aww isnt that cute, more muslim special accomodations, and aclu is silent

[mattskramer]

Why do left wing Secularist nutbags like yourself think the two-faced ACLU isn't gutting free expression of religion from our society? Go to the "Kiss my ass" thread and read post #21, Myth#6. Stop drinking the anti-American, anti-God ACLU kommy koolaid.

I’m still waiting for an explanation how the ACLU can be anti-Christians when, in several cases, it defended Christians.

 

[JeffWartman]

I’m still waiting for an explanation how the ACLU can be anti-Christians when, in several cases, it defended Christians.

You can't expect them to defend their remarks beyond "they're liars"

It'll blow the gasket of their indoctrination

 

[JeffWartman]

what ARE you babbling about? Either you're drunk, or you are one delusional, dishonest mofo.

Where did my links "embaras" me? Did you just make that up, cause it sounded good?

I provided about thirty links, which documented that the ACLU has a long history of defending the religious freedoms of christians. And every other faith too. You cons simply can't believe it, can you? Have you been conditioned by rightwing talk radio lies to assume ACLU never defended any chrisitans?

Disregard RGS. Along with RSR and truthmatters, he's one of the most uneducated people on this board.

(I'm bi-partisan with my hatred for apologists )

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Why do left wing Secularist nutbags like yourself think the two-faced ACLU isn't gutting free expression of religion from our society? Go to the "Kiss my ass" thread and read post #21, Myth#6. Stop drinking the anti-American, anti-God ACLU kommy koolaid.

OK

--Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth – so help you God? In many courtrooms, this is no longer permissible.
--One Nation, Under God phrase already been taken out of our nation’s Pledge of Allegiance.
--In God We Trust may possibly be taken off of our coins and bills.
--The ACLU believes Moments of Silence are offensive and should be stopped.
--School prayer in public schools will come to a halt.
--The ACLU has taken the history of Christianity and such monuments as the Ten Commandments down from our most historic buildings in our great cities.
--Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas? Christmas will soon be nothing more to this country than a day off of work for all Americans. No more Christmas parties, no more Christmas Joy, no more Christmas spirit.
--Santa Claus (Saint Nic) will be taken out of the Christmas season all together.
--Nativity scenes and plays may vanish from all public celebrations and festivities.
--Many Universities will no longer display Christmas Trees around campus because of actions the ACLU

And what particular cases do each of these lines actually refer to?

Also, how exactly does prohibiting the government from spending tax dollars promoting a religion infringe on your religion liberty?


"--Santa Claus (Saint Nic) will be taken out of the Christmas season all together."

???? Yeah, OK - show me the actual case.

Also - show me a specific case in which the ACLU tried to force someone to say "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas". Guess what? It doesn't exist. Sounds more like you are accusing the ACLU of wanting to infringe on your liberty simply because they themselves prefer to say "Happy Holidays" - that case, it is you who are attempting to limit their speech.


You don't debunk myths by making up a bunch of stuff an listing it.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

OK

And what particular cases do each of these lines actually refer to?
Too much work to look them all up. However, if you've read the news you'd know that ACLU attorneys are mentioned as being behind these incidents. Typically communities will cave to lawsuit threats because they don't have the deep pockets like the ACLU does.

Also, how exactly does prohibiting the government from spending tax dollars promoting a religion infringe on your religion liberty?
The government is US or have you forgotten? We are only expressing our religion in the public square. Nobody is establishing a religion.

"--Santa Claus (Saint Nic) will be taken out of the Christmas season all together."
You doubt that's coming unless the ACLU is stopped? I don't. Next you'll see St. (Saint) Valentine's Day changed. Then St.(Saint) Patrick's Day…

???? Yeah, OK - show me the actual case.
Here's one they lost.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41469
Here's current fighting against another ACLU lawsuit threat
http://www.dailytribune.com/stories/071807/loc_nativity001.shtml

Also - show me a specific case in which the ACLU tried to force someone to say "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas". Guess what? It doesn't exist. Sounds more like you are accusing the ACLU of wanting to infringe on your liberty simply because they themselves prefer to say "Happy Holidays" - that case, it is you who are attempting to limit their speech.
What an ignoramus. Or you are just being as devious as the ACLU. Don't you understand that the ACLU-induced political correctness (and fear of lawsuits) is what underlies such actions?

