The ACLU's anti-Religious Hypocrisy

Stephanie

Diamond Member
Jul 11, 2004
70,230
10,865
2,040
April 10th, 2006



For nearly a hundred years the crèche sat in front of the Balch Elementary School in South Norwood, Massachusetts. Then in 2004, Sarah Wunsch, attorney for the Massachusetts branch of the American Civil Liberties Union contended that the display depicting the birth of Jesus in a Bethlehem manger, violated separation of church and state. and its presence on the grounds of a public school sent a message that the schools endorse Christianity. ‘’Kids being driven to school or being dropped off see it and think it’s part of school,” she said.

Eventually, the ACLU prevailed, the crèche was removed and relocated nearby to private land.

In scores of similar cases, the ACLU and its 50 state affiliates relentlessly scan the horizon for perceived violations of the Establishment Clause of the Constitution. Supreme Court decisions on religious constitutional issues began in earnest in the late 1940’s, culminating in the landmark decision in the 1962 Engle v. Vitale decision in which the Court ruled that New York’s practice of beginning the school day with a prayer violated the first amendment.

Recently, the ACLU has trumpeted its victories in “The Silver Ring Thing” case in which The Department of Health and Human Services was held in violation of the clause by providing “inherently religious activities” in its promotion of an “abstinence before marriage” program.

Nor is the ACLU shy about broadcasting its role in eliminating “intelligent design” courses in Pennsylvania public schools. In hundreds of cases, the ACLU neither slumbers nor sleeps when it comes to pursuing miscreants who would subvert our Constitution. Thanks to their efforts, perhaps next year our currency will bear the inscription, “In Litigation We Trust.”

Now imagine my surprise when I couldn’t find anyone – either at the Massachusetts ACLU or at its big brother in Washington – who had brought legal action, or who would even render an opinion, on the construction of a $22,000,000 religious structure on land virtually given away by the City of Boston and attendant religious instruction courses forced on a nearby state-funded college. How could such a monumental religious undertaking involving the obvious endorsement by government officials at every level escape the withering gaze of the watchdogs of the ACLU?

It took only a few phone calls to find the answer. The religious structure and institution was neither a church nor a synagogue. It was a mosque. And not just another mosque. The Islamic Society of Boston’s mosque project will be the largest on the East Coast of the United States and will be funded primarily through Middle Eastern money.

Not content with support pledged by Wahhabist Saudi Arabia, the ISB sought to purchase the city-owned land at a bargain basement price. And did they ever succeed. The City of Boston obliged the group by selling its 1.9 acre site valued at $2,000,000 for $175,000. Boldly compounding the scam, the City agreed to receive further in-kind payment from the ISB in the form of an Islamic Library and courses in Islamic instruction at a state facility, Roxbury Community College; not a $200 crèche or a menorah made of scrap tubing, but a multi-million dollar enterprise based on defrauding taxpayers and establishing ongoing indoctrination courses on the glories of Islam.

Not only did this enterprise represent “inherent religious activity”, but it went far beyond the ACLU’s floor for triggering action by involving explicit and manifold religious activity.

If, as de Rochefoucault had it, “Hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue”, the ACLU has to be first in line at that altar. Carol Rose, Director of the Massachusetts ACLU, told me in 2004, in response to a private lawsuit brought by an individual based on violation of the Establishment Clause, that her organization favored the ISB’s position insofar as the lawsuit “violated that organization’s right of free speech.”

After I put my dropped jaw back into place, I suggested that a $22,000,000 mosque built on giveaway city land along with taxpayer funded Islamic indoctrination amounted to a textbook case of Establishment Clause transgression and made the crèche case look like a minor infraction. At that point she terminated the conversation.

Fast forward to March of this year. Major news stories, local and national, are now breaking revealing even more skullduggery at the Boston Redevelopment Authority and the Islamic Society of Boston. It seems that the Deputy Director of the BRA, a Mr. Muhammed Ali-Salaam, a former official at Louis Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam and member of the ISB, traveled to the Middle East in search of more money for the mosque project. Shortly thereafter, the ISB coincidentally presented a check for $10,000 to Roxbury Community College. The story appeared on the front page of the Boston Globe on March 4th.

