They can kiss my ass

[DeadCanDance]

I might take your statements into consideration IF the ACLU did not attack Christianity in so many ways. These pathetic cases are nothing more than window dressing for the organization.



Sorry, but the ACLU position is wrong. Our founding fathers did plentyof praying in government situations, even after they wrote up the Bill of Rights! Did you know that George Washington issued a proclamation for "A Day of Publick Thanksgiving and Prayer"... "to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God"?

Horrors! The ACLU (if it existed then) would have blown a gasket. I mean, think of all those poor discriminated-against atheists!
http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/firsts/thanksgiving/

Americans want to display the CHRISTMAS tree and manger in government buildings, lands, libraries, fire stations, parks and schools. Not some neutered "holiday" tree. If others want to display other seasonal religious items, no problem. For your information these "government" displays have been happening for like 200 years without any legal hassles from aclu-type organizations. Free expression of religion OF the people, BY the people, FOR the people. No government religion has ever been established and I sure don't think it is any where near happening at this point in time either.

Per the Constitution I CAN put religious symbols on government property. Who says I can't? Certainly not the Constitution. Just the ACLU and liberal activist judges. The Constitution says nothing about "promoting" religion. It talks about "establishing" religion.

This thread has not been embarrassing to me in the least despite the fact you seem to think so…like I care. Actually, if anyone is to be embarrassed, it is you. You defend the ACLU as being pro-Christian by proffering a few pathetic cases as proof. You totally ignore the huge numbers of lawsuits and threats of lawsuits by the ACLU that are systematically removing religious expression from our society. You ignore the accusation that the ACLU selects cases according to its own preferred agenda. You are in denial that the ACLU has communist roots and a far left liberal agenda. You won't address the fact that the ACLU is ripping off taxpayers. As per the title of this thread...you can kiss my ass.

Americans want to display the CHRISTMAS tree and manger in government buildings, lands, libraries, fire stations, parks and schools. Not some neutered "holiday" tree. If others want to display other seasonal religious items, no problem.

Don't be disingenuous.

You'd be the first one posting your outrage here, if the Church of Satan were allowed to put religious displays on government public property.

That's exactly why we can't use government employees or government property to promote one religion over another.


BTW: You don't appear to even know much about your own religion. Christmas trees have nothing to do with Jesus Christ. Christmas trees are a pagan tradition, passed down from the times before christianity took root in europe. Its really a pagan tradition, that has nothing to do with Christ.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

So you don't have a problem with a taxpayer funded statue of the Pillars of Faith at your local courthouse? How about a crescent moon on a Michigan flag?

How about a crescent moon on the South Carolina state flag?
It has one.

How about the cross of St. Andrew on the Alabama state flag?
It has one.

How about a couple goddesses on the New York state flag?
It has them.

No, I don't have a problem with taxpayer funded Pillars of Faith posted at a local courthouse as part of its decor. As long as no government religion has been established there should be no problem.

Why do you ask? Are you afraid of religion?

 

[Dirt McGirt]

Why do you ask?

Just wondering if your personal take on the 1st Amendment is inclusive or exclusive. It seems to me like your position keeps changing from the government should be only Christian to just inclusive of all religions. I'll take your last post to mean that you're for inclusiveness.

Are you afraid of religion?

Not personally. I think those that are too wrapped up in their religion are a little too much for me to be around, but as long as you're not intruding in my personal life I could care less if you worship God or Satan.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Screaming eagle, there's a reason no other cons have rushed in to defend your stupid assertions: Because you have been embarrassing yourself.

Hardly. You are just perturbed that I tore apart your list "proving" that the ACLU is pro-Christian.

You said ACLU was "anti-christian". That claim was easily debunked, by posting dozens of documented cases where ACLU defended the religious liberties of christians. You were then reduced to babbling that these either weren't "normal" chrisitians, or that the ACLU hadn't defended enough chrisitians in your view. Either of which, is a dodge away from your original assertion.

Out of your list I only found only about 10 cases that defended everyday Christians. I pointed out that many legitimate cases are ignored by the ACLU especially on campuses. And pointing out that the ACLU's pro-Christian cases were largely for sidewalk preachers and prison inmates was not "babbling" especially when you compare that with all the mainstream cases that go begging.

As for your assertion that ACLU is a "communist" organization, I feel embarrassed for you. Regardless of what you heard on talk radio, or what nutty book you read from an author no one's ever heard of, the facts are the ACLU defends everyone - of every political persuasion. They even defend people that I despise: Jerry Fallwell, Oliver North, and Rush Limbuagh.

This is hardly the record of a "communist" front group:

Well, you just go feel as embarrassed as can be. It is fact that the ACLU has communist roots. Fallwell and Limbaugh never personally had the ACLU represent them - they are not what you would call friends. The ACLU used them by becoming a "friend of the court" and had nothing to lose. They of course garnered lots of publicity by doing so and fooled lots of people like you.

Americans want to display the CHRISTMAS tree and manger in government buildings, lands, libraries, fire stations, parks and schools. Not some neutered "holiday" tree. If others want to display other seasonal religious items, no problem.

Don't be disingenuous.

You'd be the first one posting your outrage here, if the Church of Satan were allowed to put religious displays on government public property.

That's exactly why we can't use government employees or government property to promote one religion over another.


BTW: You don't appear to even know much about your own religion. Christmas trees have nothing to do with Jesus Christ. Christmas trees are a pagan tradition, passed down from the times before christianity took root in europe. Its really a pagan tradition, that has nothing to do with Christ.

