Is The ACLU A PAGAN GROUP?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Exporter
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Penny Plain:
I will take your word for it, Gilliam. I am sure you know more about it than I do. However, those expressions generally seem to be the ones that the narrow-minded and intolerant are trying to shut down, so they are the ones that need protection.

Don’t get me wrong: I think the world would be a much better place if NAMBLA and all its members fell into a cave and never came out. BUT they have a right to express their opinions, even if those opinions are depraved. I do not want the government deciding which opinions are licit and which ones are not because tomorrow it may decide that mine are illicit.

I also do not want it deciding which religions it should support or oppose because tomorrow it might decide to oppose mine.
Click to expand...
The ACLU actually has certain declaired agendas. One of which is to ‘normalize under law’ the recognition of homosexual **behavior **(in all its flavors). We are talking behavior here, not opinions. This is distinctly a ‘hedonistic’ agenda. When an organization has such an agenda, it is setting itself to mold the ‘government’ into its point of view.

By the way, you and I are ‘the government’ in the US. Laws in the US are suppose to be decided upon by elected representatives. They represent you and I. And we ALWAYS have to have moral values behind our laws to decide what is illicit and nonillicit conduct. For example, murder will always be illicit conduct in the United States. (although some kinds of murder are not illicit in other countries).

By the way, the ACLU has set itself up to judge that the murder of babies inside the womb is OK. No one elected them to that judicial position, they took it upon themselves.
 
Lisa N:
40.png
JKirkLVNV:
I frankly think MOST of the ACLU’s little cursades are ridiculous, though they’ve had a few free speech victories that they deserve. BY AND LARGE, the vendetta against the BSA is absurd. However, BSA support by outside monies (from the government OR from United Way) poses a problem for me because it would tend support religious beliefs with which I, as a Catholic, do not agree (I was a Boy Scout). The BSA is enormously popular with the Mormon church.
/QUOTE]

FWIW the Boy Scouts do not get a dime from United Way here, and it is SPECIFICALLY because they will not allow homosexual Scoutmasters they were removed from the list of UW approved charities. Fortunately reason prevailed here in Moscow on the Willamette and the action totally backfired. People pulled donations FROM UW and gave them directly to BSA instead. UW is almost bankrupt here in Portland, it’s struggling to keep going and is considered a dinosaur that will die soon. I would be curious if this is happening in other places. I must say I am not sorry to see this happen. UW was ADAMANT about supporting pro abortion groups such as PP but apparently felt a group that wouldn’t allow homosexuals to sleep in tents with boys was somehow discrimination. Were they half as concerned about millions of babies as they are about a handful of homosexual activists…

I am curious what you mean by BSA gets money from “the government.”
Click to expand...
That was patently absurd of UW!!! They could easily have remained “neutral” (people can claim to, anyway) and then been a clearing house for funding for everyone. If a gay donor wanted to exclude BSA, they could have checked it off “None of my donation is to go to the following,” just as a Christian can exclude Planned Parenthood. I wasn’t sure whether or not BSA rec. funding from the Govt.
Click to expand...
 
40.png
gilliam:
The ACLU actually has certain declaired agendas. One of which is to ‘normalize under law’ the recognition of homosexual **behavior **(in all its flavors). We are talking behavior here, not opinions. This is distinctly a ‘hedonistic’ agenda. When an organization has such an agenda, it is setting itself to mold the ‘government’ into its point of view.

By the way, you and I are ‘the government’ in the US. Laws in the US are suppose to be decided upon by elected representatives. They represent you and I. And we ALWAYS have to have moral values behind our laws to decide what is illicit and nonillicit conduct. For example, murder will always be illicit conduct in the United States. (although some kinds of murder are not illicit in other countries).

By the way, the ACLU has set itself up to judge that the murder of babies inside the womb is OK. No one elected them to that judicial position, they took it upon themselves.
Click to expand...
Right, we are the government. We are to be in the arena of ideas spelling out what right reason is and what eternal truths are. We are to infuse public debate with the truth. The ACLU has a hard left wing agenda. It is anti Christian and moral relativism. They are not “just” defending so called rights. That is complete double speak.
 
Actually, most United Ways didn’t change. Of the 1,400 United Ways in the US, only about 45 made any sort of policy change that hurt the Boy Scouts. Of those 45 a number have since reverted back because people stopped donating to the UW.

Hard to get hard and fast figures because they have gone back and forth for awhile. See:

national.unitedway.org/aboutuw/boyscouts.cfm
 
40.png
JKirkLVNV:
That was patently absurd of UW!!! They could easily have remained “neutral” (people can claim to, anyway) and then been a clearing house for funding for everyone. If a gay donor wanted to exclude BSA, they could have checked it off “None of my donation is to go to the following,” just as a Christian can exclude Planned Parenthood. I wasn’t sure whether or not BSA rec. funding from the Govt.
Click to expand...
Absolutely it was asinine and it serves them right as they thrash and gasp for air. What bothered many people about this position was their double standard with respect to PP. As you said, if someone wished to give to UW they could either designate their funds for a particular organization or prohibit any funds from going to an organization a donor didn’t support.