In the meantime the ISB has fired off a defamation lawsuit at the hounds nipping at its feet, naming The David Project, a Boston based group that seeks to promote a fair and honest discussion of the Arab-Israeli conflict, The Boston Herald, which first broke the story back in 2003, Steven Emerson, the intrepid Director of The Investigative Project, Fox News, Citizens for Peace and Tolerance and a number of individuals having the temerity to question the secret goings-on at the ISB.

Oh yes, add to the plot the fact that one of the founders of the ISB, Abdul Rachman Alamoudi is doing a stretch in a federal prison for receiving cash from the Libyan mission to the United Nations, failing to disclose numerous trips to Libya and conspiring in a political assassination. He has also expressed his support for Hamas, along with Hezbollah and other terrorist organizations.

Enter a former trustee of the ISB, Dr. Walid Fitaihi, proud author of an article in an Arabic language newspaper that labeled Jews “murderers of prophets” and claimed that Jews “would be punished for their oppression, murder and rape of the worshippers of Allah.” Incidentally, Fitaihi was one of the co-signers of the alleged fraudulent land conveyance between the ISB and the Boston Redevelopment Authority.

With all this sunlight bursting through the shutters at the Mayor’s office and at the ISB, mirabile dictu – the ISB decided to suspend its lawsuit (but not to drop it). You’d think by now the ACLU would have registered something on its screen. But as far as their gaze extended, darkness was plainly visible.

How has Ms. Rose and the ACLU reacted to all this inconvenient news? Asked about it recently, she replied, “I don’t know about the issue and no one in this office is going to investigate it.” Jaw drop #2…Pressed further she added, “This is not on our radar screen.” Raising her voice, Ms. Rose was clearly annoyed at any question dealing with the case and again terminated the conversation.

Jeremy Gunn, ACLU’s National Director of the stealthily named, “Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief”, was not aware of the ISB issue, but promised to “put it on his radar screen.” Don’t hold your electrons.

Remember the old saw about who’s a conservative? A liberal who’s been mugged. The ACLU could be the first case of a self-inflicted mugging.

And all the while, the mosque rises ever higher against the Boston skyline.
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles_print.php?article_id=5401

Look below at who is involved with the ISB
 
Government sponsorship of patently Christian (or other religious) imagery is placing that Christianity (or other religion) a firm basis with a favorable position to gain full recognition, or acceptance, of that Christianity (or other religion) as the government's implicitly endorsed religion. Since governemnt spending is established by law, laws that provide for the promotion of Christianity (or other religion) via the sponsorship of Christian (or other religious) imagery in public buildings is unconstitutional.

Yet the religious republican right so often insists this is not the case to the point where other religion must be granted equal time in the public eye to satisfy non-establishment. It's clear to me that this railing against the ACLU's non-start on the ISB business is also hypocracy.

Intelligent design is obviously religion and certainly not science, thus has no business in science classes, and being religion, has no place in public schools.

None of this, of course meant to refute the assertion that the ACLU is constitutionally hypocritical--you need not the convoluted 1st Amendment rationalizations the article describes to see the ACLU's hypocracy when you check their position on the 2nd Amendment.
 
<center><a href=http://www.aclu.org/religion/govtfunding/22354prs20051206.html>ACLU of Michigan Defends Catholic Man Coerced to Convert to Pentecostal Faith in Drug Rehab Program</a></center>

<center><a href=http://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/20174prs20050920.html>ACLU of New Jersey Joins Lawsuit Supporting Second-Grader's Right to Sing "Awesome God" at Talent Show</a></center>

<center><a href=http://www.aclu.org/religion/gen/16374prs20041222.html>ACLU of New Jersey Successfully Defends Right of Religious Expression by Jurors </a></center>

<center><a href=http://www.aclu.org/religion/frb/16347prs20040811.html>ACLU of Nebraska Defends Church Facing Eviction by the City of Lincoln</a></center>

If it weren't for the ACLU, freedom of religion would be a pipe dream in this country.
 
