Another Liberal myth: Separation of church and state is not in the constitution

[Gadawg73]

In my opinion, only a court hostile to Christianity would rule that a cross on a grave conveys any message whatsoever apart from each independent individual's interpretation of what the cross signifies. A court not hostile to Christianity would see that there is no requirement for any person to accept any doctrine, dogma, creed, opinion or whatever because of the presence of those crosses and using the symbol is not an establishment or endorsement of religion but is merely respect for the faith of the fallen. Further nobody is required to be interred in a military cemetary if the family does not want that. I would think it appropriate for say a Jewish family to be able to request a star of David be used instead of a cross but things like that can be worked out.

Unfortunately we have had courts hostile to Christianity making these rulings, the ACLU gets rich at taxpayer expense filing those kinds of lawsuits--in my opinion THAT is a violation of the First Amendment--and other courts then have a precedent to use to keep it going.

And I think that is just plain wrong and an erosion of our unalienable rights.

The ACLU defends street preachers in every case nation wide where local municipalities and cities pass ordinances banning them from street preaching. And ACLU wins every case.
How does the ACLU "get rich at taxpayer expense" when it receives NO FUNDING at all from any government or entity?
You can't repeat everything you hear without researching it first. That is another religous right wing myth.
ACLU receives NO taxpayer funding.
Where did you hear that whopper of a fib?

 

[koshergrl]

I'm still trying to figure out how references to God on buildings, which reflects the majority of the citizenry's desire, is establishing law respecting religion.

When we get that explained, let's move on to the next thing.

 

[Foxfyre]

In my opinion, only a court hostile to Christianity would rule that a cross on a grave conveys any message whatsoever apart from each independent individual's interpretation of what the cross signifies. A court not hostile to Christianity would see that there is no requirement for any person to accept any doctrine, dogma, creed, opinion or whatever because of the presence of those crosses and using the symbol is not an establishment or endorsement of religion but is merely respect for the faith of the fallen. Further nobody is required to be interred in a military cemetary if the family does not want that. I would think it appropriate for say a Jewish family to be able to request a star of David be used instead of a cross but things like that can be worked out.

Unfortunately we have had courts hostile to Christianity making these rulings, the ACLU gets rich at taxpayer expense filing those kinds of lawsuits--in my opinion THAT is a violation of the First Amendment--and other courts then have a precedent to use to keep it going.

And I think that is just plain wrong and an erosion of our unalienable rights.

The ACLU defends street preachers in every case nation wide where local municipalities and cities pass ordinances banning them from street preaching. And ACLU wins every case.
How does the ACLU "get rich at taxpayer expense" when it receives NO FUNDING at all from any government or entity?
You can't repeat everything you hear without researching it first. That is another religous right wing myth.
ACLU receives NO taxpayer funding.
Where did you hear that whopper of a fib?

TIJERAS, N.M. - The village council of Tijeras agreed Thursday to be represented by attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund in their battle against a lawsuit threatened by the ACLU. The ACLU claims the village logo violates the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution because it depicts a small cross.

"We have carefully reviewed the ACLU's allegations and believe the seal is entirely constitutional under the law," said ADF Senior Counsel Gary McCaleb. "The main feature of the city seal is not the cross but the Zia, which is a Native American religious symbol. The symbols of the seal reflect the history and culture of this ancient village. Many of the same design elements, such as the Zia, are found in the state flag. Why isn't the ACLU suing against the state flag?"

The seal, which depicts a conquistador's helmet and sword, the Native American Zia symbol, and a small rosary, was designed in 1973 to accurately reflect the village's history and not to further any religion.

"The ACLU is once more specifically targeting a cross while it ignores Native American religious symbols. It reveals their desire to target all things Christian, regardless of the fact that the cross in the Tijeras seal is clearly an historic symbol and not an attempt to endorse any particular faith," McCaleb said.

