1.3 Billion

[menewa]

Originally posted by proud_savagette
let's take a look at their history.
In 1943, the ACLU won a case that allowed Jehovah's Witness children to not have to salute the American flag. Gosh, our founding fathers didn't have a problem with saying prayers before their sessions...In 1997 the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the ACLU, deciding that the 1996 Communications Act banning indecent speech violated First Amendment rights. If you can't control yourself enough not to cuss, or to simply think of a different phrase, then you are pathetic. What about children? Should they be exposed to such trashy language EVERYWHERE now?

Saluting the flag is not praying to God, it's paying fealty to an icon.

I thought most conservatives were about promoting responsibilty for one's actions. In the case of potty language, parents can take the initiative and tell their children not to use such words. Kids can see the governor of california rip holes into hundreds of people in a movie on TBS but they can't hear a syllable that a few superstitious people think are filthy. Doesn't really even out in my mind.

As for the dog. I would certainly consider such an act depraved. But the guy really thought it was a religious practice. Our first amendment gives him that right. Also, how many times have you eaten pork in your life. Dogs and pigs have near similar intelligence.

 

[proud_savagette]

I never knew the ACLU fought for Jehovah's witnesses. But, if it goes against their religion then so be it. I know that Jehovah's witnesses do not believe in worshipping any symbols/idols/statues or any kind. That's probably what that was all about back then

But you aren't worshipping the flag! you are pledging your allegiance! that is not worshippng it.

 

[menewa]

Originally posted by proud_savagette
But you aren't worshipping the flag! you are pledging your allegiance! that is not worshippng it.

Maybe it's just a misunderstanding. But in your earlier post, you said something about the Jehovvah's Witnesses saluting the flag and that sentence was immediately followed by a sentence referring to our founding fathers and prayer. I also fugured you were saying the two were identical. Please clarify.

 

[007]

Originally posted by brneyedgrl80
I know I posted this before some where else. But normally people go to the ACLU and ask for help. If the ACLU deems that the situation does go against civil liberities they will more and likely take on the case. Of course there are many loopholes in civil liberty cases.

Also, as far a prayer in school, that doesn't have much to do with the ACLU as it does with the seperation of church and state which has been around far longer.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,121644,00.html

Another Victory for the ACLU in Its War on Christianity

Thursday, June 03, 2004
By Bill O'Reilly


Another victory for the ACLU (search) in its war on Christianity. That is the subject of this evening's "Talking Points Memo." Take a look at the county seal in Los Angeles because it's about to change. [The County] Supervisors voted 3 to 2 to cave in to the ACLU's demands that the small cross on the right be removed, and it soon will be, even though it's been there for 47 years. The ACLU's Los Angeles director, Ramona Ripskin (ph), says the cross makes some Angelenos feel, quote, "unwelcome," unquote. Sane people point out that the cross signifies the historical founding of Los Angeles by Catholic missionaries.

That historical argument seems to have some merit because a few hundred miles north of L.A., federal judge Phyllis Hamilton recently ruled that 7th-graders at a Contra Costa County school could be forced to say Muslim prayers in a history class for the sake of history. By the way, just yesterday, Judge Hamilton declared the law banning partial-birth abortion unconstitutional, thereby wiping out the will of the president, Congress and the vast majority of Americans. Of course, Judge Hamilton knows far more about the Constitution than anyone. And it would be interesting see how this woman would rule if a public school history teacher forced his or her students to say Christian prayers. I'm sure the judge would support that, just as she supports Muslim prayers.

Judge Hamilton and the ACLU are part of the anti-Christian cabal in America that sees the Christian majority as oppressors. These people know they can never impose their secular agenda on this country while Judeo-Christian philosophy (search) dominates the philosophical arena. That's because Judeo-Christian philosophy requires judgments about right and wrong in personal behavior. The secularists deplore that. They want an open society where anything goes, including legalized drugs, any kind of abortion, euthanasia, gay marriage and explicit images and speech on the public airwaves.