You don't debunk myths by making up a bunch of stuff an listing it.
Bullshit

/

 

[DeadCanDance]

Why do left wing Secularist nutbags like yourself think the two-faced ACLU isn't gutting free expression of religion from our society? Go to the "Kiss my ass" thread and read post #21, Myth#6. Stop drinking the anti-American, anti-God ACLU kommy koolaid.

Uhh, you're still dodging the question.

How do you resolve your assertion that the ACLU is anti-christian, and communist with the documented fact that they have defended many christians in legal cases, and have in fact teamed up with noted christians and conservatives like Jerry Falwell, Rush Limbaugh, and congressman Bob Barr.

Are you ready to admit your assertion that they are "anti-christian and communist" was wholly without merit?


Or, is living with your rush limbaugh propaganda, the only way you can deal with life?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Uhh, you're still dodging the question.

How do you resolve your assertion that the ACLU is anti-christian, and communist with the documented fact that they have defended many christians in legal cases, and have in fact teamed up with noted christians and conservatives like Jerry Falwell, Rush Limbaugh, and congressman Bob Barr.

Are you ready to admit your assertion that they are "anti-christian and communist" was wholly without merit?


Or, is living with your rush limbaugh propaganda, the only way you can deal with life?

You don't understand the meaning of the word subversive, do you? How about two-faced? Just because they have defended some minor cases that support Christians or a conservative radio talk show host (frankly they just stuck their noses in for the publicity) that does not erase their true agenda, it only helps divert suspicion and maintain a false front to fool people like you. Pay particular attention to what ACLU founder Roger Baldwin basically advised. Hopefully this will help enlighten you even if you don't read the book:

New book exposes ACLU's campaign of legal terrorism
by Dave Bohon

Since its founding in 1920, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has promoted itself as the “nation’s guardian of liberty.” The group boasts that its lawyers work “daily in courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States. Our job is to conserve America’s original civic values — the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.”

Really? According to Alan Sears and Craig Osten of the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), in its over 80 years of existence the ACLU has actually been a premier vehicle working for the subversion of the very values and institutions that have kept America free. In their most recent book, The ACLU Vs. America, Sears, ADF’s president, and Osten, the group’s vice president, demonstrate how the ACLU — through a legal and educational campaign of “fear, intimidation, and disinformation” — has been successful in turning many of the most liberal and extreme positions on controversial issues into precedent-setting victories in the courts, and influencing what Americans perceive to be the law of the land.

“For years the ACLU has positioned itself as a pro-liberty organization that stands up for the ‘little guy,’” Osten pointed out. “We wrote this book to set that record straight — to show that the ACLU is a dangerous organization that doesn’t care for the little guy, that is anti-America, and that is trying to undermine all the values that our country was founded upon.”

Just how the ACLU has gone about this is a fascinating study in itself. It didn’t hurt, for starters, to have the support of the Communist Party. When Roger Baldwin founded the ACLU in 1920, Earl Browder, then General Secretary of the Communist Party, USA, referred to the ACLU as the “transmission belt” for Communist policy. Today Americans have lost sight of the fact that at one time the Communist Party was the world’s premier enemy of liberty. While communism may be “dead,” the “transmission belt” for the oppressive ideology it represented continues to operate unabated. How to stop it is what this book is all about.

From its very beginning the ACLU has promoted itself as a pro-America organization. “ACLU’s founder Roger Baldwin basically advised that the group needed to market itself as the guardian of the Bill of Rights, and make Americans think they were a patriotic organization,” Osten said. “Yet we see the ACLU systematically undermining America with its attacks on moral values, parental rights, and public expressions of faith.”