"The Village of Tijeras has retained the services of ADF because of the strong support and numerous calls we have received-not only from our residents, but also from supporters all over New Mexico who want us to continue to keep the logo," said Tijeras Mayor Gloria Chavez. "They feel, as we do, that this is part of the village's culture and history brought here by settlers centuries ago."
Page Not Found - Alliance Defense Fund ADF Content

The seal in question:

In the process of trying to determine what was in it for the ACLU in this lawsuit, I discovered that there is a little publicized clause in the Civil Rights Act in which the government will pay ‘reasonable’ attorney fees in any action involving violation of civil rights. All the ACLU has to do if find a ‘plaintiff’, i.e. somebody who can be bribed or paid to be ‘offended’ at some presumed ‘Constitutional’ violation—in this case objection to the presence of a Christian cross on the seal—and, the ACLU attorneys can collect those ‘reasonable attorney fees’ and other costs which often total tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars.
§ 1988. — *Proceedings in vindication of civil rights. :: SUBCHAPTER I — GENERALLY :: CHAPTER 21 — CIVIL RIGHTS :: TITLE 42 — THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE :: US Code :: Codes and Statutes :: Law :: Justia

So it is very lucrative for the ACLU to be scouring the country looking for something like this to be 'offended' by and file suit. They probably also collect for defending those street preachers.

 

[Gadawg73]

I'm still trying to figure out how references to God on buildings, which reflects the majority of the citizenry's desire, is establishing law respecting religion.

When we get that explained, let's move on to the next thing.

"references to God"
God can be mentioned as God is in our county courthouse as well as the 10 commandments.
That is totally acceptable as God plays a historical part in America. As a historical document, they can be placed in government buildings.
But establishing a particular God to a particular religion you can not do with Bible quotes.
There are many Gods with many religions here.
And why do we need references to Gods in public buildings anyway? What is that all about?
So your thesis is that those that favor having God referenced at the bus stop, the school house, the train station, the court house, the state capital are some how better Christians and more religous because of that?
That seems to be the case here as all opposed are labeled as "anti God" and "anti religous".
Sounds very shallow and plastic to me. Talk and words are cheap.
My grandmother had the most influence on me than anyone on earth. She was a very religous Quaker woman in The Hudson River Valley in NY state.
Grandma always warned us to beware of those that go around telling everyone and everybody they are religous and Christian and those that force their religous beliefs with symbols and such.
Grandma correctly stated that if you are truly a Christian you never have to tell anyone or have government post it on buildings.
Because everyone will know if you are Christian by your ACTIONS.
Talk is cheap.

 

[Foxfyre]

I wonder if the anti-religionists, anti-Founders, anti-history buffs among us really understand what the 'free exercise' of religion means? Or if they drink that same water that seems to afflict some of our members with the inability to see the rebuttal offered to them? If I am allowed to pray in private but forbidden to pray in public or use a religious symbol, even one depicting religious history, in my workplace, I do not consider that the 'free exercise of religion.' If I can attend church on Sunday but am forbidden to enjoy a religious piece of art in a public venue, I do not consider that the 'free exercise of religion.'

When the government presumes to tell me if and where I may pray outloud, if and where I may use an illustration from the Bible, if and where I can use a historical religious symbol, if and were I can use religious music, if and where I can enjoy religious art, it isn't a whole lot of different from the old concept of 'those' people can do anything they want so long as they stay in their 'place'.

"anti religionists, anti Founders"
That is all you continue to come to the table with?
NO ONE denies you the right to pray in public or use a religous symbol.
The government does not tell you if and where to pray out loud. The ACLU represents and wins cases against municipalities that have ordinances against street preaching.
And they win every one.
You are full of crap. All made up nonsense you speak. No truth or fact in it.
You know it so quit the BS.
You know that it is GOVERNMENT sponsoring it that is not legal.
YOU can do it all you want so quit the lies, distortions, twists and side steps.

When you start telling me what I think and what I know and that I'm full of crap, I can be pretty darn sure you're out of ammo and I won. But do have a nice day.

