Author Topic: ACLU likes SOME religions.... (Read 3579 times)

FrodeMk3 · « **Reply #60 on:** July 13, 2007, 10:23:39 PM »

This whole thread points to one ugly truth.

When the melting pot first started, It was making something great.

But now that too many different ingredients have been added, It's now brewing poison.

I think that the lesson that future civilization's will take from that of the U.S., is that there is a limit to diversity.You mix too many different things in one country, you get some wicked results.

The U.S. will probably dissolve into anarchy, possibly in our lifetimes. Competing religions' will be just one factor, though.

vorticon · « **Reply #61 on:** July 13, 2007, 10:57:20 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
silat... nice try.. tell you what..

Why don't you write them and say that you think helmet laws and seatbelt laws and gun laws are all unconstitutional and ask them why they aren't doing something about it? I will await your response.

I have already done so.

Then.. you might as well ask them why they aren't stopping schools from allowing muslims to pray.

lazs

.

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

the best they could do is stop the school from wasting the other kids time while the muslims do pray.
setting aside classroom instructional time is the problem, letting the kids roll out a prayer mat in the classroom during recess or lunch isnt. i lost a lot of instructional time for worthless anti-drug presentations.

not serving pork at the cafeteria for the sake of a few muslims... my high school didnt sell beef because there was ONE kid that might have been allergic to it...and he never ate crappy cafeteria food anyway...but i suppose legitimate medical reasons are better than some s adults assuming there kids are to stupid to avoid pork in the first place...then again, they've stopped selling pop (soda

) and fast food type meals in a lot of schools because parents figured there kids were to stupid to not buy it either...parents worried about there kids physical health are more important than parents worried about there kids spiritual health (the question of wether we agree with there spirituality, or lack thereof is irrelevent)

bustr · « **Reply #62 on:** July 13, 2007, 11:32:55 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Silat
No religion in the public square. What part of that dont you understand?

Silat, show us in this amendmant where it states in the same plain english all of the document is written in:

No religion in the public square.

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

Silat you will have to AMEND THE CONSTITUTION if you do not want religion in the public square in the United States:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech

The first 3 statements were to protect religion and the free exercise of it along with protecting unfavorable political speech. This was to insure that the government could not userp the right to ones most personal beleifs and convictions which religion is a very profound vehicle. Unless like abortion "no religion in the public square" is hidden in the secret punctuation mark code only Liberaly bent humans can decipher.

No where does the constitution prohibit government from either exercising it's religious belifes or freedom of speech. We The People are the government. Remember "Of the People by the People for the People"? Government members do not give up their rights protected by the constitution simply because they work for the government. Military yes, but thats a different kettel of fish. The only prohibition on government is that CONGRESS WILL NOT PASS A LAW establishing a national federal religion. The constitution expressly states congress cannot prohibit the free expression of religion.

So the ACLU is violating the constitutional rights of the American people by going after the free expression of religion in the case of christianity. If on the other hand islamic religious practice here in the good O'l US of A winds up being the vehical for the same kinds of seditious, evil and vile acts perpitrated around the world from the doors of mosques and madrasses......blow em all to kindom come because then that becomes a life and liberty matter piloted by a sick and evil following of Islam.

Silat, if you don't like religion, you live in America. Start a national movement to amend the first amendmant and have Congress pass a law outlawing religion and the free practice there of in the United States of America. As it is the ACLU has succeeded in some areas of America in turning christianity into a crime worse than pedophilia or incest.

Seagoon · « **Reply #63 on:** July 13, 2007, 11:50:41 PM »

Hello Lew,

Quote

Originally posted by Silat
This wasnt and isnt a PRO ACLU thread. My responses were to the disinformation that some righties are posting. The ACLU was never a socialist organization. Typical republicanfanatic talking points.

Im not going to argue your RELIGIOUS beliefs. Been there, done that:)Religious beliefs are yours to use as you see fit, Not to force on the rest of us. You dont want an abortion SEAGOON. Then dont get one.
Otherwise at this moment in time the rights of the woman to control her body and whatever is in it is protected by the laws of this land. I for one dont want that to change. Its a slippery slope that you of organized religion dont see until it affects you. As evidenced in this thread.

Ok, Lew we may not agree on most things outside of which online flying game to play, but I hope you know I'll always give you a direct answer to a direct question, could you please do me the favor of answer a few of my own.

Back up a few posts to the quote from John Adams about the Christian prayer in the first Congress and answer me the following things.

1) How could a founding principle of the USA have been "no religion in the public square" when the founders explicitly started off with it?

2) Are you saying that Washington, Adams, Jay, etc. were wrong to begin the first meeting of Congress with an explicitly Christian prayer? Should they have been sued by a 200 year old version of the ACLU and if so on what basis?

3) Would you actually defend the ACLU position on child pornography or that child porn isn't actually evil?

4) Can you explain why, if the ACLU position on religion is simply "no religion in the public square" a search on the word MUSLIM at ACLU.ORG turns up 20 pages of ACLU defenses of ISLAM in the public square?

5) If Christians are actually correct in what they proclaim, and Jesus Christ really has Died, has Risen, and will Return to Judge the living and the dead, would you see that as having any impact on the argument at hand?

Thanks in advance, and as always I'm more than willing to answer any direct questions you care to put to me.

- Andy (aka SEAGOON)

Elfie · « **Reply #64 on:** July 14, 2007, 03:01:29 AM »

Quote

You dont want an abortion SEAGOON. Then dont get one.Otherwise at this moment in time the rights of the woman to control her body and whatever is in it is protected by the laws of this land.

Even before I became a Christian I was against abortion. I have always believed it was killing an innocent baby.

