Is The ACLU A PAGAN GROUP?

[Catholic2003]

Brad:

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.

Well, yes, if you think the ideal form of government is a Christian version of the Taliban, then the ACLU is not for you.

 

[Catholic2003]

Brad:

This doesn’t make non-Christians second class citizens - if you disagree, I’d like an example of how this is so.

Imagine you are in a country where the Koran is on display in the courthouse, the oath you take is to Allah, and you are going up against a Muslim in court. Do you seriously expect me to believe that you would not feel as though you already had at least one strike against you going in to court, before anyone even addressed the merits of your case?

 

[Brad]

Penny Plain:

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?

I think you are misinterpreting my right as a citizen of American to be part of “We the People.” I have people in government (senators, representatives) that are to represent me. I have every right to oppose the legalization of NAMBLA as much as NAMBLA has every right to push their deprraved agenda. I will not support their right to exists anymore than I would support terrorist organizations to exist. That is my right as an American and you have no right to take it away from me. I’m calling a spade a spade. This is not a grey area here. I’m not saying that Islam groups cannot exist or NOW cannot exist. I’m saying that groups that promote acts which do grave and irreparable harm (leading to people that perform such acts) should not be part of the fabric of America. As a Catholic, this position is in perfect harmony with my conscience.

 

[Catholic2003]

Lisa N:

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.

My wife is a substance-abuse therapist, and to her and her colleagues, AA is religious. There are many different programs they can refer clients to, and athiests are sent to non-religious ones.

 

[Brad]

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. .

How can any indirect action establish anything? Goes against common sense don’t you think?

 

[Trelow]

Catholic2003:

Imagine you are in a country where the Koran is on display in the courthouse, the oath you take is to Allah, and you are going up against a Muslim in court. Do you seriously expect me to believe that you would not feel as though you already had at least one strike against you going in to court, before anyone even addressed the merits of your case?

For the most part the Ten commandments are the moral law that God has written onto everyone heart. Besides:
007.144 (God) said: “O Moses! I have chosen thee above (other) men, by the mission I (have given thee) and the words I (have spoken to thee): take then the (revelation) which I give thee, and be of those who give thanks.” 007.145 And We ordained laws for him in the tablets in all matters, both commanding and explaining all things, (and said): “Take and hold these with firmness, and enjoin thy people to hold fast by the best in the precepts: soon shall I show you the homes of the wicked,- (How they lie desolate).” (The Holy Quran)

SLAM! so much for your argument.

I for one am appalled that you would use Catholic in your moniker and then stand up and defend a group whose very intent to to banish christianity to the history books. Shame.

 

[gilliam]

Catholic2003:

My wife is a substance-abuse therapist, and to her and her colleagues, AA is religious. There are many different programs they can refer clients to, and athiests are sent to non-religious ones.

My understanding is that AA’s success rate is largely attriabuted to the fact that it is faith based.

 

[Brad]

sbcoral:

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.

This is a regular occurence but if you want a few examples they are below.

archive.aclu.org/news/w120897a.html

home.flash.net/~lbartley/au/activist/act0201/myths.htm

naacd.com/updates6.htm

This sentence:

“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.”

is incorrect. An indirect “acceptance” of a religion (as in playing carols or allowing prayer or scripture study) does non infringe on anyone’s rights unless they are forced to participate. Someone can always opt out. To assume that someone is having their rights trampled because they hear a Christmas song or are in the same building as a Bible study is going on is to assume that people are mere robots with an inablity to critically think.

The solution to such a problem is not to take religion out of all government functions. Our founding fathers said that our system would crumble if we forget where our authority came from.

A better solution is true politcal correctness - let’s have equal promotion of the religions based on the percentage distribution of student population’s faiths. Play 80% Christmas Carrols, 10% Hannukahh and 5% Kwanze and 5% other - and allow anyone to opt out of anything they don’t agree with.

See - good solutions take some common sense thinking but the ACLU’s real agenda is not one of common sense but one of anti-Christianity.

 

[Catholic2003]

Trelow:

I for one am appalled that you would use Catholic in your moniker and then stand up and defend a group whose very intent to to banish christianity to the history books. Shame.

Sometimes standing up for the truth requires one to espouse unpopular causes. Not everyone enjoys slandering the ACLU just because they go against the radical right-wing political view that is dominant on this forum.

 

[Catholic2003]

Brad:

A better solution is true politcal correctness - let’s have equal promotion of the religions based on the percentage distribution of student population’s faiths.

I like the solution the founding fathers came up with - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. If you don’t like it, you are always free to move to another country. Isn’t freedom great!

 

[Brad]

Catholic2003:

Well, yes, if you think the ideal form of government is a Christian version of the Taliban, then the ACLU is not for you.

