbs> b: to act upon (as a person or a person's mind or feelings) so as to bring about a response; influence

Effect
1. ef•fect (noun) [Middle English, from Middle French & Latin; Middle French, from Latin effectus, from efficere to bring about, from ex- out (of) + facere to make, do]
1a: purport; intent <the effect of their statement was to incite anger> b: basic meaning; essence <her argument had the effect of a plea for justice>
2: something that inevitably follows an antecedent (as a cause or agent) <environmental devastation is one effect of unchecked industrial expansion>
3: an outward sign; appearance <the makeup created the effect of old age on their faces>
4: accomplishment; fulfillment <the effect of years of hard work>
5: power to bring about a result; influence <the content itself of television is therefore less important than its effect>

See also: (since you are good at cut-n-paste)

http://owl.english.purdue.edu/handouts/grammar/g_spelprob.html
http://www.planetoid.org/grammar_for_geeks/effect_vs_affect.html
http://academics.yvcc.edu/owl/effectaffect.html

In the Spirit of: (Fris's post)

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

You really don't get it do you? Both cut-n-paste articles AND links without refutation/support are considered spam. You are not debating, you are spamming the forum with other people's work.

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)
Jefferson was (at best) a Unitarian (see various Unitarian works supporting this view). At "worst" he was a Deist, as were many of his Enlightenment era contemporaries. His vision of "God" is dramatically different than, and possibly diametrically opposed to, the tripe you have been spouting.


10% battery.... I must be going now.

Okay... jeez, MY POINT


Over the past seventy years the ACLU has twisted and tormented the American society via their institution’s seductive language of liberty and whatnot. But the truth is, they are a camouflaged serpent coiling to strike waiting only while they successfully trick their prey (the American public and Judiciary) into willingly moving into a more submission, and thus vulnerable position.

The ACLU can be counted on to not only NOT help America maintain it’s moral traditional society of hard working family oriented communities, but to actively work against us. For me the reason why the ACLU won't take any stand against involuntary commitment and not defending the Second Amendment is obvious.

This is how they are doing it:

The slogan, "separation of church and state" is regularly branded not as a concept/theory, but as the defined only reading permissible of the first amendment in the United States Constitution.

The problem is, nowhere in the Constitution, not in the phrase mentioned, is that wording discussed, or defined as the ACLU says it is. It is the battle cry of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and other individuals around here and in public school education (now) the expression is actually, merely an interpretation of the Amendment and not a very good one, nor wholly sufficient as the Supreme Court itself has said in rulings past.

FYI: a review… The first Amendment has two guarantees in regards to our religious freedoms ~ 1: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…" (called the "Establishment Clause") and 2: "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" (called the "Free Exercise Clause").

The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment made these guarantees of religious liberties applicable to all the states as well as to Congress.

The "Establishment Clause" though is the one today's courts almost always focus on because it is what the ACLU makes their money suits about/from, first amendment challenges are money cases to them (the more they sue, the more they make, they probably don’t even care if they are right or not, being right doesn’t pay, winning pays).

Without the first Amendment mis-interpretation being currently shared by a majority of the Supreme Court judiciaries, though, these ALCU money cases would be nothing.

The survival of America Liberties really depends on it’s ability to teach and share moral and ethical rules, public teachings/doctrines (acceptable and non-acceptable behaviors etc.) ~ now as much as ever ~ and this depends not only on our government and courts regaining reason and getting it right, but also on our citizens getting it right to force their hand if they won’t listen to reason. The alternative if we don’t stop and come to our senses could be as catestrophic for us today as the French Revolution was immoral two hundred years ago. You want to see a 'secular' revolution in action, the kind the ACLU would have you beleive America had two hundred plus years ago? Go look at the history of the french one, then go and compare it to the American Revolution and tell us again that you think the American revolution was a secular revolution too. No, the American revolution was held in check by the inherent religious stability the people and communities and States that already existed here self-governed.

The founding fathers didn’t need to ‘found’ a Christian nation, America and all of it’s States already was one…

*SNIP*

This is how they are doing it:

The slogan, "separation of church and state" is regularly branded not as a concept/theory, but as the defined only reading permissible of the first amendment in the United States Constitution.

The problem is, nowhere in the Constitution, not in the phrase mentioned, is that wording discussed, or defined as the ACLU says it is.

Well not really. It is so interpreted since Jefferson and Madison spoke of it. Who do you think first uttered the phrase?

As when any statement of the past you have to read the letters, diaries, etc. of the men involved.

You can say that the establishment clause never meant that but then you find both Jefferson and Madison talking about the seperation, then well it is exactly how what the "slogan" says.

Jefferson and Madison were both brilliant men. The understood they could not write a perfect document and left space for interpretation by the courts as things change and situations can arrive that would not have appeared in their time.

Finally there is about 150 years of cases that side with the "evil" aclus arguments. There will always be decent and you should evaluate such decent as well as those in favor. The most famous example the current CJ. He wrote his view of what was meant by the establishment clause and many if not most of his comments were debunked.


It is the battle cry of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and other individuals around here and in public school education (now) the expression is actually, merely an interpretation of the Amendment and not a very good one, nor wholly sufficient as the Supreme Court itself has said in rulings past.


Yes. Debate is good. The fact this debate has gone on for over 100 years also suggests something.


FYI: a review… The first Amendment has two guarantees in regards to our religious freedoms ~ 1: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…" (called the "Establishment Clause") and 2: "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" (called the "Free Exercise Clause").

The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment made these guarantees of religious liberties applicable to all the states as well as to Congress.

The "Establishment Clause" though is the one today's courts almost always focus on because it is what the ACLU makes their money suits about/from


That in itself is wrong. The SCOTUS takes the cases it wants. It does not have to listen to every case that is brought before it.

Also, a lawyer please correct me but even if they win, do they get their money when there is a challenge to the decession?

Finally, if this was the cash cow of the ACLU then why not stop giving them the possiblity to sue?

Shall we talk about the court costs, etc. Didn't arrive from their actions. That approach I belive was started by somebody else in an attempt to dissaude frivilous lawsuits.


n e, first amendment challenges are money cases to them (the more they sue, the more they make, they probably don’t even care if they are right or not, being right doesn’t pay, winning pays).


They only get their money from church/state cases? You got an copy of their sheets?


Without the first Amendment mis-interpretation being currently shared by a majority of the Supreme Court judiciaries, though, these ALCU money cases would be nothing.

So every SCOTUS judge in the last 150 or so years is wrong? Jefferson and Madison are wrong?

Hmmmmmmm.


The survival of America Liberties really depends on it’s ability to teach and share moral and ethical rules, public teachings/doctrines (acceptable and non-acceptable behaviors etc.)


Hmmm how long has the country existed with the establishement clause? Sorry doom and gloom may not apply.

The establishment clause does not prevent you from teaching your children your moral code.

The laws are in placde to keep the public in check as well. Don't forget that 50 years ago we had seperate doors, seats, drinking fountains. That was the moral code of the people of that time.


~ now as much as ever ~ and this depends not only on our government and courts regaining reason and getting it right, but also on our citizens getting it right to force their hand if they won’t listen to reason.


As in stuffing conservative Christian idealogs on the courts that will push the "moral" code rather the evaluate the law.

For all the bitching of the repubs of "legislating by the bench" they seem to be trying to set up the same thing.


The alternative if we don’t stop and come to our senses could be as catestrophic for us today as the French Revolution was immoral two hundred years ago. You want to see a 'secular' revolution in action, the kind the ACLU would have you beleive America had two hundred plus years ago? Go look at the history of the french one, then go and compare it to the American Revolution and tell us again that you think the American revolution was a secular revolution too. No, the American revolution was held in check by the inherent religious stability the people and communities and States that already existed here self-governed.


Good god man. The French revolution didn't happen because people weren't able to practice their moral code.


The founding fathers didn’t need to ‘found’ a Christian nation, America and all of it’s States already was one…

And yet they didn't give a state relgion and they signed the treaty of tripoli.

Oh and hey.

Why not get this locked and start a new one?

All the cut and pasting made the topic go in several directions.......

Well not really. It is so interpreted since Jefferson and Madison spoke of it. Who do you think first uttered the phrase?

As when any statement of the past you have to read the letters, diaries, etc. of the men involved.

You can say that the establishment clause never meant that but then you find both Jefferson and Madison talking about the seperation, then well it is exactly how what the "slogan" says.

Jefferson and Madison were both brilliant men. The understood they could not write a perfect document and left space for interpretation by the courts as things change and situations can arrive that would not have appeared in their time.

Actually, Jefferson wasn’t even there and the Committee did NOT adopt Madison’s version of the first amendment but wrote their own… You should really go read some impartial history about it, it’s quite fascinating.



Finally there is about 150 years of cases that side with the "evil" aclus arguments. There will always be decent and you should evaluate such decent as well as those in favor. The most famous example the current CJ. He wrote his view of what was meant by the establishment clause and many if not most of his comments were debunked.
Actually, the FIRST case that took the Jefferson letter as doctrine was about fifty plus years ago. Before that the "Free Exercise Clause" held as much weight as the Establishment Clause." This interpretation was expressed by an ACLU case…


Also, a lawyer please correct me but even if they win, do they get their money when there is a challenge to the decession?

Finally, if this was the cash cow of the ACLU then why not stop giving them the possiblity to sue? There is legislation pending called PERA, designed to remove the loophole that pays the ACLU for filing frivolous first amendment cases…

Hmmm how long has the country existed with the establishement clause? Sorry doom and gloom may not apply.

We did NOT have the establishment clause as you mean it, no Lemon test etc., during or before WW2. It came about in the fifties and got strong in the sixties and brainwashed the public by the eighties into thinking that it had always been like that…


Good god man. The French revolution didn't happen because people weren't able to practice their moral code. Like I said, go read what a secular revolution looks like, people went nuts, no law, no order, chop all of the enemy’s heads off etc., etc., etc. The French Revolution was anarchy compared to the self-governed States with Established state empowered Christian churches, agreeing to form a new Union called the United States with a weak Federal Government and no new national church or else the States wouldn’t have agreed to join… They already had their churches.

Oh and hey.

Why not get this locked and start a new one?

All the cut and pasting made the topic go in several directions.......

One direction, like the title said... The ACLU Does What? And I stuck to it. :p

Besides: I posted links to answer more than half of your mis-placed defenses of the ACLU above. The year, when, who , why, how... all of that. It's a big thread now though, but it's all in here.

One direction, like the title said... The ACLU Does What? And I stuck to it. :p



It's not much of a title, you must admit. It's designed for little else save the piqueing of people's curiosities with the acronym 'ACLU' stuck into it like a maraschino cherry on a fudge sundae.

And, just like a maraschino cherry, it looks far better than it tastes.

It's not much of a title, you must admit. It's designed for little else save the piqueing of people's curiosities with the acronym 'ACLU' stuck into it like a maraschino cherry on a fudge sundae.