Unless America's tradition of opposing these kinds of behaviors is changed, the secularist agenda will never become a reality. So diminishing any Christian display in public is the goal and encouraging alternative thought, like Muslim prayers, helps that goal. The harsh truth is that many American Christians don't really care about what's happening. L.A. County could have fought the ACLU using lawyers at the Thomas More Law Center (search) and the Alliance Defense Fund (search), who would have taken the case for free. But there's little outcry from the Christians of southern California to fight, and so the ACLU wins again.

"Talking Points" wants you to know that we are rapidly losing freedom in America. Judges are overruling the will of the people, and fascist organizations like the ACLU are imposing their secular will. And when was the last time you heard your priest, minister or rabbi talk about this? For me, the answer is simple. Never.

 

[proud_savagette]

Saluting the flag is not praying to God, it's paying fealty to an icon.

Well, i don't believe i ever said that saluting the flag was praying to God. The icon represents our country, does it not? So we are technically paying fealty to our country. If someone can't swear loyalty to their own country, what does that make them? Traitors, faute de mieux.

I thought most conservatives were about promoting responsibilty for one's actions. In the case of potty language, parents can take the initiative and tell their children not to use such words. Kids can see the governor of california rip holes into hundreds of people in a movie on TBS but they can't hear a syllable that a few superstitious people think are filthy. Doesn't really even out in my mind.

Chances are that when kids hear these words constantly, they are going to use them. When they get to be teenagers, myself being somewhat of a different case due to special circumstances, most kids start using alot of dirty language. My triplet sister and my fourteen year old brother have a horrible problem with language. When my mother, a single parent, tries to reprimand them, they come up with such excuses as, "Well, everybody else does." And now that is just about true. Why not get some of the language of the streets and start encouraging a broader vocabulary? And how in God's green earth did you come up with the twisted view that superstitious people think a syllable is filthy? When you have kids, or if you have kids already, ( i don't know how old you are) would you approve of them swearing? If you wouldn't , are you then superstitious? And what movie are you referring to? If it's terminator for example, they are robots that he destroys, not humans. And besides, it's much easier to make sure your child doesn't watch a single movie than it is to make sure they don't hear the hundreds of cuss words that they hear every day.

 

[proud_savagette]

But in your earlier post, you said something about the Jehovvah's Witnesses saluting the flag and that sentence was immediately followed by a sentence referring to our founding fathers and prayer. I also fugured you were saying the two were identical. Please clarify.

this is what i said referring to prayer:

In more recent cases, the 1992 case, Lee vs. Weisman, headed by the ACLU of course, determined that it is unconstitutional for officially sanctioned prayers to be led at graduation ceremonies. Gosh, our founding fathers didn't have a problem with saying prayers before their sessions...

 

[proud_savagette]

originally posted by pale rider
They want an open society where anything goes, including legalized drugs, any kind of abortion, euthanasia, gay marriage and explicit images and speech on the public airwaves.

agreed!

As for the dog. I would certainly consider such an act depraved. But the guy really thought it was a religious practice. Our first amendment gives him that right. Also, how many times have you eaten pork in your life. Dogs and pigs have near similar intelligence.