Bullypulpit said:
<center><a href=http://www.aclu.org/religion/govtfunding/22354prs20051206.html>ACLU of Michigan Defends Catholic Man Coerced to Convert to Pentecostal Faith in Drug Rehab Program</a></center>

<center><a href=http://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/20174prs20050920.html>ACLU of New Jersey Joins Lawsuit Supporting Second-Grader's Right to Sing "Awesome God" at Talent Show</a></center>

<center><a href=http://www.aclu.org/religion/gen/16374prs20041222.html>ACLU of New Jersey Successfully Defends Right of Religious Expression by Jurors </a></center>

<center><a href=http://www.aclu.org/religion/frb/16347prs20040811.html>ACLU of Nebraska Defends Church Facing Eviction by the City of Lincoln</a></center>

If it weren't for the ACLU, freedom of religion would be a pipe dream in this country.

Bullshit. The ACLU has done more to squelch freedom of religion in favor of freedom from religion than any other organization. They just take up one case a year that they know doesn't matter in order to appear even-handed. That's what, four cases of them defending a religious entity in a decidedly onesided case compared to the hundreds of frivilous lawsuits that do nothing but quash attempts to *gasp* show their religion publicly?
 
Bullypulpit said:
<center><a href=http://www.aclu.org/religion/govtfunding/22354prs20051206.html>ACLU of Michigan Defends Catholic Man Coerced to Convert to Pentecostal Faith in Drug Rehab Program</a></center>

<center><a href=http://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/20174prs20050920.html>ACLU of New Jersey Joins Lawsuit Supporting Second-Grader's Right to Sing "Awesome God" at Talent Show</a></center>

<center><a href=http://www.aclu.org/religion/gen/16374prs20041222.html>ACLU of New Jersey Successfully Defends Right of Religious Expression by Jurors </a></center>

<center><a href=http://www.aclu.org/religion/frb/16347prs20040811.html>ACLU of Nebraska Defends Church Facing Eviction by the City of Lincoln</a></center>

If it weren't for the ACLU, freedom of religion would be a pipe dream in this country.

Actually I think Christians and other religions would be doing quite well in this country without the hinderance... I mean "help" of the ACLU :laugh:
 
Stephanie said:
April 10th, 2006
...

If, as de Rochefoucault had it, “Hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue”, the ACLU has to be first in line at that altar.

...

The ACLU's selective wielding of the First Amendment as an anti-Christian weapon cannot help but be revealed as hypocritical. As Hobbit noted, bringing a few inconsequential lawsuits that appear to give a pro-Christian balance, isn't fooling anyone.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: dmp
ACLU needs to change name to ASCLU. American Selective Civil Liberties Union. Religion is a civil liberty, yet the ACLU does little to protect it. The right to bear arms is a civil liberty, yet when was the last time you saw the ACLU sue to protect this right. If the ACLU is going to be selective, then th efederal government should be more selective about how money is allocated to them.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: dmp
Bullypulpit said:
If it weren't for the ACLU, freedom of religion would be a pipe dream in this country.
Probably true. We'd likely be well over-run by the militant "this is a Christian Nation, created by Christians, for Christians, on Christian principles" crowd if not for their efforts.

Hobbit said:
Bullshit. The ACLU has done more to squelch freedom of religion in favor of freedom from religion than any other organization.
Nonsense. The ACLU has made not one effort at squelching anyone's practice of religion, except for those who would practice and force their religion upon others via government instruments.

Hobbit said:
They just take up one case a year that they know doesn't matter in order to appear even-handed. That's what, four cases of them defending a religious entity in a decidedly onesided case compared to the hundreds of frivilous lawsuits that do nothing but quash attempts to *gasp* show their religion publicly?
Oh? "...hundreds of frivilous lawsuits...", eh? Sounds like bullshit. There are no doubt, hundreds of lawsuits filed against the religiously zealous, but I'll bet you'd be hard pressed to demonstrate they are all frivilous--feel free to do so though, because there's nothing I like better than bashing in the ACLU's teeth on legitimate grounds.

Bonnie said:
Actually I think Christians and other religions would be doing quite well in this country without the hinderance... I mean "help" of the ACLU :laugh:
Oh, I think not. I think other religions would fare just as well as other religions fare in Muslim countries. Christians are not particularly tolerant of other religions if the crusades, witch-hunts, and the inquisition are any indication.

