Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: bj229r on July 12, 2007, 06:03:53 AM
-
OK, CAN't have Ten Commandments on the wall in a courtroom
CAN'T have a cross on a hill on public land (though it is a memorial to dead soldiers)
CAN'T allow Boy Scouts of America to use public land
CAN't allow kids to read Bible SILENTLY to themselves during break
CAN'T allow kids to have a 'Bible' club after hours on school property
(Could go on for some time here, but you get the idea..I'm waiting for Rosie O'Donnell to scream out "SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE!"....but these types usually have naught to say in this area)
But apparently the ACLU DOESN'T have any sort of problem with public schools accommodating Muslims by having prayer breaks, and removing any vestige of pork from school grounds???
Political Correctness: Seems the ACLU couldn't care less that a San Diego public school has set aside 15 minutes of classroom instruction time for Muslim students to pray, while non-Muslims twiddle their thumbs.
Right now it has no plans to legally challenge the budding madrassa as endorsement of a religion by government. Apparently the establishment clause only applies to the practice of Judeo-Christian rituals in public places.
The special accommodations for Carver Elementary's nearly 100 Somali Muslims don't stop with organized prayer. The school cafeteria has banned pork and other foods that conflict with the Islamic diet.
And the K-8 school has even added Arabic — the language of the Quran — to its curriculum, while segregating classes for girls, a la the Taliban.
In effect, Carver administrators have carved out a school within a school expressly for Muslims, elevating them above Christian and Jewish students. They've had 15 minutes of instruction time taken away from them, so Muslims can roll out their pray mats..
link (http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/3667)
-
I have no problem with the "cants", but giving other religions advantages is even worse.
Keep all the religious stuff at home and in your own hours.
-
The irony is that the ACLU and it's supporters will be among the first beheaded when the Muslims take control. Maybe it isn't irony but justice.
-
I have a problem with the CAN'Ts. I will read me Bible where ever I want. Not having the Ten Commandments on a courthouse wall isn't right. This country was founded on those commandments. And then they allow the Islams to have prayer break, they ban pork, and then they seperate the girls and boys? Well, when that school is suicide bombed by those kids, I'll be over here laughing me head off at the lawmakers running out of there as fast as they can.
-
Originally posted by McFarland
Well, when that school is suicide bombed by those kids, I'll be over here laughing me head off at the lawmakers running out of there as fast as they can.
Yea them suicide bombings are always some hilarious stuff.
-
I was referring to the irony of the situation. The people helping them getting the bombing, in other words, biting the hand that feeds them.
-
mcfarland... ACLU people don't send their kids (if they even ever have kids) to public school..
It is your kid that will be suicide bombed cause you can't afford to send your kid to a decent school.. even tho it costs 10 grand a year for us to send your kid to a worthless public school and only 5 grand a year to a great private one.
lazs
-
I'll have you know the public schools here are better than any private school. Private schools are for stuck up rich idiots. The public school I went to, all 3 of them, were great. I had some of the best teachers in the world. And there were rednecks there, computer geeks, and very few snobs (rich stuck up idiots), and most of all, rednecks and computer guys. We had a good football team, and a science club, and several other extra curricular activities. The chemistry class was one of the best, and the biology class, and the shop classes were great. Public schools are good, they prepare you for real life, in which you won't be surrounded by rich snobs. Private schools are for wimps who can't deal with the rest of society.
-
"You shall have no other gods before me."
On a courthouse wall, that sounds like a federal endorsement of one religion.
-
soooo.. your beef with private schools is that they are full of "rich snobs"?
I shudder to think what your defenition of "rich" is.
I will send my grand daughter to catholic school this year. I am not rich and I will be paying less than is spent on a child to go to public school by the taxpayers.
Are you a democrat by any chance? you value snakes over people.. you think man is causing global warming and now you refer to anyone who wants to give his child a good education and is willing to sacrafice a "rich snob"
seems to me that you are the snob.
lazs
-
Actually, I'm free party. I go with who ever has the best policies. But I usually vote republican. And public schools give just as good (usually better) education than private. And it's not a sacrifice, either you can afford it or you can't. Although, if I could afford it, I would still send them to a oublic school. There you will learn how to deal with people, you will have many options, and many opinions. Unlike private schools, where most people are all of one opinion. And there usually aren't any rednecks at private schools. That's aboot the worst thing aboot them.
-
A guy(muslim) at my work a fw months ago tried to force the company(Ford) to give extra time off the assembly line for Muslims to pray.
A petition went around the plant where if u signed,you were declaring a change in religion to the Muslim faith.
Nearly everone that saw the petition signed it...And low and behold Ford denied the request.
Bringing in prayer time to North American PUBLIC schools would deny children 15 minutes of education everyday in the name of Islam.
..as for the Ten Commandments..They should put up a monolith at the White House for the politicians to see.
-
you don't learn how to deal with people in private schools? are you brain dead?
Your kids won't learn how to "deal with people" if they don't spend some time in prison or bangladesh either so maybe you ought to send em there?
I take offense to your attitude. It is indeed a sacrifice for me to send my grand daughter to catholic school and they do indeed have better scores than any public school in the state.. some private have higher tho.
The tuition will be a large part of my disposable income. I say that you simply don't care about your kids. I say that you are using the "throw em in... they will learn to swim or drown" because you are too ignorant or selfish to do the right thing.
If the public school is so much better than the private then why are the "rich snobs" not sending their kids to your public schools?
even you must see that you make no sense?
lazs
-
There are no private schools within 50 miles of here, and everyone goes to the same school. And I beleive that that is how you teach them to swim, throw them in the water. Humans have the instinct to know how to swim. It's how the indians taught the young braves to swim. It's how I was taught to swim. If they have trouble, you can always help them, but they'll learn faster that way, and they'll learn better. But that's beside the point. I care aboot kids, I wouldn't want any harm to come to them. Exactly why I do like all the other generations of me family, and send them to a public school. Ignorant? Selfish? No sir, not when we do the best we can to afford to eat day to day, until the harvest comes in, it is simply we can't afford something that costs more than a good mule team. And will leave them worse off than not going to school. Those private schools don't teach important things, like how to plant by the signs, when to harvest, how to take care of horses, how to take care of livestock, proper English, the sciences, the classics, how to cut lumber, how build, how to fix car engines, how to run a home network system, how to repair a computer. I learned all that and more in me school, and it was public. So we live old fashioned, no reason to call us ignorant. Maybe if the rest of the world lived old fashioned, it would be more peacefull, cause there hasn't been any serious crime by the locals, the only crime is from the construction crew workers and others like that who just go through town and leave, they know they will be harder to find. It's very peacefull here, I wouldn't want to live anywhere else.
-
America will not be defeated by foreign forces, it will commit suicide.
-
Abe Lincoln said something similar: "America shall not be taken by outside forces, it shall be destroyed from within." I think it was Abe Lincoln, not 100% sure.
-
no, it was me, i just said it.:D
-
Pretty sure Abe said it first. Unless you're over 150 years old.
-
7:45 - 8:00 - Muslim prayer time
8:00 - 8:15 - English speaking time
8:15 - 9:30 - Quran 101 "Killing the infidels 101"
9:40 - 11:00 - Mexican History / Illegal Immagrations studies.
11:10 - 11:25 - Muslim prayer time / Smoke break / English speaking time
11:30 - 12:15 - Lunch / Backpack Explosive packing / Green card forgery
12:15 - 1:140 - Muslim extremist teachings / Fanatical killing
1:45 - 3:00 - Muslims and how they will rule the world
-
3:00 - 4:00 Loading the buses for suicide driving training.
-
Originally posted by McFarland
This country was founded on those commandments.
No it wasn't.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by McFarland
That's aboot the worst thing aboot them.
Canadian redneck?
ack-ack
-
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by McFarland
This country was founded on those <10> commandments.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
No it wasn't.
ack-ack
Sure it was:
1. 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.
2. A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
3. No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
4. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
5. No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
6. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
7. In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
8. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted
9. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
10. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
....
-
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion
That small portion of the 1st amendment was construed by the SC to mean Christianity in any sort of public forum must be stamped out. Is SEEING the Ten Commandments posted in a public building the same sort of invasion to one's person as say, smoking in an elevator?
And does ANYONE here think the anti-religion types will start fighting back against Muslim efforts to inject itself into our daily lives? Thus far, in America and abroad, most seem to be bending over backwards to accommodate people who came from backward, 13th century countries, who want a better life. Unfortunately, their strict adherence to Islam is what made said countries backwards to begin with, and they are utterly blind to that.
-
So, under a voucher system, your tax dollars could be used to fund a Madrasah.
Interesting.
-
Here is a little less .... psycho? .... report on what is REALLY going on.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20070702-9999-1n2prayer.html
-
Originally posted by bj229r
OK, CAN't have Ten Commandments on the wall in a courtroom
CAN'T have a cross on a hill on public land (though it is a memorial to dead soldiers)
CAN'T allow Boy Scouts of America to use public land
CAN't allow kids to read Bible SILENTLY to themselves during break
CAN'T allow kids to have a 'Bible' club after hours on school property
(Could go on for some time here, but you get the idea..I'm waiting for Rosie O'Donnell to scream out "SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE!"....but these types usually have naught to say in this area)
But apparently the ACLU DOESN'T have any sort of problem with public schools accommodating Muslims by having prayer breaks, and removing any vestige of pork from school grounds???
link (http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/3667)
What does this have to do with the ACLU? The ACLU doesnt do anything but fight for constitutional issues. And that is non partisan. You really need to read more. When this becomes a legal constitutional issue and they have the $ and time they will get involved. Donate and help them keep ALL religion out of the public square.
The rightwingChristianrepublicOn party wants Christianity everywhere and now you are upset when the Muslims are doing the same? Hypocrisy! We warned you but you wouldnt listen. You have got what you asked for.
-
Originally posted by bj229r
That small portion of the 1st amendment was construed by the SC to mean Christianity in any sort of public forum must be stamped out. Is SEEING the Ten Commandments posted in a public building the same sort of invasion to one's person as say, smoking in an elevator?
And does ANYONE here think the anti-religion types will start fighting back against Muslim efforts to inject itself into our daily lives? Thus far, in America and abroad, most seem to be bending over backwards to accommodate people who came from backward, 13th century countries, who want a better life. Unfortunately, their strict adherence to Islam is what made said countries backwards to begin with, and they are utterly blind to that.