And, just like a maraschino cherry, it looks far better than it tastes.
Come on I love how they taste!

Actually, Jefferson wasn’t even there and the Committee did NOT adopt Madison’s version of the first amendment but wrote their own… You should really go read some impartial history about it, it’s quite fascinating.

Impartial as in what some good conservatives version that ignores the writings of the two men.

It's called influence.


Actually, the FIRST case that took the Jefferson letter as doctrine was about fifty plus years ago. Before that the "Free Exercise Clause" held as much weight as the Establishment Clause." This interpretation was expressed by an ACLU case…

Actually if you review the SCOTUS documents, you will see the issue came up long before the ACLU and guess what version they followed.


There is legislation pending called PERA, designed to remove the loophole that pays the ACLU for filing frivolous first amendment cases…

Well Frivolous is what the conservatives call it when it goes against them. Not frivolous when the good christian community expects everyone to follow there "morality."


We did NOT have the establishment clause as you mean it, no Lemon test etc., during or before WW2. It came about in the fifties and got strong in the sixties and brainwashed the public by the eighties into thinking that it had always been like that…

Actually we did. The SCOTUS documents.

Lemon is new and the conservatives are trying their best to kill it.


Like I said, go read what a secular revolution looks like, people went nuts, no law, no order, chop all of the enemy’s heads off etc., etc., etc. The French Revolution was anarchy compared to the self-governed States with Established state empowered Christian churches, agreeing to form a new Union called the United States with a weak Federal Government and no new national church or else the States wouldn’t have agreed to join… They already had their churches.

You are streatching things a bit and leaving out details. Such as the attitudes of the aristocracy against the lower class especially in bad times.....

A French revolution will not happen in the US.

Well then againt the Repubs might cause one. :p

We did NOT have the establishment clause as you mean it, no Lemon test etc., during or before WW2. It came about in the fifties and got strong in the sixties and brainwashed the public by the eighties into thinking that it had always been like that…
ironically, thats is exactly what happened with the pledge of allegianceand money and the addition of God to them

Impartial as in what some good conservatives version that ignores the writings of the two men.

It's called influence.

Actually if you review the SCOTUS documents, you will see the issue came up long before the ACLU and guess what version they followed.

Actually we did. The SCOTUS documents.

Lemon is new and the conservatives are trying their best to kill it.



Just start reading here then. It’s about neutral, certainly not in favor of the conservative view anyway. The SCOTUS made its famous (notorious would be a better word for it) Jefferson reference about the first amendment and opened the doorway for what would turn into the all out ACLU’s attack on the Free Exercise Clause in 1947… It’s not even worth discussing that aspect of it, both side agree with this. There no attack on things like acknowledge of religion in public schools (for example) before this.
( http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/01.html#1 )

A building and growing sentiment, referencing published scholarly research and original intent sources, Court dissenters are returning to the argument that what the religion clauses, principally the Establishment Clause, prevent is ''preferential'' governmental promotion of some religions, and was never intended to end all governmental promotion of all religion in general. Justice Souter did slow down this movement and position fourteen years ago by restating the SCOTUS adherence to the Everson position, but the movement lives still and gains strength in the courts.

I think the fact that the Justices once ‘unanimously’ agreed to start this interpretation (because it ‘sounds so right’ how can it be wrong, concept) but some have now realized the scope of the ruling and the unrecognized (at that time) full implication of what it would actually mean to have the ACLU challenge ALL things Christian. These attacks have, over the years, brought about disagreement and conflict among them (the Judiciary on all levels), and indicates to me that the current SCOTUS interpretation IS too powerful, it is too blunt, in effect having a social engineering aspect that was altogether unplanned (except by the ACLU today) and not intended by the original ruling.

LOL... :rolleyes: And what pray tell, would make us believe that you and your ACLU ideology was a better horde than the horde the ACLU hates? What a silly thing to say!

I am not a member of the horde. I support the ACLU on some issues, and on others I'm forced to object. The ACLU does not "hate" anything, except violations of the Consitution. The hate is all left to people like you.

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.

Brainwashed? I think we can all tell who is the one who's been brainwashed by propaganda. Notice all your "sources" are right-wing mouthpieces?
Atheists CAN'T celebrate religious holidays because by definition they aren't religious! Imagine if you were forced by the goverment or public institutions to say "Jesus Christ was a whore" on Christmas Day. That is how atheists feel when religion is shoved in their face by the goverment or by their school or by any public institution.

"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.
1. Atheists believe that God does not exist.
2. Atheists are people.
3. Religions shove the concept of God on people.
4. Therefore, religion shoves the concept of God on atheists.
5. Atheists hold their beliefs dearly, just like religious people.
6. Religious people get offended when their beliefs are insulted.
7. Therefore, atheists get insulted when public, supposedly impartial institions force God on them.

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

Absurd anology. Slacks don't force you to obey the commandments of a irrational and probably non-existant enitity, nor will slack wearers take Joey somewhere and try to forcibly shove him into slacks. Also, atheists are not another religious movement: they are a lack of religion. Therefore, it would be a lack of slacks, rather than their replacement by kilts.

Okay... jeez, Are you sure you want to take the Lord's name in Vain that way...?

MY POINT
Over the past seventy years the ACLU has twisted and tormented the American society via their institution’s seductive language of liberty and whatnot. But the truth is, they are a camouflaged serpent coiling to strike waiting only while they successfully trick their prey (the American public and Judiciary) into willingly moving into a more submission, and thus vulnerable position.Hyperbole & Ad Hominem. But frankly, I like Liberty and Whatnot. Particularly the Whatnot part.
The ACLU can be counted on to not only NOT help America maintain it’s moral traditional society of hard working family oriented communities, but to actively work against us. For me the reason why the ACLU won't take any stand against involuntary commitment and not defending the Second Amendment is obvious. <snip>
The survival of America Liberties really depends on it’s ability to teach and share moral and ethical rules, public teachings/doctrines (acceptable and non-acceptable behaviors etc.) ~ now as much as ever ~ and this depends not only on our government and courts regaining reason and getting it right, but also on our citizens getting it right to force their hand if they won’t listen to reason. <snip>
The founding fathers didn’t need to ‘found’ a Christian nation, America and all of it’s States already was one…
Ahh I see.

Your position is that non Christians are "Free" to live in a country that operates under a "Christian" socio-moral paradigm.... much like a Christian is "Free" to live in a country that operates under an Islamic socio-moral paradigm. To you, Socio-Religious stratification is immaterial. :rolleyes:

Before you go advocating for that position, I suggest you go see fo your self how "Free" you would be living in an Islamic State. Don't forget to pay your Jizaya in your Dhimmitude.

I am not a member of the horde. I support the ACLU on some issues, and on others I'm forced to object. The ACLU does not "hate" anything, except violations of the Consitution. The hate is all left to people like you.

Okay, so you’re not a member of the horde… But you are still a member of their herd, they direct you and guide you and tell you where to go. :p


Brainwashed? I think we can all tell who is the one who's been brainwashed by propaganda. Notice all your "sources" are right-wing mouthpieces?
Notice all the ACLU propaganda comes from the extreme left-wing, left of left. Turn left then hit the rocket boosters and wait for awhile to get there…

Atheists CAN'T celebrate religious holidays because by definition they aren't religious! Imagine if you were forced by the goverment or public institutions to say "Jesus Christ was a whore" on Christmas Day. That is how atheists feel when religion is shoved in their face by the goverment or by their school or by any public institution.

They can’t? Why not? Someone get me a copy of the Atheist scripture and ‘how-to’ handbook. I’ll have to ‘read up’ on all these tenants that you say the Atheist have. Atheist weren’t FORCED to worship, they weren’t forced to pray, and they weren’t forced to acknowledge God.


Religious people know that 1. Atheists believe that God does not exist.
Religious people know that 2. Atheists are people.
3. Religions shove the concept of God on people. And atheist try to deny the religious freedom of speech and free exercise clause.
4. Therefore, religion shoves the concept of God on atheists. It’s a fact of the world that we share existence with people that disagree with us, doesn’t give the atheists the right to shut everyone but themselves up.
5. Atheists hold their beliefs dearly, just like religious people. I’m sure they do
6. Religious people get offended when their beliefs are insulted. And Religious people don’t?
7. Therefore, atheists get insulted when public, supposedly impartial institions force God on them. Who said they were impartial? They only have to be respectful and not force others to agree with them, but it amendment doesn’t say anything about not being able to acknowledge the beliefs of everyone in the class as well as the atheist.

Absurd anology. Slacks don't force you to obey the commandments of a irrational and probably non-existant enitity, nor will slack wearers take Joey somewhere and try to forcibly shove him into slacks. Also, atheists are not another religious movement: they are a lack of religion. Therefore, it would be a lack of slacks, rather than their replacement by kilts.

It’s a perfect analogy. :D The Amendment doesn’t let people try to put slacks on Joey, it does however give them a right to pass laws about indecent exposure and make him wear something at school.

You say atheists are not another religious movement? If they are not a religious movement then they are a political movement and it’s irrelevant what they say about religion, neither the establishment clause nor the free exercise clause applies to them and only the right to not be forced to join a church would apply to them.

<snip>
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
Oohh! Rewrite time!

"In other words, only one person gets to decide the fate of the entire community, and it’s not even the Public, it’s (some version of) Christianity … LOL ~ what rubbish, what garbage, what compost! In your tormented logic Only the Christians have a right to tell everyone else what they can and cannot do..." :headbang:

Pot, Kettle, Black.

EVERYONE is a political movement, atheists, christians, boy scouts, old people, EVERYONE.

And atheist try to deny the religious freedom of speech and free exercise clause.
Nice try slick but you can still go around praying and worshipping on your own time or go to church on sunday and stand around on teh street preaching doom, I don't recall anyone trying to stop any of that. Oh but thats right, you are crazy so you think removing christianity from where it should have never been is the same as trying to deny the freedom of religion. God forbid though that muslims or something try to get THEIR religion taught in schools, people would be protesting and keeping their kids hoem from school

Oohh! Rewrite time!

"In other words, only one person gets to decide the fate of the entire community, and it’s not even the Public, it’s (some version of) Christianity … LOL ~ what rubbish, what garbage, what compost! In your tormented logic Only the Christians have a right to tell everyone else what they can and cannot do..." :headbang:

Pot, Kettle, Black.

LOL :p :D


As IF by arguing agianst the ACLU's :gundge: interpretation of the Frist Amendment I said anything about getting rid of it?!? What garbbage, what rubbish, what refuse! :D :rolleyes:

Ihatevacations']EVERYONE is a political movement, atheists, christians, boy scouts, old people, EVERYONE.