What holiday does the Church of Satan celebrate? I doubt they have one considering "holiday" means "holy day".

Yes, I knew about Christmas trees. So why is it the ACLU is so afraid of them? Must have something to do with that "Christ" part...

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Just wondering if your personal take on the 1st Amendment is inclusive or exclusive. It seems to me like your position keeps changing from the government should be only Christian to just inclusive of all religions. I'll take your last post to mean that you're for inclusiveness.


Not personally. I think those that are too wrapped up in their religion are a little too much for me to be around, but as long as you're not intruding in my personal life I could care less if you worship God or Satan.

Does the Constitution have favorites or exclude certain religions? No.

The fact that we are a Christian nation of course gives basis for a lot of the Christian heritage reflected in our government buildings.

As long as it is tasteful and respectful of the public, religious expression in the public square isn't going to bother me either.

 

[mattskramer]

Does the Constitution have favorites or exclude certain religions? No.

The fact that we are a Christian nation of course gives basis for a lot of the Christian heritage reflected in our government buildings.

As long as it is tasteful and respectful of the public, religious expression in the public square isn't going to bother me either.

1. I think that you are being disingenuous. Suppose that the government employees decided to put Muslim decorations in the public schools, court houses and other government buildings but turned you down when you asked that a Christian cross or Christian symbols be displayed in those buildings too. They might give you some weak excuse like they no longer have the room or money for such displays. Wouldn’t you throw a fit?

2. How Convenient. When you are presented with case from a Christian that the ACLU helped with, you say that it wasn’t from a “normal” Christian. What is a normal Christian according to you – one that was ignored by the ACLU? Okay. I could say that those Christians that go to the ACLJ are not “normal: Christians. Okay. Present me with a complaint that a “normal Christian has made that the ACLU did not consider. Let’s see if this particular Christian fits my criteria as being a “normal” Christian.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

1. I think that you are being disingenuous. Suppose that the government employees decided to put Muslim decorations in the public schools, court houses and other government buildings but turned you down when you asked that a Christian cross or Christian symbols be displayed in those buildings too. They might give you some weak excuse like they no longer have the room or money for such displays. Wouldn’t you throw a fit?

For a couple centuries people have displayed religious items in public places without a problem. Are you saying a minority religion is going to cause a big stink?

2. How Convenient. When you are presented with case from a Christian that the ACLU helped with, you say that it wasn’t from a “normal” Christian. What is a normal Christian according to you – one that was ignored by the ACLU? Okay. I could say that those Christians that go to the ACLJ are not “normal: Christians. Okay. Present me with a complaint that a “normal Christian has made that the ACLU did not consider. Let’s see if this particular Christian fits my criteria as being a “normal” Christian.

Don't you understand the difference between mainstream and fringe elements of society?

I would say students are mainstream elements, wouldn't you? Especially as compared to street preachers and prison inmates. Today there are many conservative and Christian students on our college campuses who are being discriminated against but your great civil rights group, the ACLU is nowhere in sight.

for example

At Tufts University a Christian group was banned from campus because they refused to allow an openly gay student to serve in their leadership counsel.

And it doesn't stop there — Christian associations with traditional views are unwelcome at Whitman College in Washington State, Grinnell in Iowa, and Ball State University in Indiana, according to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. And this "increasing tendency to use coercion to eradicate dissent" on campuses, as Tufts Christian Leadership's chaplain Curtis Chang describes it, doesn't raise the eyebrows of the likes of the ACLU. But that comes as no surprise, as lefty Harvard professor (but free-speecher to the max) Alan Dershowitz has said on other issues, when it comes to most so-called civil-liberties groups and their commitment to free speech, it's often "Free speech for me and not for thee." Only liberals may apply.
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment051800e.html

 

[mattskramer]

For a couple centuries people have displayed religious items in public places without a problem. Are you saying a minority religion is going to cause a big stink?

For centuries, the government has allowed for the display of the symbols of the more popular religions on government property to the chagrin of less popular religions. The minority religions were too intimidated to speak up. I recall having to listen to a Christian prayer in a public school. When someone asked to recite a non-Christian prayer over the public address system, the administration said, “No”. He was later teased and ostracized as a troublemaker. I felt for him but kept my mouth shut.

Yes. I would suggest to you that if the “tables were turned” and a religion that you did not support were given center stage, you would raise a stink.

Don't you understand the difference between mainstream and fringe elements of society?

“Mainstream” and “fringe” are also relative and subjective terms. The debate continues as to what constitutes mainstream, particularly in politics. Do moderate republicans constitute the mainstream or does the mainstream consist of democrats? Can people be close to being mainstream but not quite reach the level of fringe? This is not a black and white issue.

I would say students are mainstream elements, wouldn't you? Especially as compared to street preachers and prison inmates. Today there are many conservative and Christian students on our college campuses who are being discriminated against but your great civil rights group, the ACLU is nowhere in sight.

It would depend on the views of the particular the student. There are all types of Christians: young Christians, Christian students, Christian workers, Christian preachers, Christian prisoners, Christian missionaries, etc. Since you bring up Christian students, I thought I’d provide a list of examples in which the ACLU defended Christian students. I imagine that after I give these examples you will further restrict the definition of “normal Christian”. Or you might say that this list is too small. Perhaps if 100000 were found, you would consider it an insignificant number of cases. Sheesh. Anyway, as I said, the ACLU does not have the resources to leap to every case. Furthermore, some cases do not have a strong merit. It may very well be that the Christians that complain do not always have strong cases.