Yes we will fight that. I dont want any religion in the public square. We moderates have been telling you religious types this for years. But no, you wanted Jesus in the public square. We warned you that it would come back to bite you. Now here it is and you are pissed. We were right and you were wrong.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Here is a little less .... psycho? .... report on what is REALLY going on.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20070702-9999-1n2prayer.html
"In a letter, the religious-rights organization urged the district to broaden its accommodations to Christians and Jews by setting aside separate classrooms for daily prayer and to permit rabbis, priests and other religious figures to lead children in worship on campuses."
No Sheep leggin P.E gear for the Pagen kids? or after school animal sacrifice 101 for Satins worshipers?... weak.
Another case of politcal correctness run a-muck; to avoid "charges" of racism, the school made exceptions for one group of opinions, of course those with differing opinions have noticed and want their point of view, rituals, trinkets, phrases, plastic statues and invisible man to be part of the exceptions too.
Should the school accommodate every uber-natural opinion, "school" will go from a learning institution, to a religious freak show.
School "officials", not wanting to look like the hypocrites they are, will defend their decisions with what they believe to be a clever argument.. that will be transparently stupid... all in an attempt to hold onto whatever power their bureaucratic job affords them.
Lots of tax $$ will be spent in expensive court squabbles where all sides whine, and in the end... the exceptions made will be wiped out.
-
Originally posted by Silat
Yes we will fight that. I dont want any religion in the public square. We moderates have been telling you religious types this for years. But no, you wanted Jesus in the public square. We warned you that it would come back to bite you. Now here it is and you are pissed. We were right and you were wrong.
Did you watch the video of those two idiots that heckled the Hindu priest giving the morning prayer in the Senate?
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Silat
Yes we will fight that. I dont want any religion in the public square. We moderates have been telling you religious types this for years. But no, you wanted Jesus in the public square. We warned you that it would come back to bite you. Now here it is and you are pissed. We were right and you were wrong.
Well said Zilat.
-
Originally posted by Silat
What does this have to do with the ACLU? The ACLU doesnt do anything but fight for constitutional issues. And that is non partisan. You really need to read more. When this becomes a legal constitutional issue and they have the $ and time they will get involved. Donate and help them keep ALL religion out of the public square.
The rightwingChristianrepublicOn party wants Christianity everywhere and now you are upset when the Muslims are doing the same? Hypocrisy! We warned you but you wouldnt listen. You have got what you asked for.
On matters of the ACLU, you and I disagree Lew.
Tried to get the ACLU to fight the seat belt law.
The attorny agreed that the seatbelt law was unconstitutional.
That FORCING someone to wear a seat belt was WRONG!
BUT....
there was NO money in fighting it and it was a popular law sooooooo............
sorry ACLU was just NOT interested.
As to defending the 2nd amendment, NO WAY, NO HOW, NEVER!
IMHO the ACLU can and often IS very selective as to what they will take, or what right they will defend.
As I SEEM to recall the ACLU was founded by a DEVOUTED Communist? That person had even spent considerable time in the Soviet Union before returning and forming the ACLU?
So we disagree on the ACLU.
Not saying they haven't done some good from time to time.
BUT not giving them, or anyone else if possible, my money to even possibly undermine my rights.
-
Originally posted by Silat
Yes we will fight that. I dont want any religion in the public square. We moderates have been telling you religious types this for years. But no, you wanted Jesus in the public square. We warned you that it would come back to bite you. Now here it is and you are pissed. We were right and you were wrong.
That's fine (I can't lay claim to being a 'religious type'---I have spent more time in the presence of men-of-the-cloth during weddings and funerals than anything else in my life...That being said, I don't think the Ten Commandments threatens my freedom) Just be CONSISTENT--We have a mosque in Detroit suburbs that blares out calls to prayer...4? times a day--can be heard for a good mile, we are putting foot baths in airports for Muslim cab drivers....the list goes on. But none of the brave anti Jesus crusaders has dared thus far to raise a peep about the religion of peace, and its attempts to bend our culture to suit it. I'd LOVE to see a Robin Williams skit going off on a imam and his Quran...I somehow doubt that will happen...lets talk about pedophile priests again, that's groundbreaking, Robin
-
yep.. the aclu is an organization with an agenda.. they dislike christians and guns and like big government telling people what is good for em.
They give weak excuses on the seatbelt and helmet law saying the people like em... What????? the people like something unconstitutional so they will just quietly ignore it? They most certainly don't use that standard on other issues.
They are liars and hypocrites... They have a socialist agenda and only defend constitutional rights that protect left wing ideals... they are not honest about their agenda.
While I am happy that they defend any constitutional right... It is rare that they do me any good and their ultimate goal is not mine in the least.
I would love to see a group that really did defend all constitutional rights. Not just ones that benifieted the left or the right.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
So, under a voucher system, your tax dollars could be used to fund a Madrasah.
Interesting.
At Carver Elementary, your tax dollars already fund a madrasah! :)
-
Originally posted by bj229r
We have a mosque in Detroit suburbs that blares out calls to prayer...4? times a day--can be heard for a good mile, we are putting foot baths in airports for Muslim cab drivers....the list goes on. But none of the brave anti Jesus crusaders has dared thus far to raise a peep about the religion of peace, and its attempts to bend our culture to suit it.
Spot on, Old Chap. Quite right.
-
chairboy.. my tax dollars are already funding a zillion things I don't like including public schools...
I say that if they fund better educated kids... ones who test better then let the parents decide what else is taught. none of your business.
Let them get the best education possible. If there was a muslim school I doubt I would be sending my grand daughter to it. You don't have to send yours to a catholic school.
But.. they way it is.. only those rich enough or willing to make a sacrafice can get their kids out of public school hell. there is no choice at all.
Why is it that you liberals want choice in things you want choice of but don't want to give others any choice at all?
I am sick of both sides trying to run my life and telling me what is best for me.
lazs
-
Originally posted by McFarland
I was referring to the irony of the situation.
So was I. :rofl
-
Originally posted by lazs2
chairboy.. my tax dollars are already funding a zillion things I don't like including public schools...
I say that if they fund better educated kids... ones who test better then let the parents decide what else is taught. none of your business.
Let them get the best education possible. If there was a muslim school I doubt I would be sending my grand daughter to it. You don't have to send yours to a catholic school.
But.. they way it is.. only those rich enough or willing to make a sacrafice can get their kids out of public school hell. there is no choice at all.
Why is it that you liberals want choice in things you want choice of but don't want to give others any choice at all?
I am sick of both sides trying to run my life and telling me what is best for me.
lazs
There is nothing wrong with public schools. The kids there get just as good an education as at a private school, even better. Because at the public schools, you have to teach yourself at times. Which is better for you. I taught meself many things in the areas of science, and I understand those concepts better than the people who had it all taught to them. At private schools, they teach it to you, and you don't learn it. Just because the test scores are higher doesn't mean it's a better school. You will learn better if you teach yourself. Having someone else teach you, you just memorize facts, you don't learn the concepts behind them. And in public schools, you have a greater diversity of students. You learn how to deal with other types of people, instead of being exposed to one set of ideals. And as far as religion and govment being together, it would do us good. The ideals taught in Christianity are good. DON'T kill. DON'T steal. DON'T lie. Respect your parents. I don't see anything wrong with these. I do see something wrong with suicide bombers, murderers, thiefs, and letting such people go free.
-
mcfarland... you are talking about one little tiny corner of farmcountry. There is indeed plenty wrong with the vast majority of public schools and you do indeed get a better education in private schools nationwide.
you are of course welcome to go to public school under a voucher system... I am even willing to pay the extra that all the socialist and union crap raises the cost of public school (in comparison to private).
what do you have against giving people a choice if they can get an equal or better education? I know what the liberal democrats have against it... they feel that state run schools are important in indoctrinizing the young and.. they are whoring out to the teachers union...
others feel that choice is better.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Toad
Spot on, Old Chap. Quite right.
Once again Ill explain this to you. You wanted Jesus in the public square and were warned where it would end up. But you were/are the majority so you turned a blind eye to those of us who were fighting religion being in the public square. You called us whiners. Now who is whining?
Now you have other religions wanting to be in the same public square.
You got your wish.
Now maybe you see why no religion should be in the public square?
-
Originally posted by lazs2
yep.. the aclu is an organization with an agenda.. they dislike christians and guns and like big government telling people what is good for em.
They give weak excuses on the seatbelt and helmet law saying the people like em... What????? the people like something unconstitutional so they will just quietly ignore it? They most certainly don't use that standard on other issues.
They are liars and hypocrites... They have a socialist agenda and only defend constitutional rights that protect left wing ideals... they are not honest about their agenda.
While I am happy that they defend any constitutional right... It is rare that they do me any good and their ultimate goal is not mine in the least.
I would love to see a group that really did defend all constitutional rights. Not just ones that benifieted the left or the right.
lazs
Not true. But good Oxyrush talking points..
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
Did you watch the video of those two idiots that heckled the Hindu priest giving the morning prayer in the Senate?
ack-ack
Yes I did see that. You see the Christians wanted religion in there. Now they have it. But , whoops its the wrong religion:)
Told you so is all Im going to keep saying....................
-
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
-
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
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.
-
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
Here you go Laz:
The American system of government is founded on two counterbalancing principles: that the majority of the people governs, through democratically elected representatives; and that the power even of a democratic majority must be limited, to ensure individual rights.
Majority power is limited by the Constitution's Bill of Rights, which consists of the original ten amendments ratified in 1791, plus the three post-Civil War amendments (the 13th, 14th and 15th) and the 19th Amendment (women's suffrage), adopted in 1920.
The mission of the ACLU is to preserve all of these protections and guarantees:
Your First Amendment rights-freedom of speech, association and assembly. Freedom of the press, and freedom of religion supported by the strict separation of church and state.
Your right to equal protection under the law - equal treatment regardless of race, sex, religion or national origin.
Your right to due process - fair treatment by the government whenever the loss of your liberty or property is at stake.
Your right to privacy - freedom from unwarranted government intrusion into your personal and private affairs.
We work also to extend rights to segments of our population that have traditionally been denied their rights, including Native Americans and other people of color; lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transgendered people; women; mental-health patients; prisoners; people with disabilities; and the poor.
If the rights of society's most vulnerable members are denied, everybody's rights are imperiled.
The ACLU was founded by Roger Baldwin, Crystal Eastman, Albert DeSilver and others in 1920. We are nonprofit and nonpartisan and have grown from a roomful of civil liberties activists to an organization of more than 500,000 members and supporters. We handle nearly 6,000 court cases annually from our offices in almost every state.