Nice try slick but you can still go around praying and worshipping on your own time or go to church on sunday and stand around on teh street preaching doom, I don't recall anyone trying to stop any of that. Oh but thats right, you are crazy so you think removing christianity from where it should have never been is the same as trying to deny the freedom of religion. God forbid though that muslims or something try to get THEIR religion taught in schools, people would be protesting and keeping their kids hoem from school


Mwhahahaha! You sound so silly. Of course the ACLU goes around trying to stop people from preaching in the streets. They do it all the time as a matter of fact! :p

13 States, which one advocated Islam? I forget, maybe you could remind me? On the other hand though, they agreed to allow freedom of Islam in ALL thirteen states without infringing on any of them or anyone else, so what was your point?

To every one:

At what point does disagreeing with the ACLU mean that someone wants to abolish the first amendment? The amendment will still be there to stop the Government from making a state controlled Church, relax, and take deep breath's... :rolleyes:

You’ve been brainwashed my man… Just because the ACLU’s Chicken Little says, “the sky will fall if you don’t do what we say” doesn’t mean that it really will. They use that type of innuendo to control you. Break free of it Man, break free of their tyranny and thought control!

:D :D

Mwhahahaha! You sound so silly. Of course the ACLU goes around trying to stop people from preaching in the streets. They do it all the time as a matter of fact! :p got proof?


13 States, which one advocated Islam? I forget, maybe you could remind me? On the other hand though, they agreed to allow freedom of Islam in ALL thirteen states without infringing on any of them or anyone else, so what was your point?
You don't seem to understand freedom of religion is not the same as being allowed to do whatever the hell you want. What schools are allowed to teach islam in classrooms or put islamic things up all around the room? What christians are? Alot more than muslims

and we don't need the aclu to point out the sky is falling, we arn't blind christians and we are also quite literate
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-0504200009apr20,1,3275569.column?coll=chi-news-col

Arkansas, South Dakota, Mississippi and Georgia have conscience-clause laws that allow pharmacists to refuse to dispense any drugs related to contraception or abortion on moral grounds. Legislatures in about a dozen other states, including Indiana, Texas and Tennessee, are considering similar bills.

LOL :p :D As IF by arguing agianst the ACLU's interpretation of the Frist Amendment I said anything about getting rid of it?!? What garbbage, what rubbish, what refuse! :D :rolleyes:
:confused:
That's a paranoid stretch...
I did not imply that (political) Christianity was attempting to get rid of the First ammendment.

Again I point out, Your position seems to be that non Christians are "Free" to live in a country that operates under a "Christian" socio-moral paradigm.... much like a Christian is "Free" to live in a country that operates under an Islamic socio-moral paradigm. To you, Socio-Religious stratification is immaterial.

You are advocating for a Christian form of the Islamic concept of Dhimmitude for all non-Christians within the US. That is unacceptable and the ACLU (among others) knows it.

Okay, so you’re not a member of the horde… But you are still a member of their herd, they direct you and guide you and tell you where to go. :p
That would be you. And your Bible.

Notice all the ACLU propaganda comes from the extreme left-wing, left of left. Turn left then hit the rocket boosters and wait for awhile to get there…
If defending the 1st amendment is left, then right must be fundamentalists like the Taliban.

They can’t? Why not? Someone get me a copy of the Atheist scripture and ‘how-to’ handbook. I’ll have to ‘read up’ on all these tenants that you say the Atheist have. Atheist weren’t FORCED to worship, they weren’t forced to pray, and they weren’t forced to acknowledge God.

That isn't the argument here. When you put a religious monument on Public property, you are saying "the goverment supports this religion, because it's paying for this monument to that religion." This is goverment religion, and insulting to those who don't support that religion. Even if you put every religion in the world in every public place, you're still elevating religion over non-religion which is unconstitution.

Religious people know that 1. Atheists believe that God does not exist.
Religious people know that 2. Atheists are people.
3. Religions shove the concept of God on people. And atheist try to deny the religious freedom of speech and free exercise clause.

Please. No one is telling you you can't pray. No one is telling you you can't preach. What you cannot do is get goverment money and use that to advance your religion in any way.

4. Therefore, religion shoves the concept of God on atheists. It’s a fact of the world that we share existence with people that disagree with us, doesn’t give the atheists the right to shut everyone but themselves up.

Shut everyone up? That's what you're doing. You're telling me that atheists should sit down and shut tup and let religions run the goverment, run the schools, put up religious monuments in the parks and museums? Atheists are not censoring your religion.

5. Atheists hold their beliefs dearly, just like religious people. I’m sure they do
6. Religious people get offended when their beliefs are insulted. And Religious people don’t?

Try reading. That's what I said.

7. Therefore, atheists get insulted when public, supposedly impartial institions force God on them. Who said they were impartial? They only have to be respectful and not force others to agree with them, but it amendment doesn’t say anything about not being able to acknowledge the beliefs of everyone in the class as well as the atheist.

It says that goverment cannot fund religion. Teachers are paid by the goverment. Therefore, if the teacher acknowledges anyone's religion in class, the goverment is indirectly funding religion and is in violation of the 1st.

It’s a perfect analogy. :D The Amendment doesn’t let people try to put slacks on Joey, it does however give them a right to pass laws about indecent exposure and make him wear something at school.

You say atheists are not another religious movement? If they are not a religious movement then they are a political movement and it’s irrelevant what they say about religion, neither the establishment clause nor the free exercise clause applies to them and only the right to not be forced to join a church would apply to them.

Say what?

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.

Right, and as an atheist Jew, I have been living in a baby-eating orgy for my entire life. Because only Christians care about family, love, and science gone awry. Obviously.

Unless you have no idea what you are talking about.

America is for everybody who's a citizen, buddy. Read The Constitution.

Ihatevacations'] got proof?

Unless the Free Speech is being done against a church or religion (like in front of the LDS in Salt Lake City or something like that) then the ACLU turns all anti-free speech if it's done by religious people against things they like, like the PP or their own political rallies.

The last time I’m aware of the ACLU helping a street preacher was in the 80’s. But The right to express unpopular opinions, advocate despised ideas(NAMBLA) and display graphic images is something the ACLU has steadfastly defended for all of its history. Exception: in the case for pro-lifers.

Why do they still call it a civil liberties union?” commented ACLU member and nemesis Nat Hentoff. When pressed about cases like the West Hartford one, the ACLU typically responds that it can’t get involved with the defense of antiabortion protesters because it is already committed ot the ise of the abortion clinics. When John Leo asked Alan Dershowitz, “Can it be that the affiliates sometimes deliberately involve themselves early on one side so they will have an excuse not to help victims on the other?” the Harvard Law professor replied, “Absolutely. They go to the pro-choice people and say, “Get us in right away, “thereby giving them the excuse of conflict of interest in the event they are contacted by the anti-abortion side. And what does the ACLU say when asked specifically about its duplicity regarding RICO? Lynn Paltrow, who worked for Benshoof, explained the Union’s attitude: “Its ACLU policy to oppose application of RICO, but there are those on staff who feel that as long as RICO exists, this kind of behavior (Operation Rescue tactics) does fit.” “In other words,” as John Leo puts it, “RICO is totally bad, but sort of useful.”
Twilight of Liberty, William A Donohue


Ihatevacations']You don't seem to understand freedom of religion is not the same as being allowed to do whatever the hell you want. What schools are allowed to teach islam in classrooms or put islamic things up all around the room? What christians are? Alot more than muslims

Count the numbers... How many Christians in America... How many everything else? Let's see, perhaps you will be able to find More example of one than the other because there ARE more one of the other, and it has nothing to do with oppression, just shear number of advocates.

So, no proof it is

Count the numbers... How many Christians in America... How many everything else? Let's see, perhaps you will be able to find More example of one than the other because there ARE more one of the other, and it has nothing to do with oppression, just shear number of advocates.
So?

Count the numbers... How many Christians in America... How many everything else? Let's see, perhaps you will be able to find More example of one than the other because there ARE more one of the other, and it has nothing to do with oppression, just shear number of advocates.
Popularity does not make it right for government to sponsor ANY religion

Popularity does not make it right for government to sponsor ANY religion
No, but it does set a precedence for thought. If most people are christian, then the country will go along based on their ideals. To meet the demands of the minority by forsaking the majority is nonsense

No, but it does set a precedence for thought. If most people are christian, then the country will go along based on their ideals. To meet the demands of the minority by forsaking the majority is nonsense
But trampling on the rights of the minority to submit to the wishes of the majority is more detestable
By making free to choose whatever you are in NO way restricting the rights of the majority

I do not understand why people get so upset about monuments in the US that actually show a religious symbol or some religious texts. I also do not understand why people in other countries outside the US try and say that it is a great idea. I remember a great cry of protest when someone tried to say that the celing of the sistene chapel should be repainted because it depicted nude people. Would the same happen if people demanded that it be taken down because it offended someone who was not a Christian?

I think that the ACLU takes it a bit too far. It is not about obliterating anything that happens to show a religious meaning, but instead it should be about respecting religions.

If a Jewish man comes up and wishes me Happy Chaunaka, I do not find myself offended. Just because I do not celebrate the holiday does not mean that I want to keep others from celebrating it. When I wish someone Merrk Chirstmas, I am not trying to force someone to celebrate my holiday, but I am sharing the joy I am feeling. Seeing a family celebrating Kwanza does not violate me in any way. They are hurting no one and I respect them for it. The same should be for a man who erects a cross in memory of his fallen comrades.

These people should just learn to deal with it and respect the rights of others to experience something for themselves. I do not demand that everyone worship how I worship, but I do demand that people respect my right to worship how I choose to. If I want to wear a cross around my neck, fine. If I want to hang Christmas lights, fine. If I want to tell everyone I meet "Merry Chirstmas," fine.

If someone cannot find the ability to just accept others, then the problem is with them. If a cross on a hill that honors those fallen in battle offends someone who was not even there, then they have a problem. If it was a Hebrew symbol or an Islamic symbol I would feel the same. I would respect it because it was not put there to try and force people to worship Christ, but instead it was put there to honor someone who had died.

I do not understand why people get so upset about monuments in the US that actually show a religious symbol or some religious texts. I also do not understand why people in other countries outside the US try and say that it is a great idea. I remember a great cry of protest when someone tried to say that the celing of the sistene chapel should be repainted because it depicted nude people. Would the same happen if people demanded that it be taken down because it offended someone who was not a Christian?

I think that the ACLU takes it a bit too far. It is not about obliterating anything that happens to show a religious meaning, but instead it should be about respecting religions.

If a Jewish man comes up and wishes me Happy Chaunaka, I do not find myself offended.Except that they won't... unless they feel they have to compete with all the Merry Christmasses... Just because I do not celebrate the holiday does not mean that I want to keep others from celebrating it. When I wish someone Merrk Chirstmas, I am not trying to force someone to celebrate my holiday, but I am sharing the joy I am feeling.Happy Holidays perhaps? Seeing a family celebrating Kwanza does not violate me in any way. They are hurting no one and I respect them for it. The same should be for a man who erects a cross in memory of his fallen comrades.

These people should just learn to deal with it and respect the rights of others to experience something for themselves. I do not demand that everyone worship how I worship, but I do demand that people respect my right to worship how I choose to. If I want to wear a cross around my neck, fine. If I want to hang Christmas lights, fine. If I want to tell everyone I meet "Merry Chirstmas," fine.