The authors cite numerous examples of how the ACLU has attacked the liberties it claims to be defending. Among the shocking positions for which the ACLU has argued in court are:

• Preventing groups like the Boy Scouts from setting standards of conduct for their leaders. “The ACLU has aggressively gone after the Boy Scouts of America and their freedom of association,” explained Osten. Specifically, the group has sued the Boy Scouts for their policy of not allowing homosexual Scout leaders. It’s interesting, then, that the ACLU has its own demands for membership. Explained Osten, “Roger Baldwin said that, basically , the ACLU is a church, and ‘we want leaders that represent our values and believe in what we do. No one else need apply.’ One of the themes we found repeatedly while researching this book is the ACLU’s duplicity. They want one set of rules for themselves, and another set of rules for everybody else.”

• The legalization of polygamy and other lifestyle “arrangements.” In its policy guide the ACLU comes out in favor of legalizing “plural marriage,” as well as homosexual “marriage.” In January 2005 Nadine Strassen, the ACLU’s president, confirmed this in comments at Yale Law School.

• The distribution of child pornography, no matter how vile and brutal it may be, as a “free speech” right. “The ACLU believes that once child pornography is produced, there should be no legal restrictions on its distribution,” said Osten. “I seriously doubt the Founding Fathers had this in mind.”

• Limiting the freedom of parents to pass their faith and values on to their children. Osten noted that the ACLU has been very aggressive working with homosexual organizations like the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network in pushing “tolerance” and “diversity” training in public schools in some states. “Some of these programs indoctrinate kids to reject the values of their parents, and parents cannot opt their children out of the training,” he said.

• Blocking churches from publicly teaching and proclaiming their Bible-based messages in the public square. “The ACLU has been very active in going after churches that engage in issues such as abortion or homosexual behavior,” said Osten. He noted that the ACLU and its allies have gone as far as sending spies into churches to find out what pastors were saying on moral issues. “The ACLU has also used anti-discrimination laws protecting homosexuals to force religious organizations and churches to compromise their core beliefs,” said Osten.

To put it bluntly, the legacy of the ACLU over its nine-decade history has been a crucial breech of the freedoms our forefathers and millions afterwards fought and died to preserve. And each successive ACLU court victory brings America ever closer to an ultimate collapse of our national sovereignty. The authors note that the ACLU has begun a strategy that would ultimately make America beholden to international law. Osten pointed out that the U.S. Supreme Court has used international law as the basis for at least four decisions in recent years, including the Lawrence v. Texas case that protected homosexual behavior in that state. “The ACLU held a conference in late 2003 specifically to discuss how international law could be used to reinterpret the U.S. Constitution,” recalled Osten. He added that ACLU operatives realize they can only push their subversive agenda so far based on actual constitutional limitations. “The U.S. Constitution can only be stretched so much,” he said. “So now they’re teaching judges to look at the constitutions of selected countries — constitutions, of course, that would back the ACLU’s agenda.”

Throughout the book Sears and Osten quote extensively from the ACLU’s own materials, to paint a frightening picture of where this “civil rights” group will take our nation if concerned Americans do not stand up to its agenda.

But despite deep pockets and decades of victory in their war on American values, the ACLU can be stopped — if enough concerned Americans wake up and begin to expose its dark and dangerous agenda. The first step is being fully educated on the ACLU’s agenda and standard operating procedures, and to inform others as well. The ACLU vs. America is a great tool for doing both.

The ACLU has relied on intimidation tactics — the threat of lawsuits for alleged violations of constitutional rights — as well as a citizenry that is uninformed about its constitutional protections. The ACLU Vs. America will give readers the information they need to battle the ACLU’s agenda. At the same time it will encourage and inspire readers to boldly challenge the secularist mindset that permeates much of the discourse on our rights as Americans. It’s a handbook every pro-family activist should read — and re-read.

http://www.mfc.org/contents/article.cfm?id=1509

 

[actsnoblemartin]

gunny is right on the money.

How is it not special treatment? It's using my tax dollars to cater to a religion. If you can't cater to mine, you can't cater to his. Or is that too fair for you?

 

[mattskramer]

gunny is right on the money.

Tax money has been used to cater to Christians too. Look at the chapels connected to hospitals. Look at religious art works subsidized by the NEA. Look at the time that had been spent in public schools where Christian prayers have been recited.

