Is The ACLU A PAGAN GROUP?

[Penny_Plain]

Lisa N:

No, you said that. I believe that a private organization can make its own rules and accept the consequences, which might mean no access to public funding.

What I objected to was your use of ridiculous examples, i.e. left handed people or Asians. You act as if denying homosexuals leadership roles is simply capricious, as would be denying membership to southpaws. There is NOTHING in the Boy Scout charter that would indicate being left handed or Asian is counter to the BSA’s philosophies. But being an atheist or a homosexual or an immoral criminal IS counter to the mission of the BSA. That is what distinguishes the example of homosexuals versus Asians and lefties. The BSA clearly does not want the risk or influence homosexuals in their club. They do not want avowed atheists in their club either because they specifically ascribe to the philosophy that there is a “higher power.”

Ah. So your point is that the organization has to be internally consistent? Why? If it’s a private organization, who says so?

I don’t know if the KKK has a charter. If it did, presumably it would provide a reasonable basis to exclude blacks and Catholics. Being a private club, they can do that, right?

 

[Brad]

Penny Plain:

As I live and breathe, I do not know what rights the ACLU is taking away from Christians. The ACLU has no power to take away rights, for starters; all it does is argue in courts for a particular outcome.

Have you checked your pulse lately?

Sorry for my lack of inserting a proper word - maybe you should take me to court for that. I should say the ACLU is “fighting” to take away rights. You are correct. The judge actually decides to restrict the rights. You are ok with the judge not allowing an 8 year old to sing Christmas songs?
Penny Plain:

Yes, I’m sure you can tell me exactly how singing “Silent Night” at a public school play is prohibiting the free exercise of religion. You can sing it anywhere you want, Brad. Just don’t use my tax dollars to subsidize it, force my children to participate in it, or force me to listen to it if I want to go to my kids’ school and hear the show.

If you can understand that this is prohibiting the free exercise of religion then you can understand how it violates the first ammendment that has been posted above - it is “preventing” the free exercise thereof - a specific religion is not allowed in public.

Your tax dollars subsidize many things you may disagree with. That is a duty of being a citizen. I pay for private schools and I also pay public school tax - do you see me complaining about it? Nope. Do you support your tax dollars funding Planned Parenthood? How about Muslim organizations, scholarships for Native Americans, Buddhist organizations etc. Tax dollars support all of these - is this all ok but we must draw the line when Christmas songs come into play?

Your children are not forced to participate and you are not forced to listen - in fact, you and your family don’t even have to go at all - so get over it.
Penny Plain:

Yes, I’m Catholic. Yes, I love “Silent Night.” But I don’t understand why you feel entitled to use tax money to make Jewish, Hindu, and Muslim kids sing it and their parents listen to it. You feel so strongly about it, no law prevents you from renting an auditorium and putting on your own show, just like Mickey and Judy.

The Jewish, Hindu, and Muslim kids can opt out if they want - Not allowing the Christians to sing is taking away their rights.
I may just rent the auditorium. What do you think about everyone going to school during Christmas vacation, the Thanksgiving holiday, Martin Luther King Day, and President’s Day. How about nobody named John, Mary, Rachel, Abraham, Adam, Noah, Isaac, Mathew, Luke, Mark, Elizabeth, Rebeccah, Jacob, Francis, Catherine, Teresa, David, or Peter not being allowed to use their real names while in schoo?
Penny Plain:

You seem to know a great deal about NAMBLA, Brad. I don’t know if it supports the “raping and killing of children” or not. I find NAMBLA and its members repulsive, as I do members of the KKK, the Nazi party, and many metal bands. However, I believe that all of these groups have the right to express themselves.

They don’t promote killing children. They promote molesting and raping (statutory) minors. That is a fact. You want them to express themselves. I say they cross the line of license. You show no love for them or for others defending their right to promote and act out devaint behavior. You want to live next door to these guys? I don’t.
Penny Plain:

It’s a very American concept, really – the marketplace of ideas. Some ideas are good, and some are bad. (You’ll note I distinguish the thought from the deed, here.) The best way to determine which is which is to throw them all out there and discuss them. Drag the Nazis and Klan members out from under their rocks, shine the light on them, and see how their ideas hold up when exposed to public discussion. The answer usually is “not very well.”

The marketplace of ideas depends on the ability to express ALL ideas, not just ones that pass some sort of governmental test of approval. The people, not the government, decide which ones are good and which ones aren’t.