If someone cannot find the ability to just accept others, then the problem is with them. If a cross on a hill that honors those fallen in battle offends someone who was not even there, then they have a problem. If it was a Hebrew symbol or an Islamic symbol I would feel the same. I would respect it because it was not put there to try and force people to worship Christ, but instead it was put there to honor someone who had died.
IMO Historic monuments should not be changed - they are what they are and they are from an era that reflexively included Bible passages in everything. (Should we change all Roman Numerals on buildings because people thought it was cool to have an MCMXLIV rather than a "1944" on a War Memorial?)Contemporary (government sponsored) monuments should not include religious text/quotes/themes. They are not appropriate to a pluralistic communitiy.

I disagree with attempts to alter the Past, but I agree with the principle of (government) religious neutrality in the Present.

Everything else you mention falls under protection of Personal Property Rights and (horror of horrors) the "non-constitutional" Right to Privacy.

As Cog and Fris pointed out. Cut and past if fine. Just include the link so people can review the whole document.
No, that's not at all what I said.
Link to them, paraphrase them, I don't care. Copy/paste is not debating, it's spam.
If you're going to comment on a mod ruling, at least read it first. Posting long quotes (even with attributed links) without any new content is still spam. Greenlander appears to have learned this. You need to as well.

Popularity does not make it right for government to sponsor ANY religion

Nobody said they should sponser anyone. But neither should they gag and bind...

But trampling on the rights of the minority to submit to the wishes of the majority is more detestable
By making free to choose whatever you are in NO way restricting the rights of the majority

What 'rights' are being trampled? :confused: Everyone is free to choose even if the Lemon test is thrown out tomorrow... (which wouldn't be too soon).

What 'rights' are being trampled? :confused: Everyone is free to choose even if the Lemon test is thrown out tomorrow... (which wouldn't be too soon).
Yes, and non-Muslims are "Free" to be Dhimmis in Muslim States.

What makes your position different from theirs?

Yes, and non-Muslims are "Free" to be Dhimmis in Muslim States.

What makes your position different from theirs?

The first amendment protects both their freedom of religion and mine AND amazingly enough it protects both of our “free exercise” liberties too!

What does this have to do with what foreign nations do?

I know it's hard, but try to stay on topic :D

The first amendment protects both their freedom of religion and mine AND amazingly enough it protects both of our “free exercise” liberties too! What does this have to do with what foreign nations do? I know it's hard, but try to stay on topic :D
It is on topic, because the position you are advocating paralells that of Islamic Dhimmitude.

By insisting that Christianity is the paradigm under which the US must function, you are institutionally marginalizing non-Christians. That is, in Islamic States, called Dhimmi. There is a BIG difference between being "allowed" to worship and being FREE to worship.

And before you go there - institutional neutrality (vs. institutional atheisim) on Religion marginalizes no one as it clearly takes NO POSITION on either establishment or exercise.

The ACLU does not advocate institutional atheisim - that would be establishment - but advocates Neutrality. The government is to take no position on Religion - so it cannot publicly support one over another - in any form.

It is on topic, because the position you are advocating paralells that of Islamic Dhimmitude.

By insisting that Christianity is the paradigm under which the US must function, you are institutionally marginalizing non-Christians. That is, in Islamic States, called Dhimmi. There is a BIG difference between being "allowed" to worship and being FREE to worship.

Actually what I advocate parallels with the first one hundred and fifty years of American history, from the revolution through WW2... I don’t know what American history book you’ve been reading, but I don’t recognize your version of history if you think the United States started like the governments in the Islamic countries did that you keep referring to…

And before you go there - institutional neutrality (vs. institutional atheisim) on Religion marginalizes no one as it clearly takes NO POSITION on either establishment or exercise.

The ACLU does not advocate institutional atheisim - that would be establishment - but advocates Neutrality. The government is to take no position on Religion - so it cannot publicly support one over another - in any form.

The ACLU can call it neutrality all they want, but it's not neutrality, it's forced silence. They, force, others, to NOT do, something. That is not neutral, that's active enforcement of something, and in this case, atheism. (How are those logic exercises coming anyway?).

Real institutional Neutrality, in regards to the first amendment as it is written, is what we had BEFORE the ACLU twisted it all up. The Federal Government did not force, NOR stop, religious expression, period. Let the legislature, politics and communities work like they were designed to. We don’t need the ACLU baby sitter’s in their arrogance running around trying to put their choker chain leash and muzzles on us.

If you'll notice, that's what the ACLU is still doing.

If you object, show me at least 5 examples where they're muzzling rather than removing gov. funds from religious monuments.

If you'll notice, that's what the ACLU is still doing.

If you object, show me at least 5 examples where they're muzzling rather than removing gov. funds from religious monuments.

Although there appear to be numerous incidents of the installation and setup of Muslim prayer rooms in public schools in Chicago, New York, Maryland, and other locations, there is not a single ACLU lawsuit against any of these actions.

At first, after searching various ACLU local and national websites, I called their national headquarters. They have no interest in pursuing a lawsuit against Muslim prayer rooms.

They seem to have plenty of time to sue Christians -- there are too many active ACLU lawsuits on that issue to count.

I guess they're too busy to sue Muslims today.

Honestly, that's one place where I do sort of object. If they get prayer rooms, so should everyone else, and the atheists get a room and some stuff to do.

Yes, I know I've previously stated the opposite, but even I can change my mind.

To the contrary, the ACLU has many high-profile conservative members and supporters.

The ACLU routinely defends the free speech, free exercise of religion, and other rights of Christians, anti-abortion groups, Republicans, and conservatives.

I've already proved this once and Greenlander has simply ignored it. He/she is simply lying. :headbang:

Here is that past post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9087173&postcount=125)

Here is additional evidence:
ACLU Defends California Artist After Los Angeles Orders Removal of “God Bless America” Mural (http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=10248&c=42)
ACLU Defends Church's Right to Run "Anti-Santa" Ads in Boston Subways (http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=10206&c=42)
ACLU of New Jersey Successfully Defends Republican Candidates' Right to Political Speech (http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=17457&c=42)
ACLU Sues to Protect Free Speech Rights of Anti-Abortion Church Group in Indiana (http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=16125&c=86)
In Win for Rev. Falwell (and the ACLU), Judge Rules VA Must Allow Churches to Incorporate (http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=10147&c=142)
ACLU Hails Plans to Sign Religious Freedom Bill into Law (http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=8122&c=142)
ACLU of Ohio Will Defend GOP Chairman in Political Yard Sign Case (http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=16843&c=42)
Connecticut Veteran Sues For Right to Commemorate Fallen War Hero on his Property (http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=7356&c=42)
Nevada Officials Drop Plan to License and Fingerprint Clergy (http://www.aclu.org/Privacy/Privacy.cfm?ID=7777&c=130)
ACLU of Nebraska Defends Presbyterian Church Facing Eviction by the City of Lincoln (http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=16295&c=142)
ACLU and 18 Texas Families Sue to Stop 'Prove Your Religion' School Uniform Policy (http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=7876&c=139)
ACLU Applauds Supreme Court Ruling Protecting Religious Liberty in Prisons (http://www.aclu.org/court/court.cfm?ID=18363&c=286)
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)
ACLU of Georgia Sues City Over Arrest of Political Activist During Fourth of July Celebrations (http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=15870&c=86)
ACLU of Nevada Asks Court to End Ban of Book Critical of the IRS (http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=12525&c=83)
ACLU of New Jersey Successfully Defends Right of Religious Expression by Jurors (http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=17237&c=29)
ACLU of Pennsylvania Supports Congregation's Fight for Religious Freedom (http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=9298&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)
ACLU Says Texas Police Violated Art Gallery Owner’s Freedom of Expression - Police Forced Artist to Cover Classical Image of Nude ‘Eve’ (http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=17297&c=83)
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)
Last-Minute ACLU Appeal Allows Exiled Cubane Activist To Take His Anti-Castro Message to the Skies (http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=7143&c=86)
Pennsylvania Superior Court Rules: Amish Can Stick With Reflective Tape on Buggies (http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=14162&c=29)

ENOUGH ALREADY! :headbang:

STOP THE LIES! STOP THE DEFAMATION! :mad:

Actually what I advocate parallels with the first one hundred and fifty years of American history, from the revolution through WW2... Ah, like how well Catholics were "tolerated" in some areas of the country (OMG, a CATHOLIC President?!?! - say NO to JFK!) or Mormons (force 'em all to Utah!) Forced conversions of the Amerinds... Oh yeah. No persecution by Christian Fundies in the US... in the past 150 years... They were all so respectful of the Freedom of Religion... :rolleyes:

I don’t know what American history book you’ve been reading, but I don’t recognize your version of history if you think the United States started like the governments in the Islamic countries did that you keep referring to…
I did not say that, I said that what you are advocating smacks of dhimmitude. No matter how much you want to deny it, the US is a far more pluralistic society now than it was even 50 years ago (much less 150).

Here's a clue for you. Over 250 years ago a Jewish congregation settled in Rhode Island because, unlike the Puritan Colonies, it was set up as a Religiously Neutral haven. There is a Synagogue there that predates the US. The Fine Christians of the other colonies had all kinds of fun repressing and killing folks who didn''t believe their brand of Christianity. Maybe that's why, as well as not mentioning Religion except in the Broadest sense, the Constitution expressedly excludes any mention of Christanity.

The ACLU can call it neutrality all they want, but it's not neutrality, it's forced silence. They, force, others, to NOT do, something. That is not neutral, that's active enforcement of something, and in this case, atheism.In what way is prohibiting state agencies/employees from displaying religious materials "forced silence"? How does that promote atheisim? The absence of Pepsi advertisements in my office does not mean I am advocating Disbelief in Pepsi. If people want to advertise their Religion, they can do it on their own time - not while on my payroll.

(How are those logic exercises coming anyway?). Better than your attempts to Flame.

Real institutional Neutrality, in regards to the first amendment as it is written, is what we had BEFORE the ACLU twisted it all up. The Federal Government did not force, NOR stop, religious expression, period.Ah, but it DID make religious expressions a part of Government activities/monuments.. i.e. they FORCED non-Christians to pay (via taxation) for Christian Advertisments. That was considered acceptable once, it is no longer. Let the legislature, politics and communities work like they were designed to. We don’t need the ACLU baby sitter’s in their arrogance running around trying to put their choker chain leash and muzzles on us.Hyperbole. Try arguing with facts.

To the contrary, the ACLU has many high-profile conservative members and supporters.

The ACLU routinely defends the free speech, free exercise of religion, and other rights of Christians, anti-abortion groups, Republicans, and conservatives.

