Author Topic: ACLU: Did you know.... (Read 2091 times)

Suave · « **Reply #30 on:** December 19, 2004, 01:02:52 PM »

None the less, it is a discriminatory organization, that shouldn't be supported by our tax dollars in anyway.

So again I agree with the ACLU position on this.

How many would agree with DoD support for an organisation that descriminates on basis of religion, sex orientation, AND race?

I'm thinking not many. But why, is racial descrimination worse than religious or sex orientation descrimination? No.

And if you think it is that's fine, just don't use our government facilities for your meetings.

SOB · « **Reply #31 on:** December 19, 2004, 01:06:46 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Ripsnort
Feel free to discount the story considering its the New York Times.

here

Err OK...I forget why it's OK to discount a NY Times story...Too Liberal? Too Conservative? Too something else? What?

Ping · « **Reply #32 on:** December 19, 2004, 01:08:37 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by SOB
Err OK...I forget why it's OK to discount a NY Times story...Too Liberal? Too Conservative? Too something else? What?

Because Rip said you could?

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #33 on:** December 19, 2004, 01:10:26 PM »

Gunslinger:

Although the phrase ‘Separation of church and state’ is not in the constitution, it has become a well established doctrine of our republic since, as president, on January 1, 1802, in response to the letter from the Danbury Baptist Association, Thomas Jefferson wrote:

Quote

Gentlemen:

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which are so good to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association, give me the highest satisfaction. My duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should `make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore man to all of his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessings of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you and your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem.

Thomas Jefferson

However, On Dec. 3, 1803, as president, Jefferson asked Congress to ratify a treaty with the Kaskaskia Indians. It stated:

Quote

And whereas the greater part of the said tribe have been baptized and received into the Catholic Church, to which they are much attached, the United States will give annually, for seven years, one hundred dollars toward the support of a priest of that religion, who will engage to perform for said tribe the duties of his office, and also instruct as many of their children as possible, in the rudiments of literature.

Apparently Jefferson did not believe that the Dec. 3, 1803 request did not infringe on his January 1, 1802 opinion, even though it asked that government funds be spent in for the direct support of a catholic priest.

SOB · « **Reply #34 on:** December 19, 2004, 01:10:42 PM »

OK...but if the story can be simply ignored because it was published by the NY Times, why even post it?

NUKE · « **Reply #35 on:** December 19, 2004, 01:11:05 PM »

SOB, I think he was being sarcastic.

What's up with you lately?

Be funny dammit!

SOB · « **Reply #36 on:** December 19, 2004, 01:13:34 PM »

I'm sorry. So, there's this guy who walks into a bar . . . he says "Ouch!" BWAHAHAHAHA! Damn, I'm good.

Suave · « **Reply #37 on:** December 19, 2004, 01:24:22 PM »

Oh I'm sure logically he did realize that it was an infringement.

More likely he saw it as a means to a favorable end, considering that it came from a man who harbored an unusual resentment of the christian church and it's clergy.

Some Jefferson quotes.

Quote

" The Christian priesthood, finding the doctrines of Christ levelled to every understanding and too plain to need explanation, saw, in the mysticisms of Plato, materials with which they might build up an artificial system which might, from its indistinctness, admit everlasting controversy, give employment for their order, and introduce it to profit, power, and pre-eminence."

Quote

""The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter."

I think that people often make the mistake of thinking that just because somebody lived a long time ago they were simple.

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #38 on:** December 19, 2004, 01:37:05 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Suave
...considering that it came from a man who harbored an unusual resentment of the christian church and it's clergy.

And yet a man who compiled his own version of the bible, which he said included "a paradigma of His doctrines, made by cutting the texts out of the book and arranging them on the pages of a blank book, in a certain order of time or subject. A more beautiful or precious morsel of ethics I have never seen."

He told John Adams that he was rescuing the philosophy of Jesus and the "pure principles which he taught," from the "artificial vestments in which they have been muffled by priests, who have travestied them into various forms as instruments of riches and power for themselves."

After having selected from the evangelists "the very words only of Jesus," he believed "there will be found remaining the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man."

His separation from the church, apparently, was not a separation from God.

Suave · « **Reply #39 on:** December 19, 2004, 01:43:32 PM »

That's nice. But I don't think organizations that discriminate against atheists and homos should get any kind of support from our government, and I'm right. And the ACLU seems to agree with me.

Does anybody have any examples that would change my opinion of the ACLU?

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #40 on:** December 19, 2004, 03:05:10 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Suave
... and I'm right. ...

Excellent logic... how can one argue with that?

NUKE · « **Reply #41 on:** December 19, 2004, 03:07:41 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Suave
Does anybody have any examples that would change my opinion of the ACLU?

What is your opinion of the ACLU?

Gunslinger · « **Reply #42 on:** December 19, 2004, 03:14:44 PM »

Quote

or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

now wouldn't banning the boyscouts from public properties or federal lands prohibit the free exercise thereof?

This is not at all a discrimination issue to me its an anti religion issue. The govt has supported discriminatory groups and has practiced laws that are discriminatory in nature.

If the Boyscouts want to ban gays based on religious grounds why can't people accept that. After all that is the free exercise thereof.

In my view govt making a ruling either FOR or AGAINST anything on this subject would seem to violate the vary nature of respecting an establishment of religion AND seperation of church and state.

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #43 on:** December 19, 2004, 06:50:30 PM »

Question for you Suave;

In the Balboa Park / Boy Scout case, since 1957, the Desert Pacific Council of the Boy Scouts leased a portion of Balboa Park for $1 per year with the proviso that they maintain all buildings, reforest a portion of the park, pay all utilities, and keep the area leased open to the use of the public.

A renewal of the lease for another 25 years was approved by the City, with the proviso that DPC of BSA spend another 1.7 million dollars on maintenance and upgrades to the leased property, and maintaining the previous 1957 rules as to public use and access.

In this, the ACLU was opposed, due to the reverent requirement of Scouting, even though the San Diego leases land to churches and other organizations.

In Virginia, the congregation of Cornerstone Baptist Church used a city park for baptising. When Falmouth Waterfront Park in Richmond was declared off limits to Baptisms, the ACLU argued that freedom of exersise of religion was abridged, and that if church members wanted to wade in the water at Falmouth, they should be allowed to.

Government funds are not used for either activity, and the BSA lease in SD can even be argued to save taxpayer money. The gay issue is moot, because SD leases to churches and other religious organizations which have belief systems the require restrictive behaviors.

Why would the ACLU be for a religious group using a park on the east coast, and against it on the west coast?

Suave · « **Reply #44 on:** December 19, 2004, 10:59:31 PM »

I don't know, why do you think?

They fought for those people's freedom to exercise religion, and again I agree with the ACLU here.