Anyway, here are some Christian students that the ACLU defended? I guess that you will decide that they are not “normal” Christians and don’t count.

http://www.aclu.org/studentsrights/religion/12811prs20020711.html

ACLU Supports Right of Iowa Students to Distribute Christian Literature at School

http://www.aclu.org/studentsrights/expression/12852prs20050429.html

Iowa Civil Liberties Union Defends Right of Students to Wear Anti-Abortion T-Shirts

http://www.aclu.org/studentsrights/expression/12845prs20040511.html

(This is one of my favorites.) After ACLU Intervention on Behalf of Christian Valedictorian, Michigan High School Agrees to Stop Censoring Religious Yearbook Entries

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 (I guess that this child is not your “normal” Christian student.

http://www.aclu-or.org/site/PageServer?pagename=Lit_tp_nak&JServSessionIdr011=4hkofbqiv1.app13a

The ACLU argued that the Adventist basketball players who have made it to the state tournament should not be required to play tournament games on Saturday, their Sabbath – what an accommodation the ACLU is trying to make for these Christians - but wait a minute – are these kids “normal” Christians?

http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/sun/2004/nov/19/517853141.html

The ACLU of Nevada (2004) represented a Mormon high school student, Kim Jacobs, who school authorities suspended and then attempted to expel for not complying with the school dress code and wearing T-shirts with religious messages. I guess that you will tell me that Mormons don’t count. Okay. How about this one:

http://www.aclu.org/studentsrights/expression/12828prs20030221.html

The ACLU of Massachusetts (2003) intervened on behalf of a group of students at Westfield High School who were suspended for distributing candy canes and a religious message in school.

http://www.aclu.org/studentsrights/religion/12811prs20020711.html

The Iowa Civil Liberties Union (2002) publicly supported a group of Christian students who filed a lawsuit against Davenport Schools asserting their right to distribute religious literature during non-instructional time.

http://www.aclu.org/studentsrights/expression/12845prs20040511.html

I guess that Abbey Moler does not count. She is not your mainline Christian.

-----------------------------------------------------

Here are examples of the ACLU defending older Christians. I think that they are normal Christians:

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07011/752795-152.stm

Ms. Foster had been running a Wednesday night meal program in the basement of Trinity Church of God in Christ until shortly before Thanksgiving. Feeding the hungry! That certainly isn’t mainline Christian activity, is it? This does not count, does it?

http://www.laaclu.org/News/2006/Crayton_102706.htm

Edwin Crayton, a devout Christian, sought to stand in front of Wal-Mart in Natchitoches with a sign protesting Wal-Mart's alleged position on gay marriage. Do mainline Christians protest gay marriage? Perhaps not. I guess that Edwin Crayton does not count. The following is a church that it defended:

http://www.aclu.org/religion/discrim/25518prs20060419.html

Is Tabernacle Community Baptist Church a mainline Church? I suppose that it isn’t It is probably too far south of your line to count. Let’s scratch that one off. That poor little church. Here is a list of other examples:

http://www.aclufightsforchristians.com/

Here is an article supporting the notion that the ACLU defends religious freedom – even for Christians:

http://www.acluutah.org/religiousfreedom.pdf

Here is a neat article with comments by the street preacher about the ACLU. Oh. Sorry. The street preacher does not count in your book.

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=548951&page=1

Here is an article with a list of cases:

http://atheism.about.com/b/a/216760.htm

Can you imagine that the ACLU backs an abortion protestor!

http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=16471

No. You probably didn’t even read it. It does not fit your prejudice and bias.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

For centuries, the government has allowed for the display of the symbols of the more popular religions on government property to the chagrin of less popular religions. The minority religions were too intimidated to speak up. I recall having to listen to a Christian prayer in a public school. When someone asked to recite a non-Christian prayer over the public address system, the administration said, “No”. He was later teased and ostracized as a troublemaker. I felt for him but kept my mouth shut.

Yes. I would suggest to you that if the “tables were turned” and a religion that you did not support were given center stage, you would raise a stink.

Why would the tables be turned? This is assuming of course that nobody today is being forced to take part of any religious functions. I thought everyone was equal under the law. Or are you one of those who supports tyranny of the minority?

“Mainstream” and “fringe” are also relative and subjective terms. The debate continues as to what constitutes mainstream, particularly in politics. Do moderate republicans constitute the mainstream or does the mainstream consist of democrats? Can people be close to being mainstream but not quite reach the level of fringe? This is not a black and white issue.

Of course everything is "relative" to you. You believe in relativism. If you can't tell the difference between a normal, hardworking, taxpaying (or studying to become one) mainstream citizen and the fringe elements of our society then I can't help you buddy.

It would depend on the views of the particular the student. There are all types of Christians: young Christians, Christian students, Christian workers, Christian preachers, Christian prisoners, Christian missionaries, etc. Since you bring up Christian students, I thought I’d provide a list of examples in which the ACLU defended Christian students. I imagine that after I give these examples you will further restrict the definition of “normal Christian”. Or you might say that this list is too small. Perhaps if 100000 were found, you would consider it an insignificant number of cases. Sheesh. Anyway, as I said, the ACLU does not have the resources to leap to every case. Furthermore, some cases do not have a strong merit. It may very well be that the Christians that complain do not always have strong cases.

Anyway, here are some Christian students that the ACLU defended? I guess that you will decide that they are not “normal” Christians and don’t count.