The ACLU has maintained the position that civil liberties must be respected, even in times of national emergency. The ACLU is supported by annual dues and contributions from its members, plus grants from private foundations and individuals. We do not receive any government funding. Learn more about joining the ACLU.
-
silat.. I expected more from you.
you left out some rights.. just like your heroes. They admit that seatbelt laws and helmet laws are unconstitutional and they wiggle and choke when you ask em about the second.
They have a socialist agenda. there is no doubt.
go ahead... ask em... get back to me.
Do you need a link to their site so that you can email em?
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
silat.. I expected more from you.
you left out some rights.. just like your heroes. They admit that seatbelt laws and helmet laws are unconstitutional and they wiggle and choke when you ask em about the second.
They have a socialist agenda. there is no doubt.
go ahead... ask em... get back to me.
Do you need a link to their site so that you can email em?
lazs
Dont need a link as I posted above from their site. It tells you what they are about. It backs me up. Not you.
Who are my heroes?
And please post the ACLU stance on helmet laws as Im not familier with it.
They do not have a socialist agenda. That is rightwing crap. They only protect the constitution and the bill of rights in their cases. That is fact.
-
Originally posted by Silat
Once again Ill explain this to you. You wanted Jesus in the public square and were warned where it would end up. But you were/are the majority so you turned a blind eye to those of us who were fighting religion being in the public square. You called us whiners. Now who is whining?
Now you have other religions wanting to be in the same public square.
You got your wish.
Now maybe you see why no religion should be in the public square?
1. You have no idea what I wanted with respect to Jesus in the public square. None. You don't have any clue whatsover as to my position on that. You have proven this point by what you posted.
2. What I was pointing out was the dead-nuts-on statement by bj229r that "none of the brave anti Jesus crusaders has dared thus far to raise a peep about the religion of peace, and its attempts to bend our culture to suit it".
He's absolutely correct. There's ample evidence of successful attempts to control any and all religious aspects of Christmas...even to the point of schools not being able to use the word during the season. However, the same people that are ever so careful not to offend anyone by saying "Merry Christmas" in a school are strangely, almost incredibly silent when it comes to Muslim calls to prayer being broadcast over the neighborhood or Muslim foot baths being installed in airports for the taxi drivers. Dead silence.
I can only imagine the outcry should a Prie Dieu be installed in a taxi driver waiting areas so some Christian could say a few prayers.
So, focus on this: There should be no special government treatment for Islam that is any different from what the Jewish or Christians faiths receive here. clearly there is.
And here's the point: THERE IS NO PROTEST ABOUT THAT. That fact is ignored by the same people that are horrified by a teacher saying "Merry Christmas" to her class.
Hypocrisy. Period.
-
Hello Silat,
Originally posted by Silat
Yes I did see that. You see the Christians wanted religion in there. Now they have it. But , whoops its the wrong religion:)
Told you so is all Im going to keep saying....................
There have been Christian prayers at the opening of Congress since the very first meeting on September 7, 1774 Here is a painting of the event:
(http://www.ushistory.org/carpentershall/visit/images/prayer.jpg)
John Adams wrote of the event:
Washington was kneeling there, and Henry, Randolph, Rutledge, Lee, and Jay, and by their side there stood bowed in reverence, the Puritan Patriots of New England, who at that moment had reason to believe that an armed soldiery was wasting their humble households. It was believed that Boston had been bombarded and destroyed.
They prayed fervently "for America, for Congress, for the Province of Massachusetts Bay, and especially for the town of Boston", and who can realize the emotions with which they turned imploringly to Heaven for Divine interposition and aid.
"It was enough", says Mr. Adams to melt a heart of stone. I saw the tears gush into the eyes of the old, grave Pacific Quakers of Philadelphia.
Here is the text of the prayer of which Adams wrote he never heard better in all his life, no doubt it will make your hair stand on end and your teeth gnash. If only the ACLU had been there to put an end to it at the beginning you'd all still be loyal subjects of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II:
The First Prayer in Congress
Be Thou present; O God of Wisdom, and direct the councils of this Honorable Assembly: enable them to settle all things on the best and surest foundations: that the scene of blood may be speedily closed: that Order, Harmony and Peace may be effectually restored, and Truth, and Justice, Religion, and Piety prevail and flourish among the people. Preserve the health of their bodies and the vigor of their minds, shower down on them, and the millions they here represent, such temporal Blessings as Thou seest expedient for them in this world, and crown them with everlasting Glory in the world to come. All this we ask in the name and through the merits of Jesus Christ Thy Son and Our Savior. Amen
-
Hi Silat,
Originally posted by Silat
Your right to privacy - freedom from unwarranted government intrusion into your personal and private affairs.
We work also to extend rights to segments of our population that have traditionally been denied their rights, including Native Americans and other people of color; lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transgendered people; women; mental-health patients; prisoners; people with disabilities; and the poor.
If the rights of society's most vulnerable members are denied, everybody's rights are imperiled.
Oh no there are some caveats to that of course, that's unless the most vulnerable happen to be in utero in which case the ACLU denies they have even the most fundamental right to live, oh and of course if they happen to be children being exploited by say child pornographers in which case they are strongly in favor. As I quoted in another pro-ACLU thread:
To quote "Xbiz" the industry source for the X-rated movie business:
ACLU lawyers filed an amicus brief in the 1982 Supreme Court child pornography case, New York v. Ferber. The case sought to legalize the sale and distribution — but not the production — of child pornography. The Court unanimously decided that child pornography was not worthy of protection.
Predictably, the ACLU's reasoning in Ferber was that the distribution of child porn was constitutionally protected free speech. The ACLU's official position on child porn is:
The ACLU believes that the First Amendment protects the dissemination of all forms of communication. The ACLU opposes on First Amendment grounds laws that restrict the production and distribution of any printed and visual materials even when some of the producers of those materials are punishable under criminal law
They've said that they are opposed to the production of the Child Porn (note: never the distribution) ONLY if such production is quote - "highly likely to cause: a) substantial physical harm or, b) substantial and continuing emotional or psychological harm." of course if it can't be definitively proven to highly likely to cause such harm then of course that's all right then.
Additionally, they also oppose all attempts to require producers of hard core porn to keep records of the ages of their performers as an invasion of the right to privacy and blatant censorship. To quote Barry Lynn: "If there is no federal record-keeping requirement for the people portrayed in Road and Track or 'Star Wars,’" he said, "there can be no such requirement for Hustler or ‘Debbie Does Dallas.’” and in the official ACLU position paper: "Distributors, exhibitors and retailers should not be obliged to risk punishment by misjudging the age of a minor. Such persons should not be required to keep records of evidence submitted by minors; and should be entitled to rely reasonably on a minor's statement of age." ("Hey, she said she was 18 when we picked her up at the playground.")
They also absolutely oppose all attempts to restrict the dissemination of pornography to children - and I quote:
"Laws which punish the distribution or exposure of such material to minors violate the First Amendment, and inevitably restrict the right to publish and distribute such materials to adults."
Silat, I'd agree with you that the ACLU doesn't have a criteria of only supporting Socialist causes, as far as I can tell their primary criteria (with a few exceptions now and then) is that the cause being supported has to be thoroughly evil.
- SEAGOON
-
Usually the "non-evil" causes don't need an advocate.
-
True; it's the poor child pornographers that need protecting.
-
Originally posted by bj229r
OK, CAN't have Ten Commandments on the wall in a courtroom
CAN'T have a cross on a hill on public land (though it is a memorial to dead soldiers)
CAN'T allow Boy Scouts of America to use public land
CAN't allow kids to read Bible SILENTLY to themselves during break
CAN'T allow kids to have a 'Bible' club after hours on school property
(Could go on for some time here, but you get the idea..I'm waiting for Rosie O'Donnell to scream out "SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE!"....but these types usually have naught to say in this area)
But apparently the ACLU DOESN'T have any sort of problem with public schools accommodating Muslims by having prayer breaks, and removing any vestige of pork from school grounds???
link (http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/3667)
We have, sadly, the same problem in Britain , although now it has spiralled out of control. Head scarfs are allowed in school but not a simple crucifix round the neck under a shirt.
-
Originally posted by bj229r
That's fine (I can't lay claim to being a 'religious type'---I have spent more time in the presence of men-of-the-cloth during weddings and funerals than anything else in my life...That being said, I don't think the Ten Commandments threatens my freedom) Just be CONSISTENT--We have a mosque in Detroit suburbs that blares out calls to prayer...4? times a day--can be heard for a good mile, we are putting foot baths in airports for Muslim cab drivers....the list goes on. But none of the brave anti Jesus crusaders has dared thus far to raise a peep about the religion of peace, and its attempts to bend our culture to suit it. I'd LOVE to see a Robin Williams skit going off on a imam and his Quran...I somehow doubt that will happen...lets talk about pedophile priests again, that's groundbreaking, Robin
i really sympathise for you bj229r, at least in your country you seem have a little support, yet i and a few like minded Britains seem to be isolated and stand alone over here, barricaded in from bombardments of accusations of racism and prejudice.
Sadly the idea of true patriotism, that does not include avidly supporting england in the world cup, Is an extinct and mighty beast sitting on a dusty shelf in the national archive's back closet.
-
Originally posted by Laurie
i really sympathise for you bj229r, at least in your country you seem have a little support, yet i and a few like minded Britains seem to be isolated and stand alone over here, barricaded in from bombardments of accusations of racism and prejudice.
Sadly the idea of true patriotism, that does not include avidly supporting england in the world cup, Is an extinct and mighty beast sitting on a dusty shelf in the national archive's back closet.
Brits are just too danged NICe to people! These folks come to Britain because radical Islam has wrecked their countries, yet they try to recreate the VERY same pile of in Britain, and the vast majority of society seems to be helping them unroll their prayer rug each day, oblivious to the eventual fact that Islam will be the rule in Britain, rather than the exception. (We have a similar problem here, but they only bring crappy music and food that elicits gas:D )
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
Hi Silat,
Oh no there are some caveats to that of course, that's unless the most vulnerable happen to be in utero in which case the ACLU denies they have even the most fundamental right to live, oh and of course if they happen to be children being exploited by say child pornographers in which case they are strongly in favor. As I quoted in another pro-ACLU thread:
Silat, I'd agree with you that the ACLU doesn't have a criteria of only supporting Socialist causes, as far as I can tell their primary criteria (with a few exceptions now and then) is that the cause being supported has to be thoroughly evil.