Abbey Normal said:
The ACLU's selective wielding of the First Amendment as an anti-Christian weapon cannot help but be revealed as hypocritical. As Hobbit noted, bringing a few inconsequential lawsuits that appear to give a pro-Christian balance, isn't fooling anyone.
As if the ACLU needs to be pro-Christian to protect religious freedom--it need only be pro-freedom, and I think one can argue that it's not.

onthefence said:
ACLU needs to change name to ASCLU. American Selective Civil Liberties Union.
Truth.

onthefence said:
Religion is a civil liberty, yet the ACLU does little to protect it.
Not truth. Despite the assertion of Hobbit, freedom of religion includes freedom from religion--the religion(s) of others--and protecting that freedom is protecting freedom of religion.
 
LOki said:
Not truth. Despite the assertion of Hobbit, freedom of religion includes freedom from religion--the religion(s) of others--and protecting that freedom is protecting freedom of religion.

Bullshit. Freedom from religion is just a cute way of saying government endorsement of secularism and atheism. Despite what people may think, religion isn't just some outfit that I can put on and take off whenever it's convenient. It can't just be confined to the church because it's a way of life. However, we are repeatedly told we MUST accept the gay lifestyle and allow them to parade on whatever public area they want, while the Christian lifestyle must be confined to private property that can't be seen from public property and to churches. Freedom from religion is tyranny. All the first ammendment has to say is that congress cannot endorse a religion nor prohibit the free exercise thereof. Isn't allowing Ramadam, Hannakuh, and Kwanzaa displays, but not Christmas displays inhibiting the free practice of religion? Isn't forbidding religious text or clothing from being seen in schools inhibiting the free practice of religion? And is having a nativity scene on display at a public library at the behest of the voters in a prodominantly Christian town the equivalent of Congress endorsing a religion?

Think about what you're saying here. It's nuts! In fact, when the Constitution was written, it was, first off, recorded as being written in the year of our Lord 1787 and second off did...NOT...end the practice of individual states having a state enforced religion.
 
Hobbit said:
Bullshit. Freedom from religion is just a cute way of saying government endorsement of secularism and atheism.
Bullshit. Protecting Christians, pagans, jews, and atheists from the Muslim religion is what freedom from religion means. Protecting pagans, jews, atheists and muslims from Christians is what freedom from religion means. It does not mean government endorsement of secularism, it mean governmental secularism, which is what the 1st amendment asserts, and was the clear intent if those who ratified it.

Hobbit said:
Despite what people may think, religion isn't just some outfit that I can put on and take off whenever it's convenient. It can't just be confined to the church because it's a way of life.
Which is prescisely why the government is prohibited from endorsing or promoting or placing on firm basis with a favorable position to gain full recognition, or acceptance, any religion--including (and most importantly) that very religion held by the majority of the electorate.

Hobbit said:
However, we are repeatedly told we MUST accept the gay lifestyle and allow them to parade on whatever public area they want, while the Christian lifestyle must be confined to private property that can't be seen from public property and to churches.
Bullshit. This is not about gays, as "gay" is not a religion. Nor do you have to accept the gay lifestyle--no-one is holding a gun to your head making you date George Michael.

And no-one, and I mean no-one, is preventing you from praying in public or reading scripture in public, or having your church league softball championship game on public property. All that is being prevented is the government creating policy regarding a religion, or on the basis of a religion.

Yet, based upon the bullshit Christian principles (the ones that peaked during the inquisition) alone, the Christians in this country would have the government adopt these principles in abrogating the rights of persons not being Christian--and then claim that preventing them from crushing the religion of others is abrogation of their right to freedom of religion.

Hobbit said:
Freedom from religion is tyranny.
Bullshit. Freedom from religion is freedom. Governmental endorsement of Christianity (or other religion) is tyranny.

Hobbit said:
All the first ammendment has to say is that congress cannot endorse a religion nor prohibit the free exercise thereof. Isn't allowing Ramadam, Hannakuh, and Kwanzaa displays, but not Christmas displays inhibiting the free practice of religion?
Yes. I'm not endorsing the notion that Ramadam, Hannakuh, and Kwanzaa displays should be sponsored by the governemnt either. The only reason you see them is becuase the Christians refuse to pull their crap out of the government sponsorship business, so those other religions then must get equal time in government sponsorship to avoid accusations of establishment.

Hobbit said:
Isn't forbidding religious text or clothing from being seen in schools inhibiting the free practice of religion?
Not neccessarily--but it could be.