You have yet to address my examples of free speech and promotion that is not allowed. You can’t ignore the reality that a line is drawn. I’m suggesting it be drawn at groups like NAMBLA.

Could some start and anti-PennyPlain group and put all the bad things you’ve ever done AND all the bad things the THINK you might do and put them on a website and city billboards and radio and TV advertisements? If not, why not? It’s their marketplace of ideas.

 

[fix]

Novak shares that a local clergyman prefaced his prayer by reading Psalm 35 aloud. John Adams wrote to his wife and described the event. He indicated, ‘’ had never heard a better prayer, or one so well pronounced. I never saw a greater affect upon an audience.’’ *

•    Adams continued his description, ''It seemed as if heaven had ordained that Psalm to be read on that morning… It was enough to melt a heart of stone. I  saw tears gush into the eyes of the old, grave pacific Quakers of Philadelphia…  I must beg you to read that Psalm.'' *

•    Also included in Novak’s list of events indicating the religious nature of the founders is an incident that took place five months after the Declaration of Independence was adopted. *

•    America was suffering under the effects of war as well as a devastating drought. In response, writes Novak, ''Congress set aside December 11, 1776, and decreed that the separate States should organize a day of Fasting and Repentance.'' *

•    Included in the decree was the admonition ''to implore of Almighty God the forgiveness of the many sins prevailing among all ranks, and to beg the countenance as assistance of his Providence in the prosecution of the present just and necessary war.'' *

•    Novak also details George Washington’s training of his troops for battle with the British. He indicates the general ''gave orders that each day begin with formal prayer, to be led by the officers of each unit.'' *

•    Washington believed that ''the Continental Army must secure God’s blessing on their efforts every day, by every means within their power,'' notes Novak.  Further the general maintained, ''Nothing else could guarantee success.  There was no other hope.'' *

•    The aforementioned events are only a sampling of many recounted by Michael Novak in ''On Two Wings.''  They are but a small portion of a significant body of evidence that indicate the ALCU is dead wrong in its assertion the founders wanted religion absent from the public square. **        The Founding Fathers would consider the removal of a tiny cross on a county or city seal preposterous.  If America’s founders were alive today they would likely hold the ACLU in the same regard as they did King George III.*

chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=8322
*

 

[Brad]

Penny Plain:

Do you get these out of a book? If so, you need a better book.

What is the matter? Have you exhausted your marketplace of idea discussion box?

Why do you thinks those ideas are not worthy of a response? Are they as ridiculous as you suggesting that someone saying “Merry Christmas” to me on public grounds is blindly grabbing me and thrusting me into the Christian faith against my will?

 

[Lisa_N]

Penny Plain:

Ah. So your point is that the organization has to be internally consistent? Why? If it’s a private organization, who says so?

I don’t know if the KKK has a charter. If it did, presumably it would provide a reasonable basis to exclude blacks and Catholics. Being a private club, they can do that, right?

I have absolutely no idea how this even relates to the discussion. Private groups have the right to set their standards for membership. I believe the Supreme Court has upheld that right. But of course there are consequences, in perhaps giving up certain government support or financing. Each group makes that choice and accepts the consequences. If AA requires people to acknowledge ‘a higher power’ that’s also their right. As they say, they do not solicit or accept government funding. There is a large homeless shelter in Seattle that doesn’t accept homosexuals. However they also state they will not accept nor do they request any government funding.

As long as the BSA doesn’t demand our tax dollars, why can’t they set their own rules? You seem to think that only the BSA deserves attack although there are many many restricted organizations in this country.

Lisa N

 

[Brad]

Lisa N:

No, you said that. I believe that a private organization can make its own rules and accept the consequences, which might mean no access to public funding.

What I objected to was your use of ridiculous examples, i.e. left handed people or Asians. You act as if denying homosexuals leadership roles is simply capricious, as would be denying membership to southpaws. There is NOTHING in the Boy Scout charter that would indicate being left handed or Asian is counter to the BSA’s philosophies. But being an atheist or a homosexual or an immoral criminal IS counter to the mission of the BSA. That is what distinguishes the example of homosexuals versus Asians and lefties. The BSA clearly does not want the risk or influence homosexuals in their club. They do not want avowed atheists in their club either because they specifically ascribe to the philosophy that there is a “higher power.”