- SEAGOON
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.
As soon as Muslims want their religion in the public square the Christians start whining. You cant have it both ways. You want religion outed? Then get ready bud. You wont like what you get.
No religion in the public square and we dont have a problem. Practice your religion privately and in your hearts where it belongs.
-
Originally posted by Toad
1. You have no idea what I wanted with respect to Jesus in the public square. None. You don't have any clue whatsover as to my position on that. You have proven this point by what you posted.
2. What I was pointing out was the dead-nuts-on statement by bj229r that "none of the brave anti Jesus crusaders has dared thus far to raise a peep about the religion of peace, and its attempts to bend our culture to suit it".
He's absolutely correct. There's ample evidence of successful attempts to control any and all religious aspects of Christmas...even to the point of schools not being able to use the word during the season. However, the same people that are ever so careful not to offend anyone by saying "Merry Christmas" in a school are strangely, almost incredibly silent when it comes to Muslim calls to prayer being broadcast over the neighborhood or Muslim foot baths being installed in airports for the taxi drivers. Dead silence.
I can only imagine the outcry should a Prie Dieu be installed in a taxi driver waiting areas so some Christian could say a few prayers.
So, focus on this: There should be no special government treatment for Islam that is any different from what the Jewish or Christians faiths receive here. clearly there is.
And here's the point: THERE IS NO PROTEST ABOUT THAT. That fact is ignored by the same people that are horrified by a teacher saying "Merry Christmas" to her class.
Hypocrisy. Period.
No religion in the public square. What part of that dont you understand?
-
Originally posted by Silat
No religion in the public square. What part of that dont you understand?
no religion, but what about our tradition, our culture, Christmas is and has been part of the tradition and culture of america.
people like you tell us we have to respect the culture of other countries, but you will not even respect your own culture.
-
Originally posted by Silat
No religion in the public square. What part of that dont you understand?
No special consideration for Islam without lawsuits.
What part of that don't you understand?
Please link me to the lawsuits against Islamic religion in the public square that have been filed by the same people that filed lawsuits against Jewish/Christian religion in the public square.
There aren't any. You know it. I know it.
Hypocrisy.
-
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.
-
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 :rolleyes: ) 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)
-
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.
-
Hello Lew,
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)
-
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.
-
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*.
-
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.
-
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....
-
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.
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
The old testament is a Jewish text.
I would say that they were aquainted with the stories of Moses and Noah, and may have even based a prayer or two on the books of the old testament.
-
The church of England effectively RAN England in colonial times the way a mafia gang runs a neighborhood--THAT was what was referred to in the 1st amendment---it has taken on a new meaning in the last 40 years or so
-
Originally posted by bj229r
The church of England effectively RAN England in colonial times the way a mafia gang runs a neighborhood--THAT was what was referred to in the 1st amendment---it has taken on a new meaning in the last 40 years or so
And so you believe that the founding fathers didn't look upon Rome with as much distrust as Cantebury?
Nobody in colonial America knew the stories of about Joan of Arc or Torquemada?
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
And so you believe that the founding fathers didn't look upon Rome with as much distrust as Cantebury?
Nobody in colonial America knew the stories of about Joan of Arc or Torquemada?
Likely so, but I'm unsure of what you're getting at
-
Originally posted by bj229r
Likely so, but I'm unsure of what you're getting at
I was referring to your statement about the first amendment being a reaction to the Church of England rather than church control of government, regardless of the church.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of 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. --- Jefferson
I am sure Jefferson could see past the Anglican church and see that most (if not all) governments which mixed religion and state did so at the expense of individual liberty.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
I was referring to your statement about the first amendment being a reaction to the Church of England rather than church control of government, regardless of the church.
I am sure Jefferson could see past the Anglican church and see that most (if not all) governments which mixed religion and state did so at the expense of individual liberty.
My impression was, the Founding Fathers had what would be called a Classical eductaion today.
They were aware of what a Theocracy was and wanted to avoid it, they were aware of what a Democracy was and wanted to avoid it, and they were aware of how so many free societies fell into slavery and wanted to avoid that.
At the same time they wanted to do what they could to insure the freedom of the people..............
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
I was referring to your statement about the first amendment being a reaction to the Church of England rather than church control of government, regardless of the church.
I am sure Jefferson could see past the Anglican church and see that most (if not all) governments which mixed religion and state did so at the expense of individual liberty.
No argument with that whatsoever, I just don't see where the SC has, over the last 4 decades or so, taken that sound idea to a point where a Christmas tree on public property warrants a $@#@# lawsuit
-
Hi Holden,
I am still looking forward to Lew's replies to my questions on behalf of the ACLU, but you shouldn't feel you are butting in at all...
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Butting in: No religion in the public square is not the same as prohibiting the establishing of an official government sponsored religion.
[/b]
You make a good point here, few people today are actually aware of the historic situation that brought about the First Amendment right to "Freedom of Religion." Great Britain had what is referred to as an established church in other words, the Church of England (or Anglican Church) was the official church of the Kingdom and they held (and still hold) that the King was the head of the church - a position that many Scottish Presbyterians held to be blasphemous as only Christ could be head of the church. This led to great persecution in Scotland as the English attempted to remove Presbyterianism and establish the Church of England there during the 17th century as well. The period from the 1660s to 1688 in Scotland was known by Scots Presbyterians as "the Killing Times" as the King's dragoons hunted down and killed and imprisoned many of the Covenanters who refused to take a loyalty oath which declared that the King was the head of the church. Many Scots during this period fled first to Ulster and then the American Colonies, bringing their hearty detestation for the established church of England. In the colonies themselves, until the revolution repression of other churches continued with non-church of England ministers outside of New England frequently denied official licenses to preach, and their assemblies broken-up and the congregants imprisoned. Additionally, it was impossible to hold office or official postings, and attend many of the British Universities if one was not a member of the Church of England. The "dissenters" were explicitly second class subjects. The Baptists in particular suffered immensely during this time, and so it is not surprising that it was the Danbury Baptists who wrote Jefferson to confirm that freedom of religion was an inalienable right assured to all Americans by the Constitution.
This hatred for the established church was one of the catalysts for the Revolution and helps to explain why so many Presbyterians and Congregationalists in particular were behind it, while so many Anglicans (particularly in the south) were loyalists or "Tories." George III himself called it the "Presbyterian war" and Walpole quipped that "There is no use crying about it. Cousin America has run off with a Presbyterian parson, and that is the end of it." At the Battle of Concord when the colonial minutemen were commanded to put down their arms in the name of their Sovereign King George III, their reply came back "We recognize no Sovereign but God and no King but Jesus!"
What so many of the Colonists were fighting for was their own freedom to practice their religion openly and without fear of repression because of it. the situation today where an openly religious person can be squeezed out of the academy or stigmatized is exactly the opposite of what they wanted. They wanted freedom for religion, not freedom from religion. The early years of America therefore saw no establishment of a single religion, but yet Christianity thoroughly permeated all parts of the society including the government. In the early 19th century for instance no one would have thought something like Blue Laws, which added the force of law to the keeping of the Lord's Day were unconstitutional. Obviously that has changed dramatically.
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.
True, but that wasn't the point I was making. I was actually answering Silat's contention that "Christians" had somehow recently added religion to an essentially atheistic society as if the prayer in congress was something the Republicans voted in under George Bush. I pointed out that the Prayer at the opening of Congress goes back to the FIRST CONGRESS and at that time it was explicitly and even polemically and evangelistically Christian.
- SEAGOON
-
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of 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. --- Jefferson
The way I read this is Jefferson is assuring that the state would not interfere with church matters. Jefferson is saying the whole American people as well as himself want a govt. which reaches actions and not opinions. Thus the will of the people is clearly on the side of free expression of religion and non-interference of that by the state. In addition the state will not create an official religion, which would be a theocracy.
Les
-
silat... give it up.. the founder of the aclu was an avowed commie..
Everyone here but you sees the agenda.. they don't pick and choose based on limited funds.. they pick and choose based on furthering their agenda..
They don't care about free speech in the least... they have no problem with people trying to ban words that are racist or telling talk shows how to program.
The point of this thread was... where are they on this whole muslim thing?
And that is why they are fooling no one.. they say they don't take cases where the people "want the law" but defend organizations that set up scum bag perves with little boys.... but..
Their agenda is clear not even in what cases they choose to take but even more in what ones they refuse to take. Helmet laws... seatbelt laws.. a myriad of unconstitutional gun laws... hate speech..
but... don't take my word for it and don't just regurgitate the babble on their website.. I asked you to ask em... I have.
Ask em why the hell they aren't doing something about those things.. Is it more important to my rights to not have a statue with the ten comandments at a courthouse or to be told to stap in every time I get into a car or put a helmet on every time I want to take a ride? what unconstituional laws are affecting me the most?
How bout they allow the government to unconstitutionally take away my right to bear arms? I could give a crap about a nativity scene.
lazs
-
Most Excellent Lazs!
ACLU is another three card monty organization put into place to confuse and distract. SUPPORT THE CONSTITUTION
-
Wonder why it is , that the very people that don't believe in God or the bible or religeon at all , are the first to raise cain in regards to such?
Seems like if they don't believe in it...why worry with it?
-
What was public school policy before in regards to prayer? Islam has been around for a long time in the US and there have been Moslem students attending school. Were their religious requirements met concerning prayer? It seems like it would have been since all students could pray. I remember when I was in public HS in 1974 one of our teachers started class with a little prayer. Everyone respected him for that. Even the trouble kids who may have otherwise given him a hard time because he was not physically very stout. They respected his faith because he stood for something and walked the walk.
If prayer time is set aside for Moslems, this time needs to be such that students of other religions can pray, meditate or have quiet time. And I'm not so sure this is a bad idea actually, and may increase production and ease some of the discipline problems with students. Fifteen minutes is not that long a time if it helps to clear your mind so you're ready to learn something, and may learn the subject faster.
But the time set aside has to be for everyone's benefit and not preferential, or indeed it does give the impression of accommodating one religion over another. Sadly, when religion is excoriated from everyday society (including school,) and considering how important it is to most people, it does cause great societal confusion approaching aimlessness. And I believe this is one of the factors affecting modern civilization in an adverse way, particularly if something as important as religion is being oppressed by a people's government.
Les
-
Religion has NO place in schools unless it is in a religion (of all religions) history class.
-
Originally posted by Leslie
What was public school policy before in regards to prayer?
when i was a kid everyone said the "lords prayer", and we also said the pledge of allegiance to the flag. It only took about a minute. I don't think i suffered any bad effects from it.
