The ACLU is at it again!

[Snicker]

But for Grace:

The point is if we allow them to relativize religion so that none is better than another, then they can easily proceed to the next step of completely removing the religious aspect altogether. Once more, can we afford to say silent on this?

This has nothing to do with relativising religion but recognizing the fact that not every one is Christian. Would you like to be forced or pressured to take on oath on the Qur’an or any other non Christian holy book?

 

[Siena]

**This seems to make good ecumenical sense now, but think of this in 10 yrs.-

What if you have no faith? Or subcribe to a religion w/o sacred texts? A satanist?

How can each courtroom in the country be prepared for the endless possibilities?

The end result will be a TOTAL LACK OF ANY REFERENCE- EVEN TOKEN- IN THE COURTROOM.

It starts with relativism, but end with nothing but the state.**

 

[Fidei_Defensor]

All this news only goes to prove:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Benedictus]

How does allowing a Muslim to swear on the Qur’an equate to hating Christianity?!

 

[didymus]

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShroudMan
*I dont get the attack here…how is the ACLU “at it again”?

They arent trying to eliminate any religious swearing in (if I am undersyanding correctly) they are just trying to ensure that people of different faiths have a right to swear in on their OWN religious books…100% American to me. Exactly how is this trying to get rid of Christianity if the people involved are of different faiths to begin with?

Do you think they should be FORCED to swear in on a Christian bible if they arent Christian…ie…just shut up and stop complaining and follow OLD protocol?

Do you think they should be denied a job if they arent Christian?

What am I missing here?

Or do you people subscribe to the Ann Coulter theory of forcibly converting other faiths to Christianity?

I support the ACLU in this particular case 100% How dare someone try to force a Muslim, Buddist, etc to swear in on a book that is meaningless to their particular faith. Its America… its DIVERSIFIED.*

Je ne pense pas que vous êtes américain. Êtes-vous sûr vous êtes-vous catholique ?

Yes, Aimee is American and Catholic (see her profile) hwat’s you point? Anyone who disagrees with you is a dirty Frog?
Please don’t go travelling, representing the US abroad.

As for the issue at hand, I agree with Aimee – what’s the prblem with letting people swear their oath on their own holy book.
Btw, Carolina law does make provision for witnesses “affirming” rather than swearing. The legisalture should just change the law and take the wind out of theACLU’s sails.

 

[mlchance]

I’m trying to remember what Jesus Christ said about swearing oaths. Something about not doing it, but instead letting our “yes” mean “yes” and our “no” mean “no.”

IOW:

“Sir, by taking the stand, you’re legally and morally obligated to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. If you fail to do so, you can be charged with perjury, which is a crime. Do you understand?”

“Yes, I do.”

“Very good then. The questioning can begin.”

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[KathleenElsie]

But for Grace:

The point is if we allow them to relativize religion so that none is better than another, then they can easily proceed to the next step of completely removing the religious aspect altogether. Once more, can we afford to say silent on this?

With this I can totally agree.:clapping:

You can not make someone believe that swearing on the Bible + truthfullness. But, on the other hand, we need to keep the religious aspect in the fore front for all of our sakes lest we loose all rights to do so.

 

[Mom_of_one]

OK, call me an idiot or whatever, but I don’t understand why this is a problem.

On second thought, don’t call me an idiot. Just tell me why this is a problem.

 

[AmyS]

mlchance:

I’m trying to remember what Jesus Christ said about swearing oaths. Something about not doing it, but instead letting our “yes” mean “yes” and our “no” mean “no.”

IOW:

“Sir, by taking the stand, you’re legally and morally obligated to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. If you fail to do so, you can be charged with perjury, which is a crime. Do you understand?”

“Yes, I do.”

“Very good then. The questioning can begin.”

– Mark L. Chance.

You have to understand what the oath is. You are swearing to tell the truth, the whole, and nothing but the truth, so help you God.

So HELP me God… So help me to tell the truth… It is asking for guidance…

On another note… we don’t sware on the bible here in California, but we do say that oath…

Oh and some people just say… I promise to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

Benedictus:

How does allowing a Muslim to swear on the Qur’an equate to hating Christianity?!