I've already proved this once and Greenlander has simply ignored it. He/she is simply lying. :headbang:

Here is that past post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9087173&postcount=125)

Here is additional evidence:
ACLU Defends California Artist After Los Angeles Orders Removal of “God Bless America” Mural (http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=10248&c=42)
ACLU Defends Church's Right to Run "Anti-Santa" Ads in Boston Subways (http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=10206&c=42)
ACLU of New Jersey Successfully Defends Republican Candidates' Right to Political Speech (http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=17457&c=42)
ACLU Sues to Protect Free Speech Rights of Anti-Abortion Church Group in Indiana (http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=16125&c=86)
In Win for Rev. Falwell (and the ACLU), Judge Rules VA Must Allow Churches to Incorporate (http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=10147&c=142)
ACLU Hails Plans to Sign Religious Freedom Bill into Law (http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=8122&c=142)
ACLU of Ohio Will Defend GOP Chairman in Political Yard Sign Case (http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=16843&c=42)
Connecticut Veteran Sues For Right to Commemorate Fallen War Hero on his Property (http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=7356&c=42)
Nevada Officials Drop Plan to License and Fingerprint Clergy (http://www.aclu.org/Privacy/Privacy.cfm?ID=7777&c=130)
ACLU of Nebraska Defends Presbyterian Church Facing Eviction by the City of Lincoln (http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=16295&c=142)
ACLU and 18 Texas Families Sue to Stop 'Prove Your Religion' School Uniform Policy (http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=7876&c=139)
ACLU Applauds Supreme Court Ruling Protecting Religious Liberty in Prisons (http://www.aclu.org/court/court.cfm?ID=18363&c=286)
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)
ACLU of Georgia Sues City Over Arrest of Political Activist During Fourth of July Celebrations (http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=15870&c=86)
ACLU of Nevada Asks Court to End Ban of Book Critical of the IRS (http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=12525&c=83)
ACLU of New Jersey Successfully Defends Right of Religious Expression by Jurors (http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=17237&c=29)
ACLU of Pennsylvania Supports Congregation's Fight for Religious Freedom (http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=9298&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)
ACLU Says Texas Police Violated Art Gallery Owner’s Freedom of Expression - Police Forced Artist to Cover Classical Image of Nude ‘Eve’ (http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=17297&c=83)
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)
Last-Minute ACLU Appeal Allows Exiled Cubane Activist To Take His Anti-Castro Message to the Skies (http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=7143&c=86)
Pennsylvania Superior Court Rules: Amish Can Stick With Reflective Tape on Buggies (http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=14162&c=29)

ENOUGH ALREADY! :headbang:

STOP THE LIES! STOP THE DEFAMATION! :mad:

Show me one ACLU sponsored lawsuit that acts against Muslim prayer rooms in public schools.

Just one will do. According to the person I spoke to on the phone at their national headquarters, there isn't one. They don't plan to assail Muslims praying in groups in special rooms set aside for that purpose during school hours.

From the Chicago Sun-Times, Nov 2001.

Muslim students hail prayer policy

November 29, 2001

BY ROSALIND ROSSI EDUCATION REPORTER

Chicago Public Schools were given an official green light Wednesday to set aside a vacant room for students to pray during school hours, a policy welcomed by Muslim students whose daily prayers overlap with school hours.

The "Policy on Accommodations for Student Religious Practices'' approved unanimously by Chicago School Board members is similar to one practiced in Los Angeles, but it goes further than one observed in New York City, where schools are barred from designating a room for student prayer.

Some Chicago schools, such as Von Steuben High, already set aside space for Muslim students to observe one of their five daily prayers, but other schools have been calling recently with questions about what is allowable, Chicago Board of Education attorneys said.

Although there appear to be numerous incidents of the installation and setup of Muslim prayer rooms in public schools in Chicago, New York, Maryland, and other locations, there is not a single ACLU lawsuit against any of these actions.

At first, after searching various ACLU local and national websites, I called their national headquarters. They have no interest in pursuing a lawsuit against Muslim prayer rooms.

They seem to have plenty of time to sue Christians -- there are too many active ACLU lawsuits on that issue to count.

I guess they're too busy to sue Muslims today.
And that is why I don't care for the ACLU. They are often selective and politicized in their case load.

IMO no school should be specifically setting aside anything for any religious group.

But Greenlander's ranting is without merit.

And that is why I don't care for the ACLU. They are often selective and politicized in their case load.

IMO no school should be specifically setting aside anything for any religious group.

But Greenlander's ranting is without merit.

This may be the ACLU's source of bias towards favoring Islam.

Abdurahman Alamoudi, President of the American Muslim Council, supporter of Hamas, Hezbollah and accused of ties with Osama bin Laden, helped develop "Religious Expression in Public School" with the ACLU which holds the copyright. Launched by Clinton in 1995, these "Presidential Guidelines" greatly impact public schools today. Nadine Strossen, President of the ACLU, refers to these guidelines as the authority to support the ACLU’s lawsuits restricting Christmas celebrations and removing Nativity scenes from public schools.

Show me one ACLU sponsored lawsuit that acts against Muslim prayer rooms in public schools.

Just one will do. According to the person I spoke to on the phone at their national headquarters, there isn't one. They don't plan to assail Muslims praying in groups in special rooms set aside for that purpose during school hours.

The difference is that they aren't expecting the class to have teacher led prayer time.

Now you would have an argument if Christians asked for a vacant room and were denied.

The difference is that they aren't expecting the class to have teacher led prayer time.

Now you would have an argument if Christians asked for a vacant room and were denied.

They are.

There is no organized prayer (even when student-led) allowed on school grounds during school hours. Period.

With the exception of Muslims. Chicago, New York, and Maryland are doing this (more may as well).

They are.

There is no organized prayer (even when student-led) allowed on school grounds during school hours. Period.

With the exception of Muslims. Chicago, New York, and Maryland are doing this (more may as well).

Well this is a show-me response.

Got proof as to a request for an empty classroom being denied.

I know of many cases of denied teacher led prayer time being denied. Haven't heard of empty rooms being denied.....

Greenlander, you've continued to post lies, destortions, and hysterical hype -- even repeating bullshit that has been expressly disproven.

I'll comment on some of your individual statements below

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.

The ACLU never sought to prevent the free exercise of religion by Christians. What the ACLU has sought to prevent were violations of the Establishment Clause. The government cannot endorse, support, or favor Christianity or any other religion.

It is really quite a simple principle -- one that goes back through Supreme Court caselaw to the start of the Republic and is the whole point of the Establishment Clause.


Actually, Jefferson wasn’t even there and the Committee did NOT adopt Madison’s version of the first amendment but wrote their own… You should really go read some impartial history about it, it’s quite fascinating.

LOL. Take your own advice, sparky.

Actually, the FIRST case that took the Jefferson letter as doctrine was about fifty plus years ago. Before that the "Free Exercise Clause" held as much weight as the Establishment Clause." This interpretation was expressed by an ACLU case…

I already proved this false.

In 1878 -- fourty-two years before there even was an ACLU -- a unanimous Supreme Court in Reynolds v. United States (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/98/145.html ), 98 US 145 (1878), characterized the Jefferson's phrase ''a wall of separation between Church and State'' as ''almost an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [First] amendment.''

You seem to think the separation of Church and State goes against the Free Exercise Clause. That only shows how little you understand the First Amendment.

There is legislation pending called PERA, designed to remove the loophole that pays the ACLU for filing frivolous first amendment cases…

You've got it backwards.

There are long-standing statutes that allow prevailing plaintiffs to get attorneys' fees in any kind of civil rights cases. The law you advocate tries to create a loophole that would bar such fees in any cases enforcing the Establishment Clause.

Statutes providing for awards of attorneys’ fees have proliferated in legislation dealing with individual rights. Fees are available to the prevailing party, for example, under Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Act), which deals with claims of discrimination and segregation in public accommodations. Title III covers claims of discrimination in state-owned facilities. It reaffirms that prevailing parties in suits under that Title can win attorneys’ fees against the U.S. government. Title VII, which involves discrimination in employment, likewise allows fees to the prevailing party, including fees of expert witnesses. The Fair Housing Act also gives courts discretion to award attorneys’ fees to prevailing parties. Similarly, statutes dealing with discrimination against the disabled allow awards of attorneys’ fees. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) affords discretion to award such fees to the prevailing party both in litigation and in administrative proceedings.

In 1976 Congress enacted the Civil Rights Attorney’s Fees Awards Act of 1976. That Act was in direct response to Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. Wilderness Society, 421 U.S. 240 (1975), which held that only Congress, not the courts, could authorize an exception to the rule allowing recovery of attorneys’ fees only when authorized by statute, rather than at the instance of the court. After the enactment of the 1976 Act, attorneys’ fee awards were “available to virtually all ‘prevailing’ plaintiffs in civil rights cases.” Leading Cases, 115 HARV. L. REV. 457 (2001). The Act applies to suits brought for deprivation of constitutional rights under sections 1981, 1983, and similar provisions. It also covers suits under Title IX, 20 U.S.C. section 1681 et seq., the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. However, it has been limited in prisoner litigation by the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Most broadly, the Equal Access to Justice Act allows attorneys’ fees in any civil action brought by or against the U.S. government, any agency of the government, or any federal official acting in his or her official capacity.

http://www.abanet.org/irr/hr/summer04/sourcebook.html

Your new law would be the loophole -- a nasty one designed to undermine the First Amendment.

We did NOT have the establishment clause as you mean it, no Lemon test etc., during or before WW2. It came about in the fifties and got strong in the sixties and brainwashed the public by the eighties into thinking that it had always been like that…

Not true. There are First Amendment cases dating back to at least 1815.

Of course, as noted below, the First Amendment did not apply to the states until after the Fourteenth Amendment was passed.

The French Revolution was anarchy compared to the self-governed States with Established state empowered Christian churches, agreeing to form a new Union called the United States with a weak Federal Government and no new national church or else the States wouldn’t have agreed to join… They already had their churches.

Um, no. The vast majority of states did not have established churches at the time of the Constitution. In fact, most had state constitutional provisions that mirrored the First Amendment.

Moreover, as one of your cut-and-pastes explained, none of the Bill of Rights applied to the states until the passage of the 14th Amendment.

The 14th Amendment amended the Constitution and changed the scheme of things. Your view that the states can have established churches went out the window in 1868.

Just start reading here then. It’s about neutral, certainly not in favor of the conservative view anyway. ... There ( http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/01.html#1 )

You should read that neutral site yourself. It thoroughly trashes your revisionism.

QUOTE=Greenlander]The SCOTUS made its famous (notorious would be a better word for it) Jefferson reference about the first amendment and opened the doorway for what would turn into the all out ACLU’s attack on the Free Exercise Clause in 1947… It’s not even worth discussing that aspect of it, both side agree with this. no attack on things like acknowledge of religion in public schools (for example) before this. [/QUOTE]

Lie. Already proven false. The 1947 case itself cites the 1878 case to which I have pointed.

Not that it makes a great deal of difference. The Supreme Court has been consistent on this point for about 70 years. We should listen to your ranting against it because ....

I love this contradiction:

-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.

