100,000 back bill to curb ACLU

[spiritblows]

The trouble with the ACLU is that they have successfully been able to use their well-funded machine to promote their Anti-Christian agenda. They specifically target Christian expression in their legal activities. Their extreme view of the separation of church and state clause of the US Constitution has been exploited successfully by them to essentially wipe out an important part of our cultural and religious heritage.

Now, I don’t want to be accused of being anti-Semitic because I’m not. In fact I have some Jewish relatives. But, the ACLU is dominated by Secular Jews. Because of historical hurts to the Jewish people by ‘Christians’, many Jewish people are very fearful of Christianity dominating our culture. I know this for a fact from the insider POV. Many Jews of the generation ahead of me experienced a lot of anti-Semitism growing up. Now, they have the money, influence, and know-how to fight back, and have used the ACLU as a tool to do so. They are joined by other anti-Christians in a successful coalition. They managed to largely wipe out religious expression in most public settings.

 

[pnewton]

JesusFollower:

Warning: It is never acceptable to question the sincerity of an individual’s beliefs

He didn’t he just marked the irony of it. ACLU defend homosexuality and pedophilia, both are not commonly thought as Christian virtues. It is ironic. Just like it is ironic that someone’s first post is an attempt to warn of rule infractions.

 

[MikeWM]

pnewton:

He didn’t he just marked the irony of it.

Is that like 10,000 spoons when all you need is a knife?

ACLU defend homosexuality and pedophilia, both are not commonly thought as Christian virtues.

Many people here defend aggressive invasions, destruction of international institutions, capital punishment, dropping nuclear bombs, torturing potential terrorists, and making very unpleasant statements about public figures like Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan. Are those commonly thought of as Christian virtues?

Just like it is ironic that someone’s first post is an attempt to warn of rule infractions.

It’s like a free ride - when you’re already there

Mike

 

[pnewton]

MikeWM:

Many people here defend aggressive invasions, destruction of international institutions, capital punishment, dropping nuclear bombs, torturing potential terrorists, and making very unpleasant statements about public figures like Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan. Are those commonly thought of as Christian virtues?

Not one thing you mentioned is on the same level of absolute black and white mortal sin that NAMBLA promotes. Where these items do cross the line, say like torturing someone for fun and profit, I would find a Christian supporting such a thing bizarre indeed.

You demonstrate the basic fallacy that infests the ACLU, though. Tyring to shove all sorts of the stuff on the same plane as if there is no real absolute right or wrong. They see defending the free speech of a Christian at school as a greater evil than the pornographer at school.

 

[MikeWM]

pnewton:

Not one thing you mentioned is on the same level of absolute black and white mortal sin that NAMBLA promotes.

I think the church teaching on dropping a nuclear bomb, for example, is very clear - but that has been discussed ad nauseam elsewhere.

You demonstrate the basic fallacy that infests the ACLU, though. Tyring to shove all sorts of the stuff on the same plane as if there is no real absolute right or wrong.

I think it is fine to support the ACLU when they are right, and oppose them when they are wrong. Dismissing everything they do because they have some bad positions is far from constructive.

They see defending the free speech of a Christian at school as a greater evil than the pornographer at school.

They see individual rights as far more important than institutionalised religion. If the school was stopping you from praying in private, or forcing you to denounce your religion, then I think they would be along to defend you too. Equally if the school was forcing looking at pornography on everyone, I think they would be arguing against that.

Mike

 

[Nohome]

Wow, 100,000 people want to put a leash on the ACLU! This is big news, slightly more than 0.03% of the population wants action now.Yawn

Start a petition of those who support the ACLU and see what happens, I can’t say that I agree with every case the ACLU has ever taken up but I thank God (yes, God) that they are there.

Nohome

 

[pnewton]

MikeWM:

They see individual rights as far more important than institutionalised religion. If the school was stopping you from praying in private…

One does wonder why prayer should only be supported when it is in private, yet evil can be promoted in publlic.

 

[2shelbys]

MikeWM:

Separation of religion from the state comes under ‘original intent’ in my book.

