So does that mean the reference to "God" in the Declaration of Independence should now be removed?
okie wrote:So does that mean the reference to "God" in the Declaration of Independence should now be removed?
Possibly.
Just funnin' ya, Okie.
But let's do try to maintain at least a modicum of reality.
Okie and Mysteryman:
It is clear that Advocate and JTT are not well read on this topic.
Note below:
what Thomas Jefferson meant or what the constitution guaranteed!
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" had always meant that Congress was prohibited from establishing a national religious denomination, that Congress could not require that all Americans become Catholics, Anglicans, or members of any other denomination.
This understanding of "separation of church and state" was applied not only during the time of the Founders, but for 170 years afterwards. James Madison (1751-1836) clearly articulated this concept of separation when explaining the First Amendment's protection of religious liberty. He said that the First Amendment to the Constitution was prompted because "The people feared one sect might obtain a preeminence, or two combine together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform."
************************************************************
When JTT and Advocate refer to the CONSTITUTION, it is clear that they do not know how to read---"Congress shall MAKE no law respecting an ESTABLISHMENT of religion, or PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE thereof!"
This amendment refers to the laws that Congress cannot make to ESTABLISH a religion.
Advocate and JTT cannot find ANY LAWS that Congress made to ESTABLISH a religion.
And they cannot prohibit the free exercise thereof!!!
Again- I invite Advocate and JTT to show that any of the statements below are false. If they do not do so, the statements STAND UNREBUTTED AS THE TRUTH_
quote
America's Communist Lawyers' Union
The Omega Letter ^ | 12-2-04 | Jack Kinsella
America's Communist Lawyers' Union
The ACLU's holy war against the Boy Scouts, the LA County Official Seal (containing a tiny Cross), holidays like Thanksgiving and Christmas -- and even the Constitution itself -- has unmasked the ACLU as a tyrant less interested in civil rights than imposing judicial restraints that amount to suppression of majority rights by a tiny minority.
The ACLU claims to be an unbiased, "neither conservative or liberal" organization devoted exclusively to protecting the civil liberties of all Americans. But their record proves just the opposite.
ACLU Founder Roger Baldwin admitted as much, saying for the record that; "Civil liberties, like democracy, are useful only as tools for social change."
Although they claim to defend constitutional rights, they don't even believe in the document as written. They say that, "The Constitution as originally conceived was deeply flawed." They even go so far as to brag, "The ACLU was the missing ingredient that made our constitutional system finally work."
Roger Baldwin was a student of communist Emma Goldman who tutored him in subversive ideology of Lenin, together with secular humanism. He claimed Emma as "one of the chief inspirations of his life".
During World War 1 Baldwin worked in the Bureau of Conscientious Objectors, a division of AUAM, to help draft dodgers with resistance and provide legal and financial aid.
This resulted in controversy and Baldwin renamed the organization The Civil Liberties Bureau to avoid some of the flack. Roger refused to tone down his liberal talk and the AUAM sought a split, which resulted in the bureau renaming again; The National Civil Liberties Bureau.
One paper Baldwin wrote for the Bureau was called "unmailable" by the Post Office because of "radical and subversive views" which resulted in a FBI raid on their offices. Shortly thereafter he was drafted and upon resisting and openly spouting social reform propaganda, was imprisoned for a year.
In 1920 he moved his offices in with the Communist Party's paper, New Masses and renamed the group a final time to the ACLU. He developed many ties with the communist movement and even wrote a book, "Liberty Under the Soviets", which bragged about the "liberty won for anti-religion".
Baldwin admitted in his book; "I joined. I don't regret being a part of the Communist tactic, which increased the effectiveness of a good cause. I knew what I was doing. I was not an innocent liberal. I wanted what the Communists wantedÂ…"
The ACLU was founded at a party attended by Socialist Party notable Norman Thomas, future Communist Party chairman Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, and Soviet agent Agnes Smedley.
In 1920, Rev. Harry Ward, the 'Red Dean' of the Union Theological Seminary was Chairman, Baldwin was director, and Communist publisher Louis Budenz, who would later go on to testify against Communism, director of publicity.