A building and growing sentiment, referencing published scholarly research and original intent sources, Court dissenters are returning to the argument that what the religion clauses, principally the Establishment Clause, prevent is ''preferential'' governmental promotion of some religions, and was never intended to end all governmental promotion of all religion in general.

Why don't you get back to us when you get through arguing with yourself about what the First Amendment means.

Notice all the ACLU propaganda comes from the extreme left-wing, left of left. Turn left then hit the rocket boosters and wait for awhile to get there.

Lie.

This was already proven false. You've simply repeated a refuted accusation.

I'll repeat some of the evidence that this is false.

Mwhahahaha! You sound so silly. Of course the ACLU goes around trying to stop people from preaching in the streets. They do it all the time as a matter of fact! :p

Lie. A blatant lie.

You've already been asked for proof and refused to give a single example.

I have shown already that the opposite is true: the ACLU routinely defends the free speech and free exercise rights of Christians.

Unless the Free Speech is being done against a church or religion (like in front of the LDS in Salt Lake City or something like that) then the ACLU turns all anti-free speech if it's done by religious people against things they like, like the PP or their own political rallies.

The last time I’m aware of the ACLU helping a street preacher was in the 80’s. But The right to express unpopular opinions, advocate despised ideas(NAMBLA) and display graphic images is something the ACLU has steadfastly defended for all of its history. Exception: in the case for pro-lifers.

Again, lies. Already proven false.

They are.

There is no organized prayer (even when student-led) allowed on school grounds during school hours. Period.

With the exception of Muslims. Chicago, New York, and Maryland are doing this (more may as well).
[devil's advocate] Maybe because other religions (Christianity included) don't require their children to point in the right direction then bow & scrape 5 times a day?[/devil's advocate]

Public Schools don't have Kosher Kitchens, so they shouldn't have private prayer rooms. If you need private prayer rooms to pray, go to a private school.

Show me one ACLU sponsored lawsuit that acts against Muslim prayer rooms in public schools.

Just one will do. According to the person I spoke to on the phone at their national headquarters, there isn't one. They don't plan to assail Muslims praying in groups in special rooms set aside for that purpose during school hours.

The failure to attack the accomodation of Muslim students equals an anti-Christian bias?

Bullshit.

Moreover, the last time we looked into this particular argument of yours, the policies were revealed to accomodate all religions.

You named the local school were you said Christians were being discriminated against and evidence was posted to prove otherwise.

I guess we'll have to re-go through that exercise.

EDIT: Damn, I have an appointment. I'll be back on this. But (a) it does not refute my premise and (b) your representation is not accurate.

Well this is a show-me response.

Got proof as to a request for an empty classroom being denied.

I know of many cases of denied teacher led prayer time being denied. Haven't heard of empty rooms being denied.....

During school hours, yes. Montgomery County, Maryland is such a place. If you're not Muslim, regardless of the following policy statement:

You have the right to observe your own religious beliefs and practices in school as long as you do not violate the rights of others or interfere with school activities.

School-sponsored religious exercises may not be conducted. Your school will not advocate any religious beliefs. No school-sponsored activity or class will be religious in nature. You may observe your religious practices in school, including non-school-sponsored student prayer groups, unless they violate the rights of others. Holiday concerts may include religious music within MCPS guidelines. Courses may include information about different religions, religious practices and beliefs, and religious leaders, if no religious viewpoints are advocated.

no Christians can request a prayer room during school hours, but there are Muslim prayer rooms in every school. Nor may any student-led Christian prayer occur at any time during the school day in any group at any location. It must be confined to before or after school hours.

So I moved to Virginia:

Under the 1984 federal Equal Access Act, a secondary school that allows one or more noncurriculum related student groups to meet on school premises during noninstructional time may not deny equal access to or discriminate against students on the basis of religious, political, philosophical or other content of the speech at such meetings. Student prayer groups meeting on school property under this definition do not have to be authorized by the School Board as do school-sponsored clubs and organizations. Although the Equal Access Act applies only to our middle and high schools, other federal law extends these principles to our elementary schools.

During the noninstructional portion of the school day, students wanting to pray aloud or in the company of others may do so without advance permission in areas open to students, such as the cafeteria during lunch hours, and school grounds during class breaks and before and after school. If the students request classroom or other building space during the noninstructional portion of the school day, the request should be granted in the same way as such requests are granted for other student gatherings not related to the curriculum. The request should be directed to the principal.
Student groups meeting for prayer must comply with the following conditions, regardless of whether they are informal gatherings or student clubs:

meetings are voluntary and student initiated
the group is not sponsored by the school, the government (or its agents), or employees
employees or agents of the school are present at meetings of the student prayer groups only in a nonparticipatory capacity for supervision purposes only
the meeting does not materially or substantially interfere with the orderly conduct of educational activities within the school, and
nonschool persons do not direct, conduct, control, or regularly attend activities of the student groups.
During instructional time, students are expected to be in class and will not be granted permission to leave the classroom for prayer activities on school grounds, except to the extent that (1) students may be absent from class for other noncurricular activities, or (2) not excusing the student would result in a substantial burden on the student’s religious exercise. Principals should consult with the Office of Equity and Compliance (OEC) before releasing students for these reasons.

Basically, in Virginia, the Muslims aren't praying during school hours any more than anyone else.

From the Chicago Sun-Times, Nov 2001.

Muslim students hail prayer policy

November 29, 2001

BY ROSALIND ROSSI EDUCATION REPORTER

Chicago Public Schools were given an official green light Wednesday to set aside a vacant room for students to pray during school hours, a policy welcomed by Muslim students whose daily prayers overlap with school hours.

The "Policy on Accommodations for Student Religious Practices'' approved unanimously by Chicago School Board members is similar to one practiced in Los Angeles, but it goes further than one observed in New York City, where schools are barred from designating a room for student prayer.

Some Chicago schools, such as Von Steuben High, already set aside space for Muslim students to observe one of their five daily prayers, but other schools have been calling recently with questions about what is allowable, Chicago Board of Education attorneys said.

LOL

Here is a copy (http://policy.cps.k12.il.us/documents/701.3.pdf) of that "discriminatory" policy -- it is anything but.

(Now I really have got to go.)

Ahhh the truth comes out. So you don't have proof of denied requests. You just don't like them doing that.

Sorry but the Muslims I know are very easy going. You can give them a closet for their prayers and they would be happy.

Nothing wrong with an empty classroom being used......

My daughter and her friends are living examples of a denied request.

My daughter and her friends are living examples of a denied request.

Well then post her schools policy and let's have a looksy.

As cat's example showed as long as they don't disrupt and place a burden on the school, you have have your time.

An empty classroom doesn't not place a burden on the school.

<snip> Basically, in Virginia, the Muslims aren't praying during school hours any more than anyone else.
Which is as it should be. The Virginia policy makes sense to me...

Well then post her schools policy and let's have a looksy.

As cat's example showed as long as they don't disrupt and place a burden on the school, you have have your time.

An empty classroom doesn't not place a burden on the school.

Read back. Read the Montgomery County School policy.

They don't follow their own policy. They seem to have written their policy to be more vague. It is a fact that they have Muslim prayer rooms, but no Christian prayer rooms (or Buddhist prayer rooms, etc). And it's a fact that Christians can't pray together during school hours - not even in the hallway.

But every school has a Muslim prayer room.

There are similar problems in Chicago and New York.

If what you're saying is true, I firmly object to that and I really think the ACLU should deal with it.

Well then post her schools policy and let's have a looksy.

As cat's example showed as long as they don't disrupt and place a burden on the school, you have have your time.

An empty classroom doesn't not place a burden on the school.
No, but arbitrairly allowing student X to leave classes to "pray" (in that empty classroom... btw, most schools are overcrowded... where did they get a empty one?) when all of the rest of the students have to continue to listen to the lecture is simple favoritisim - in this case, it shows favoritisim to Islam because it has a set of rules with which the other students need not comply.

Use of school facilities during non-curriculum hours should be by religion-neutral policy. But the School Day belongs to the Teachers - not the whims of the Students.

If you need to break for prayer during the school day, do it where the entire school is doing it - in a private Religious school.

Which is as it should be. The Virginia policy makes sense to me...

Yes it does.

It's also one thing to write a policy - it's another to write one so short and vague that you can deny one group access and go out of your way to grant access to another.

Montgomery County has such a short and vague official policy - and then to see how they skew it in favor of one religious group.

Fairfax has an extremely detailed policy by comparison. And they don't favor one group over another.

I've even heard a principal speak to a PTA and say, "we have to cater to the Muslims so that they don't grow up to commit acts of terror" and saw many parents nod their heads in approval.

I wanted to vomit.

If what you're saying is true, I firmly object to that and I really think the ACLU should deal with it.

I've spoken to them, and they won't. Apparently, the ACLU wrote a piece on religion in schools (a policy they intend to follow), and it was largely written by a Muslim. So no suing the Muslims.

Originally Posted by Montgomery County Public Schools
You have the right to observe your own religious beliefs and practices in school as long as you do not violate the rights of others or interfere with school activities.

Ok makes sense. A kid leaving the class hardly interupts. What's the difference between that and going to the bathroom?

The Muslims are saying others can't worship.


School-sponsored religious exercises may not be conducted.

You may have a technicallity point on sponsored as they allow the classroom being bused. However, I doubt the school is allocating funds to "get the message out" for Muslims.

Your school will not advocate any religious beliefs.

Use of a room is not advocation of Islam.

No school-sponsored activity or class will be religious in nature.

Technically they aren't sponsoring as there is not a teacher. They don't expect other students to do it so it's not a class.

You may observe your religious practices in school, including non-school-sponsored student prayer groups,

That's what they are doing.

unless they violate the rights of others. Holiday concerts may include religious music within MCPS guidelines. Courses may include information about different religions, religious practices and beliefs, and religious leaders, if no religious viewpoints are advocated.


Ok I would have to ask what the Christians were doing to get denied. The Muslims simply take about 5 or so minutes and they are done.

Where the Christians expecting to hold prayer revivals or something?

More details please.....

No, but arbitrairly allowing student X to leave classes to "pray" (in that empty classroom...

Again. A muslim prayer is about 5 minutes at most. What's the difference between that and going to the bathroom?


btw, most schools are overcrowded... where did they get a empty one?)

Oh come on now. You know it's more then just that. There are budget issues the only allow for so many teachers. Our schools are overcrowed and yet not every room is in use.


when all of the rest of the students have to continue to listen to the lecture is simple favoritisim - in this case, it shows favoritisim to Islam because it has a set of rules with which the other students need not comply.

Ahh so it is favoritism to allow a bathroom break? Time involved does not disrupt.

Do the christians have a mandate of praying so many times a day?

If you deny the Muslims they aren't going to stop. They will simply request a bathroom run and go do it.

They are being upfront and their practice is short in time use.

How long is a Christian prayer?
facilities during non-curriculum hours should be by religion-


If you need to break for prayer during the school day, do it where the entire school is doing it - in a private Religious school.