Mike

Mike,

If you read the “Federalist Papers” or any other period writings you will find the true “original intent”. They wanted to prevent two things: first, the establishment of one government sanctioned church like the Church of England which was instituted by the King who then made himself the head of the church, and second they wanted to prevent government interference in the free expression of religion. The “separation of church and state” as it is now used (actually abused) by groups like the ACLU is EXACTLY what the framers wanted to prevent. They are using the government and courts to prevent the free expression of religion. It is a perversion of the “original intent” into exactly the opposite of what it was. Placing the Ten Commandments or a cross or whatever on public lands is not establishing a government religion by any stretch of the imagination. It is just one more perversion of the Constitution (like the right to murder your baby) by seeing things in the Constitution that simply are not there and ignoring what really is there. It is even worse when you realize that the ACLU gets federal funding. They are using our money to destroy our country.

 

[MooCowSteph]

MikeWM:

The ACLU strive to keep religion, politics, and the law separate - hardly a bad idea, rather reminiscent of a little document called the US Constitution.

Actually, it’s not so much religion and politics that concerns them. It’s the mixing of Christianity and politics that concerns them. Islam, that’s OK. Atheism is alright, too.

The founders, and the constitution, sought to protect the individual religous freedoms of all citizens. Instead it’s been twisted and used to DENY people their right to religous freedom by groups like the ACLU.

 

[MikeWM]

pnewton:

One does wonder why prayer should only be supported when it is in private, yet evil can be promoted in publlic.

You’re making a false case. There is no organised ‘looking at pornography’ session the same way the ACLU oppose organised praying sessions in secular institutions such as public schools.

Mike

 

[MikeWM]

2shelbys:

If you read the “Federalist Papers” or any other period writings you will find the true “original intent”. They wanted to prevent two things: first, the establishment of one government sanctioned church like the Church of England which was instituted by the King who then made himself the head of the church, and second they wanted to prevent government interference in the free expression of religion. The “separation of church and state” as it is now used (actually abused) by groups like the ACLU is EXACTLY what the framers wanted to prevent.

I can’t agree with that. I think this sums it up quite well:

usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html

They are using the government and courts to prevent the free expression of religion.

How? How are you prevented from expressing your religion?

Placing the Ten Commandments or a cross or whatever on public lands is not establishing a government religion by any stretch of the imagination.

It still is stating that the controller of those public lands is favouring one religion over another, which seems to be a key thing the framers were trying to avoid (from the English model, where the Anglican religion is supreme).

I see no problem with keeping public land secular. We have the churches and our homes to worship in. If the ACLU were interfering with that, then we have a different story - but then that would be the precise opposite of what the organisation is there for.

Mike

 

[MikeWM]

MooCowSteph:

Actually, it’s not so much religion and politics that concerns them. It’s the mixing of Christianity and politics that concerns them. Islam, that’s OK. Atheism is alright, too.

Favouring one religion over another is what concerns them. I am sure they would be just as concerned about a copy of shariah law on the wall of the courtroom, as they would about the Ten Commandments. It is just that the majority of the US is Christian and so Christian cases are in the vast majority.

The founders, and the constitution, sought to protect the individual religous freedoms of all citizens. Instead it’s been twisted and used to DENY people their right to religous freedom by groups like the ACLU.

So how exactly has your religious freedom been denied? Can you not worship at home? Can you not go to Church? What precise religious rights have been taken away from you?

Mike

 

[abcdefg]

MikeWM:

Favouring one religion over another is what concerns them.

They favor atheism/agnosticism/secularism uber alles

I am sure they would be just as concerned about a copy of shariah law on the wall of the courtroom, as they would about the Ten Commandments

just a hypothesis. you need supporting evidence.

It is just that the majority of the US is Christian and so Christian cases are in the vast majority.

So do you also think US should be deprived of its Christian nature? “US is a nation under God”, what’s wrong with this sentence?

 

[David_Paul]

People of any religion are free to express their faith in the public square. That is what the first amendment is all about. ACLU types expose themselves when they use the “but Muslims will do…(fill in the blank)…and you won’t like THAT!”

We don’t censor speech because we don’t agree with it. There is no reason to censor expressions of religion we may not agree with either.

All the ACLU talk of protecting the constiution is rubbish. The sect is hostile to the Christian faith and always has been.

 

[pnewton]

MikeWM:

You’re making a false case. There is no organised ‘looking at pornography’ session the same way the ACLU oppose organised praying sessions in secular institutions such as public schools.

Mike

I did not say they were the same. But as far as public pornography session, what about the internet?

discuss.agonist.org/yabbse/index.php?board=3%3Baction=display%3Bthreadid=17515

*Ann Beeson, a lawyer for the civil liberties union, cited examples that included “lesbian and gay pleasure” and “the pleasure of sex outdoors,” and the works of a sex columnist, *

If you care for something even more disgusting:

aclu.org/Privacy/Privacy.cfm?ID=10364&c=252

“The ACLU opposes child pornography that uses** real** children in its depictions. Material, however, which is produced without using real children, and is not otherwise obscene, is protected under the First Amendment.”