Hobbit said:
And is having a nativity scene on display at a public library at the behest of the voters in a prodominantly Christian town the equivalent of Congress endorsing a religion?
Yes. That religion would be Christianity, BTW.

Hobbit said:
Think about what you're saying here. It's nuts!
Exactly what is it I said in the previous post that was "nuts"? Specific example please. Demonstrate "nuts".

Hobbit said:
In fact, when the Constitution was written, it was, first off, recorded as being written in the year of our Lord 1787...
Irrelevant.

Hobbit said:
...and second off did...NOT...end the practice of individual states having a state enforced religion.
Mostly because the statement "year of our Lord" is irrelevant to the issue.
 
LOki said:
Bullshit. Protecting Christians, pagans, jews, and atheists from the Muslim religion is what freedom from religion means. Protecting pagans, jews, atheists and muslims from Christians is what freedom from religion means. It does not mean government endorsement of secularism, it mean governmental secularism, which is what the 1st amendment asserts, and was the clear intent if those who ratified it.

You are so full of crap your eyes must be brown. All this seperation of church and state bullcrap is a blatant attempt to squelch the voice of all religion in this country. You act like freedom from religion means that nobody will force you to be of a certain religion. That's freedom of relgion. The freedom from relgion that the ACLU is trying to impose is the idea that nobody should ever have to even know that religion exists, because it's somehow a violation of your civil rights to see a nativity scene anywhere.

Which is prescisely why the government is prohibited from endorsing or promoting or placing on firm basis with a favorable position to gain full recognition, or acceptance, any religion--including (and most importantly) that very religion held by the majority of the electorate.

You are confusing toleration and cooperation with endorsement. You've fully bought into the secularist bullcrap line that if the government even recognizes the desires of a religion, it's the equivalent of theocracy. The fact is that this is a representative nation. If the majority is Republican, Republican values will become policy. If the majority is secularist, secularist values will become policy. However, you would have me believe that if the majority is Christian, then nothing that has anything to do with anything Christian is at all allowed to even be considered for policy because of something that isn't even in the Constitution. As long as the government doesn't force the nation to become Christian or inhibit other religions from doing what they please, they are free to implement any policy they want as long as it doesn't directly violate the Constitution.

Bullshit. This is not about gays, as "gay" is not a religion. Nor do you have to accept the gay lifestyle--no-one is holding a gun to your head making you date George Michael.

And nobody's holding a gun to your head and making you go to church. You missed the point entirely. The ACLU wants every Christian to be a 'closet' Christian, out of sight and out of mind. That's why they sue to forbid government empoyees and students at government schools from publicly expressing their faiths. If this isn't inhibiting free exercise of religion, what is?

And no-one, and I mean no-one, is preventing you from praying in public or reading scripture in public, or having your church league softball championship game on public property. All that is being prevented is the government creating policy regarding a religion, or on the basis of a religion.

Pick up a newspaper lately? Thanks to the ACLU, students at government schools are not allowed to publicly pray, read the Bible, or attempt to evangelize. Students were expelled during December for wearing red and green. You're apparently living in a dream world.

Yet, based upon the bullshit Christian principles (the ones that peaked during the inquisition) alone, the Christians in this country would have the government adopt these principles in abrogating the rights of persons not being Christian--and then claim that preventing them from crushing the religion of others is abrogation of their right to freedom of religion.

That is the biggest load of crap I've seen come out of you yet. What makes you think that Christians actually want to inhibit the rights of non-Christians. I know there are a few nuts out there, but none with the power of the ever-present ACLU. Most Christians just want to be allowed to practice publicly and evangelize through peaceful, non-coercive means, but the ACLU won't even allow that.

Bullshit. Freedom from religion is freedom. Governmental endorsement of Christianity (or other religion) is tyranny.

As I've said before, the freedom to never have to even know a religion exists isn't freedom, it's atheism.

Yes. I'm not endorsing the notion that Ramadam, Hannakuh, and Kwanzaa displays should be sponsored by the governemnt either. The only reason you see them is becuase the Christians refuse to pull their crap out of the government sponsorship business, so those other religions then must get equal time in government sponsorship to avoid accusations of establishment.

Then go tell your buddies at the ACLU to either be even-handed or back the hell off.