No, I have already acknowledged that some of the cases are good. However, this is the same old tired list you've pulled out before and which is nothing more than window dressing for the ACLU. It's rather pathetic that those few cases are all you can find from the past 10-15 years of ACLU history. But I'm sure the ACLU is real proud of that big case defending that little singing second grader...

Here's some examples of the ACLU's REAL work and what they have sought to do:

--Halt the singing of Christmas carols like "Silent Night" and "Away in a Manger" in public facilities
--Deny the tax-exempt status of all churches--yet maintaining it for themselves as well as for various occult groups
--Disallow prayer--not just in the public school classrooms, but in locker rooms, sports arenas, graduation exercises, and legislative assemblies
--Terminate all military and prison chaplains
--Deny Christian school children access to publicly funded services
--Eliminate nativity scenes, crosses, and other Christian symbols from public property
--Repeal all blue law statutes
--Prohibit voluntary Bible reading in public schools--even during free time or after classes
--Remove the words In God We Trust from our coins
--Deny accreditation to science departments at Bible-believing Christian Universities
--Prevent the posting of the Ten Commandments in classrooms
--Terminate all voucher programs and tuition tax credits
--Prohibit census questions about religious affiliation

When it comes to the Christian faith, the spokesmen, policy-makers, and attorneys for the ACLU have made their position painfully clear: they're against it. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.

Although they have fought for the free speech and expression "rights" of pornographers, witches, abortionists, homosexuals, convicted criminals, child molesters, occultists, Communists, lesbians, Nazis, illegal aliens, AIDS patients, and Satanists, they have resolutely attempted to deny those same privileges to Christians. As a result, according to Richard and Susan Vigilante, they have effectively reduced "the place of religion in American life" and have restricted religious speech "in a way they would never allow other forms of speech to be restricted."

http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9402/aclu.html

 

[mattskramer]

Why would the tables be turned? This is assuming of course that nobody today is being forced to take part of any religious functions. I thought everyone was equal under the law. Or are you one of those who supports tyranny of the minority?

I, and many other people were practically forced to take part on religious functions – at least to the extent in professing something that they do not believe in. I was practically obligated to pray (or pretend to pray) to God through Jesus. I was expected to pledge allegiance to a nation supposedly under God.

What is tyrannical about removing “In God We Trust” from coins? Does that mean that the USA thinks that god does not exist? No. Likewise, what is tyrannical about removing the phrase “Under God” from the Pledge? Nothing. Yet, leaving the phrase in does suggest an unequal consideration against atheists. Who is being tyrannical? The minority is simply asking for equal consideration.

Of course everything is "relative" to you. You believe in relativism. If you can't tell the difference between a normal, hardworking, taxpaying (or studying to become one) mainstream citizen and the fringe elements of our society then I can't help you buddy.

I might consider some things to be normal that you would consider being abnormal. You might consider some things to be normal that I would consider being abnormal. If someone gets fired or laid off, is it normal for him to be unemployed for a few days – a few weeks if he has some difficulty finding another job – a few months – a few years? Where do you draw the line? If I add 2 extra days to the line that you draw, would the person really be that abnormal? Is he abnormal after 6 months, 2 weeks, 4 days, and 3 hours, and 5 minutes of being unemployed? Only very few things are black and white.

No, I have already acknowledged that some of the cases are good. However, this is the same old tired list you've pulled out before and which is nothing more than window dressing for the ACLU. It's rather pathetic that those few cases are all you can find from the past 10-15 years of ACLU history. But I'm sure the ACLU is real proud of that big case defending that little singing second grader...

One person’s honey is another person’s vinegar. I consider these to be significant and important cases demonstrating that the ACLU defends Christians. There are many more but you seem to restrict my search to a narrow group that suits your definition of a “normal” Christians. It is not that there are few instances. It is that there are few instances that suit your narrow definition of a “normal Christian”. The ACLU, It is not anti-Christian. It is not pro-Christian. It is pro-civil-liberties. I do not know of the ACLU’s opinion on its success for the singing second grader. I just gave you my feelings on it.

Here's some examples of the ACLU's REAL work and what they have sought to do:

Do you mean that the examples that I gave are not examples of real work? What do you call it then – imaginary work? Tell that to the little singing kid and the valedictorian. My examples involve work just as your examples involve work.

Wait a minute! Where are the links to the specific court cases from which this preacher drew his generalities? I took the time and trouble to find the specifics on cases for you. Where are the detailed cases for me? You posted a link to one preacher’s opinion. He includes a list of generalizations (his perspectives and interpretations) with no links to the specific cases from which he acquired the generalizations. I’m not impressed. I provided links to specific cases for your review. I gave detailed information. The only thing that this preacher gave is generalizations and some notes at the bottom of the site. Oh well. I’ll go ahead and look at the preacher’s list of general conclusions and make comments on some:

• I doubt that the ACLU tried to prevent ordinary individual citizens form singing of Christmas carols in public building provided the singers don’t create a disturbance for public workers. More likely, the ACLU tried to prevent government run “Jesus song” programs and activities from interfering with the activities of non-Christians. Still, I’d like to see details of an actual case.

• I never understood why churches are tax-exempt. People should be allowed to make tax deductions when they donate to charity. That would be sufficient. Still, if “normal” churches are going to be tax-exempt, then abnormal churches should also be tax exempt. Still, it would be nice to read details on an actual case and get the ACLU’s perspective (not just a brief general interpretation from a preacher).

• Similar to the issue in the first bullet, I doubt that the ACLU wants to prevent me from praying silently or even whispering a prayer while at a public school. I think that it would object to teacher or administrative-run prayer events at school events. They would take up class time and distract atheists. Religion is to be promoted at home or church – not to a practically captive audience of students at a public school.