 

[mattskramer]

You don't understand the meaning of the word subversive, do you? How about two-faced? Just because they have defended some minor cases that support Christians or a conservative radio talk show host (frankly they just stuck their noses in for the publicity) that does not erase their true agenda, it only helps divert suspicion and maintain a false front to fool people like you. Pay particular attention to what ACLU founder Roger Baldwin basically advised. Hopefully this will help enlighten you even if you don't read the book:

Sheer paranoia. It has not contradicted anything that I’ve posted. I’m not impressed. The ACLU is not anti-Christian. It is not pro-Christian. Yet, it is not two-faced. Sometimes Christians go against civil liberties. Therefore it opposes Christians with respect to a particular stance. Sometimes Christians are being denied a civil liberty. In those cases, as it can, it defends Christians. That is not an indication of being two-faced. It is a consistent indication of getting involved in matters when it thinks that a civil liberty is being seriously denied. It is as simple as that.

 

[DeadCanDance]

You don't understand the meaning of the word subversive, do you? How about two-faced? Just because they have defended some minor cases that support Christians or a conservative radio talk show host (frankly they just stuck their noses in for the publicity) that does not erase their true agenda, it only helps divert suspicion and maintain a false front to fool people like you. Pay particular attention to what ACLU founder Roger Baldwin basically advised. Hopefully this will help enlighten you even if you don't read the book:

All you've done is provide some book virtually no one's ever heard of, by an author not one's ever heard of, filled with opinion, conspiracy theory, and speculation. Who gives a crap what some communist said in 1920? You are seriously paranoid, dude. Or, drunk on rightwing talk radio.

ACLU defends christian religious freedoms. As you now acknowledge. They are not anti-christian. They are in fact, neutral on the issue of reilgion. Their interest is in defending the constitutional rights of all religions, as their limited resources permit.

As for them being a communist front group? A quick review of the ACLU's website documents numerous legal cases, where they have teamed up with the following noted conservatives:

Jerry Falwell
Rush Limbaugh
Former Congressman Bob Barr (of Clinton impeachment fame)
American Conservative Union
Gun Owners of America (a gun rights group)
Republican Liberty Caucus
Libertarian Party of America
Americans for Tax Reform (conservative anti-tax group)
Citizens' Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms


This is hardly the record of a committed and demonstrated "pro-communist" front group.

 

[Gem]

mattskramer wrote:

I’m still waiting for an explanation how the ACLU can be anti-Christians when, in several cases, it defended Christians.

While I think that people on this board have done a terrible job responding to the OBVIOUS truth that the ACLU often takes on Christian rights cases...I think that your statement above is a bit silly.

Of course the ACLU can be anti-Christian and take cases in which it is defending Christians. Just like a person can be a flaming racist but still work with people they feel are inferior because they have to, or because they don't want to be seen as racist.

The question, in my opinion, should really be - IS the ACLU anti-Christian despite its defending of Christian rights cases.

While I don't think the ACLU as an organization is anti-Christian, I would think that one could point to cases in which the ACLU took positions against the Boy Scouts, against religious statues in public parks, the 10 Commandments in public buildings, against crosses in state seals, etc. as examples of the ACLU pursuing matters which seem to be more about persecuting Christians than defending civil liberties.

At the same time, however, people are then going to be left to explain why the ACLU has worked on so many cases where they are helping Christians then - where the questions should go.

But - stating that because a group has defended Christians they can't be anti-Christian is, in my opinion, a logical error.

 

[DeadCanDance]

While I don't think the ACLU as an organization is anti-Christian, I would think that one could point to cases in which the ACLU took positions against the Boy Scouts, against religious statues in public parks, the 10 Commandments in public buildings, against crosses in state seals, etc. as examples of the ACLU pursuing matters which seem to be more about persecuting Christians than defending civil liberties.


These aren't examples of "anti-christian" bias. ACLU's view (the correct one) is that government employees, government institutions, and tax payer dollars cannot be used to promote one relgion, or one religion's interests, over other religions.

In terms of american citizens practicing the faith of their choice in the public square (in schools, on public property, in prisons, etc), the ACLU is consistently in defense of their constitutional right to freedom of religious expression - whether it be christian, jewish, or muslim.