-
Originally posted by john9001
when i was a kid everyone said the "lords prayer", and we also said the pledge of allegiance to the flag. It only took about a minute. I don't think i suffered any bad effects from it.
I can think of a bad effect of it. I can recite both myself without even thinking about it. It is a habit that is repeated so often that it really carries no meaning.
I'm not saying that you should get rid of either, just find someway to make it mean something.
-
Hi John, et al,
Originally posted by john9001
when i was a kid everyone said the "lords prayer", and we also said the pledge of allegiance to the flag. It only took about a minute. I don't think i suffered any bad effects from it.
Speaking of the removal of prayer and all vestiges of Christianity in the public school and the gradual establishment of atheism as our officially established national ideology, the following will probably only interest Christians on the board (and for that I apologize). But a while back I posted a blog entry on our church site that consisted of an extended quote from a Princeton theologian by the name of A.A. Hodge circa 1878. He was responding to the widespread call for a national public educational system supported by tax dollars. His argument was against its establishment on the grounds that it would inevitably become a vehicle for the promotion of Atheism:
It is capable of exact demonstration that if every party in the State has the right of excluding from the public schools whatever he does not believe to be true, then he that believes most must give way to him that believes least, and then he that believes least must give way to him that believes absolutely nothing, no matter in how small a minority the atheists or the agnostics may be. It is self-evident that on this scheme, if it is consistently and persistently carried out in all parts of the country, the United States system of national popular education will be the most efficient and wide instrument for the propagation of atheism which the world has ever seen.
His assertion at the time was regarded as ridiculous. "That will never happen in this moral and religious nation of ours!" said the critics, but as it turns out his predictions have turned out to be correct.
His closing paragraph was particularly memorable:
It is no answer to say that the deficiency of the national system of education in this regard will be adequately supplied by the activities of the Christian churches. No court would admit in excuse for the diffusion of poison the plea that the poisoner knew of another agent actively employed in diffusing an antidote. Moreover, the churches, divided and without national recognition, would be able very inadequately to counteract the deadly evil done by the public schools of the State with all the resources and prestige of the government. But, more than all, atheism taught in the school cannot be counteracted by theism taught in the Church. Theism and atheism cannot coalesce to make anything. All truth in all spheres is organically one and vitally inseparable. It is impossible for different agencies independently to discuss and inculcate the religious and the purely naturalistic sides of truth respectively. They cannot be separated. In some degree they must recognize each other, and be taught together, as they are experienced in their natural relations.
I am as sure as I am of the fact of Christ's reign that a comprehensive and centralized system of national education separated from religion, as is now commonly proposed, will prove the most appalling engine for the propagation of anti-Christian and atheistic unbelief, and of anti-social, nihilistic ethics, individual, social, and political, which this sin-rent world has ever seen.
[A.A. Hodge, Evangelical Theology: Lectures on Doctrine, pp.242-245]
You can read the full text here: http://www.sermonaudio.com/new_details3.asp?ID=12308
-
Seagoon, I never tire of reading your posts, they are usually filled with wisdom and truth, and many good quotes. However, I am afraid this may be hijacking, as I cannot express what I wish to say in any way that would equal what you have said thus far. I can only say that me opinion is very much the same as yours, that the loss of Christianity is the main reason for this once great nation's decay of morals.
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
Religion has NO place in schools unless it is in a religion (of all religions) history class.
Do you believe that kids shouldn't be able to say a prayer of thanks before eating? Do you believe kids shouldn't be able to read the Bible (if they so choose) during any free time they might have? Just wondering :)
-
Originally posted by john9001
when i was a kid everyone said the "lords prayer", and we also said the pledge of allegiance to the flag. It only took about a minute. I don't think i suffered any bad effects from it.
When I was (~1966) Our elderly teacher used to read to us every day out of the Old Testament---I don't feel violated in any way, shape or form
-
Originally posted by Elfie
Do you believe that kids shouldn't be able to say a prayer of thanks before eating? Do you believe kids shouldn't be able to read the Bible (if they so choose) during any free time they might have? Just wondering :)
Anybody who thinks prayer can be prohibited in public schools doesn't remember taking a pop quiz:
Oh God, I am not prepared for this!
-
Hmmm... so, they threw in a recess so the muslims could pray and the rest of the kids could play.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0712/p01s03-ussc.html
"A teacher is present to watch the praying children but cannot lead or take part in the observance."
Here's another story:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20070702-9999-1n2prayer.html
"The issue has drawn the attention of national groups concerned about civil rights and religious liberty. The Council on American-Islamic Relations, Anti-Defamation League, American Civil Liberties Union and the Pacific Justice Institute are some of the groups monitoring developments in California's second-largest school district."
"Voluntary prayers by students are protected private speech, the courts have said. That means students can say grace before a meal and have Bible study clubs on campus, and several San Diego schools do. Public school employees, however, cannot lead children in prayer on campus."
This particular comment is a hoot:
"I think it's pretty pathetic that our children can NOT even say the pledge of the legions in our schools today- yet we are catering to the Muslims wishes- If anything is mentioned about God in the schools -shame on them... Maybe our world is the way it is because God is being taken away more and more- what happened to Freedom of speech?"
-
Originally posted by Sandman
This particular comment is a hoot:
"I think it's pretty pathetic that our children can NOT even say the pledge of the legions in our schools today- yet we are catering to the Muslims wishes- If anything is mentioned about God in the schools -shame on them... Maybe our world is the way it is because God is being taken away more and more- what happened to Freedom of speech?"
If you think they messed up saying the Pledge of Allegiance, well, that may not be the case. For there is The Pledge of the Legion of Decency, which they may have been referring to.
-
Originally posted by McFarland
If you think they messed up saying the Pledge of Allegiance, well, that may not be the case. For there is The Pledge of the Legion of Decency, which they may have been referring to.
Have you read the Pledge of the Legion of Decency?
Does it look like something they would say in an elementary school?
-
Yes to both questions.
-
Oh yeah... I can see a group of ten-year olds chanting this:
I condemn all indecent and immoral motion pictures, and those which glorify crime or criminals. I promise to do all that I can to strengthen public opinion against the production of indecent and immoral films, and to unite with all who protest against them. I acknowledge my obligation to form a right conscience about pictures that are dangerous to my moral life. I pledge myself to remain away from them. I promise, further, to stay away altogether from places of amusement which show them as a matter of policy.
Puhleeze.
-
Originally posted by McFarland
Yes to both questions.
Yes?:eek:
Then you went to Catholic school. Not since the early 60's when M M Ohair won her SC case has anything like that been sponsored (legally) by public school teachers.
-
No, I didn't say the school sponsored it or even allowed it, I said some of the kids used to say it. I didn't say it, and I watched movies like that. But I know people that did and some that still do.
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
Hi Holden,
I am still looking forward to Lew's replies to my questions on behalf of the ACLU, but you shouldn't feel you are butting in at all...
You make a good point here, few people today are actually aware of the historic situation that brought about the First Amendment right to "Freedom of Religion." Great Britain had what is referred to as an established church in other words, the Church of England (or Anglican Church) was the official church of the Kingdom and they held (and still hold) that the King was the head of the church - a position that many Scottish Presbyterians held to be blasphemous as only Christ could be head of the church. This led to great persecution in Scotland as the English attempted to remove Presbyterianism and establish the Church of England there during the 17th century as well. The period from the 1660s to 1688 in Scotland was known by Scots Presbyterians as "the Killing Times" as the King's dragoons hunted down and killed and imprisoned many of the Covenanters who refused to take a loyalty oath which declared that the King was the head of the church. Many Scots during this period fled first to Ulster and then the American Colonies, bringing their hearty detestation for the established church of England. In the colonies themselves, until the revolution repression of other churches continued with non-church of England ministers outside of New England frequently denied official licenses to preach, and their assemblies broken-up and the congregants imprisoned. Additionally, it was impossible to hold office or official postings, and attend many of the British Universities if one was not a member of the Church of England. The "dissenters" were explicitly second class subjects. The Baptists in particular suffered immensely during this time, and so it is not surprising that it was the Danbury Baptists who wrote Jefferson to confirm that freedom of religion was an inalienable right assured to all Americans by the Constitution.
This hatred for the established church was one of the catalysts for the Revolution and helps to explain why so many Presbyterians and Congregationalists in particular were behind it, while so many Anglicans (particularly in the south) were loyalists or "Tories." George III himself called it the "Presbyterian war" and Walpole quipped that "There is no use crying about it. Cousin America has run off with a Presbyterian parson, and that is the end of it." At the Battle of Concord when the colonial minutemen were commanded to put down their arms in the name of their Sovereign King George III, their reply came back "We recognize no Sovereign but God and no King but Jesus!"
What so many of the Colonists were fighting for was their own freedom to practice their religion openly and without fear of repression because of it. the situation today where an openly religious person can be squeezed out of the academy or stigmatized is exactly the opposite of what they wanted. They wanted freedom for religion, not freedom from religion. The early years of America therefore saw no establishment of a single religion, but yet Christianity thoroughly permeated all parts of the society including the government. In the early 19th century for instance no one would have thought something like Blue Laws, which added the force of law to the keeping of the Lord's Day were unconstitutional. Obviously that has changed dramatically.
True, but that wasn't the point I was making. I was actually answering Silat's contention that "Christians" had somehow recently added religion to an essentially atheistic society as if the prayer in congress was something the Republicans voted in under George Bush. I pointed out that the Prayer at the opening of Congress goes back to the FIRST CONGRESS and at that time it was explicitly and even polemically and evangelistically Christian.
- SEAGOON [/B]
I never made a statement saying that prayer in congress was a recent addition. Show me where I said that.
If you have questions for the aclu then ask the aclu. Im not in charge of them. I read their site like anyone else can. I read their charter like anyone else.
I believe my point for the 4th or 5th time is that no religion should be in the public square period.
You christians have been whining and acting persecuted even though you are the vast majority.
Now Christians are upset that Islam wants its place in the public square. Well , reap your reward baby:)
You wanted your religion out there. Now you have to contend with any religion being out there with you .
I think you were wrong then and I think you are wrong now.
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
Hi Silat,
Oh no there are some caveats to that of course, that's unless the most vulnerable happen to be in utero in which case the ACLU denies they have even the most fundamental right to live, oh and of course if they happen to be children being exploited by say child pornographers in which case they are strongly in favor. As I quoted in another pro-ACLU thread:
Silat, I'd agree with you that the ACLU doesn't have a criteria of only supporting Socialist causes, as far as I can tell their primary criteria (with a few exceptions now and then) is that the cause being supported has to be thoroughly evil.