Futher what I object to with respect to the ACLU, is their picking and choosing of organizations to either support or attack. IOW if they object to an organization that has a focus on “a higher power” why not attack AA? If they want “equal access for all” then why not attack MENSA for limiting membership to those with a certain IQ? THe difference IMO is that neither AA or MENSA have a specific reference to prohibition of homosexuals. Thus they are apparently safe from the programmed attacks of ACLU.

Until I see some unbiased choices of their supported causes, I will continue to maintain that the ACLU is simply an apologist for the radical homosexual movement and will give them the kind of respect that position deserves (IMO).

Lisa N

Yes, why don’t they defend Christian children’s right to practice their religion by option out of the “distribution of condomns” or the “homosexuality is normal” programs?

 

[Brad]

Penny Plain:

Ah. So your point is that the organization has to be internally consistent? Why? If it’s a private organization, who says so?

I don’t know if the KKK has a charter. If it did, presumably it would provide a reasonable basis to exclude blacks and Catholics. Being a private club, they can do that, right?

You seem to think the KKK has that right. So why would you not defend the BSA to have the right to exclude homosexuals?

Are you being inconsistent here?

 

[Penny_Plain]

1. You are ok with the judge not allowing an 8 year old to sing Christmas songs?

2 Your tax dollars subsidize many things you may disagree with. That is a duty of being a citizen. I pay for private schools and I also pay public school tax - do you see me complaining about it? Nope. Do you support your tax dollars funding Planned Parenthood? How about Muslim organizations, scholarships for Native Americans, Buddhist organizations etc. Tax dollars support all of these - is this all ok but we must draw the line when Christmas songs come into play?

1. Your children are not forced to participate and you are not forced to listen - in fact, you and your family don’t even have to go at all - so get over it.
2. How about nobody named John, Mary, Rachel, Abraham, Adam, Noah, Isaac, Mathew, Luke, Mark, Elizabeth, Rebeccah, Jacob, Francis, Catherine, Teresa, David, or Peter not being allowed to use their real names while in schoo?
3. You show no love for them or for others defending their right to promote and act out devaint behavior. You want to live next door to these guys? I don’t.
4. Could some start and anti-PennyPlain group and put all the bad things you’ve ever done AND all the bad things the THINK you might do and put them on a website and city billboards and radio and TV advertisements? If not, why not? It’s their marketplace of ideas.

I have edited and numbered your post to make responding easier.

1. Depending on the circumstances, yeah. I don’t want the little booger coming into my living room and singing it. I don’t want him doing it in the middle of the expressway at rush hour. And I don’t want him using my tax dollars to do it at school.
2. I am not a US citizen, although I do pay US income taxes (yuck). Of course I do not agree with where my money goes. However, the government gives money to religious organizations, including Catholic ones, and it apparently is interested in faith-based solutions to stuff. I don’t see how you limit it to one faith.
3. But we’re forced to pay for it, even if my kids don’t go to public schools for part of the year either.
4. I have no idea what this means.
5. I do not support their right to act out deviant behavior. I do support their right to talk about it, because I believe that stupid, evil, and repellent ideas die when they’re exposed to criticism and public dialogue.
6. I don’t know if they could or not. It might depend on whether what they said was true. If somebody hated me enough to spend that sort of money, I’d be very surprised. You volunteering? I can give you a list of potential contributors.

 

[Penny_Plain]

Brad:

You seem to think the KKK has that right. So why would you not defend the BSA to have the right to exclude homosexuals?

Are you being inconsistent here?

No, I am not. I think the Boy Scouts can exclude homosexuals if they want to.

 

[fix]

Brad:

Yes, why don’t they defend Christian children’s right to practice their religion by option out of the “distribution of condomns” or the “homosexuality is normal” programs?

Because their goal is not to advance authentic rights, but to limit Christianity and advance moral relativism under the guise of supporting the constitution. Their agenda is transparent. They have a tremendous dislike for Christians.

 

[Penny_Plain]

Brad:

What is the matter? Have you exhausted your marketplace of idea discussion box?

Why do you thinks those ideas are not worthy of a response? Are they as ridiculous as you suggesting that someone saying “Merry Christmas” to me on public grounds is blindly grabbing me and thrusting me into the Christian faith against my will?

Well, Brad, that’s not what I suggested in the other thread, and you know that perfectly well. Are you just making things up, now?

The point of your post, as I understood it, was to (using irony and other techniques) point out that many good practices in daily life are consistent with Christian principles.