Well I don't see the favortism you claim so not much more can be said.....

Where the Christians expecting to hold prayer revivals or something?

Nope. Since it's cold in the winter, my daughter and her friends wanted to pray inside the building for a few minutes at the start of the day, instead of their usual prayer before school hours at the flagpole.

They wouldn't even allow it before school hours (when the building is open, but not open for school).

They don't have any religious clubs, either. Those were shut down by the ACLU a little while back.

Do the christians have a mandate of praying so many times a day?

Depends on the Christian. Pentacostals, yes. Probably more prayer in a day than any Muslim on Earth.

So, are you saying that the government should decide which religions are "inconvenient" to the school day, and which are not? Or should we hold them all to the same standard?

Nope. Since it's cold in the winter, my daughter and her friends wanted to pray inside the building for a few minutes at the start of the day, instead of their usual prayer before school hours at the flagpole.

They wouldn't even allow it before school hours (when the building is open, but not open for school).

They don't have any religious clubs, either. Those were shut down by the ACLU a little while back.

Well then I don't know what to say if what you say is true.

We don't have that problem over here.

I had a reply that exploaded and my browser dumped so I will answer here.

I get the impression your principal and those parents are rather ignorant over Muslims. I find them very accomadating.

You mentioned the ACLU closed the clubs? I know of several schools that have them. As long as they don't go about trying to "recruit" people there is no problem.

I think your Prinicple is rather gun shy too. If they allowed for the Muslims, then the door is allowed for non disrubptive Christian prayer. Especially in the case of your daughter(before school).

Don't know.

Again. A muslim prayer is about 5 minutes at most. What's the difference between that and going to the bathroom?Um, one is a biological necessity that is usually supposed to be handled between classes (the child who has to leave the same class EVERY DAY to go to the bathroom has a problem...), the other is an arbitrary "requirement" of a Religion that the other students do not participate in.

Oh come on now. You know it's more then just that. There are budget issues the only allow for so many teachers. Our schools are overcrowed and yet not every room is in use.So? Those same "bugetary constraints" are what are usually used to deny Orthodox Jews a Kosher Lunch. Why should the School accomodate ANY religion during Class Hours?

Ahh so it is favoritism to allow a bathroom break? Time involved does not disrupt.Yes, it does. When it is always the same student(s), at the same time, in the same classes, every day (something that cannot be said of bathroom breaks), it does.

Do the christians have a mandate of praying so many times a day? No. Why should we make special allowances for ANY religion?

If you deny the Muslims they aren't going to stop. They will simply request a bathroom run and go do it. They are being upfront and their practice is short in time use.The fact is, it is a disruption of the class schedule. Any other student would be chastized for abusing bathroom breaks. Pee/Pray between classes.

How long is a Christian prayer?Why does it matter?
Well I don't see the favortism you claim so not much more can be said.....
When Religious Practices become Bilolgical Imperatives you may have a point. But thus far you are simply dissembling.

Don't know.

I found it better to move to Virginia, where the government seems more evenhanded in its application of its own specific policies.

If you're waiting for the ACLU to come somewhere and sue Muslims praying in public schools on instructional time in a special room set aside for the purpose, and who are allowed to hand out flyers welcoming any non-Muslims to join in Muslim prayer, in a school where anyone else praying in a group of two or more people during school hours (even silently) risk being suspended from school - you'll be waiting forever.

When Religious Practices become Bilolgical Imperatives you may have a point. But thus far you are simply dissembling
.

Meh. Well I will not further the discussion as I have real work to do right now.

Meh. Well I will not further the discussion as I have real work to do right now.

But I will have a question if I may be so bold. What Religion if any do you follow?
I am a Classical Deist, much like Thos. Paine & Thos. Jefferson.

You could call me a Unitarian, but I don't care for Pot Lucks, Committees or Folk Songs. :p

I am a Classical Deist, much like Thos. Paine & Thos. Jefferson.

You could call me a Unitarian, but I don't care for Pot Lucks, Committees or Folk Songs. :p

Besides, you like guns, so you can't be a Unitarian.

Besides, you like guns, so you can't be a Unitarian.
All too true. :(

Beware Brother Gatling Gun of Moderation... he may leave a burning Question Mark on your lawn! bwahahahahaha (kum-by-yah)! :D

All too true. :(

Beware Brother Gatling Gun of Moderation... he may leave a burning Question Mark on your lawn! bwahahahahaha (kum-by-yah)! :D

Besides, no Unitarian I've met is a classial Unitarian. Nor are they Deists. Today, it seems like a gathering place for the politically correct, who come once a week to express their dismay at being outcasts in American society. The one hard and fast rule in the Unitarian church seems to be "don't tell anyone that you believe in anything, or you may offend all of us".

That, and the unendurable playing of folk songs.

Reason enough to leave my second wife.

Besides, no Unitarian I've met is a classial Unitarian. Nor are they Deists. Today, it seems like a gathering place for the politically correct, who come once a week to express their dismay at being outcasts in American society. The one hard and fast rule in the Unitarian church seems to be "don't tell anyone that you believe in anything, or you may offend all of us". That, and the unendurable playing of folk songs.
Reason enough to leave my second wife.
Yah. The classical Unitarians of Earl Morse Wilbur's (http://online.sksm.edu/ouh/) day (and later Notables like Sen. Frank Church) have been forced to "become" Deists or Socians. It's really too bad.

(Note that the UU basically disclaims Morse's work now...)

I've spoken to them, and they won't. Apparently, the ACLU wrote a piece on religion in schools (a policy they intend to follow), and it was largely written by a Muslim. So no suing the Muslims.

Have you considered not suing the Muslims, but suing the school for not providing equal rights to your daughters? I'm from Washington County and find it hard to believe this can happen. I suggest talking to your representative in Congress as well as any Senators and contacting the ACLU again about this (but not suggest they sue the Muslims part out, but suggest they go after the school district for not supplying equally).

Besides, no Unitarian I've met is a classial Unitarian. Nor are they Deists. Today, it seems like a gathering place for the politically correct, who come once a week to express their dismay at being outcasts in American society. The one hard and fast rule in the Unitarian church seems to be "don't tell anyone that you believe in anything, or you may offend all of us".

That, and the unendurable playing of folk songs.

Reason enough to leave my second wife.

*ahem*

I was raised Unitarian, Legs.

*ahem* I was raised Unitarian, Legs.
Nah, you weren't "raised"... that might offend Vertically Challanged people. :p :D

Oh, Dobbs, in case you missed it..... Unitarian Jihaad! (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/04/08/DDG27BCFLG1.DTL&type=printable)

Count the numbers... How many Christians in America... How many everything else? Let's see, perhaps you will be able to find More example of one than the other because there ARE more one of the other, and it has nothing to do with oppression, just shear number of advocates.

It's funny you should say that. So much of the Constitution, that the ACLU is trying to protect, is specifically geared toward arranging a defense for the minority. So unless you'd like to do away with those portions of the Constitution and turn America into a dictatorship/theocracy, you are puunching holes in your own arguement.

Read back. Read the Montgomery County School policy.

They don't follow their own policy. They seem to have written their policy to be more vague. It is a fact that they have Muslim prayer rooms, but no Christian prayer rooms (or Buddhist prayer rooms, etc). And it's a fact that Christians can't pray together during school hours - not even in the hallway.

But every school has a Muslim prayer room.

There are similar problems in Chicago and New York.

The "article" you quote earlier said nothing about any problems. I cited the policy in Chicago. And your "article" specifically said that prayer rooms were not allowed in New York.

So, the information you have provided on that score so far is contradictory.

As to Montgomery County, their policy is rather clear. You claim they violate the policy, but you give us no evidence.

If Christians are not allowed to pray voluntarily, that would violate both the policy, the First Amendment, and existing caselaw. That would be something to complain about.

The alleged existence of the Muslim prayer rooms isn't in and of itself any violation of religious freedom -- so the ACLU was right in not being outraged.

<snip>The alleged existence of the Muslim prayer rooms isn't in and of itself any violation of religious freedom -- so the ACLU was right in not being outraged.
From a conceptual/legal POV, what about the situation as argued/outlined in my posts vs. Black Forrest?

No, but arbitrairly allowing student X to leave classes to "pray" (in that empty classroom... btw, most schools are overcrowded... where did they get a empty one?) when all of the rest of the students have to continue to listen to the lecture is simple favoritisim - in this case, it shows favoritisim to Islam because it has a set of rules with which the other students need not comply.

Use of school facilities during non-curriculum hours should be by religion-neutral policy. But the School Day belongs to the Teachers - not the whims of the Students.

If you need to break for prayer during the school day, do it where the entire school is doing it - in a private Religious school.

Your argument assumes facts of favoritism that have not been shown. There is nothing in the policy that gives preference to Muslims.

The Chicago policy (which is said to be the similar to the Los Angeles policy) says:


STUDENT RELIGIOUS PRACTICES
It is the policy of the Chicago Public Schools ("CPS") to accommodate student religious practices provided that such practices can be accommodated in a manner which does not violate the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution, and to the extent that the accommodation does not place an undue burden on the school.

1. Schools shall attempt to make reasonable accommodations for students who have particular religious needs if requested in writing by a parent/legal guardian. Schools are not required to accommodate a religious request if granting such a request would place an undue burden on the school. For example, a high school should grant limited space, if available, and limited time, for prayer, if prayer time and space is requested by a parent in writing. However, the principal need not empty a classroom that is otherwise
being occupied in order to accommodate the student. If there is no space available in the building, the principal may deny the request. Prior to denying such request, the principal must obtain approval from the Law Department.

2. Use of staff time to accommodate students' religious needs is both a burden to the school and support for a particular religious practice which is in violation of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, no staff time shall be required to monitor or supervise a student's religious activities. Requests for accommodations which would require staff supervision should be denied.

3. In order to be granted a religious accommodation, a student's parent or legal guardian must submit a written request to the principal. The written request must state: (a) the specific accommodation requested; (b) why the accommodation is needed and (c) the time and duration of the accommodation.

4. To the extent possible, students should fulfill their religious obligations during lunch or a free period. If a student must fulfill a religious obligation during class time, the principal should grant an excused absence for a limited, defined time. Students who are excused from class for religious needs must have an opportunity to make up any work, assignment or test missed as a result of the absence.

It is rather ironic this policy has become a cause for complaint in this thread. It is an attempt to facilitate/accomodate students' free exercise of religion without violating the Establishment Clause.

The policy is expressly neutral between religions. It proscribes the use of school resources or any burden being put on the school by any accomodation of a student's religion. All such accomodations require a specific written request.

It only excuses absences from class for religious obligations when such obligations cannot be fulfilled during lunch or a free period. Then students are only excused for a limited, defined time and must make up work missed.

A school district need not take such steps to accomodate religion, but an attempt to do so should be applauded by those who claim that religion is being oppressed.

This is a fair, innocuous policy that attempts to allow for free exercise of religion.