Examples:

September 20, 2005: ACLU of New Jersey joins lawsuit supporting second-grader's right to sing "Awesome God" at a talent show.

November 9, 2004: ACLU of Nevada defends a Mormon student who was suspended after wearing a T-shirt with a religious message to school.

July 10, 2004: Indiana Civil Liberties Union defends the rights of a Baptist minister to preach his message on public streets.

June 3, 2004: Under pressure from the ACLU of Virginia, officials agree not to prohibit baptisms on public property in Falmouth Waterside Park in Stafford County.

May 11, 2004: After ACLU of Michigan intervened on behalf of a Christian Valedictorian, a public high school agrees to stop censoring religious yearbook entries.

March 25, 2004: ACLU of Washington defends an Evangelical minister's right to preach on sidewalks.

February 21, 2003: ACLU of Massachusetts defends students punished for distributing candy canes with religious messages.

July 11, 2002: ACLU supports right of Iowa students to distribute Christian literature at school.

January 18, 2002: ACLU defends Christian church's right to run "anti-Santa" ads in Boston subways.

http://www.aclu.org/religion/tencomm/16254res20050302.html

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I will go out on a limb here and state that in MY opinion providing foot baths is not a matter that needs to be addressed any higher than the school chosing to do so or not. Claiming foot baths are equivalent to baptismals is down right dumb.

Now if the foot baths are then protected and only allowed for Muslims to use I will cry foul. This is in the end a non issue. It is no more a problem then providing time to pray. IF some Christian group does have some similar requirement and it is rejected, then I might change my opinion. As it stands now I see no similar Christian need or requirement or allowance.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

All you've done is provide some book virtually no one's ever heard of, by an author not one's ever heard of, filled with opinion, conspiracy theory, and speculation. Who gives a crap what some communist said in 1920? You are seriously paranoid, dude. Or, drunk on rightwing talk radio.

ACLU defends christian religious freedoms. As you now acknowledge. They are not anti-christian. They are in fact, neutral on the issue of reilgion. Their interest is in defending the constitutional rights of all religions, as their limited resources permit.

As for them being a communist front group? A quick review of the ACLU's website documents numerous legal cases, where they have teamed up with the following noted conservatives:

Jerry Falwell
Rush Limbaugh
Former Congressman Bob Barr (of Clinton impeachment fame)
American Conservative Union
Gun Owners of America (a gun rights group)
Republican Liberty Caucus
Libertarian Party of America
Americans for Tax Reform (conservative anti-tax group)
Citizens' Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms


This is hardly the record of a committed and demonstrated "pro-communist" front group.

I’m still waiting for an explanation how the ACLU can be anti-Christians when, in several cases, it defended Christians.

Are you familiar with the term "window dressing"?

Please reread my posts regarding Roger Baldwin on the plan to fool the public and the ACLU's communist roots. Even the actual Communist Party thought they were great guns. Of course they went to great lengths to cover this perception. Today, it's hard to tell them from the liberals who have gone so far left that they are almost one and the same.

Please refer to the other thread "Kiss my ass" to get my response regarding the various "pro-Christian" cases that you dredged up.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

ACLU's view (the correct one) is that government employees, government institutions, and tax payer dollars cannot be used to promote one relgion, or one religion's interests, over other religions.

In terms of american citizens practicing the faith of their choice in the public square (in schools, on public property, in prisons, etc), the ACLU is consistently in defense of their constitutional right to freedom of religious expression - whether it be christian, jewish, or muslim.

Here we get to the crux of the matter. The ACLU's position is wrong. Religious expression is a constitutional right....AS LONG AS a religion is not being ESTABLISHED.

There is currently a bill in Congress called the The Public Expressions Of Religion Protection Act(S.3696) that will close the loophole that the ACLU has been using to file lawsuits against public displays of religion in America. The ACLU is using a section of federal code that was originally designed to aid poor defendants in civil rights cases. This loophole has provide the ACLU with millions of dollars in profits from pursuing case after case against the public display of religious belief in America.

http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=2825