They were far more concerned with mollifying the homosexual activists in this state than in maintaining neutrality or giving donors a choice.

I doubt if BSA gets any significant direct government funding. I think in the past it was common for a military unit to sponsor a troop. Also we have “Explorer Scouts” who do ride alongs with cops and get involved in search and rescue. So maybe some kind of training and/or meeting space is donated by a governmental unit. Still it’s not really significant government support to the extent that government would be “establishing” a religion by allowing a scout troop to meet in one of their offices.

I’m still waiting for one of our ACLU apologists to explain how BSA is violating our civil rights.

Lisa N
 
The ACLU is a Satanist origination. Who else but Satan would want God striped from our eyes, ears, and tongue?

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.

Anyone see anything here that says that anything governmental can’t have anything to do with religion? (namely christian?))

Now I’m not a Constitutional lawyer, but common sense tells ya that if Congress can’t make a law respecting the establishment of religion, then Congress can’t make a law respecting the establishment of religion.

It law is to protect religion from the (federal) government. It is (or was) legal for States to establish an official religion.

Again: by whose power do you cast out God? (Or try to at least, we know how the story ends, stupid Satan, give up already.)
 
40.png
gilliam:
By the way, you and I are ‘the government’ in the US. Laws in the US are suppose to be decided upon by elected representatives. They represent you and I. And we ALWAYS have to have moral values behind our laws to decide what is illicit and nonillicit conduct. For example, murder will always be illicit conduct in the United States. (although some kinds of murder are not illicit in other countries).
Click to expand...
Speak for yourself. I am not an American citizen, although I do live in the US and I am married to an American citizen.

My understanding of your system, though, is that the constitution limits the conduct of your elected representatives so they can’t, for example, order you to allow soldiers to stay in your house without amending the Constitution. The power of the people and their representatives is limited.
 
40.png
sbcoral:
People in the United States have the right to think whatever they want. George Bush always talks about the “enemies of freedom,” and this is one of those freedoms that makes it great to live in our country. Don’t be an enemy of freedom, Brad.
There’s nothing socialistic about the ACLU. Where did you get that. As I mentioned above, they have defended the rights of pro-life protesters in the past. They don’t necessarily support the message of Nazis, or NAMBLA, or pro-lifers, but they do adamantly support the rights of everyone guaranteed by our Constitution.
Click to expand...
This is not true. They do not support the rights of Christians - they support restricting the rights(in particular, the speech) of Christians.

Do you support free speech in the modes I described in post #97? Free speech <> Free license. There are some things we cannot say or promote. If someone is promoting molestation and rape of children (i.e. NAMBLA), they are an enemy to Christ and I am thus opposed to them. That is not opposing freedom - it is opposing debauchery that leads to self-imprisonment. If I am to love as Christ loved then I will not support someone’s “right” to promote sin - especially predatory sin with children being the potential victims. If these people are to have true freedom they must escape from their mental prison of thinking children are objects of hedonistic pleasure.

Not allowing someone to say “Merry Christmas” is not supporting a message - it is restricting a message - it is restricting free speech - and when it is Christian speech that is being censored, it follows a path that is no different than the Communists of the Soviet Union followed.
 
40.png
sbcoral:
What are you talking about?
The ACLU defends our civil liberties promised by the Constitution, and that is the issue, Fix, not theology.
There is no evidence that the ACLU is intent on destroying Christianity. It does take many positions that are not popular with the narrow-thinking, conservative Christian crowd, but it has no mission beyond protecting our civil liberties. Get a grip.
Click to expand...
Get a grip?

Who is narrow-thinking?

The school band not being allowed to play Christmas songs? Whose rights does that protect? I know whose rights it violates. If it doesn’t protect anyone’s rights then the only purpose must be to do harm to a particular group.

Conservative Christian crowd? How about “Christians that take their faith in God like their really is one?”
 
40.png
Brad:
If I am to love as Christ loved then I will not support someone’s “right” to promote sin.
Click to expand...
Which is fine with me, as long as you Americans can trust your government to accurately determine which speech Christ would approve and which speech he wouldn’t approve.

How do you feel about that?
 
Lisa N:
Absolutely it was asinine and it serves them right as they thrash and gasp for air. What bothered many people about this position was their double standard with respect to PP. As you said, if someone wished to give to UW they could either designate their funds for a particular organization or prohibit any funds from going to an organization a donor didn’t support.

They were far more concerned with mollifying the homosexual activists in this state than in maintaining neutrality or giving donors a choice.

I doubt if BSA gets any significant direct government funding. I think in the past it was common for a military unit to sponsor a troop. Also we have “Explorer Scouts” who do ride alongs with cops and get involved in search and rescue. So maybe some kind of training and/or meeting space is donated by a governmental unit. Still it’s not really significant government support to the extent that government would be “establishing” a religion by allowing a scout troop to meet in one of their offices.

I’m still waiting for one of our ACLU apologists to explain how BSA is violating our civil rights.