You are mistaken! You cannot kill a dog in the state of California. The dog belonged to someone else. The law in California states:
597. (a) Except as provided in subdivision (c) of this section or
Section 599c, every person who maliciously and intentionally maims,
mutilates, tortures, or wounds a living animal, or maliciously and
intentionally kills an animal, is guilty of an offense punishable by
imprisonment in the state prison, or by a fine of not more than
twenty thousand dollars ($20,000), or by both the fine and
imprisonment, or, alternatively, by imprisonment in a county jail for
not more than one year, or by a fine of not more than twenty
thousand dollars ($20,000), or by both the fine and imprisonment.
(b) Except as otherwise provided in subdivision (a) or (c), every
person who overdrives, overloads, drives when overloaded, overworks,
tortures, torments, deprives of necessary sustenance, drink, or
shelter, cruelly beats, mutilates, or cruelly kills any animal, or
causes or procures any animal to be so overdriven, overloaded, driven
when overloaded, overworked, tortured, tormented, deprived of
necessary sustenance, drink, shelter, or to be cruelly beaten,
mutilated, or cruelly killed; and whoever, having the charge or
custody of any animal, either as owner or otherwise, subjects any
animal to needless suffering, or inflicts unnecessary cruelty upon
the animal, or in any manner abuses any animal, or fails to provide
the animal with proper food, drink, or shelter or protection from the
weather, or who drives, rides, or otherwise uses the animal when
unfit for labor, is, for every such offense, guilty of a crime
punishable as a misdemeanor or as a felony or alternatively
punishable as a misdemeanor or a felony and by a fine of not more
than twenty thousand dollars ($20,000).
And what about the two guys who ate the dog? You can't do that either! The dog belonged to someone else! Ignorance of the law is NEVER NEVER NEVER justified. In many court cases this has been said. Gatwood vs. Railroad Retirement Bd. is one example. Ignorance of the law is not a factor that can warrant equitable tolling, or a privilege from common or statute law. Sorry. It doesn't work. The First Amendment therefore does NOT apply. Regarding pigs; I don't go around and kill other people's pigs, thank you very much.

 

[proud_savagette]

Schools are paid for primarily from property taxes. Do YOUR property taxes pay for your children every year?

actually, my parents' property taxes DO NOT pay for my other two triplet siblings and I, as well as my little brother, to go to school. We still have to pay it though. It IS insane, by the way, the amount my parents have to pay. I went to public high school for one semester, and besides all the fancy buildings, it was a haven of idiocy. The teachers weren't well-educated--my English teacher was angry with me when I corrected her in front of the class--she kept describing pride and prejudice but said it was sense and sensibility. I had one good teacher there. The library was nice, but there was no one ever in there. I just don't understand what the point all the money going to the schools is if they can't do a better job of distributing the money towards what's important....like teachers who know their literature if they are an English teacher...

 

[brneyedgrl80]

Originally posted by Pale Rider
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,121644,00.html

Another Victory for the ACLU in Its War on Christianity

Thursday, June 03, 2004
By Bill O'Reilly


Another victory for the ACLU (search) in its war on Christianity. That is the subject of this evening's "Talking Points Memo." Take a look at the county seal in Los Angeles because it's about to change. [The County] Supervisors voted 3 to 2 to cave in to the ACLU's demands that the small cross on the right be removed, and it soon will be, even though it's been there for 47 years. The ACLU's Los Angeles director, Ramona Ripskin (ph), says the cross makes some Angelenos feel, quote, "unwelcome," unquote. Sane people point out that the cross signifies the historical founding of Los Angeles by Catholic missionaries.

That historical argument seems to have some merit because a few hundred miles north of L.A., federal judge Phyllis Hamilton recently ruled that 7th-graders at a Contra Costa County school could be forced to say Muslim prayers in a history class for the sake of history. By the way, just yesterday, Judge Hamilton declared the law banning partial-birth abortion unconstitutional, thereby wiping out the will of the president, Congress and the vast majority of Americans. Of course, Judge Hamilton knows far more about the Constitution than anyone. And it would be interesting see how this woman would rule if a public school history teacher forced his or her students to say Christian prayers. I'm sure the judge would support that, just as she supports Muslim prayers.

Judge Hamilton and the ACLU are part of the anti-Christian cabal in America that sees the Christian majority as oppressors. These people know they can never impose their secular agenda on this country while Judeo-Christian philosophy (search) dominates the philosophical arena. That's because Judeo-Christian philosophy requires judgments about right and wrong in personal behavior. The secularists deplore that. They want an open society where anything goes, including legalized drugs, any kind of abortion, euthanasia, gay marriage and explicit images and speech on the public airwaves.

Unless America's tradition of opposing these kinds of behaviors is changed, the secularist agenda will never become a reality. So diminishing any Christian display in public is the goal and encouraging alternative thought, like Muslim prayers, helps that goal. The harsh truth is that many American Christians don't really care about what's happening. L.A. County could have fought the ACLU using lawyers at the Thomas More Law Center (search) and the Alliance Defense Fund (search), who would have taken the case for free. But there's little outcry from the Christians of southern California to fight, and so the ACLU wins again.