Not neccessarily--but it could be.

Ok, give me an example where forbidding a person in a public school with no uniforms to wear expressions of their religion is NOT an inhibition of both free religion AND free speech.

Yes. That religion would be Christianity, BTW.

Did you even read that. Take note of the words "City Hall" and "Congress." The Constitution forbids, now, pay attention here, Congress, and only Congress, from showing any religious preference. A city hall is not controlled by Congress.

Exactly what is it I said in the previous post that was "nuts"? Specific example please. Demonstrate "nuts".

The idea that granting everyone the freedom not to ever see another religion as long as they live is not an infringement on the free practice of religion. That's about as nuts as it comes.

Irrelevant.

Maybe, but if somebody wrote that on a congressional bill today, you can bet the ACLU would knock down his door.

Mostly because the statement "year of our Lord" is irrelevant to the issue.

Pay attention here, because I'm getting sick of you seeming to not understand any point that I make. That statement you quoted had nothing to do with the "in the year of our Lord" comment. When the Constitution was passed and the first ammendment became the law of the land, many states had laws that supported a state religion. Citizens of that state were required to be members of that religion and the state laws could not violate tht religion. This...didn't change. The first ammendment was never intended to end the concept of governments other than federal from supporting religion. That's why it says that Congress shall make no law... It doesn't say that nobody shall make any law, it specifies Congress. Do you get it, now?
 
Hobbit said:
You are so full of crap your eyes must be brown. All this seperation of church and state bullcrap is a blatant attempt to squelch the voice of all religion in this country. You act like freedom from religion means that nobody will force you to be of a certain religion. That's freedom of relgion. The freedom from relgion that the ACLU is trying to impose is the idea that nobody should ever have to even know that religion exists, because it's somehow a violation of your civil rights to see a nativity scene anywhere.

Talk about full of crap...link one lawsuit where a Christian church was sued to take down a religious display on church property and lost.


Hobbit said:
And nobody's holding a gun to your head and making you go to church. You missed the point entirely. The ACLU wants every Christian to be a 'closet' Christian, out of sight and out of mind. That's why they sue to forbid government empoyees and students at government schools from publicly expressing their faiths. If this isn't inhibiting free exercise of religion, what is?

Pick up a newspaper lately? Thanks to the ACLU, students at government schools are not allowed to publicly pray, read the Bible, or attempt to evangelize. Students were expelled during December for wearing red and green. You're apparently living in a dream world.

Let me get this right...unless you are allowed to bother people with your babble, whenever and wherever you wish, your freedom of religion is being curtailed?
 
Only the Christian religion should be allowed on American soil. It should be made against the law to exhibit any Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist or any other religion’s images in public. And all churches of the Christian religion should be sponsored by the US government.

Then there would be no religious conflict within out fine land.
 
Darwins Friend said:
Only the Christian religion should be allowed on American soil. It should be made against the law to exhibit any Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist or any other religion’s images in public. And all churches of the Christian religion should be sponsored by the US government.

Then there would be no religious conflict within out fine land.

Your sarcasim is a little heavy.
 
I'm dead serious - show me one Republican that wouldn't be thrilled.
 
Hobbit said:
All this seperation of church and state bullcrap is a blatant attempt to squelch the voice of all religion in this country.
No it's not.

Hobbit said:
You act like freedom from religion means that nobody will force you to be of a certain religion.
And I would be right. Absolutely right.

Hobbit said:
That's freedom of relgion.
And you're right. Freedom of religion includes freedom from religion.

Hobbit said:
The freedom from relgion that the ACLU is trying to impose is the idea that nobody should ever have to even know that religion exists, because it's somehow a violation of your civil rights to see a nativity scene anywhere.
This may be true, but you'll have to prove it--I'm sure you won't though.

Hobbit said:
LOki said:
Which is prescisely why the government is prohibited from endorsing or promoting or placing on firm basis with a favorable position to gain full recognition, or acceptance, any religion--including (and most importantly) that very religion held by the majority of the electorate.
You are confusing toleration and cooperation with endorsement.
No I'm not. I'm perfectly clear on what I mean. You seem to be confused that protecting individuals from the religion of the majority is somehow not protecting the freedom of religion for the individual.