Choices are made before a woman becomes pregnant, the choice to have sex, ( I understand that it isn't reasonable for me to think or expect that folks who don't believe as I do will abstain from sex until marriage), the choice to use or not use some form of birth control.

Choosing to have unprotected sex when you don't want children is irresponsible. With all the different forms of birth control today, choosing to have unprotected sex is just plain dumb. Allowing women to have abortions just lets them be irresponsible. They should be taking responsibility for their own actions and choices. If the truly do not want the child, at least give birth to it and let some couple that does want children adopt it.

Just as you or I do not have the right to kill our neighbors, women do not have the right to kill an unborn child. You don't want a baby? Either abstain from sex or use birth control, it's not that hard.

Elfie · « **Reply #65 on:** July 14, 2007, 03:22:52 AM »

If the ACLU doesn't have an agenda, why have they never filed a lawsuit vs any one of the thousands of gun laws on the books? Why aren't they filing a lawsuit against that school to keep Islam out? Or is it just Christianity that they want to keep out of *the public square*.

wrag · « **Reply #66 on:** July 14, 2007, 08:30:49 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Silat
They are you and me Laz. They dont have unlimited funds. They take the cases they can. Why dont you donate money to them so they can take some of the constitutional issues that you want that actually pass muster.

Because they WILL NOT protect the 2nd Amendment.

They have stated this.............

The ACLU is selective about what rights within the Bill of Rights they will try to protect.

So NO MONEY for the ACLU from me.

As to religion in school or anywhere else..........

Either allow ALL or allow NONE!

As to the phrase within the 1st Amendment used to prevent religion within the government, as I recall it goes on to say that they MUST NOT prevent the free practice of religion among the people.

I get the impression that too much stress has been placed upon the preventing of religion and not enough on the freedom of religion.

I have retained the hope that one day a balance will be achieved.

AKIron · « **Reply #67 on:** July 14, 2007, 08:44:43 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Silat
This wasnt and isnt a PRO ACLU thread. My responses were to the disinformation that some righties are posting. The ACLU was never a socialist organization. Typical republicanfanatic talking points.

Well, perhaps not socialist but it's founder and most of it's early members were avowed communists with communist goals and ideals. I can't see how the goals of the ACLU really changed even after the Soviet communists fell from grace and the ACLU renounced communism. If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck....

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #68 on:** July 14, 2007, 12:53:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Seagoon

Back up a few posts to the quote from John Adams about the Christian prayer in the first Congress and answer me the following things.

1) How could a founding principle of the USA have been "no religion in the public square" when the founders explicitly started off with it?

Butting in: No religion in the public square is not the same as prohibiting the establishing of an official government sponsored religion.

However, Jeffersons rough draft of the D of I said, "When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for a people to advance from that subordination in which they have hitherto remained, & to assume among the powers of the earth the equal & independant station to which the laws of nature & of nature’s god entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the change.

We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independant, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness;"[/i]

Although it speaks of nature's God, it does not endorse any specific belief system. Christianity, Islam, Druid, Shinto beliefs could all be included (although Athiesm is somewhat dumped upon)

When it was edited by a comittee, they changed "that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable" to "that they are endowed by their creator with certain inaleinable rights" but still did not say something like, "endowed by the Lord with..." or similar.

Quote

2) Are you saying that Washington, Adams, Jay, etc. were wrong to begin the first meeting of Congress with an explicitly Christian prayer? Should they have been sued by a 200 year old version of the ACLU and if so on what basis?

Although the 1774 prayer sounds like it was torn from the new testament, it was not a force of law, nor does the prayer said before each session of Congress today.

EagleDNY · « **Reply #69 on:** July 14, 2007, 01:08:04 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Chairboy
So, under a voucher system, your tax dollars could be used to fund a Madrasah.

Interesting.

As opposed to the current system, where the state just takes your dollars through taxation, gives it to the public school system, and lets them establish the madrassah inside the public school....

big difference.

Ack-Ack · « **Reply #70 on:** July 14, 2007, 01:17:59 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Seagoon

5) If Christians are actually correct in what they proclaim, and Jesus Christ really has Died, has Risen, and will Return to Judge the living and the dead, would you see that as having any impact on the argument at hand?

(aka SEAGOON)

I would think the last thing Jesus would want to see if he "rises" again is a cross.

ack-ack

AKIron · « **Reply #71 on:** July 14, 2007, 01:21:31 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Ack-Ack
I would think the last thing Jesus would want to see if he "rises" again is a cross.

ack-ack

Jesus is risen. He hasn't and won't be dying again so therefore no more rising required. Perhaps you confused return with rise?

Tango · « **Reply #72 on:** July 14, 2007, 01:21:47 PM »

I believe that when they said freedom of religion, they were in fact refering to the Christian religion. Afterall the only religion that was practiced in the colonies at that time was Christianity with the different denominations.

Atheism isn't a religion. Its just stupidity.

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #73 on:** July 14, 2007, 01:31:56 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Tango
I believe that when they said freedom of religion, they were in fact refering to the Christian religion. Afterall the only religion that was practiced in the colonies at that time was Christianity with the different denominations.

Atheism isn't a religion. Its just stupidity.

Jefferson was aquainted with Islam and Jewish faiths... what makes you think that he and other founders didn't have those faiths in mind as well?

As far as Atheism, it is the belief in an unprovable notion.... perhaps you are right... that might be stupidity after all.

Tango · « **Reply #74 on:** July 14, 2007, 01:39:40 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Jefferson was aquainted with Islam and Jewish faiths... what makes you think that he and other founders didn't have those faiths in mind as well?

How many times did they open with a Jewish or Islamic prayer?