(I guess you didn't bother to read the information I gave you for what the ACLU gets paid to take these kinds of cases? They ain't doing it for donations.)

 

[Gadawg73]

In my opinion, only a court hostile to Christianity would rule that a cross on a grave conveys any message whatsoever apart from each independent individual's interpretation of what the cross signifies. A court not hostile to Christianity would see that there is no requirement for any person to accept any doctrine, dogma, creed, opinion or whatever because of the presence of those crosses and using the symbol is not an establishment or endorsement of religion but is merely respect for the faith of the fallen. Further nobody is required to be interred in a military cemetary if the family does not want that. I would think it appropriate for say a Jewish family to be able to request a star of David be used instead of a cross but things like that can be worked out.

Unfortunately we have had courts hostile to Christianity making these rulings, the ACLU gets rich at taxpayer expense filing those kinds of lawsuits--in my opinion THAT is a violation of the First Amendment--and other courts then have a precedent to use to keep it going.

And I think that is just plain wrong and an erosion of our unalienable rights.

The ACLU defends street preachers in every case nation wide where local municipalities and cities pass ordinances banning them from street preaching. And ACLU wins every case.
How does the ACLU "get rich at taxpayer expense" when it receives NO FUNDING at all from any government or entity?
You can't repeat everything you hear without researching it first. That is another religous right wing myth.
ACLU receives NO taxpayer funding.
Where did you hear that whopper of a fib?

TIJERAS, N.M. - The village council of Tijeras agreed Thursday to be represented by attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund in their battle against a lawsuit threatened by the ACLU. The ACLU claims the village logo violates the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution because it depicts a small cross.

"We have carefully reviewed the ACLU's allegations and believe the seal is entirely constitutional under the law," said ADF Senior Counsel Gary McCaleb. "The main feature of the city seal is not the cross but the Zia, which is a Native American religious symbol. The symbols of the seal reflect the history and culture of this ancient village. Many of the same design elements, such as the Zia, are found in the state flag. Why isn't the ACLU suing against the state flag?"

The seal, which depicts a conquistador's helmet and sword, the Native American Zia symbol, and a small rosary, was designed in 1973 to accurately reflect the village's history and not to further any religion.

"The ACLU is once more specifically targeting a cross while it ignores Native American religious symbols. It reveals their desire to target all things Christian, regardless of the fact that the cross in the Tijeras seal is clearly an historic symbol and not an attempt to endorse any particular faith," McCaleb said.

"The Village of Tijeras has retained the services of ADF because of the strong support and numerous calls we have received-not only from our residents, but also from supporters all over New Mexico who want us to continue to keep the logo," said Tijeras Mayor Gloria Chavez. "They feel, as we do, that this is part of the village's culture and history brought here by settlers centuries ago."
Page Not Found - Alliance Defense Fund ADF Content

The seal in question:

In the process of trying to determine what was in it for the ACLU in this lawsuit, I discovered that there is a little publicized clause in the Civil Rights Act in which the government will pay ‘reasonable’ attorney fees in any action involving violation of civil rights. All the ACLU has to do if find a ‘plaintiff’, i.e. somebody who can be bribed or paid to be ‘offended’ at some presumed ‘Constitutional’ violation—in this case objection to the presence of a Christian cross on the seal—and, the ACLU attorneys can collect those ‘reasonable attorney fees’ and other costs which often total tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars.
§ 1988. — *Proceedings in vindication of civil rights. :: SUBCHAPTER I — GENERALLY :: CHAPTER 21 — CIVIL RIGHTS :: TITLE 42 — THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE :: US Code :: Codes and Statutes :: Law :: Justia

So it is very lucrative for the ACLU to be scouring the country looking for something like this to be 'offended' by and file suit. They probably also collect for defending those street preachers.