Hobbit said:
You've fully bought into the secularist bullcrap line that if the government even recognizes the desires of a religion, it's the equivalent of theocracy.
Nope. But you've clearly bought in to the bullshit Christian theocratic right's notion that secular means atheist.

Hobbit said:
The fact is that this is a representative nation. If the majority is Republican, Republican values will become policy. If the majority is secularist, secularist values will become policy.
"Republican" is a political party, dipshit--secularism is not.

Hobbit said:
However, you would have me believe that if the majority is Christian, then nothing that has anything to do with anything Christian is at all allowed to even be considered for policy because of something that isn't even in the Constitution. As long as the government doesn't force the nation to become Christian or inhibit other religions from doing what they please, they are free to implement any policy they want as long as it doesn't directly violate the Constitution.
As for the majority opinion, I'd have you refer to how the religiious minorities who came here from Europe a couple dozen decades ago, felt about the majority's religious influence on governemnt. Perhaps if you could place yourself in their shoes, you might understand how freedom from someone else's religion means freedom to practice yours. And making Christian doctrine law, or giving it the force of law--even if the Christian majority voted for it--via the instrument of governemt would be, and is, unconstitutional.

Hobbit said:
And nobody's holding a gun to your head and making you go to church. You missed the point entirely.
You're right; nobody is holding a gun to my head making me go to church. Furthermeore, thanks to the constitutional separation of church and state (and the ACLU's defense of it) nobody can use the government's guns to make me go to church or submit to someone else's notions of religion. And no, I didn't miss the point. And neither did I make the dumbass assertion that "we are repeatedly told we MUST accept the gay lifestyle," did I? Nor did I equate it in any way with some religious (your description was "Christian") lifestyle. Did I?

Hobbit said:
Pick up a newspaper lately? Thanks to the ACLU, students at government schools are not allowed to publicly pray, read the Bible, or attempt to evangelize. Students were expelled during December for wearing red and green. You're apparently living in a dream world.
The ACLU has done nothing to prevent students from praying in a public school--they've just prevented schools from making "prayer time"; ACLU has done nothing to prevent students from reading the Bible--they've just prevented them from reading it as a function of their school; ACLU has done nothing to prevent students from evangelizing--but they have protected other students from being confronted by junior high school religious zealots. I have to wonder if your panties would still be so bunched up if these "praying," "bible reading," "evangelists" were Satanists. I have to wonder if you would still be bitching at the ACLU, or cheering for them if they were telling Satanists they couldn't "evangelize" on public school property or during public school functions.

Tell me, does your notion of freedom of religion include freedom to practice and promote Satanism; to endorse or place Satanism on a firm basis with a favorable position to gain full recognition, or acceptance, or does it only count if Satanists are in the majority? What other rights only count for the majority?

Hobbit said:
What makes you think that Christians actually want to inhibit the rights of non-Christians.
I've read about Thomas Torquemada, I've listened to Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and Oral Roberts, and I've seen their audienced express solemn agreement, and I've witnessed folks similar to you rant on and on about "this Christian nation" and how such and such governemt whatever is needed because that's what Jesus would do. I've seen the religious Christian right marginalize smaller religions, with less frightened value sets, on the basis of their faith in Jesus. I've watched them blatently declare their intention to make this country Christian through the political process.--That's what makes me think that.

Hobbit said:
Most Christians just want to be allowed to practice publicly and evangelize through peaceful, non-coercive means, but the ACLU won't even allow that.
It stops being non-coercive when they attempt to evagelize via the instument of government--and that is all the ACLU attempts to prevent.

MissileMan said:
Let me get this right...unless you are allowed to bother people with your babble, whenever and wherever you wish, your freedom of religion is being curtailed?
TESTIFY!!! :D

Hobbit said:
As I've said before, the freedom to never have to even know a religion exists isn't freedom, it's atheism.
No it's not. Atheism is a religion. It's based on faith.

And, by the way, what you actually said before was,"Freedom from religion is tyranny." It's not; it's freedom.

Hobbit said:
Then go tell your buddies at the ACLU to either be even-handed or back the hell off.
They're not my buddies, and I'm sure they'll back off once the theocrats back off.