This sentence is full of errors.

1. There is no Christian version of the Taliban because Christianity’s fundamental teaching is peace and equality of all and the Taliban’s is the use of force and humiliation against those that don’t believe.
2. The ACLU works to eliminate Christian actions and speech. Supporting the ACLU works towards eliminating Christianity, hot preventing a Christian takeover.
3. You fail to recognize the error of the Judge in this case of not allowing this person to select an alternate rehabilitation group. Instead, you prefer to defend the anti-Christian ACLU. Not me - Christ is my God, not some panacea of Kumbaya between secularists that does not and will not every exist.

 

[Trelow]

Catholic2003:

I like the solution the founding fathers came up with - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. If you don’t like it, you are always free to move to another country. Isn’t freedom great!

You are arguing against yourself.

How do you read that to mean that anything affiliated with the government cannot have any references to religion?

 

[sbcoral]

Lisa N:

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

I can’t dispute much of that, except that I think the BSA is a quasi-religious group because, as you say, it requires belief in a “higher power,” and that is a religious concept.
AA is a good counterpoint, but I don’t know how much support AA actually derives from the government.
I don’t think the ACLU is trying to make this a secular society, just trying to keep the government secular and out of the business of promoting a religion. The Founding Fathers would approve.

 

[Brad]

Catholic2003:

Imagine you are in a country where the Koran is on display in the courthouse, the oath you take is to Allah, and you are going up against a Muslim in court. Do you seriously expect me to believe that you would not feel as though you already had at least one strike against you going in to court, before anyone even addressed the merits of your case?

Sure I would because the Koran doesn’t have any law structure - just a bunch of ideas and mandates - including killing non-Christians.

Fortunately for us, the Christian law does not require anyone to believe in anything but it does have some really good guidelines (like “you shall not kill”) that are good to follow. The founding fathers recognized this and knew the benefits of promoting these principles to all citizens.

When a judge decides to put someone in jail because He didn’t keep hold the Lord’s day, then talk to me about the ACLU. But that’s not the problem.

The teachings of Christianity elevate the human person - they do not promote treating them as second-class citizens. If someone feels like a second-class citizen that is not a problem If they are treated like a second-class citizen then that is something that should be corrected. But, last I checked, the 10 commdments never hurt anyone (unless the tablets fell on someone’s head but I don’t remember that happening in the OT)

 

[Brad]

Catholic2003:

Sometimes standing up for the truth requires one to espouse unpopular causes. Not everyone enjoys slandering the ACLU just because they go against the radical right-wing political view that is dominant on this forum.

Standing up for the ACLU is standing up for the truth when they oppose Christ, who is Truth personified? This has nothing to do with “right-wing view”. It has to do with what God you serve.

 

[Brad]

Catholic2003:

Sometimes standing up for the truth requires one to espouse unpopular causes. Not everyone enjoys slandering the ACLU just because they go against the radical right-wing political view that is dominant on this forum.

By the way, the ACLU is a very popular cause so I don’t give you any points for standing with the few.

 

[gilliam]

Catholic2003:

Imagine you are in a country where the Koran is on display in the courthouse, the oath you take is to Allah, and you are going up against a Muslim in court. Do you seriously expect me to believe that you would not feel as though you already had at least one strike against you going in to court, before anyone even addressed the merits of your case?

You may not know this but we Catholics recognize (not believe, recognize) Natural Law. That law is not only for Catholics but for all mankind. It doesn’t matter if you ‘believe’ in it or not, it is inside of everyone and has gone under a lot of names over the eons.

It also happens to be what the US Legal code is based upon. That old idea that all men are created equal and endowed with certain rights.

You may wish to read:
newadvent.org/cathen/09076a.htm

 

[sbcoral]

Brad:

A better solution is true politcal correctness - let’s have equal promotion of the religions based on the percentage distribution of student population’s faiths. Play 80% Christmas Carrols, 10% Hannukahh and 5% Kwanze and 5% other - and allow anyone to opt out of anything they don’t agree with.

.

No, the best solution is no promotion of religion.

 

[Brad]

Catholic2003:

I like the solution the founding fathers came up with - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. If you don’t like it, you are always free to move to another country. Isn’t freedom great!

Yes - I agree with that Ammendment. The ACLU does not protect it. How about the rest of the phrase that says “nor prevent the free excercise thereof”. This is what the ACLU violates.

I’m in the right country - it is the ACLU that violates this constitution, not me.

 

[gilliam]

sbcoral:

No, the best solution is no promotion of religion.

Yea, let’s just have atheistic, nehilistic, anarchy :banghead:

Oh, wait, the Nazi’s already tried Niche’s way, and it failed miserably.