• We should terminate all military and prison chaplains unless we can accommodate ministers of other religions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religions

• We should eliminate nativity scenes, crosses, and other Christian symbols from public property unless room and resources are provided for the display of symbols from other religions.

• Yes, we should repeal all blue laws. I recall wanting to buy things on Sunday. What an inconvenience it was to find that many stores were prevented from selling what I wanted due to some religion-related law (particularly when I don’t believe in that religion).

• I’d like to see the case in which the ACLU wants to prohibit a child from silently reading a Bible in public school during “free time”.

• Yes, I support the removal of “In God We Trust” from official coins.

• Yes. I oppose the posting of the “10 Commandments” in classrooms unless many other religious symbols from other religions are posted in the classroom.

• I thought that you would be in support of prohibiting census questions about religious affiliation. Aren’t you opposed to government intrusion? It is none of the government’s business to know what affiliations you have with what religions.

• I recall cringing when, during school time, we were expected to recite the “Pledge of Allegiance” with the phrase “under God”. I have no objection to the phrase being removed. It would not necessarily mean that God does not exist. Yet, there are people who believe that he does not exist. It is up to parents to raise theists or atheists – It is not the nation’s responsibility.

When it comes to the Christian faith, the spokesmen, policy-makers, and attorneys for the ACLU have made their position painfully clear: they're against it. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.

Although they have fought for the free speech and expression "rights" of pornographers, witches, abortionists, homosexuals, convicted criminals, child molesters, occultists, Communists, lesbians, Nazis, illegal aliens, AIDS patients, and Satanists, they have resolutely attempted to deny those same privileges to Christians. As a result, according to Richard and Susan Vigilante, they have effectively reduced "the place of religion in American life" and have restricted religious speech "in a way they would never allow other forms of speech to be restricted."

LOL. There are even Christian members of the ACLU. I have provided many examples of the ACLU defending Christians.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I, and many other people were practically forced to take part on religious functions – at least to the extent in professing something that they do not believe in. I was practically obligated to pray (or pretend to pray) to God through Jesus. I was expected to pledge allegiance to a nation supposedly under God.

When and where did these awful, horrible events practically take place? I can see now how your persona was terribly damaged. /end sarcasm

What is tyrannical about removing “In God We Trust” from coins? Does that mean that the USA thinks that god does not exist? No. Likewise, what is tyrannical about removing the phrase “Under God” from the Pledge? Nothing. Yet, leaving the phrase in does suggest an unequal consideration against atheists. Who is being tyrannical? The minority is simply asking for equal consideration.

What is tyrannical about leaving the motto on the coins? Especially since the majority likes it.
Isn't it more tyrannical for a minority to dictate to the majority?
Since when does a minority win over the majority?
Since the ACLU started to read things into the Constitution.

One person’s honey is another person’s vinegar. I consider these to be significant and important cases demonstrating that the ACLU defends Christians. There are many more but you seem to restrict my search to a narrow group that suits your definition of a “normal” Christians. It is not that there are few instances. It is that there are few instances that suit your narrow definition of a “normal Christian”. The ACLU, It is not anti-Christian. It is not pro-Christian. It is pro-civil-liberties. I do not know of the ACLU’s opinion on its success for the singing second grader. I just gave you my feelings on it.

You are certainly entitled to your own feelings and beliefs but it's obvious from your comments that you agree with the anti-Christian ACLU agenda. I hope someday you discover the errors of your way and change your position.

Regarding the ACLU lawsuit against Christmas carols that you asked about here is a note from Jay Sekulow's Trial Notebook at the ACLJ(American Center for Law and Justice):

The ACLU Targets Christmas
The ACLU is at it again. With an outrageous boldness that only they could muster, the ACLU has, once again, set their sights on Christmas celebrations. In their never-ending quest to completely eradicate all things religious from public life, the ACLU’s latest lawsuit is an all-out frontal attack on the freedom of speech and the free exercise of religion.

Let me ask you—when did a children’s Christmas program become “an illegal activity”? When did the nativity story and Christmas songs become unconstitutional? This is the outrageous and dangerous charge the ACLU has leveled against a school district in Tennessee. A children’s Christmas program has been deemed to be an “illegal act” because of the ACLU.

This week, our senior attorneys at the American Center for Law and Justice are working on this latest ACLU case. The ACLU is absolutely determined to censor Christmas. They have sued the Wilson County School System outside of Nashville, TN. We represent several school officials and teachers who have been charged with engaging in what the ACLU calls “illegal acts.” The ACLU claims that the plaintiffs have been harmed, injured and “suffered irreparable damage” through the Christmas program because of its “Christian themes and songs.” The ACLU will then ask for these actions be declared “unconstitutional and illegal.”

It gets even worse. The plaintiffs and the ACLU allege that several kindergarten students role-played a nativity scene of the birth of Jesus—and had the audacity to sing “Away in the Manger” and “Joy to the World.” According to the ACLU, these songs are exclusively Christian in nature because they celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ and are, therefore, inappropriate. School programs that include a live nativity scene and the singing of songs like “Away in a Manger” are common throughout the United States and, indeed, around the world. Thousands of school students will be participating in similar programs this year. The ACLU has, once again, shown its desire to engage in censorship.

Of course, if the ACLU wins this case, it would set a precedent from across the nation. This is precisely why we have engaged some of our most senior lawyers to defend school officials in this important case. Make no mistake about it—the ACLU will not stop with this lawsuit. They may come to your town and target your school. Their continued attempts to loosen the threads of our religious heritage and chip away at the foundation of our freedom is never-ending.