- SEAGOON
Im not going to argue your religious belief about abortion. I think you are wrong and we will never agree.
I believe in a woman controlling her body period.
As horrible as the choice of abortion may be I support the womans right to decide right up until the baby is outside her body.
And I think you are evil for wanting to take her control away from her.
So Sea if you dont want an abortion then dont get one.
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
Hello Silat,
There have been Christian prayers at the opening of Congress since the very first meeting on September 7, 1774 Here is a painting of the event:
(http://www.ushistory.org/carpentershall/visit/images/prayer.jpg)
John Adams wrote of the event:
Here is the text of the prayer of which Adams wrote he never heard better in all his life, no doubt it will make your hair stand on end and your teeth gnash. If only the ACLU had been there to put an end to it at the beginning you'd all still be loyal subjects of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II:
SEA you are the greatest example in here that I can point to.
You want your religion and your religious beliefs to be the law of the land.
The American Taliban at work.
Not in my America if I have anything to say about it.
We have men and women dying right now fighting religious fanatics.
Maybe we should be fighting them here first.
-
Originally posted by Silat
SEA you are the greatest example in here that I can point to.
You want your religion and your religious beliefs to be the law of the land.
The American Taliban at work.
Not in my America if I have anything to say about it.
We have men and women dying right now fighting religious fanatics.
Maybe we should be fighting them here first.
Those dang Christians and their suicide belts:rolleyes: I fail to see where one can make the jump from PLEASE don't try to OUTlaw/persecute Christianity while not-so-subtlety giving Islam a free pass, to making Christianity a mandatory exercise, subject to recriminations if one dissents. (A thousand pardons if I've mis-interpreted your statement)
-
Hi Silat,
Originally posted by Silat
I never made a statement saying that prayer in congress was a recent addition. Show me where I said that.
What you said was in response to Ack’s original question: “Did you watch the video of those two idiots that heckled the Hindu priest giving the morning prayer in the Senate?”
You said: “Yes I did see that. You see the Christians wanted religion in there. Now they have it. But , whoops its the wrong religion”
Forgive me, but the way it reads is that modern Christians wanted religion in the senate and “Now they have it.” You make it sound like a modern Evangelical plan to Christianize the congress back-fired with the addition of Hindu prayers. The fact is that prayer has been in the congress since the first meeting and that the first prayer was explicitly evangelical. If the founding fathers, (you know, the fellows kneeling in prayer in the picture) hadn’t wanted any Religion in the public square, that event and countless others wouldn’t have happened. Your posts have obscured the fact that “the Christians” in question who “wanted religion in there [the congress]” were the founding fathers. Also, just for the sake of accuracy, Rabbis and Imams have also given the opening prayer in the Senate.
If you have questions for the aclu then ask the aclu. Im not in charge of them. I read their site like anyone else can. I read their charter like anyone else.
I believe my point for the 4th or 5th time is that no religion should be in the public square period.
And my point is that you are the one pushing a novel opinion contrary to the prior practice of the United States. What others have pointed out and a search on the ACLU site makes clear is that they aren’t anti-religion in the public square, their legislative record makes clear that they are anti-Christianity in the public square and clearly pro-Islam.
You started off defending an idyllic view of the ACLU: What does this have to do with the ACLU? The ACLU doesnt do anything but fight for constitutional issues. And that is non partisan. … Donate and help them keep ALL religion out of the public square.
But when it was pointed out that the ACLU fights for Child Porn and Islam in the public square, you backed off your support.
- SEAGOON
-
Hello again Silat,
Forgive me if I respond to two of your posts at once.
Originally posted by Silat
Im not going to argue your religious belief about abortion. I think you are wrong and we will never agree.
I believe in a woman controlling her body period.
As horrible as the choice of abortion may be I support the womans right to decide right up until the baby is outside her body.
And I think you are evil for wanting to take her control away from her.
So Sea if you dont want an abortion then dont get one.
Come on Silat, the cliché answer, “If you don’t want an abortion then don’t get one” has never held up under any sort of philosophical scrutiny. For instance, lets apply it to other moral evils that have had legal protected status in various countries:
* “If you don’t like Slavery, don’t buy a slave”
* “If you don’t like the holocaust, don’t run a concentration camp.”
And so on…
In each of these cases the essential right to life and liberty of another person is being legally violated even though the violation is legal and a considerable number of people in the state approve of the action (sometimes even a majority). Since those whose rights are being taken away cannot defend themselves, those who can have a moral responsibility to do so. As it says in the Proverbs 31:8 “Open your mouth for the speechless, In the cause of all who are appointed to die.”
In an abortion, a defenseless human life is taken without cause by another person or persons. When Scott Peterson killed his pregnant wife and her unborn child, he was rightly charged with and convicted of two murders not just one. The state acknowledged that what he did was commit a murder, but the state at the same time has created a contradiction in law – namely that when daddy kills baby, its murder, but when mommy kills baby, it’s her legally protected right. I heard from a doctor a little while ago who started out pro-abortion but eventually became pro-life. He said the catalyst to the change was that he had ended up laboring in the same hospital on the same day to save the life of a premature baby and then shortly thereafter do a late-term abortion. He said he realized that the child he had killed looked almost identical to the one he had been laboring desperately to save. The right of a mother to kill her child is a made up “right” granted by positive law, it can never, ever, supersede the inalienable right to life granted to every person by God.
Originally posted by Silat
SEA you are the greatest example in here that I can point to.
You want your religion and your religious beliefs to be the law of the land.
The American Taliban at work.
Not in my America if I have anything to say about it.
We have men and women dying right now fighting religious fanatics.
Maybe we should be fighting them here first.
Silat, I’ve answered this one so many times, I almost feel like there ought to be a sticky labeled “What Seagoon believes about Church/State relations” – for heaven’s sake I am even doing my ThD on the subject of the Spirituality of the Church, a succinct summary of that doctrine being given by R.B. Kuiper in these words “Just because the preaching of the Word is so great a task the church must devote itself to it alone. For the church to undertake other activities, not indissolubly bound up with this one, is a colossal blunder, because it inevitably results in neglect of its proper task. Let not the church degenerate into a social club. Let not the church go into the entertainment business. Let not the church take sides on such aspects of economics, politics, or natural science as are not dealt with in the Word of God. And let the church be content to teach special, not general revelation. Let the church be the church.” but it seems like whatever answer I give it all gets ignored by the desire to maintain the “Theocon” caricature of every evangelical Christian. Alright then, here it is again, here is the official position I have subscribed to, which I believe to be the teaching of scripture, and which I have vowed to uphold:
“It is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the person and good name of all their people, in such an effectual manner as that no person be suffered, either upon pretense of religion or of infidelity, to offer any indignity, violence, abuse, or injury to any other person whatsoever: and to take order, that all religious and ecclesiastical assemblies be held without molestation or disturbance.”
And
“It is the duty of people to pray for magistrates, to honor their persons, to pay them tribute or other dues, to obey their lawful commands, and to be subject to their authority, for conscience' sake.Infidelity, or difference in religion, doth not make void the magistrates' just and legal authority, nor free the people from their due obedience to them : from which ecclesiastical persons are not exempted…”
Now I would invite you to show me how that is the same thing as waging Jihad in order to extirpate all other religions, ideologies, and governments and set up a world-wide caliphate governed by Sharia.
As for “maybe we should be fighting them here first” you are my dear fellow, using the judiciary and the legislature and the media and the academy. I have no doubt that if the Lord tarries and allows me to go on serving His flock, that within a few decades I will be arrested for some form of thought crime or hate speech and quite possible end up enduring a small measure of what Pastors already endure in other places where preaching the gospel is prohibited. I expect that, and hope that I will have the faith to rejoice if I am honored to be able to suffer for Christ (Acts 5:40-41)
- SEAGOON
-
Originally posted by McFarland
Seagoon, I never tire of reading your posts, they are usually filled with wisdom and truth, and many good quotes. However, I am afraid this may be hijacking, as I cannot express what I wish to say in any way that would equal what you have said thus far. I can only say that me opinion is very much the same as yours, that the loss of Christianity is the main reason for this once great nation's decay of morals.
This nation has never been particulary "moral" and to say that is pretty naive. Our history is full of immoral behavior.....from big business, our entertainment to our government and its behavior.
What this nation lacks is any flipping commen sense. We're ruled by extremism. Our 2 party system is controled by radicals w/no regard for what the average American desires it seems. These radicals are the minority yet get the most press time.... from gun control, to the religious right their all extremists.
Once again somebody w/alittle common sense would do wonders for this nation. The men who wrote the constitution seemingly had it. We havent had it in DC for sometime now I'm afraid.
-
I believe in a woman controlling her body period.
Exactly where does this control start?
Maybe it starts when she decides to have sex?
Maybe it starts when she decides to use or not use birth control?
Let's not get into the rape/incest issue of this since only 1% of abortions are for that reason.
-
Hi Batdog,
Originally posted by batdog
These radicals are the minority yet get the most press time.... from gun control, to the religious right their all extremists.
Once again somebody w/alittle common sense would do wonders for this nation. The men who wrote the constitution seemingly had it. We havent had it in DC for sometime now I'm afraid.
Just a brief thought, actually the men who wrote the Constitution were political extremists. They were mostly the Revolutionaries who had broken with Britain and were advocating a radical form of government - Republican rule by the people, rather than even a constitutional monarchy. During the revolution, these men had formed a small but vocal minority and historians estimate that never more than roughly 30-40% of the country wanted a complete break with Britain. The other extreme wing was of course the Loyalists (Tories) who wanted no change in the relationship with the mother country. Most Americans wanted the war to end and some sort of mild concessions to be made by Britain. I'm rather glad that the "moderates" didn't win the day and that America did not end up as Canada Mark II.
Generally speaking it's the extremists, the men with clear vision and goals who stand out in and make history, "moderates" tend to simply push for personal peace, the maintenance of the status quo, and prosperity they fade into the background of history and very few people remember them.
- SEAGOON
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
Since those whose rights are being taken away cannot defend themselves, those who can have a moral responsibility to do so.
The fetus, or whatever you want to call it, has someone to defend and speak out for it: the mother. It's her so called "moral responsibility", not a strangers.... strangers who are usually 100% clueless about the type of life the woman has and the impact of being pregnant with an unwanted child.