So you believe judges award attorney's fees because they like doing so without any facts or foundation in doing so?
You are the one scouring the country looking for bogus and lame "arguments" to defend your baseless ideology.
Respectfully, you are not very smart when it comes to the law and have not a clue about how the courts work. What you claim is absurd and an outright LIE.
You know it isn't true but you post it anyway. Shame on you. Repeating lies. Someone needs to wash your mouth out with soap.
All the proof needed to prove your claims are 100% lie is less than 3% of the ACLU's funding comes from damages and legal fees. And guess what CLUELESS: Most of that were DAMAGES, not attorneys fees. Attorneys fees represent less than 1% of ALL OF ACLU FUNDING.
Fool. Go back to something, anything, someplace, somewhere where you might have a clue about what you claim. As usual, you have NO evidence to back up any of your claims.

 

[Gadawg73]

I wonder if the anti-religionists, anti-Founders, anti-history buffs among us really understand what the 'free exercise' of religion means? Or if they drink that same water that seems to afflict some of our members with the inability to see the rebuttal offered to them? If I am allowed to pray in private but forbidden to pray in public or use a religious symbol, even one depicting religious history, in my workplace, I do not consider that the 'free exercise of religion.' If I can attend church on Sunday but am forbidden to enjoy a religious piece of art in a public venue, I do not consider that the 'free exercise of religion.'

When the government presumes to tell me if and where I may pray outloud, if and where I may use an illustration from the Bible, if and where I can use a historical religious symbol, if and were I can use religious music, if and where I can enjoy religious art, it isn't a whole lot of different from the old concept of 'those' people can do anything they want so long as they stay in their 'place'.

"anti religionists, anti Founders"
That is all you continue to come to the table with?
NO ONE denies you the right to pray in public or use a religous symbol.
The government does not tell you if and where to pray out loud. The ACLU represents and wins cases against municipalities that have ordinances against street preaching.
And they win every one.
You are full of crap. All made up nonsense you speak. No truth or fact in it.
You know it so quit the BS.
You know that it is GOVERNMENT sponsoring it that is not legal.
YOU can do it all you want so quit the lies, distortions, twists and side steps.

When you start telling me what I think and what I know and that I'm full of crap, I can be pretty darn sure you're out of ammo and I won. But do have a nice day.

(I guess you didn't bother to read the information I gave you for what the ACLU gets paid to take these kinds of cases? They ain't doing it for donations.)

You post what you think. Where did I state what you think?
ACLU CAN NOT solicit cases and never does.
They are ALWAYS contacted first.
Jerry Falwell used them to sue on behalf of his church. ACLU won for him also.

 

[koshergrl]

How on earth do you know that?

Please support with a link..

 

[Gadawg73]

How on earth do you know that?

Please support with a link..

Public filings to the IRS.

Go find it, it is out there. Do some research on your own for a change.

Any and every link I provide your side then states "commie ***, left leaning, anti religous, anti God, pinko source"
Every time.
Go pull the documents yourself. 90% of ACLU funding is from contributions alone.
Facts sure do bother the hell out of you. Sorry about that.

 

[Gadawg73]

How on earth do you know that?

Please support with a link..

Go to their web site and see the public filing of their tax return. Form 990.

Not one penny of government $$$ either directly ir indirectly. Not one penny of government contributions.
Not one cent.
Form 990. They file it every year. Go read it and inform yourself for a change. Public record.
Facts, not right wing rhetoric that is fraud.

 

[Foxfyre]

How on earth do you know that?

Please support with a link..

Go to their web site and see the public filing of their tax return. Form 990.

Not one penny of government $$$ either directly ir indirectly. Not one penny of government contributions.
Not one cent.
Form 990. They file it every year. Go read it and inform yourself for a change. Public record.
Facts, not right wing rhetoric that is fraud.

The Form 990 will not show the income I am referring to because it is not required to be shown as income but rather is a reimbursement of expenses. It therefore offsets reported program costs.

As an example, if I contract to do a job for somebody and he pays me say $100 for materials, I do not report that $100 as income but instead use it to offset the expenses I report. The expenses I report will be $100 less than they would be if I had not received that $100. The net profit from the job is all I report as income.