Other Communist and radical founders included William Z. Foster, author of "Toward Soviet America," Harold J. Laski, Morris Hilquit, A.J.Muste, Scott Nearing, Eugene V. Debs, and John Dewey.
The 1930's membership would include such radicals and change agents as Vito Marcantonio, Haywood Broun, Corliss Lamont, and Bishop G. Bromley Oxnan.
The 1940's roll would include George S. Counts, Norman Cousins, Melvyn Douglas, Robert M. Hutchins, and Freda Kirchwey.
Most prominent American luminaries of the left were, and are, members of the ACLU.
JTT wrote:mysteryman wrote:
So,does that mean that any and all religious symbols on any taxpayer land or on any land that MIGHT be funded by taxpayers should be removed.
Its a simple yes or no question.
Maybe.
So you dont have the courage of your convictions to answer yes or no?
Why are you afraid to say what you believe?
BernardR wrote:Okie and Mysteryman:
It is clear that Advocate and JTT are not well read on this topic.
I attribute it to decades of imbalanced education relative to the traditions that formed the country. Children and young adults attending public schools and schools of "higher learning" have been bombarded with the phrase, "separation of church and state," which of course is not found in the constitution, to the point that people have lost all historical perspective on things. Add to this that while law abiding, average citizens spend their time goint to work each day, 24/7, minding their own business and raising a family, the idealogues and fringe elements form organizations such as the ACLU to do nothing but collect donations from unhappy malcontents to carry on their game of destroying the traditions and moral fabric of the country. It looks like such people would have more productive ways to spend their time.
mysteryman wrote:
Quote:So,does that mean that any and all religious symbols on any taxpayer land or on any land that MIGHT be funded by taxpayers should be removed.
Its a simple yes or no question.
The simple answer is yes. There is no reason why the public places of this nation have to be dotted by objects of superstition, fallacy and mysticism.
It's bad enough we have to have thousands of placards up extolling the Great Lost Cause of Slavery paid for by my tax dollars, why should the Government take my money and put up a baptismal font? Even giving up the land to put it on repells me. Suppose I want to pitch a tent right there?
MM sees no line between Church and State, well, how about amongst the various sects?
Do all of the sects get to erect some hoo-doo to their particular imaginary friend or just the powerful ones?
Do the Jews get to put up as large a Star of David as the colossal crosses already built?
Can I build a pyramid in the middle of the National Mall to worship Isis?
If the Catholics insist that Christ's body must shown on the Cross can they add one to a couple of those Crosses already erected?
Can the First Church of the Gooey Death and Discount House of Religion open a small gift shop next to Grant's Tomb?
You might want to consider the words of Christ in regard to publicly praying before answering.
Joe (He was agin it.)Nation
So Mr. Joe Nation, does that mean the reference to "God" in the Declaration of Independence should now be removed? After all, according to your dissertation on the subject, I am led to believe it is only a reference to superstition, fallacy and mysticism.
okie wrote:BernardR wrote:Okie and Mysteryman:
It is clear that Advocate and JTT are not well read on this topic.
I attribute it to decades of imbalanced education relative to the traditions that formed the country. Children and young adults attending public schools and schools of "higher learning" have been bombarded with the phrase, "separation of church and state," which of course is not found in the constitution, to the point that people have lost all historical perspective on things. Add to this that while law abiding, average citizens spend their time goint to work each day, 24/7, minding their own business and raising a family, the idealogues and fringe elements form organizations such as the ACLU to do nothing but collect donations from unhappy malcontents to carry on their game of destroying the traditions and moral fabric of the country. It looks like such people would have more productive ways to spend their time.
The ACLU isn't only collecting from malcontents. They are collecting from you and me courtesy of a little known but oft used (by the ACLU) civil rights law that reimburses any person or organization for filing and winning a civil rights suit. The ACLU uses those contributions to reimburse themselves for the suits they file and lose. But if, for instance, they are successful in forcing the Village of Tijeras to remove a tiny cross from the Village seal that has been there forever, they can collect several hundred thousand dollars of OUR money for their efforts.
It is worse than I thought. Is there any hope of anyone changing that?
It would just require a bill and a simple majority vote from Congress. There is no way that the President wouldn't sign it. So maybe we should apply a bit of pressure there? Right now the ACLU has a huge incentive to keep filing these suits and chipping away at our First Amendment rights.