Hobbit said:
LOki said:
Hobbit said:
Isn't forbidding religious text or clothing from being seen in schools inhibiting the free practice of religion?
Not neccessarily--but it could be.
Ok, give me an example where forbidding a person in a public school with no uniforms to wear expressions of their religion is NOT an inhibition of both free religion AND free speech.
Within the narrow constraints of your example, I'd say you made the case where "could be" is would be. I'll just bet you're proud of yourself!

Just don't get too proud--a Muslim wears a C4 vest to school and wants to set it off as an expression of his faith to the infidels and his peers. I think preventing this "expression of religion AND free speech" is constitutional.

Hobbit said:
The Constitution forbids, now, pay attention here, Congress, and only Congress, from showing any religious preference. A city hall is not controlled by Congress.
Ok dickweed, now you pay attention--city hall, that's right, CITY fucking HALL, must abide by the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution, thus city hall, just like congress is prohibted from making law establishing religion.

Hobbit said:
LOki said:
Exactly what is it I said in the previous post that was "nuts"? Specific example please. Demonstrate "nuts".
The idea that granting everyone the freedom not to ever see another religion as long as they live is not an infringement on the free practice of religion. That's about as nuts as it comes.
Of course, I never said that--your rich fantasy life makes you as nuts at it gets. :D

Hobbit said:
LOki said:
Mostly because the statement "year of our Lord" is irrelevant to the issue.
Pay attention here, because I'm getting sick of you seeming to not understand any point that I make. That statement you quoted had nothing to do with the "in the year of our Lord" comment.
Lets just see what you actually said:
Hobbit said:
Think about what you're saying here. It's nuts! In fact, when the Constitution was written, it was, first off, recorded as being written in the year of our Lord [emphasis = yours] 1787 and second off did...NOT...end the practice of individual states having a state enforced religion.
Yep. That's EXACTLY what you said. It seems you thought freedom from/of religion had something to do with the statement "in the year of our Lord."

Hobbit said:
When the Constitution was passed and the first ammendment became the law of the land, many states had laws that supported a state religion. Citizens of that state were required to be members of that religion and the state laws could not violate tht religion. This...didn't change. The first ammendment was never intended to end the concept of governments other than federal from supporting religion.
Completely wrong. So wrong in fact, if you check the federalist papers and the constitution, you'll discover that with the ratification of the constitution it became illegal to make religion a qualification of citizenship or public office anywhere in the U.S.--YAY! freedom from religion! Now Anyone can be a citizen and/or hold public office without having to subscribe to a state's religion! YAY!

Hobbit said:
That's why it says that Congress shall make no law... It doesn't say that nobody shall make any law, it specifies Congress. Do you get it, now?
Right, congress can't make a law respecting the establiment of religion or the free excersize thereof, including the law that allows states to violate the rights of individuals protected by the U.S. Constitution, by making a law respecting the establiment of religion or the free excersize thereof.

Do you get it now?

Darwins Friend said:
LOLsome!
 
The Laws Of The Early Republic Required Violation Of The Ten Commandments

The Federal Government, from its initial establishment in 1788, pursued a system of causing the mail to be transported on the Sabbath. This was a blatant violation of the Commandment to remember the Sabbath and keep it holy.

Is it not also proof that the founders were infidels and heathens who disowned God?

(Source of Information: American State Papers, 13th Congress, 3rd Session, Post Office Department, Volume 1, Page 17, Senate Report No. 30 on Sunday Mails, Communicated to the Senate, January 27, 1815 by Mr. Daggett.)

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsp&fileName=027/llsp027.db&recNum=52
 
FredVonFlash said:
The Laws Of The Early Republic Required Violation Of The Ten Commandments

The Federal Government, from its initial establishment in 1788, pursued a system of causing the mail to be transported on the Sabbath. This was a blatant violation of the Commandment to remember the Sabbath and keep it holy.

Is it not also proof that the founders were infidels and heathens who disowned God?

(Source of Information: American State Papers, 13th Congress, 3rd Session, Post Office Department, Volume 1, Page 17, Senate Report No. 30 on Sunday Mails, Communicated to the Senate, January 27, 1815 by Mr. Daggett.)

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsp&fileName=027/llsp027.db&recNum=52

LOL and ever since there has been great outcry and protestation by the Christians. :lame2:
 

Forum List

Back
Top