It may be your opinion shes abating that "moral responsibility"by having an abortion, ok fine... but her opinion about "moral responsibility" trumps that of a total stranger... as it should.
It's hypocritical to champion the rights of a fetus while trampling on those of the woman; the fetus has every right to life & liberty no matter what, but the woman has NO CHOICE about her life & liberty... if her opinion differs from some strangers? nah.. I don't that flys with most people..
People tend to reject strangers making decisions for them and telling them only one point of view is valid... and they really reject having their choices limited based on a difference of opinion.
-
I R Corn-fused.
There are ~28 states with laws allowing prosecutors to seek a murder charge when a fetus is killed. One would think the fetus would have to be considered a live human being for it to be a victim of the crime of murder.
The Feds also have a law, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212), a United States law which recognizes a "child in utero" as a legal victim, if he or she is injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."[
If, however, a mother terminates her fetus by abortion it's... no big thing.
Why izzat? How can we have it both ways?
Anybody?
-
Originally posted by x0847Marine
The fetus, or whatever you want to call it, has someone to defend and speak out for it: the mother. It's her so called "moral responsibility", not a strangers.... strangers who are usually 100% clueless about the type of life the woman has and the impact of being pregnant with an unwanted child.
It may be your opinion shes abating that "moral responsibility"by having an abortion, ok fine... but her opinion about "moral responsibility" trumps that of a total stranger... as it should.
It's hypocritical to champion the rights of a fetus while trampling on those of the woman; the fetus has every right to life & liberty no matter what, but the woman has NO CHOICE about her life & liberty... if her opinion differs from some strangers? nah.. I don't that flys with most people..
People tend to reject strangers making decisions for them and telling them only one point of view is valid... and they really reject having their choices limited based on a difference of opinion.
I usually hear the term 'fetus', or 'blob of cells'..etc used---they never want to call the thing they are about to erase from existence a 'baby'....just sayin. At 19 weeks, it's a 'blob'... at 20 weeks, it can be born and LIVE. Tough thing to deal with on any level.
-
Why izzat? How can we have it both ways?
Maybe because people want to have their cake and eat it too. It's convenient to slap on another charge against an unborn child, a child in utero. It's also convenient to have an abortion when you become pregnant because you chose to have unprotected sex.
People don't want to be accountable for their actions and yet they also want a criminal prosecuted as fully as possible.
I understand what you are saying Toad, it is hypocrisy at it's finest(or worst depending on your point of view). I doubt you will see a pro-abortion advocate trying to answer this because it would force them to shout down the laws pertaining to a child in utero to maintain their pro-abortion stance.
It would be interesting to see how a lawsuit worked out if someone or a group filed suit against abortion based on the child in utero laws. (Hope that made sense heh)
-
Originally posted by bj229r
I usually hear the term 'fetus', or 'blob of cells'..etc used---they never want to call the thing they are about to erase from existence a 'baby'....just sayin. At 19 weeks, it's a 'blob'... at 20 weeks, it can be born and LIVE. Tough thing to deal with on any level.
"Parasite" is a closer definition than "baby".
Parasite 2) an organism living in, with, or on another organism in parasitism
Baby 1) : an extremely young child.
-
Originally posted by x0847Marine
"Parasite" is a closer definition than "baby".
Parasite 2) an organism living in, with, or on another organism in parasitism
Baby 1) : an extremely young child.
Fetus is more accurate than parasite. Parasites are generally seen as unwanted.
-
Originally posted by Toad
I R Corn-fused.
There are ~28 states with laws allowing prosecutors to seek a murder charge when a fetus is killed. One would think the fetus would have to be considered a live human being for it to be a victim of the crime of murder.
The Feds also have a law, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212), a United States law which recognizes a "child in utero" as a legal victim, if he or she is injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."[
If, however, a mother terminates her fetus by abortion it's... no big thing.
Why izzat? How can we have it both ways?
Anybody?
The crime of "Murder" is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought.
Abortion is not "unlawful", and lacks malice aforethought.
When a fetus is killed in a murder case, the state assumes the woman had decided to carry it till birth... after all she is dead and can't testify otherwise.
For the purposes of a murder charge, it's not about the viability of the fetus at any given time.
-
Originally posted by x0847Marine
"Parasite" is a closer definition than "baby".
Parasite 2) an organism living in, with, or on another organism in parasitism
Baby 1) : an extremely young child.
You seem to be unable to tell the difference between a flea and a human... the flea puts itself there. The mother created the baby. "In parasitism" means living off of another organism and it harms the one organism, while benefiting the parasite. It doesn't harm the mother to have a baby.
The fetus, or whatever you want to call it, has someone to defend and speak out for it: the mother. It's her so called "moral responsibility", not a strangers.... strangers who are usually 100% clueless about the type of life the woman has and the impact of being pregnant with an unwanted child.
It may be your opinion shes abating that "moral responsibility"by having an abortion, ok fine... but her opinion about "moral responsibility" trumps that of a total stranger... as it should.
It's hypocritical to champion the rights of a fetus while trampling on those of the woman; the fetus has every right to life & liberty no matter what, but the woman has NO CHOICE about her life & liberty... if her opinion differs from some strangers? nah.. I don't that flys with most people..
People tend to reject strangers making decisions for them and telling them only one point of view is valid... and they really reject having their choices limited based on a difference of opinion.
Yes, you're right, the mother is supposed to defend and speak for her baby. She is supposed to protect it as best she can, not kill it. You are hypocritical. It is the baby's right to live as much as the mother's. If she commits murder, she is no better than mothers who leave their babies in dumpsters. Or do you call that an abortion too? Is it an abortion for a mother to kill her 5 year old son/daughter? You clearly have no respect for human life. You seem to think mothers shouldn't be held accountable for becoming pregnant. What if your mother had abortioned you? Do you think that would have been right?
-
Originally posted by x0847Marine
The crime of "Murder" is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought.
Abortion is not "unlawful", and lacks malice aforethought.
When a fetus is killed in a murder case, the state assumes the woman had decided to carry it till birth... after all she is dead and can't testify otherwise.
For the purposes of a murder charge, it's not about the viability of the fetus at any given time.
So you're saying that even though the act of killing an unborn child has the same result in both instances calling it two different names makes it ok in one of the instances? I see.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
So you're saying that even though the act of killing an unborn child has the same result in both instances calling it two different names makes it ok in one of the instances? I see.
That was exactly Toads point as well. It's ok for a mother to knowingly and willfully have the fetus aborted and it's *ok*. Yet if that mother is murdered, killing the unborn fetus as well, that is murder again.
Hypocrisy. Either killing the fetus is murder, or it isn't. In ALL cases.
-
Originally posted by x0847Marine
The crime of "Murder" is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought.
AH! Thanks!
So abortion is the lawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, without malice aforethought.
I appreciate the explanation.
-
Originally posted by x0847Marine
"Parasite" is a closer definition than "baby".
Parasite 2) an organism living in, with, or on another organism in parasitism
Baby 1) : an extremely young child.
Hmm...my 17-year old is a parasite;)
-
Originally posted by AKIron
So you're saying that even though the act of killing an unborn child has the same result in both instances calling it two different names makes it ok in one of the instances? I see.
Yes, it is legally ok in one instance. Your opinion on the morality of it is, uh, yours.
All that matters legally as far as the result, is who decided the fate of the "fetus".. the state respects a womans opinion regarding abortion, anyone else who denies that fetus a full term birth, can be charged with murder.
The state will accept that a woman has decided to terminate when she goes through with the abortion, until then.. they assume the growing fetus inside her will be born.
-
That's a blatant double standard. Legally, murder should be murder no matter who commits it. The state should not arbitrarily rule that some may commit it while others are prohibited from doing so.
If a woman doesn't want to become pregnant and have a child a number of options are available to her:
1. IUDs
2. Condoms
3. Hystorectomies
4. Opting not to live like a strumpet.
Aborting a child for mere convenience sake should never be one of those options.
My opinion on the morality of the issue is as good as anybody's. All laws are legislated morality. Therefore, it is perfectly within my right to press for legislation that denies a healthy woman the "right" to commit the murder of her unborn child.
The fact that many Americans support Roe v. Wade says much more about how self-centered and hedonistic sections of citizenry have become than some are willing to admit.
-
Originally posted by McFarland
You seem to be unable to tell the difference between a flea and a human... the flea puts itself there. The mother created the baby. "In parasitism" means living off of another organism and it harms the one organism, while benefiting the parasite. It doesn't harm the mother to have a baby.
Yes, you're right, the mother is supposed to defend and speak for her baby. She is supposed to protect it as best she can, not kill it. You are hypocritical. It is the baby's right to live as much as the mother's. If she commits murder, she is no better than mothers who leave their babies in dumpsters. Or do you call that an abortion too? Is it an abortion for a mother to kill her 5 year old son/daughter? You clearly have no respect for human life. You seem to think mothers shouldn't be held accountable for becoming pregnant. What if your mother had abortioned you? Do you think that would have been right?
I have more respect for the flea.
The whole killing 5 year olds thing is really emotional, tear jerking and all that, but hardly germane to a stranger making a moral choice about ending a pregnancy. If she abates what you opine is a "moral responsibility", great... your opinion and .99 cents, with get you a .99 hamburger.
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
That's a blatant double standard. Legally, murder should be murder no matter who commits it. The state should not arbitrarily rule that some may commit it while others are prohibited from doing so.
If a woman doesn't want to become pregnant and have a child a number of options are available to her:
1. IUDs
2. Condoms
3. Hystorectomies
4. Opting not to live like a strumpet.
Aborting a child for mere convenience sake should never be one of those options.
My opinion on the morality of the issue is as good as anybody's. All laws are legislated morality. Therefore, it is perfectly within my right to press for legislation that denies a healthy woman the "right" to commit the murder of her unborn child.
The fact that many Americans support Roe v. Wade says much more about how self-centered and hedonistic sections of citizenry have become than some are willing to admit.
You're free to carry your fetus to term should you choose to do so.
You're not free to impose your sense of morality upon others.
Seems perfect enough to me.
-
Hi x0847Marine,
Originally posted by x0847Marine
I have more respect for the flea.
I suppose I should thank you for being so frank. Most proponents of abortion tend to draw a veil over their thoughts and motives rather than have people think they are just fine with the idea of burning a human being to death with saline in the womb, or cutting them into little pieces and sucking it out, or stabbing them in the head and vacuuming out their brain. Whereas you have indicated you know exactly what is entailed and do not feel even the smallest pangs of conscience. I don't think even one of the new 3d ultra-sounds complete with hi-def thumbsucking, smiles at mom's voice etc. would make a bit of difference. That and the stories gloating about taking your girlfriend for her abortion and managing to mace some kids on the way in paint quite a picture.