I'm all for it.
I am constantly amazed at leftists. They wish to defeat us, but not only that, use our money to do it. Kind of like communists love elections to win, until they win, and then suddenly elections, or at least fair ones, are no longer needed. Free speech is wonderful until they are in power, then suddenly no need for it anymore. Civil disobedience is wonderful to get their point across, but once in power, all civil disobedience is squashed.
So-called separation of church and state is wonderful until they are in power, then state runs church out of the country, or places huge restrictions on it.
Yep, thats our ACLU, as Bernard has chronicled so well, the organization championing "civil liberties" was started by people that least believe in civil liberties.
okie wrote:I'm all for it.
I am constantly amazed at leftists. They wish to defeat us, but not only that, use our money to do it. Kind of like communists love elections to win, until they win, and then suddenly elections, or at least fair ones, are no longer needed. Free speech is wonderful until they are in power, then suddenly no need for it anymore. Civil disobedience is wonderful to get their point across, but once in power, all civil disobedience is squashed.
So-called separation of church and state is wonderful until they are in power, then state runs church out of the country, or places huge restrictions on it.
Yep, thats our ACLU, as Bernard has chronicled so well, the organization championing "civil liberties" was started by people that least believe in civil liberties.
Yup. But their driving motivation is not protection of anybody's civil liberaties, I think, but lots of profit for their own selves. All they have to do is find somebody like Joe Nation to file a complaint that he is offended by that tiny cross on a village seal, and voila!! That have a wonderful civil rights action. Occaisonally they lose one of these suits, but generally a small village or town or county won't feel its worth expending the funds to fight the suit so they just acquiesce and do what is demanded. The ACLU doesn't get any money then other than having another notch on their barrel to go after more contributions. But they win enough of these suits to keep them filing them. In that case the taxpayer gets a double whammy. The government entity expends tax money that could be going for better city facilities and amenities fighting the suit, and then the federal government pays the ACLU for taking it.
There's nothing right about it. And I think if everybody didn't have so much other stuff on their plates right now, they wouldn't be getting away with it. But usually it just takes a few with the intiative to get a snowball rolling. Congress is a pitiful self-serving dinosaur, but if we make them feel like their jobs are on the line, they still listen to the voice of the people.
And, Foxfyre lest we forget about the genesis of the Supreme Court Justice who is always to the EXTREME LEFT IN HER DECISIONS!!!
Ruth Bader Ginsburg
She was the chief litigator of the ACLU's women's rights project and argued in front of the Supreme Court numerous times, winning cases that reversed centuries of Court precedent that reinforced gender inequity and attaining a reputation as an extremely skilled oral advocate and equality litigator. After nominating her to the Supreme Court, President Clinton referred to her as the "Thurgood Marshall" of the women's movement.
I think the reference made by Clinton to her as the Thurgood Marshall of the women's movement is far more damaging than the fact that she was the chief litigator of the ACLU's women's rights project.
Thurgood Marshall was one of the worst Supreme Court Justices in the last one hundred years. He was lazy and relied on his clerks to do almost all of his work.
If Ginsburg is the "Thurgood Marshall" of the women's movement, pray for our country!!!!
Quote:So Mr. Joe Nation, does that mean the reference to "God" in the Declaration of Independence should now be removed? After all, according to your dissertation on the subject, I am led to believe it is only a reference to superstition, fallacy and mysticism.
You might want to check with your companions on this, most people know we don't amend the Declaration of Independence, we amend the US Constitution. The first was a brave recitation of wrongs perpetrated on us by the King of England et al, the second is the basis of our laws and government.
Question: What First Amendment Right gives one group of believers superiority over the rights of others? That's what some are asserting here by the phrase "chipping away at our First Amendment rights".
If you want to establish a theocracy in the USA, go ahead and say it. Otherwise let's live together within the law.
Joe(Just because the majority believes in a delusion, doesn't make it real)Nation
Joe Nation wrote:mysteryman wrote:
Quote:So,does that mean that any and all religious symbols on any taxpayer land or on any land that MIGHT be funded by taxpayers should be removed.
Its a simple yes or no question.