Here is a text of Section 1988 of the Civil Rights act that allows for reimbursement of expenses, payment of attorney fees and payment for expert witnesses when a civil rights action is filed:

Section 1988. Proceedings in vindication of civil rights

(a) Applicability of statutory and common law
The jurisdiction in civil and criminal matters conferred on the
district courts by the provisions of titles 13, 24, and 70 of the
Revised Statutes for the protection of all persons in the United
States in their civil rights, and for their vindication, shall be
exercised and enforced in conformity with the laws of the United
States, so far as such laws are suitable to carry the same into
effect; but in all cases where they are not adapted to the object,
or are deficient in the provisions necessary to furnish suitable
remedies and punish offenses against law, the common law, as
modified and changed by the constitution and statutes of the State
wherein the court having jurisdiction of such civil or criminal
cause is held, so far as the same is not inconsistent with the
Constitution and laws of the United States, shall be extended to
and govern the said courts in the trial and disposition of the
cause, and, if it is of a criminal nature, in the infliction of
punishment on the party found guilty.
(b) Attorney's fees
In any action or proceeding to enforce a provision of sections
1981, 1981a, 1982, 1983, 1985, and 1986 of this title, title IX of
Public Law 92-318 (20 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.), the Religious Freedom
Restoration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 2000bb et seq.), the Religious
Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C.
2000cc et seq.), title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42
U.S.C. 2000d et seq.), or section 13981 of this title, the court,
in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the
United States, a reasonable attorney's fee as part of the costs,
except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an
act or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity such
officer shall not be held liable for any costs, including
attorney's fees, unless such action was clearly in excess of such
officer's jurisdiction.
(c) Expert fees
In awarding an attorney's fee under subsection (b) of this
section in any action or proceeding to enforce a provision of
section 1981 or 1981a of this title, the court, in its discretion,
may include expert fees as part of the attorney's fee.

 

[koshergrl]

How on earth do you know that?

Please support with a link..

Go to their web site and see the public filing of their tax return. Form 990.

Not one penny of government $$$ either directly ir indirectly. Not one penny of government contributions.
Not one cent.
Form 990. They file it every year. Go read it and inform yourself for a change. Public record.
Facts, not right wing rhetoric that is fraud.

Screw you. You made the point, you provide it. Otherwise you're saying "I say so, that's enough".

It's never enough. If you know the site you should have no objection to posting a link. The fact that you don't shows me that not only are you stupid (ok, I already knew that) and ignorant (again) but that you're lazy and probably lying about this particular point.

Which makes me want to check it out, after all....

 

[koshergrl]

Not only that, you brain dead halfwit, your claim was that they don't solicit cases.

How the hell does their tax return show whether or not they solicit?

I was right. I usually am. You're lying. And stupid.

 

[ColonialMarine]

Hey liberals. Take out your wallet and get a dollar bill. What does it say on the backside? And what does the president elect put his hand on when he takes the oath of office?

America is a Christian nation. The ACLJews can file all the lawsits they wish, but this will never change.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

America is a Christian nation. The ACLJews can file all the lawsits they wish, but this will never change.

You represent conservatives well, keep up the good work. And welcome.

 

[Foxfyre]

How on earth do you know that?

Please support with a link..

Go to their web site and see the public filing of their tax return. Form 990.

Not one penny of government $$$ either directly ir indirectly. Not one penny of government contributions.
Not one cent.
Form 990. They file it every year. Go read it and inform yourself for a change. Public record.
Facts, not right wing rhetoric that is fraud.

Screw you. You made the point, you provide it. Otherwise you're saying "I say so, that's enough".

It's never enough. If you know the site you should have no objection to posting a link. The fact that you don't shows me that not only are you stupid (ok, I already knew that) and ignorant (again) but that you're lazy and probably lying about this particular point.

Which makes me want to check it out, after all....