Other than the vitirol against Muslims injected into the issue by WL, I can't see much cause for complaint.

Your argument assumes facts of favoritism that have not been shown. There is nothing in the policy that gives preference to Muslims.

The Chicago policy (which is said to be the similar to the Los Angeles policy) says:


STUDENT RELIGIOUS PRACTICES
It is the policy of the Chicago Public Schools ("CPS") to accommodate student religious practices provided that such practices can be accommodated in a manner which does not violate the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution, and to the extent that the accommodation does not place an undue burden on the school.

1. Schools shall attempt to make reasonable accommodations for students who have particular religious needs if requested in writing by a parent/legal guardian. Schools are not required to accommodate a religious request if granting such a request would place an undue burden on the school. For example, a high school should grant limited space, if available, and limited time, for prayer, if prayer time and space is requested by a parent in writing. However, the principal need not empty a classroom that is otherwise
being occupied in order to accommodate the student. If there is no space available in the building, the principal may deny the request. Prior to denying such request, the principal must obtain approval from the Law Department.

2. Use of staff time to accommodate students' religious needs is both a burden to the school and support for a particular religious practice which is in violation of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, no staff time shall be required to monitor or supervise a student's religious activities. Requests for accommodations which would require staff supervision should be denied.

3. In order to be granted a religious accommodation, a student's parent or legal guardian must submit a written request to the principal. The written request must state: (a) the specific accommodation requested; (b) why the accommodation is needed and (c) the time and duration of the accommodation.

4. To the extent possible, students should fulfill their religious obligations during lunch or a free period. If a student must fulfill a religious obligation during class time, the principal should grant an excused absence for a limited, defined time. Students who are excused from class for religious needs must have an opportunity to make up any work, assignment or test missed as a result of the absence.

It is rather ironic this policy has become a cause for complaint in this thread. It is an attempt to facilitate/accomodate students' free exercise of religion without violating the Establishment Clause.

The policy is expressly neutral between religions. It proscribes the use of school resources or any burden being put on the school by any accomodation of a student's religion. All such accomodations require a specific written request.

It only excuses absences from class for religious obligations when such obligations cannot be fulfilled during lunch or a free period. Then students are only excused for a limited, defined time and must make up work missed.

A school district need not take such steps to accomodate religion, but an attempt to do so should be applauded by those who claim that religion is being oppressed.

This is a fair, innocuous policy that attempts to allow for free exercise of religion.

Other than the vitirol against Muslims injected into the issue by WL, I can't see much cause for complaint.
Thanks for researching the Chicago statute... I do think there should be consistancy within the system though, and for all practical purposes there isn't any.

IMO, though, even granting the above, and assuming a perfectly equitable application of the "undue burden" standard, I would find "absences from class for religious obligations when such obligations cannot be fulfilled during lunch or a free period. Then students are only excused for a limited, defined time and must make up work missed" to be a serious disruption to a class that is granted based upon a religious preference.

(Note, why grant this right to someone because of their Religion when they won't grant the "right of departure" to advanced students who finish their work early?)

The treatment is not equitable because the requests are not equitable. No other Religion claims the Right of Departure.

(Note also that, because of Columbine, many schools are reluctant to let students out in the halls during classes AT ALL, much less regularly...)

Why is it incumbent upon a Public School to make accomodations for ANY personal preference during the School Day?

To the contrary, the ACLU has many high-profile conservative members and supporters.

The ACLU routinely defends the free speech, free exercise of religion, and other rights of Christians, anti-abortion groups, Republicans, and conservatives.

I've already proved this once and Greenlander has simply ignored it. He/she is simply lying. :headbang:

*snipped list*

ENOUGH ALREADY! :headbang:

STOP THE LIES! STOP THE DEFAMATION! :mad:

What is this? You’re letting yourself get too excited, you have to be careful you know or you’re going to hurt yourself. You’ve started ranting and raving like a person’s who’s been accused of being prejudiced or something and you immediately reacted by spewing off a list of how many ‘minority’ friends you have? LOL :p


What are you trying to tell us, that the ACLU ‘can’t’ be anti-Christian because every once in a while they have pity on one and help them out from time to time? That it’s a pure coincidence that they do it when their cause matches the complaint on those occasions? Like when a tool they use themselves is being challenged (like protesting on campuses etc., is in court) that during these occasions when they do help Christians and their ‘enemies’ that they share causes means nothing and we shouldn’t make too much of it?

Well how kind of them, how gracious and accommodating. Benefactors of mankind that they are to help even us poor old misguided Christians out from time to time. Then, of course, to prove to everyone else that they aren’t anti-Christian, they wouldn’t host their own web-page to show everyone how un-anti-Christian they are, they wouldn’t need to try and prove it would they? … Is it starting to smell funny around here? :eek:

The ACLU :gundge: will defend a University’s right to put on a play about a Gay Christ, at the protest of many, ignoring the fact that it’s public money being used for the production of it. 2001 ~ If censorship prevails, academic freedom will be strangled as various groups seek to define -- and protect -- their own "acceptable version" of the Christ story, warned John Krull, executive director of the Indiana Civil Liberties Union.
The Constitution "prevents government from endorsing a particular religious faith," Krull added. "It does not prevent government from ever discussing questions of faith."
Doesn’t that sound so nice and logical? How very Christian loving of them to help this play be shown at a public school… Let’s look at some more, shall we? What does the Christian friendly ACLU have to say about more traditional showcases of Christianity on public grounds? Even if public money is or is not used to support a more traditional version?

2003 ~ Elbert County Charter School in Elizabeth, Colorado had a holiday program that included such proselytizing anthems as "Jingle Bells." The ACLU and Anti-Defamation League threatened to sue unless the program was cleansed. A joint letter from the censors to the principal claimed, "Jewish students no longer feel safe or welcome" at the school.
The ADL/ACLU letter demanded that the Elbert County Charter School "take immediate steps to comply with the constitutional separation of church and state."
Perhaps something changed over the two years, I’m sure there was no other motivations the ACLU could have had to support one and not the other?!?!

You should sit down for a few minutes before you respond this time, we wouldn’t want the self-appointed ACLU secretary of propaganda to blow a gasket while he pulls out his well worn copy of the “Ernst Herbert Lehmann’s Guide to How to Call Everything a Lie; And still get some people to believe you” manual. :D

As to this other topic you guys moved onto.

I stand with the Muslims and the Prayer rooms. There is nothing inherently wrong with accommodating religion in our schools. It is NOT against the first amendment unless you are a ACLU :gundge: freak, in which case , ... hmmm, it, ... ah... Isn't Christian so it's not against the rules them either :p :rolleyes:

What is this? You’re letting yourself get too excited, you have to be careful you know or you’re going to hurt yourself. You’ve started ranting and raving like a person’s who’s been accused of being prejudiced or something and you immediately reacted by spewing off a list of how many ‘minority’ friends you have? LOL
What are you trying to tell us, that the ACLU ‘can’t’ be anti-Christian because every once in a while they have pity on one and help them out from time to time? That it’s a pure coincidence that they do it when their cause matches the complaint on those occasions? Like when a tool they use themselves is being challenged (like protesting on campuses etc., is in court) that during these occasions when they do help Christians and their ‘enemies’ that they share causes means nothing and we shouldn’t make too much of it?
Well how kind of them, how gracious and accommodating. Benefactors of mankind that that they are to help even us poor old misguided Christians out from time to time. Then, of course, to prove to everyone else that they aren’t anti-Christian, they wouldn’t host their own web-page to show everyone how un-anti-Christian they are, they wouldn’t need to try and prove it would they? … Is it starting to smell funny around here?
The ACLU will defend a University’s right to put on a play about a Gay Christ, at the protest of many, ignoring the fact that it’s public money being used for the production of it.
Doesn’t that sound so nice and logical? How very Christian loving of them to help this play be shown at a public school… Let’s look at some more, shall we? What does the Christian friendly ACLU have to say about more traditional showcases of Christianity on public grounds? Even if public money is or is not used to support a more traditional version?
Perhaps something changed over the two years, I’m sure there was no other motivations the ACLU could have had to support one and not the other?!?!
You should sit down for a few minutes before you respond this time, we wouldn’t want the self-appointed ACLU secretary of propaganda to blow a gasket while he pulls out his well worn copy of the “Ernst Herbert Lehmann’s Guide to How to Call Everything a Lie; And still get some people to believe you” manual.
My oh my - you do like sanctimonious hyperbole, don't you? Too bad it's useless for proving a point...

I stand with the Muslims and the Prayer rooms. There is nothing inherently wrong with accommodating religion in our schools. It is NOT against the first amendment unless you are a ACLU freak, in which case , ... hmmm, it, ... ah... Isn't Christian so it's not against the rules them either And just who is going to pay for all this "accommodation"? Perhaps we should just take it out of the "pencils & books" fund. Or better yet, we could just shift from Science to Creationisim and get rid of one whole set of courses.

Private Prayer on Private Time or in Private Schools. Public, Pluralistic Schools should not be in the business of "accommodating" anybody's religion. There's just too many of them.

My oh my - you do like sanctimonious hyperbole, don't you? Too bad it's useless for proving a point...

Yup, exactly like this post was... :rolleyes:



EDIT to address your EDIT:

On our dime. The Dime of the public should and will pay for accommodating the various religions. It's not going to cost so much more if anything more than we already pay, a corner of a room here, an empty equipment closet there, an unoccupied storage room etc. Reserved rooms can be moved from period to period as needed.

In addition to that, schools and prisons and anywhere else (government cafeterias etc.,) can serve Kosher food if requested, and non-pork offerings for Muslim and non-meat options for vegetarians and fish to accommodate religious dogma as necessary for lent and good Friday etc., etc., etc. And it doesn’t need to meet just one of these groups, but as many as they have communities that are going to eat it. A school, for example, could reasonably expect to have advanced warning for how many of each type of meal requests they will have based on the school roster. A prison, the same. A public cafeteria by weekly polls and public request, they can accommodate such things.

It's the world we live in, it's who we are. Accommodating and acknowledging religion in our society doesn't need to have the negative aspect that the ACLU :gundge: is constantly trying to paint on it.

The ACLU serves as an important check on the excesses of the majority. Unfortunately, the stands they take are not always popular. Nevertheless, more often than not I agree with their stands...because sometimes the only way to live free is to refuse to accept the pen when someone offers it to you for the drawing of lines regarding behavior.

The ACLU serves as an important check on the excesses of the majority. Unfortunately, the stands they take are not always popular. Nevertheless, more often than not I agree with their stands...because sometimes the only way to live free is to refuse to accept the pen when someone offers it to you for the drawing of lines regarding behavior.
Nice. My sentiments exactly. I often disagree with the ACLU... but I disagree with the Anti-ACLU more...

Nice. My sentiments exactly. I often disagree with the ACLU... but I disagree with the Anti-ACLU more...

The Anti-ACLU is rather authoritarian for my tastes.