The simple answer is yes. There is no reason why the public places of this nation have to be dotted by objects of superstition, fallacy and mysticism.
It's bad enough we have to have thousands of placards up extolling the Great Lost Cause of Slavery paid for by my tax dollars, why should the Government take my money and put up a baptismal font? Even giving up the land to put it on repells me. Suppose I want to pitch a tent right there?
MM sees no line between Church and State, well, how about amongst the various sects?
Do all of the sects get to erect some hoo-doo to their particular imaginary friend or just the powerful ones?
Do the Jews get to put up as large a Star of David as the colossal crosses already built?
Can I build a pyramid in the middle of the National Mall to worship Isis?
If the Catholics insist that Christ's body must shown on the Cross can they add one to a couple of those Crosses already erected?
Can the First Church of the Gooey Death and Discount House of Religion open a small gift shop next to Grant's Tomb?
You might want to consider the words of Christ in regard to publicly praying before answering.
Joe (He was agin it.)Nation
So,then you support the removal of every cross and star of David from all national cemeteries that exists,antwhere in the world?
After all,those are paid for and maintained by your tax dollars also.
How about Mt Soledad in San Diego.
It has a 20 foot tall cross on it,and was started as a PRIVATE war memorial after the Korean war.
When the city bought the land,1 person sued about the cross and for 16 years he fought to have the cross removed.
Yesterday,President Bush signed a bill that made it a national memorial,and federal property.
Should other religions be allowed to erect their various memorials?
Yes,they should.
As long as they are paying for the upkeep and maintenance of them,then they should be allowed to.
Unlike you,I dont fear religion.
I may not understand it,but I dont fear it.
You didnt answer this question...
Should any reference to God or the Creator be removed from our founding documents also?
okie says
Quote:I am constantly amazed at leftists. They wish to defeat us, but not only that, use our money to do it. Kind of like communists love elections to win, until they win, and then suddenly elections, or at least fair ones, are no longer needed. Free speech is wonderful until they are in power, then suddenly no need for it anymore. Civil disobedience is wonderful to get their point across, but once in power, all civil disobedience is squashed.
So-called separation of church and state is wonderful until they are in power, then state runs church out of the country, or places huge restrictions on it.
Yep, thats our ACLU, as Bernard has chronicled so well, the organization championing "civil liberties" was started by people that least believe in civil liberties.
foxfyre says
Please continue voicing your opinions. Do so with volume and broadly disseminate. And, as often as possible, preferably always, preface your remarks with "I am a Republican and these are the sorts of ideas that modern Republicans believe to be true and to be rational....vote Republican."
Quote:So,then you support the removal of every cross and star of David from all national cemeteries that exists,antwhere in the world?
After all,those are paid for and maintained by your tax dollars also.
No, the dead can keep their symbols, but I must say, given that those symbols represent money-making (though non-taxpaying) organizations that other money-making organizations ought to be able to get in on the act. Can I have the Boston Red Sox B put on my stone? How about Budweiser? Not for me, but for some of the locals.
Quote:How about Mt Soledad in San Diego.
It has a 20 foot tall cross on it,and was started as a PRIVATE war memorial after the Korean war.
When the city bought the land,1 person sued about the cross and for 16 years he fought to have the cross removed.
Yesterday,President Bush signed a bill that made it a national memorial,and federal property.
What a mess! The property should have been kept in private hands. Surely there are enough yahoos like the original owner willing to shell out some money to fund it, if not, why should we all have to fork over anything to preserve it?
Quote:Unlike you,I dont fear religion.
I may not understand it,but I dont fear it
.
Fear? Where do you find fear in what I say?
Quote:You didnt answer this question...
Should any reference to God or the Creator be removed from our founding documents also?
Answered above.
Joe(Nice talking to you)Nation
It seems that the right has forgotten, or did not know, that many of the immigrants who flocked to our country came to escape state-supported religious intolerance. Our founding fathers were aware of this. For instance, citizens of England were required to pay support to the Church of England, regardless of whether they were believers. In Arab states, a non-Arab usually could not hold high office and was otherwise discriminated against.
The insertion of religion in state affairs is insidious, not unlike the camel that pokes its head into the tent. It is not long before the camel takes over the tent.