"Talking Points" wants you to know that we are rapidly losing freedom in America. Judges are overruling the will of the people, and fascist organizations like the ACLU are imposing their secular will. And when was the last time you heard your priest, minister or rabbi talk about this? For me, the answer is simple. Never.

I think we all know what side Fox News promotes and what Bill O'Reilly's views are on anything remotely to the left

 

[proud_savagette]

I think we all know what side Fox News promotes and what Bill O'Reilly's views are on anything remotely to the left

that doesn't mean the facts aren't there.

 

[brneyedgrl80]

Originally posted by proud_savagette
But you aren't worshipping the flag! you are pledging your allegiance! that is not worshippng it.

Well, according to my Jehovah friend she said that the flag is a form of idolatry *spelling*. And according to the bible it says to stay away from idolatry in the Greek and Hebrew scriptures. I just asked her.

 

[proud_savagette]

Well, according to my Jehovah friend she said that the flag is a form of idolatry

could you ask her why? i'm just curious

 

[brneyedgrl80]

Originally posted by proud_savagette
that doesn't mean the facts aren't there.

You know as well as I do that if Bill O'Reilly says something, chances are it goes against what someone on the left might think just like if Al Franken says something chances are it goes against what someone on the right might think, but yet both sides do have facts.

It's the whole "There's both sides to every story." And it's up to the individual to find the truth.

 

[brneyedgrl80]

Originally posted by proud_savagette
could you ask her why? i'm just curious

She says that according to the bible "God exact exclusive devotion" meaning that he wants to be worshipped only, nothing else. No idols, relics, etc...

She also adds that when you do the whole pledge of alligience thing, it's almost like an act of prayer because you stand up, put your hand over your heart and then you pledge. It's a type of ritual.

 

[007]

Originally posted by brneyedgrl80
You know as well as I do that if Bill O'Reilly says something, chances are it goes against what someone on the left might think just like if Al Franken says something chances are it goes against what someone on the right might think, but yet both sides do have facts.

It's the whole "There's both sides to every story." And it's up to the individual to find the truth.

Funny you should use al franken as an example. franken has been exposed as a liar. O'Rielly is a centralist. He takes no position right or left. His show is called "The No Spin Zone". He has the biggest problem with the left because they do most of the lying and under handed things.

 

[brneyedgrl80]

Originally posted by Pale Rider
Funny you should use al franken as an example. franken has been exposed as a liar. O'Rielly is a centralist. He takes no position right or left. His show is called "The No Spin Zone". He has the biggest problem with the left because they do most of the lying and under handed things.

Ahhh yes, but it has also been shown that Bill O'Reilly has indeed filed as a Republican in the past. I'll have to go home to find this so I can be more specific.

And honestly, he doesn't seem to really ever get upset over what conservative people say or ever try to kick them off of his show.

Bill O'Reilly has also been exposed as liar especially after the Peabody Award or rather, lack there of... lol :

 

[007]

Originally posted by brneyedgrl80
Ahhh yes, but it has also been shown that Bill O'Reilly has indeed filed as a Republican in the past. I'll have to go home to find this so I can be more specific.

And honestly, he doesn't seem to really ever get upset over what conservative people say or ever try to kick them off of his show.

Bill O'Reilly has also been exposed as liar especially after the Peabody Award or rather, lack there of... lol :

No ones perfect. But lets put it this way... I'd believe what O'Rielly says LOOOOOONG before I'd believe anything al "I'm a radical leftist" franken said.

People don't just get "handed" talk shows. People have to like you, and usually do for good reason. O'Rielly has the "NUMBER ONE SHOW" on Fox News. al "I'm a liberal liar" franken has nothing... and for good reason. People see through him as the partisan leftist zealot that he is. And that goes for all other leftists. You can almost "smell" them.

 

[brneyedgrl80]

LOL!

 

[007]

Originally posted by brneyedgrl80
LOL!

I knew you'd like that... :teeth:

 

[brneyedgrl80]

Smart ass!