Actions like this are why I do not support these uncivil unamerican libertarians.

 

[MikeWM]

abcdefg:

They favor atheism/agnosticism/secularism uber alles

Because in government what is the alternative to secularism? Favouring one religion over another

just a hypothesis. you need supporting evidence.

It is just a hypothesis, because of what they say to be their values. If such a case comes up, we will see if they are true to their values or are hypocrites.

So do you also think US should be deprived of its Christian nature? “US is a nation under God”, what’s wrong with this sentence?

Many people believe in no God or many Gods. I know the truth of my faith - I don’t need it forced upon me by the government.

Mike

 

[MikeWM]

David_Paul:

People of any religion are free to express their faith in the public square. That is what the first amendment is all about.

Are people being stopped expressing their faith in the public square when acting as individuals?

When acting as the agent for a government body - that is another matter.

ACLU types expose themselves when they use the “but Muslims will do…(fill in the blank)…and you won’t like THAT!”

How does that ‘expose’ anyone?

We don’t censor speech because we don’t agree with it. There is no reason to censor expressions of religion we may not agree with either.

What personal expressions of religion are being censored?

All the ACLU talk of protecting the constiution is rubbish. The sect is hostile to the Christian faith and always has been.

The Christian faith is dominant so over-reaches far more often than any other faith. It is self-evident that the ACLU will be dealing with Christians far more often than any oter faith.

Mike

 

[MikeWM]

pnewton:

I did not say they were the same. But as far as public pornography session, what about the internet?

discuss.agonist.org/yabbse/index.php?board=3%3Baction=display%3Bthreadid=17515

*Ann Beeson, a lawyer for the civil liberties union, cited examples that included “lesbian and gay pleasure” and “the pleasure of sex outdoors,” and the works of a sex columnist, *

What about it? Are there not Christian sites on the internet too? Oh, yes, look, I’m on one right now. How are the ACLU trampling the rights of Christians more than that of pornographers?

If you care for something even more disgusting:

aclu.org/Privacy/Privacy.cfm?ID=10364&c=252

“The ACLU opposes child pornography that uses** real** children in its depictions. Material, however, which is produced without using real children, and is not otherwise obscene, is protected under the First Amendment.”

I can’t help but feel that they are legally correct, the same as fascist groups have the right to free speech. See what I said earlier in the thread.

Mike

 

[Penny_Plain]

2shelbys:

It is even worse when you realize that the ACLU gets federal funding. They are using our money to destroy our country.

No, they don’t.

When they bring a certain type of case against the government (federal, state, or local) and win, then they are able to get their attorney fees back from the government they defeated.

That’s it.

If they don’t win, they don’t get any money from the government.

 

[2shelbys]

MikeWM:

I can’t agree with that. I think this sums it up quite well:

usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html

Mike,
I am very familiar with the letter that effectively coined the phrase “separation of church and state” but I am surprised you bring it up. It does not support your point at all. Jefferson was merely trying to calm the fears of a specific group that he was not going to establish himself as the head of a religion “I have refrained from presenting even occasional performances of devotion presented indeed legally where an Executive is the legal head of a national church.” He even mentions the original intent of preventing the blocking of the free expression of religion "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…"

How? How are you prevented from expressing your religion?

You always make this argument and it is irrelevent. It is not my personal rights but those of the people who erected the various things that are being attacked whos rights are being denied and it is setting a precedent for anyone’s (including mine) to be denied in the future. Since when is it improper to be concerned with more than our own personal situation? This country was founded on concern for the rights of all, not “me, me, me”.

It still is stating that the controller of those public lands is favouring one religion over another, which seems to be a key thing the framers were trying to avoid (from the English model, where the Anglican religion is supreme).

It is doing no such thing. If it is then we should definitely close the government sanctioned and publicly funded “U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum” on the grounds that it favors Jewish suffering over others.

I see no problem with keeping public land secular. We have the churches and our homes to worship in.

Another irrelevant argument. The presence of the “Ten Commandments” or a Cross does not turn any place into a place of worship. It is merely the wish of the people who erected the monument to freely express their religion. A right that is supposed to be protected by the Constitution.