You know as someone who acknowledges the universal truth of passages like Romans 1:18-32, Romans 3:9-18, Eph. 2:1-4, Titus 3:1-3, and having dealt with a lot of truly horrifying examples of those principles (there's a lot of reasons I went prematurely gray) and counseled others who have been around them, I guess I should be more used to it, but for some reason I still shudder at total indifference to killing and cruelty, I suppose its the realization that the seeds of that indifference are in my heart as well and that but for the grace of God I could have committed and supported monstrous evil all the while justifying its "necessity."
It reminds me of the story from the Eichmann trial in 1961. One of the witnesses brought in to testify was an old man Yehiel Dinur:
"On his day to testify, Dinur entered the courtroom and stared at the man—behind the bulletproof glass—who'd presided over the slaughter of millions. As the eyes of the two men met—victim and murderous tyrant—the courtroom fell silent at the tense confrontation.
Then suddenly, Yehiel Dinur began to sob, collapsing to the floor. Was he overcome by hatred, by the horrifying memories, by the evil incarnate in Eichmann's face?
No. As he later explained in an interview with Mike Wallace, it was because Eichmann was not the demonic personification of evil he'd expected. Rather, he was a frightened old man, an ordinary man, just like anyone else. In that one instant, Dinur came to the stunning realization that sin and evil are the human condition. "I was afraid about myself," Dinur said. "I saw that I'm capable to do this … exactly like he.""
I understand how we can end up sacrificing our children on the altar of convenience, I just recoil at it. All I can say is thank God for the good news of the Gospel and the fact that there is no sin so great that the grace He offers through the atonement of His Son is not greater still.
x0847, I'll admit to having been a pretty "salty" individual prior to conversion myself, just not quite so far on the path as you seem to have gotten. I hope and pray you don't follow that path to the end. My hope is that you will see the offer of life and take it.
Anywho, Its late, must go to bed.
- SEAGOON
-
On the issue of abortion of a viable fetus by a healthy woman the moral compass points in only one direction. It does not spin like the prop on an F4U.
While it might gratify some men of the Enzyte mentality to return the pregnant Lovelaces of the world to active duty (Wearing a raincoat just detracts from the experience, doesn't it guys), I for one refuse to yield the point on the fetus being a parasite.
It may be unwanted, but it is not just a meaningless blob of flesh. Depriving it of its humanity makes it much easier for abortion's supporters to justify a barbaric and inhumane act for the sole purpose of perpetuating the national orgy.
-
When I was 20-ish, I didn't have a religious perspective to draw on about this, simply wasn't raised in a religious household. (I would also be the father of a likely drug-affected 24 year old young adult right now--I'd have stood by my girl-friend whatever she chose to do, but I remember REALLY hoping she chose to make the 'choice') I guess I would have to have been in the 'pro-choice' camp (notice yet another sterile/neutral word..'choice') Over the years, I watched the debate, listened to both sides, and wasn't convinced from the religious POV as much as put off by the 'pro-choice' camp--The 'pro-choice' advocates have to obfuscate, resort to straw man arguments, insult their debate opponents, etc, and it's hard to take ANYthing seriously said by such folk. The final straw was 'late-term'--Babies have been BORN at 22 weeks and lived, and these folks were trying to put forth the notion that abortion should be legal after THAT--HOW can that be anything save murder? "Life of the mother"--lazy argument, as that scenario is incredibly rare, yet the pro-choice advocates insinuate that it is the majority of such scenarios. (No hard evidence on %, but the first informal poll I ever saw of doctors that do this, was that 85% of 'late-term' abortions were purely elective on the part of the mother) Coffee-induced rambling finished.:)
-
An abortion costs alot less than 18+ years of welfare.
-
Originally posted by Toad
AH! Thanks!
So abortion is the lawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, without malice aforethought.
I appreciate the explanation.
You can call it a "lawful killing" if you want, but as far as the law is concerned it's a medical procedure.
If you disagree with the law, write your congressman.
-
Actually, I'm trying to understand the logic.
Take a fetus at exactly the same "age"; 3 months, 4 months..whatever.
This fetus is killed by an unlucky bullet during a drive by shooting in LA; the bullet pierces the abdomen and hits the fetus dead on but the mother lives.
Murder charge.
Now, a fetus at the same age, driven down to the clinic by the mom and sucked out and dismembered, mom drives home.
Medical procedure.
I'm having a real hard time understanding how one is a human life that is lost and someone has to be punished for a capital crime but the other is like getting an ingrown toenail taken out.
Seems like it ought to be one way or the other.
Do you understand it? If so, could you clarify it for me other than saying "it's the law"? How can the two things not be equal one way or the other?
-
abortion is not the question, abortion is a answer, unwanted pregnancy is the question.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Actually, I'm trying to understand the logic.
Take a fetus at exactly the same "age"; 3 months, 4 months..whatever.
This fetus is killed by an unlucky bullet during a drive by shooting in LA; the bullet pierces the abdomen and hits the fetus dead on but the mother lives.
Murder charge.
Now, a fetus at the same age, driven down to the clinic by the mom and sucked out and dismembered, mom drives home.
Medical procedure.
I'm having a real hard time understanding how one is a human life that is lost and someone has to be punished for a capital crime but the other is like getting an ingrown toenail taken out.
Seems like it ought to be one way or the other.
Do you understand it? If so, could you clarify it for me other than saying "it's the law"? How can the two things not be equal one way or the other?
Your answer might be found in the woman's rights. The laws as they stand give a woman the right to terminate a pregnancy she does not want. Apparently, since women are burdened with having to risk their own lives during any pregnancy, this right is granted to them by our law. On the other hand, the drive by shooter, took this mother's right, and her unborn child away. Now, the real tricky question would be, do you prosecute the drive by shooter if he shot the mother on her way to an abortion clinic?
this should be interesting
Mark
-
Ah, so the mother has the right to kill an unborn human being but no one else does?
Justifiable homicide then?
-
They took God out of public schools and replaced him with the deputy sheriff!!
-
Originally posted by Toad
Ah, so the mother has the right to kill an unborn human being but no one else does?
Justifiable homicide then?
kill? many different views here Toad, I generally do not debate abortion, I thought the ? might be interesting about if the shooter shot her on the way to the clinic.
-
Ok, here's how I see abortion:
A mother has her unborn/born baby killed because she doesn't feel like raising it; she has it killed out of convienance in many cases.
A man is worried that another man is going to bring a lawsuit against him that will cause him to lose a lot of his money, so he has him murdered; he has him killed out of convienance.
What's the difference? I'm not seeing a difference here.... is there a difference in your twisted mind?
-
Originally posted by McFarland
she doesn't feel like raising it
It is these types of statements that cause me to not debate abortion! When the person's intellect is not of a caliber to even understand the debate, why bother? :aok out!
-
Originally posted by x0847Marine
You can call it a "lawful killing" if you want, but as far as the law is concerned it's a medical procedure.
If you disagree with the law, write your congressman.
What? Instead of complaining here about injustices? Tell me you haven't done that.
-
Originally posted by SkyRock
It is these types of statements that cause me to not debate abortion! When the person's intellect is not of a caliber to even understand the debate, why bother? :aok out!
Maybe you should have quoted his entire statement. :aok
A mother has her unborn/born baby killed because she doesn't feel like raising it; she has it killed out of convienance in many cases.
In some cases that is true, the woman for whatever reason, either doesn't want to raise the child or feels that she can't raise it. Either way, it's an abortion for convenience sake.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
Maybe you should have quoted his entire statement. :aok
In some cases that is true, the woman for whatever reason, either doesn't want to raise the child or feels that she can't raise it. Either way, it's an abortion for convenience sake.
Elfie, extremist phrasing is one reason why abortion can't be debated with morons.
:aok
-
Originally posted by x0847Marine but her opinion about "moral responsibility" trumps that of a total stranger[/B]
Only if it be moral and if it be responsible.
Abortion is neither.
-
Originally posted by SkyRock
Elfie, extremist phrasing is one reason why abortion can't be debated with morons.
:aok
Otoh....many times those who are debating the issue of abortion claim, without just cause, that the reasoning and/or opinions of the other side are Extremist even when they are valid. Folks on both sides of the fence do this. ;)
-
Originally posted by Toad
Ah, so the mother has the right to kill an unborn human being but no one else does?
Justifiable homicide then?
The state assumes a pregnant woman will eventually give birth.. it's a natural occurrence, but also respects her choice to legally terminate same by elective medical procedure, you are welcome to characterize it as "killing", :homicide", "murder" or even "cheesecake" if you like.
Yea, its semantics... but semantics keep people out of jail every day. Imagine if "public intoxication" was changed to "public stupidity" because some folks thought being drunk and being stupid were the same, all of congress and most politicians would be subject to arrest... the govt would grind to a halt.
If a womans is murdered, her choice is gone, and both are dead for sure.. so the state charges for 2. Keep in mind a charge of murdering a "fetus" is only a charge, it might not result in conviction every time... defense lawyers & juries get involved and have their say as well.
-
It's either a live human being or it is not.
The idea that it's a human being only if someone besides the mother kills it is laughable.
It should be one way or the other, human or not.
I would expect a Supreme Court challenge on this eventually when some dolt is convicted of killing a fetus.
-
I've signed out of this thread for quite a while, but saw an article today some of y'all might find interesting. This is related to the original post, btw, not the big messy unrelated dramagasm this has turned into:
http://www.aclu.org/studentsrights/expression/12845prs20040511.html
A school was censoring christian expression from yearbooks, and there was an objection.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
I've signed out of this thread for quite a while, but saw an article today some of y'all might find interesting. This is related to the original post, btw, not the big messy unrelated dramagasm this has turned into:
http://www.aclu.org/studentsrights/expression/12845prs20040511.html
A school was censoring christian expression from yearbooks, and there was an objection.
Too bad you had to go back over 3 years to find an instance like this. I'd be willing to bet that I can find 2 instances of aclu anti-christian activity for every one you find where they support a citizens right to practice christianity. Wanna play?
-
Post whatcha want if it makes you feel better about yourself, I'm just here for the food.
-
Yeah I didn't think so.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Yeah I didn't think so.
That got a laugh out of me. :)