We, at the American Center for Law and Justice, will fight for religious freedom and freedom of speech this Christmas. We are standing with the school officials in Wilson County and with concerned students and parents. We will vigorously defend the rights of these students to engage in free speech on public school campuses. We are not going to sit back and let the ACLU, the Ghost of Christmas Past, remove the joy and significance of this holiday season.

Today the American Center for Law and Justice has launched a nationwide campaign entitled “Keep HIM in Christmas.” We want to make sure that Jesus is at the center of this holiday. We want to keep HIM in the nativity scenes, keep HIM in the music, keep HIM as the focal point—and not allow the ACLU to operate as our nationwide censor.

Posted: 11/28/2006
http://www.aclj.org/TrialNotebook/Read.aspx?id=426

 

[Vintij]

In God we trust, was added after the civil war. Under god was not added to the pledge until 1954. What is so constitutional and foundational about either of these phrases? No diety or god writtings were published in any original founding fathers documents.


Infact here is what started "in god we trust"

From rev M. R. Watkinson, Minister of the Gospel from Ridleyville, Pennsylvania, to secretary of treasury Salmon P. Chase.


"This would relieve us from the ignominy of heathenism. This would place us openly under the Divine protection we have personally claimed. From my hearth I have felt our national shame in disowning God as not the least of our present national disasters"

Basically some rev. suggested that we add it to coins and make a new flag because of "heathenism" and for "gods protection". Eventually the flag part was shot down but the coin was passed in congress.

Its insignificant, but I believe that in the future. Legislation should not be so heavily influenced by any rev. of any religion. Suggestions about the nation being evil and ways to change it from a rev. will not make it less evil. What has "in god we trust" done for anyone? Has it really inspired a single person? What if we have a muslim president, and he suggests "in allah we trust".....are we going to become inspired by that?

As I said before, this is not a real issue. Its very insignificant and I could care less what is on the coin, I just dont like the way it was adopted.

Besides, I dont think "god" gives a shit that he is mentioned on such a materialistic item like money.

 

[mattskramer]

When and where did these awful, horrible events practically take place? I can see now how your persona was terribly damaged. /end sarcasm

I don’t want to give the school bad press. It was a high school that I attended years ago. Things have changed since then. It was not horrible. I was not traumatized. It was still an unfair annoyance. I learned that I would be in trouble if I voiced an objection to the practice. As I explained, it is unfair – a slap in the face – to atheists and those who do not believe in one god.

What is tyrannical about leaving the motto on the coins? Especially since the majority likes it. Isn't it more tyrannical for a minority to dictate to the majority? Since when does a minority win over the majority?

I’ll try to explain this to you again as best I can. If a phrase such as “God does not exist” were included in the Pledge, it would be unfair to those who believe in the existence of God. If a phrase such as “God exists” were included in the Pledge, it would be unfair to those who believe that God does not exist. If you were to remove all references to the existence or inexistence of God then neither those who believe that God exists nor those who believe that God does not exist would be offended. It is as simple as that.

You are certainly entitled to your own feelings and beliefs but it's obvious from your comments that you agree with the anti-Christian ACLU agenda. I hope someday you discover the errors of your way and change your position.

There are probably a few cases in which I would disagree with the ACLU.

Regarding the ACLU lawsuit against Christmas carols that you asked about here is a note from Jay Sekulow's Trial Notebook at the ACLJ(American Center for Law and Justice):

http://www.aclj.org/TrialNotebook/Read.aspx?id=426

Wow! What hype and hyperbole from a biased site.

In their never-ending quest to completely eradicate all things religious from public life,

LOL. The ACLU is hot trying to completely eradicate all things religious from public life. They would not object to you speaking with someone about Jesus on a park bench. Anyway, I’ll look into the specifics of the specific case, get perspectives from both sides, and give you my opinion.

 

[mattskramer]

http://www.aclj.org/TrialNotebook/Read.aspx?id=426

Wow! What hype and hyperbole from a biased site.

LOL. The ACLU is hot trying to completely eradicate all things religious from public life. They would not object to you speaking with someone about Jesus on a park bench. Anyway, I’ll look into the specifics of the specific case, get perspectives from both sides, and give you my opinion.
---------------------------------

http://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/26946prs20060927.html

Acting on behalf of a Wilson County family, the ACLU of Tennessee asked a federal court to end practices by teachers and other officials that put pressure on students to engage in religious activities.

Okay. It involved programs not led by the students but orchestrated by the teachers and other people in power and authority.

The ACLU said it is bringing the lawsuit after repeated attempts by the family to end the school-sponsored religious activities, which they believe interfere with their right to religious freedom.

So the family didn’t immediately contact the ACLU and call on it to just leap at the opportunity to take a bunch of the community tax money?!?

School administrators repeatedly disregarded the family’s requests and continued to promote and sponsor activities like “Prayer at the Flag Pole” and “Praying Parents,” whose members enter classrooms and tell students that they have prayed for them. Rather than taking the family’s requests seriously, the school administrators encouraged the family to withdraw their child from the school.

Okay. So this was not a rabid, money-hungry opportunistic family out to cause trouble. It simply wanted the school to stop playing religious favoritism. Instead, the school basically said that if they don’t like it, they can go somewhere else. What an undue burden to put on this family.