No kidding.

 

[Trelow]

Penny Plain:

1. I do not support their right to act out deviant behavior. I do support their right to talk about it, because I believe that stupid, evil, and repellent ideas die when they’re exposed to criticism and public dialogue.

5.) There is no true freedom except in the service of what is good and just. the choice to disobey and do evil is an abuse of freedom and leads to “the slavery of sin.”

 

[Penny_Plain]

5.) There is no true freedom except in the service of what is good and just. the choice to disobey and do evil is an abuse of freedom and leads to “the slavery of sin.”

Well…that clears that up.

Guess we can talk about something else now.

 

[Trelow]

Penny Plain:

Well…that clears that up.

Guess we can talk about something else now.

About time.

 

[sbcoral]

**The ACLU “IS” a pagan organization. It is directed by stooges of SATAN. The Communists helped the ACLU in the shaky early days. As the ACLU has started to recieve Federal funding, and funds from a well-known billionaire Liberal (has given millions )- the ACLU has started to attack the thing that holds America together - Religion. The aim of the ACLU is to eradicate God, Jesus or any Christian vestiges from American public life. They have just begun. Once God and Jesus are removed from America, then SATAN can take over. **

To determine the objectives of a group all one has to do is to monitor their actions.

With posts like this, why do I even bother reading this forum?
Signing off, maybe forever,
Sbcoral

God bless.

 

[Trelow]

sbcoral:

With posts like this, why do I even bother reading this forum?
Signing off, maybe forever,
Sbcoral

God bless.

I’d say Exporter nailed it pretty good.

You are either with Christ or against Christ.
Sheep or goat.
We are in the end times, pick a side.

 

[fix]

sbcoral:

With posts like this, why do I even bother reading this forum?
Signing off, maybe forever,
Sbcoral

God bless.

Are you Catholic?

 

[Lisa_N]

sbcoral:

With posts like this, why do I even bother reading this forum?
Signing off, maybe forever,
Sbcoral

God bless.

sbcoral, interesting how you object to a strongly worded post opposed to the ACLU but you apparently don’t mind if Catholic2003 equates Christians singing carols with establishing their own version of the Taliban. How about his suggestion that the next move of those opposed to the ACLU is to allow witches to be burned at the stake?

IOW you seem to only worry about strong language when your ox is gored.

Lisa N

 

[Penny_Plain]

Brad:

Yes, why don’t they defend Christian children’s right to practice their religion by option out of the “distribution of condomns” or the “homosexuality is normal” programs?

Don’t the parents of Christian children have the right to opt them out of those programs anyway?

When my kids are in the public schools, we get maybe three letters a month explaining exactly what’s going on in the health curriculum and explaining that we can opt them out of it if we want to.

I’m a good Catholic and a taxpayer. The ACLU is anti-Catholic because they don’t send somebody to change my tyres when I have a flat.

 

[Lisa_N]

Penny Plain:

I

1. I do not support their right to act out deviant behavior. I do support their right to talk about it, because I believe that stupid, evil, and repellent ideas die when they’re exposed to criticism and public dialogue.

Penny the problem with your suggestion above is that various groups HAVE been held accountable for their ‘free speech’ if it is deemed that speech incited others to perform illegal acts.

As I mentioned previously, an Aryan Nation/White Supremicist group and its leader were sued for $50MM because some of the followers beat and killed an Ethiopian man. The leader had never met these men. Never told them to kill the black man. Never suggested it in their publications. OTOH there was enough of a link between the philosophy of white supremacy and the actions of these two men, that the ORGANIZATION was held responsible.

I think the same thing occurred with respect to some radical prolife groups that published names, phone numbers and home addresses of abortion providers. They were held accountable for the ACTIONS of their followers even though the followers were certainly not instructed to shoot abortion doctors.

THerefore I think there is ample precedence for holding NAMBLA responsible for the ACTIONS of adherents. Why do you disagree with this premise? Why should the ACLU support NAMBLA in fostering illegal activities (preying on minors)? I don’t recall they jumped in to protect the Aryan Nation’s “freedom of speech.”

Do you not see the obvious inconsistency? I defend free speech even if the message is disgusting. Heck there are disgusting messages every single night on network TV. I change the channel. I don’t expect the ACLU to defend my right never to be offended. But when ‘free speech’ incites illegal actions, that cannot be supported by the ACLU or anyone else.
Lisa N