Lisa N
Click to expand...
Maybe there’s more to the Boy Scout story than I know - maybe you know of some specific cases that I don’t, Lisa. The only case I vaguely know about has to do with the BSA having some sort of support from Dept of Defense bases. The BSA is a quasi-religious group, in that it requires belief in god. The ACLU supports the Bill of Rights’ assertion that the government should not establish a religion, with the interpretation that indirect government support of the BSA represents support of this religious group. That shouldn’t happen. .
 
40.png
Catholic2003:
A good example of this is the Inner City Christian Outreach Residential Program from my post #79, which required Catholics to give up their rosaries and be saved before they could pass the drug treatment program. It’s a good thing there is a civil liberties organization to fight stuff like this!
Click to expand...
All this is is another opportunity for the ACLU to restrict Christianity. If they have an opportunity to strike Christ out of an organizaiton, they’ll do it. It wasn’t the Protestant group’s fault that this guy was sent to this particular program. It’s the Judges fault. The Protestant group did right by their faith. Now, I imagine, they can do drug counseling but with very restricted religous components. I could be wrong but I highly doubt they added a Catholic wing to the Protestant outreach group as a result.
 
40.png
Brad:
Get a grip?

Who is narrow-thinking?

The school band not being allowed to play Christmas songs? Whose rights does that protect? I know whose rights it violates. If it doesn’t protect anyone’s rights then the only purpose must be to do harm to a particular group.

Conservative Christian crowd? How about “Christians that take their faith in God like their really is one?”
Click to expand...
Is there a specific case you’re talking about, here, Brad?
In general, we all have the civil liberty of not having one religion promoted by the government. We are allowed to think and believe what we want. How grand it is to live in our country. When the government, or, say, a public school, seeks to promote, even indirectly, the beliefs or traditions of a specific religion, then it does violate the civil liberties of those who do not practice that religion. Christmas is a religious holiday, remember, and many Christmas carols have religious themes, and I suppose that is why the school band in your post was not allowed to play those songs. Makes sense to me.
 
40.png
Catholic2003:
In theory, non-Christians are not second-class citizens in our country. The Ten Commandments do not be long in a courthouse that supposedly guarantees justice to all, any more than an excerpt of the Koran belongs there. And when a judge is told to remove them, he has no business disobeying. You would think a judge would understand the concept of “contempt of court”.
Click to expand...
Judge Moore had every right to disobey because he was following the oath that he took when he became judge which REQUIRES him to acknowledge God as that authority of the law he interprets - thus the 10 commandments. Secondly, the divine source of our law being Judeo-Christian in nature is all over our judicial system from swearing on the Bible to tell the truth to the picture of Moses in the Supreme Court.

This doesn’t make non-Christians second class citizens - if you disagree, I’d like an example of how this is so. Nobody is required to practice a Christian faith -but, if they live in the United States - they are to follow the law - which is rooted in Judeo-Christian law as the founding fathers deliberately intended.
 
40.png
sbcoral:
The ACLU defends our civil liberties promised by Constitution, and that’s all. Sorry it’s not more than that.
Click to expand...
Then they should defend the freedom of religion as defined by our Constitution and not the freedom from religion as defined by a figment of their imagination.
 
40.png
sbcoral:
Maybe there’s more to the Boy Scout story than I know - maybe you know of some specific cases that I don’t, Lisa. The only case I vaguely know about has to do with the BSA having some sort of support from Dept of Defense bases. The BSA is a quasi-religious group, in that it requires belief in god. The ACLU supports the Bill of Rights’ assertion that the government should not establish a religion, with the interpretation that indirect government support of the BSA represents support of this religious group. That shouldn’t happen. .
Click to expand...
While I certainly believe that the philosophies and activities of BSA are focused on ethics and morals as are most religions, my understanding is that you don’t have to believe in the “Christian” God but that you must believe in “a higher power.” This could be nature. This could be quantum physics. This could be “The Force.” So to claim this is a religion is IMO baseless. There is a VERY distinct pattern of attack on the BSA. They can’t use a public park in San Diego. They were kicked out of United Way. They can’t be sponsored by a military base. Their crime is rejecting homosexuals as scout leaders. Not a matter of blocking citizens’ civil rights.

I don’t know if you are aware of 12 Step Programs but they too require acknowledgement of “a higher power.” Now maybe to some AA sounds like a religion, but the meetings do not establish a religion either. And I don’t know that the ACLU is going after AA. Let’s hope not. Like BSA this is an organization that does a great deal of good in this world. But this is the kind of thing the ACLU focuses on. Not real rights, matters of life and death, but little stops along the roadmap to making this a secular society. That is the real agenda. The Founding Fathers would not approve.

Lisa N
 
Penny Plain:
Yes, and the US government should be in the business of deermining what the Truth and Right Reason are? From what I know of the ACLU, it generally takes the position that expression of all ideas is entitled to protection, even repellent ones, so people can decide for themselves what to believe.
Click to expand...
This is paradoxical as it fights to restrict the rights of Christians to talk. If you want information on this check out Focus on the Family’s website.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top