“Families have the right to decide for themselves whether to pray, when to pray, how to pray, and where to pray. It is the role of the family not the public school to make those very personal decisions,” added Weinberg. “By promoting their own personal beliefs, Lakeview officials are broadcasting a divisive message to the religiously pluralistic community of Wilson County.”

I completely agree. It is up to parents to raise children and foster religious beliefs of their choice.

The ACLU filed today’s lawsuit, John Doe and Jane Doe v. Wilson County School System, in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. The family wishes to remain anonymous because they fear for their child’s safety. The ACLU said the fact that the family does not want to be identified for fear of reprisals further demonstrates the divisions created in a community when the government takes sides on religious issues.

I understand completely. I remember how my classmate was ostracized when he raised concerns.

Sorry, but I side with the ACLU on this issue. It was certainly nice to present the specific information about the issue instead of the hype that I got from the ACLJ.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

http://www.aclj.org/TrialNotebook/Read.aspx?id=426

Wow! What hype and hyperbole from a biased site.

LOL. The ACLU is hot trying to completely eradicate all things religious from public life. They would not object to you speaking with someone about Jesus on a park bench. Anyway, I’ll look into the specifics of the specific case, get perspectives from both sides, and give you my opinion.
---------------------------------

http://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/26946prs20060927.html



Okay. It involved programs not led by the students but orchestrated by the teachers and other people in power and authority.



So the family didn’t immediately contact the ACLU and call on it to just leap at the opportunity to take a bunch of the community tax money?!?



Okay. So this was not a rabid, money-hungry opportunistic family out to cause trouble. It simply wanted the school to stop playing religious favoritism. Instead, the school basically said that if they don’t like it, they can go somewhere else. What an undue burden to put on this family.



I completely agree. It is up to parents to raise children and foster religious beliefs of their choice.



I understand completely. I remember how my classmate was ostracized when he raised concerns.

Sorry, but I side with the ACLU on this issue. It was certainly nice to present the specific information about the issue instead of the hype that I got from the ACLJ.

You may side with the ACLU...I don't. This is simply another case of tyranny of the minority, and in this case, only one kid. One kid is going to stop all activity? Since the majority of the local community obviously prefers to sing Christmas carols and have an occasional prayer in their school, they should be free to do so. If anybody does not want to participate they should be given the option to opt out. From the reports we still don't know whether the one child was specifically forced to participate or not. All the ACLU article said was that the parents repeatedly attempted to stop the activities. They sound like troublemakers to me.

 

[mattskramer]

You may side with the ACLU...I don't. This is simply another case of tyranny of the minority, and in this case, only one kid. One kid is going to stop all activity? Since the majority of the local community obviously prefers to sing Christmas carols and have an occasional prayer in their school, they should be free to do so. If anybody does not want to participate they should be given the option to opt out. From the reports we still don't know whether the one child was specifically forced to participate or not. All the ACLU article said was that the parents repeatedly attempted to stop the activities. They sound like troublemakers to me.

I wonder how many other children were opposed to it but felt too intimidated to say anything. Otherwise, the teachers and administrators might tell those kids to go somewhere else too. Okay. I guess that in your book the more popular religion is to win out to the exclusion of other religions. I think that religious activities have no place in public school. We agree to disagree. I really did not have the choice of opting out when teachers and faculty were broadcasting Christian prayers over the public address system of my public school. I even tried to read a schoolbook while it was taking place but a teacher looked at me and scowled. I wonder. I still think that if the tables were turned – if your school were engaged in things that almost all students didn’t mind participating in but you found objectionable, you would want things changed. Suppose there was a class on witchcraft, or comprehensive sexual education or an “Islamic Tolerance Day”. Would you raise a fuss and argue the First Amendment or would you be a good cooperative little boy and go away?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I wonder how many other children were opposed to it but felt too intimidated to say anything. Otherwise, the teachers and administrators might tell those kids to go somewhere else too. Okay. I guess that in your book the more popular religion is to win out to the exclusion of other religions. I think that religious activities have no place in public school. We agree to disagree. I really did not have the choice of opting out when teachers and faculty were broadcasting Christian prayers over the public address system of my public school. I even tried to read a schoolbook while it was taking place but a teacher looked at me and scowled. I wonder. I still think that if the tables were turned – if your school were engaged in things that almost all students didn’t mind participating in but you found objectionable, you would want things changed. Suppose there was a class on witchcraft, or comprehensive sexual education or an “Islamic Tolerance Day”. Would you raise a fuss and argue the First Amendment or would you be a good cooperative little boy and go away?

You bring up some topics that are being taught today by "progressives" and which are being contested by conservative parents. What makes you think those topics are A-OK while Christmas plays and songs are not? Do you really think it is better that grade school children receive a regular diet of homosexuality, condoms, and witches' spells instead of singing Christmas carols once a year? I wonder how many little children have had their innocence ripped from them, who were offended, but too scared to raise a fuss about such objectionable topics?

 

[mattskramer]

You bring up some topics that are being taught today by "progressives" and which are being contested by conservative parents. What makes you think those topics are A-OK while Christmas plays and songs are not? Do you really think it is better that grade school children receive a regular diet of homosexuality, condoms, and witches' spells instead of singing Christmas carols once a year? I wonder how many little children have had their innocence ripped from them, who were offended, but too scared to raise a fuss about such objectionable topics?