The fact that it is impossible to google where and why the ACLU actually does get its funding should be a huge red flag to many. I am not saying that the ACLU doesn't do some good stuff. It does. But I haven't drunk the kool-ade and I don't wear the blinders that keeps me from seeing that they are in it for the benefit of the ACLU and they would be embarrassed if the true source of their income was published anywhere.

 

[Lokiate]

The ACLJews.

Cute.

 

[AnnieInMexico]

This blatant distortion of our nation's history is a slap in the face of American taxpayers, who are footing the bill for this widespread anti-Christian disinformation campaign. The public schools should be teaching our children the truth, not just what they want kids to believe. Those of us who know the truth need to hold the Liberals accountable for their insidious lies.

Separation of church and state: myth and reality

It's not a Christian nation, that has been clear time and time agian. Treaty of Tripoli comes to mind. Can't have it both ways that the founding fathers did not want to establish a given religion or this is some sort of anti-Christian fundie thing happening.

In the early days of the republic, church services were held in the capitol building on sundays - why would they, the adopters of the constitution, do that if they subscribed to anything like the current anti-religion interpretation??

You mean kinda like how it is done now in schools? Let's say my kid is "A" religion, your kid is "B" religion, and C Clayton kid is "C" religion. All our kids are able to use school property to meet and discuss religion, religious concepts, even pray if that is what they want. Your kid has his group after school is out on Mondays, my kid will have his group on Tuesdays, and C Clayton's kid will have his group on Wednesdays. It can be done on school property, it cannot be led or encouraged by school staff... amazingly, the parents have to parent their own child here when it comes to religion.

It is perfectly acceptable to hold church services at a school, the capitol, or any other building with the time and space. Always has been.

HEY MUSLIMS! You guys get the capitol on Mondays, the atheists will get it on Tuesdays, the Christians will get it on Wednesdays, the Jews will get it on Thursdays, the Satan worshipers will get it on Fridays, the Wiccans get it on Saturdays and every full moon and there ya go! Sunday, a day of peace in the damn building.

America is a Christian nation. The ACLJews can file all the lawsits they wish, but this will never change.

You represent conservatives well, keep up the good work. And welcome.

The founding fathers disagree with him that this is a Christian nation. They were pretty darn clear about that.

 

[Cecilie1200]

True. The U.S. Constitution doesn't specifically say that there is a separation of church and state. It only forbids the government from banning the establishment of any religion, no natter how far fetched it may be.
However, in Europe, thousands of people were tortured into conversion or killed for simply not accepting the Catholic church as their true religion. When early explorers landed on western shores, the church was a part of it and forced to natives into its folds.
In early America, when Puritans set up communities, those who did not follow its tenets strictly were physically punished. Witch hunts took place and people died.
Fast forward to present day. Present day Islam is both a religion and a political philosophy and one merely has to look at the Islamic nations, not only in the Middle East, but also other areas such as Indonesia (where they supposedly have religious tolerance in their Constitution). Islam is fundamentally, a Theocracy. As such the governments obey the will of the Imams, Ayatollahs, Mullahs, or Clerics, just as did the governments when the Catholic church had too much influence with them. Non-Muslims are considered second-class citizens, they are treated poorly, not only by the governments, but also by the local populace.
Because of all this, religion has "absolutely NO place" heavily influencing the government, whether, Christian, Islamic, Judaism, Bhuddism, et cetera. Once it does get control over a government, the true evil begins.
So, while the Constitution doesn't specifically spell out a separation of church and state, keeping it separate prevents the creation of a Theocracy. And that, that is true evil.

Yeah, the laws that govern people's lives should have NOTHING to do with who those people are or what they believe. They should be based on something totally foreign and alien to the people whose lives they affect.

Or is it that only atheists should have any influence over how our nation is governed? Everyone else should sit down and shut up?

 

[AnnieInMexico]

The whole concept of the US being a Christian nation is so damn silly it's laughable. Christianity isn't even an original myth. It was copied from prior myths and updated for time and location. It's amazing to me that so many hold fast and hard to a well known myth.