Okay let me break it down for the people who do not understand why I am so biffed at the ACLU The Catholic League had to fight them this past Christmas in New York,why? Because the school children had muslim celebration freely and even Hindue,but the Christmas plays were not allowed due to the contraversy. The ACLU has made it a mission to remove all Christian symbols where they can.They supported NAMBLA in court :tsktsk: This is another stunt to attempt to shut us up and silence us.Furthermore they will start looking benign,you wait and see they already can’t stand us and they want to make Christianity History(they will not though).

 

[KathleenElsie]

Lisa4Catholics:

Okay let me break it down for the people who do not understand why I am so biffed at the ACLU The Catholic League had to fight them this past Christmas in New York,why? Because the school children had muslim celebration freely and even Hindue,but the Christmas plays were not allowed due to the contraversy. The ACLU has made it a mission to remove all Christian symbols where they can.They supported NAMBLA in court :tsktsk: This is another stunt to attempt to shut us up and silence us.Furthermore they will start looking benign,you wait and see they already can’t stand us and they want to make Christianity History(they will not though).

I agree with you. It is our history that they want to erase along with us. I believe that is what my osts stated.

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

KathleenElsie:

I agree with you. It is our history that they want to erase along with us. I believe that is what my osts stated.

I wasn’t referring to you I was referring to acouple of others I want them to understand that I am not picking on the ACLU, if you have a rattle snake close to you ,it is prudent to keep an eye on it

 

[Mom_of_one]

I wasn’t referring to you I was referring to acouple of others I want them to understand that I am not picking on the ACLU, if you have a rattle snake close to you ,it is prudent to keep an eye on it

Generally, I can’t stand the ACLU. Any group that supports NAMBLA deserves a swift and hard kick in the butt! I’m just not sure why this particular issue is a problem.

And, as far as keeping an eye on the rattle snake…if one is that close, wouldn’t you rather run or beat to death?!

 

[Digitonomy]

Lisa4Catholics:

Okay let me break it down for the people who do not understand why I am so biffed at the ACLU…

Your story doesn’t really have anything to do with explaining why it’s crucial to force Jews to swear on the Bible (KJV, from another article I read about this).

didymus:

Btw, Carolina law does make provision for witnesses “affirming” rather than swearing. The legisalture should just change the law and take the wind out of theACLU’s sails.

Most states allow such “affirming”. North Carolina is one of the few which apparently do not, which is why they’ve become the target of this legal action by a group of (mostly) non-Christians.

It’s hard for me to believe the founding fathers, many of whom were born of families fleeing religious persecution in England or elsewhere, would mind a witness swearing upon their own scripture. Then again, North Carolina was not founded by dissenters from the state church in England, unlike say Maryland, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts. So they may be more authoritarian regarding religious practices.

 

[Penny_Plain]

**This seems to make good ecumenical sense now, but think of this in 10 yrs.-

What if you have no faith? Or subcribe to a religion w/o sacred texts? A satanist?

How can each courtroom in the country be prepared for the endless possibilities?

The end result will be a TOTAL LACK OF ANY REFERENCE- EVEN TOKEN- IN THE COURTROOM.

It starts with relativism, but end with nothing but the state.**

In the one American court I’ve been in (in Wisconsin) the witnesses were allowed to swear or affirm, and no sacred text was used.

You guys need to lighten up.

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

Digitonomy:

Your story doesn’t really have anything to do with explaining why it’s crucial to force Jews to swear on the Bible (KJV, from another article I read about this).

Most states allow such “affirming”. North Carolina is one of the few which apparently do not, which is why they’ve become the target of this legal action by a group of (mostly) non-Christians.

It’s hard for me to believe the founding fathers, many of whom were born of families fleeing religious persecution in England or elsewhere, would mind a witness swearing upon their own scripture. Then again, North Carolina was not founded by dissenters from the state church in England, unlike say Maryland, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts. So they may be more authoritarian regarding religious practices.

They are tryiong for something bigger,please look at their history of suits and you will see.