It is fun to see people try to sneak words into my mouth or read my mind. Read my post again. I never suggested that such topics are A-OK while Christmas plays and songs are not. On the other hand, according to the first sentence of your post, you said that such topics are being contested. So please clarify your position. Do you think that it is okay for Christian parents to contest classes or activities that are inconsistent with the religious upbringing of their children while it is not okay for non-Christians (atheists or those of other religious faiths) to contest classes or activities that are inconsistent with their views? In other words, non-Christian parents who object to teacher led Jesus/Christmas activities should only be allowed to opt their children out but Christian parents who object to comprehensive sexual education or “Islamic Tolerance Day” should actually contest such activity and try to get the activity removed. Don’t you see the hypocrisy and double standard?

In answer to your question, I do not think that grade school children should receive a regular diet of homosexuality, condoms, witches spells or sing Christmas carols. Parents should determine such personal and religious matters. I value consistency. If parents are limited to opting their own children out of Christmas activities and Christian prayer activities, then they should be limited to opting their children out of other activities that they find objectionable. Consistency and fairness is the key for me.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

It is fun to see people try to sneak words into my mouth or read my mind. Read my post again. I never suggested that such topics are A-OK while Christmas plays and songs are not. On the other hand, according to the first sentence of your post, you said that such topics are being contested. So please clarify your position. Do you think that it is okay for Christian parents to contest classes or activities that are inconsistent with the religious upbringing of their children while it is not okay for non-Christians (atheists or those of other religious faiths) to contest classes or activities that are inconsistent with their views? In other words, non-Christian parents who object to teacher led Jesus/Christmas activities should only be allowed to opt their children out but Christian parents who object to comprehensive sexual education or “Islamic Tolerance Day” should actually contest such activity and try to get the activity removed. Don’t you see the hypocrisy and double standard?

In answer to your question, I do not think that grade school children should receive a regular diet of homosexuality, condoms, witches spells or sing Christmas carols. Parents should determine such personal and religious matters. I value consistency. If parents are limited to opting their own children out of Christmas activities and Christian prayer activities, then they should be limited to opting their children out of other activities that they find objectionable. Consistency and fairness is the key for me.

Yes, I think it is OKAY for Christian parents to contest activities that are inconsistent with Christian upbringing. We are a Christian country and our laws and traditions have long been based upon such principles.

No, I do NOT think it is okay for a tiny minority to usurp the traditional activities of the Christian majority. I'm sure this statement blows your liberal-contaminated mind and you will react with the typical claims of unfairness and inequality under the Constitution. I don't buy it.

I do not think it is hypocrisy or a double standard. I think those Christmas activities have been and should continue to remain the traditional American standard. I see no need to obliterate American customs in favor of minority customs such as those of Atheists, Muslims, or Wiccans. 95% Americans celebrate Christmas. And I see no compelling need to impose minority customs upon the majority.

Contrary to ACLU goals, I prefer our country to remain Christian in nature, not secular in nature such as is found in socialist and totalitarian types of countries. These long held Christian American customs do not establish or force anyone to practice any particular religion. All minority children have the right to opt out from such activities if they wish. If their parents are hypersensitive about Christians, then they should send their precious baby to a private school for Atheists or Wiccans or whatever. I do not believe we need to destroy our long held American Christian customs because some minorities get their knickers in a knot and the ACLU lawyers and liberal judges twist the meaning of the Constitution.

Is that clear enough for you?

 

[mattskramer]

Yes, I think it is OKAY for Christian parents to contest activities that are inconsistent with Christian upbringing. We are a Christian country and our laws and traditions have long been based upon such principles.

Our nation was based on many things including slavery and land-grabbing and denying voting rights to women.

No, I do NOT think it is okay for a tiny minority to usurp the traditional activities of the Christian majority. I'm sure this statement blows your liberal-contaminated mind and you will react with the typical claims of unfairness and inequality under the Constitution. I don't buy it.

Okay. I think that I understand your position and I think that you understand my position. We simply agree to disagree. Your mind is contaminated with conservative influences and biases.

I do not think it is hypocrisy or a double standard. I think those Christmas activities have been and should continue to remain the traditional American standard. I see no need to obliterate American customs in favor of minority customs such as those of Atheists, Muslims, or Wiccans. 95% Americans celebrate Christmas. And I see no compelling need to impose minority customs upon the majority.

No. I’m mistaken. I do not think that you understand my position though I think that I explained it very clearly. I believe in consistency. If teacher-led Christian influences should be removed from public schools then teacher-led Wiccan influences should be removed too. 95% Americans can continue to celebrate Christmas – on their own. We should either have all sorts of religious influences or all religious influences should be removed from public schools. I think that schools should not favor any one particular religious custom over another. I see no compelling need to impose any one religious custom upon anyone.

Contrary to ACLU goals, I prefer our country to remain Christian in nature, not secular in nature such as is found in socialist and totalitarian types of countries. These long held Christian American customs do not establish or force anyone to practice any particular religion. All minority children have the right to opt out from such activities if they wish. If their parents are hypersensitive about Christians, then they should send their precious baby to a private school for Atheists or Wiccans or whatever. I do not believe we need to destroy our long held American Christian customs because some minorities get their knickers in a knot and the ACLU lawyers and liberal judges twist the meaning of the Constitution.

It is not the ACLU’s goal to remove Christianity from America. In many cases it defends Christians and their right to speak about their beliefs and even to distribute literature. Our country will continue to be Christian – meaning that most people are Christian – even if Christian prayers and displays are removed from government property and buildings. Yes. I understand your perspective. According to you, when it comes to religious influence in public schools – popularity makes one religion count to the exclusion of all others. I consider that to be an unfair double standard. Oh well. We agree to disagree about what is best for America and America’s public school students.