Free speech for me but not for thee. ACLU busted!

Joe Nation wrote:

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

The Declaration of Independence is the basis for the existence of our country, Joe Nation. The whole philosophy, laws, and rights, of this country are in fact based on one pretty basic assumption, that our rights and freedoms are given to us by our Creator, not by government. This principle was I think one of the most profound principles of any government established anywhere, and credit is due to those people that signed the document and dared to form a new nation.

Now, to suggest we are close to being a theocracy is utterly and profoundly wrong. We've never been close to it, and we are in fact drifting further and further from the possibility. Reference to God has always been part of the heritage of this country, in our monuments, our institutions, our schools, and our government. For groups like the ACLU to carry on a vendetta to remove all reference to religion completely out of public life is to totally ignore the reality of our heritage and way of life. They are grossly misinterpreting the constitution and the intent of the founders.

For something like "In God We Trust" appearing on our money is a threat to you, Joe Nation, I feel sorry for you. I fail to see how such puts the rights of one person over another. We are all equal, under God, and as our rights are given to us by our Creator.

If you really want to go down this road of taking all religious reference out of public life, we are headed down a slippery slope, as it is obvious that nearly every law has some religious basis for governing ourselves. Thats what the country is based on, Joe Nation. Whether you like it or not, thats a fact.

0 Replies

Under the de minimis doctrine, the law does not concern itself with trivialities. Thus, the word "god" on a coin, or the like, is of no concern.

0 Replies

What if it said, "Allah?"

0 Replies

That might be of concern.

0 Replies

To Advocate, those same immigrants also wanted to determine what was acceptable for them to say, think believe, profess, express, or opine and not have some anti-religious fanatical types try to dictate to them what would and would not be acceptable in public.

Until somebody can show me how the presence of a Star of David or a Christian Cross or any other religious symbol affects any unalienable, legal, or constitutional right that they have or that requires them to believe or profess or not believe or profess a single syllable or in any way affects their property, livelihood, opportunities, or oonjugal privileges, I will believe they wish to take something away from everybody else by demanding its removal.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

To Advocate, those same immigrants also wanted to determine what was acceptable for them to say, think believe, profess, express, or opine and not have some anti-religious fanatical types try to dictate to them what would and would not be acceptable in public.

You just don't get it, do you? You're trying to deny to some exactly what the ALCU fights to give you? Any group, anti-religious or not, has a right to launch a lawsuit in order to have the SC decide what works according to the constitution.

Until somebody can show me how the presence of a Star of David or a Christian Cross or any other religious symbol affects any unalienable, legal, or constitutional right that they have or that requires them to believe or profess or not believe or profess a single syllable or in any way affects their property, livelihood, opportunities, or oonjugal privileges, I will believe they wish to take something away from everybody else by demanding its removal.

They demand nothing. They present their case and accept the decision. I've personally have never heard anything on the order of a Foxy rant from the ALCU regarding any case or decision in the USSC.

Nobody has to show you nuttin'. If you don't have the mental wherewithal to read and analyse legal decsions [the operative word is accurately] then you should give it a rest.

0 Replies

Foxfyre- It offends their "sensibilities". You know, their very delicate sensibilities.

But the left has found that they cannot go too far. Some of their ploys have been found by courts to be absolutely ridiculous and, if codified, unconstitutional.

Note:

At the University of California, president David Gardner has imposed a speech code on all the campuses in his university system, Students are to be PUNISHED if they use "fighting words"-derogatory references to "race, sex, sexual orientation, or disability.

A word became a "fighting word" if is directed to any "ordinary person"( not people who are not ordinary?) if these words are INHERENTLY likely to provoke a violent reaction"

WHETHER OR NOT THE ACTUALLY DO!!!

Moreover, he or she who fires a fighting word at any ordinary person can be REPRIMANDED OR DISMISSED from the University because the perpetrator should "REASONABLY KNOW" that what he or she has said will interfere with the "victim's ability to pursue effectively his or her education or otherwise participate fully in university programs and activities.

And that is exactly why, when the University took out the -copy of the "Last Supper" by Da Vinci from the Student Union, I objected on the grounds that the "fighting words" depicted by that action interfered with my ability to participate fully in University programs.

0 Replies

Fox, allowing little things may set a bad precedent. The next thing you know the religious right will demand school vouchers, faith-based initiatives, creationism taught in science classes, huge carved tablets of the ten commandments placed in court houses, etc.

The best thing is to maintain a very solid wall between church and state.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

Fox, allowing little things may set a bad precedent. The next thing you know the religious right will demand school vouchers, faith-based initiatives, creationism taught in science classes, huge carved tablets of the ten commandments placed in court houses, etc.

The best thing is to maintain a very solid wall between church and state.

Other than that which falls within the standard of decency agreed upon by the majority, I think not allowing an object/symbol/phrase, etc. that requires nothing of anybody other than their noninterference is far more dangerous.

0 Replies

Fox, does that mean you would have no problem with the child of a nonbelieving family being forced, through peer or other pressure, to sit through a religious service in a public school. I assume you do, and that is opposed to case law.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

Fox, does that mean you would have no problem with the child of a nonbelieving family being forced, through peer or other pressure, to sit through a religious service in a public school. I assume you do, and that is opposed to case law.

As usual, Advocate is spewing nonsense. If he has a link showing that a non-believing family was forced through peer or other pressure to sit through a RELIGIOUS SERVICE in a Public School, I want to see it.

Otherwise, Advocate spews unsourced nonsense as usual!!!

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

Fox, does that mean you would have no problem with the child of a nonbelieving family being forced, through peer or other pressure, to sit through a religious service in a public school. I assume you do, and that is opposed to case law.

I certainly did not say, imply, or insinuate anything even close to that. I am 100% opposed to government requiring anyone, children or adults, to profess, believe, or pretend to believe anything in matters of religion or any other ideology. And I would be the first to the school to protest a mandatory religious service at school. I would also be the first to school to protest any government employee who was requiring the children to believe, profess, or pretend to believe any particular religious, political, or social doctrine. I believe the function of the school is not to indoctrinate children but is to teach unbiased subject matter competently and efficiently.

But voluntary religious groups meeting outside of class time, voluntary baccalaureate services, or children reading their Bibles during study hall? No problem whatsoever. No child should be coerced into participating in voluntary religious activities any more than any child should be coerced into participating in any activity that is a matter of personal preference.

Religion is an enormous part of our national history, culture, heritage, and laws, and according to the latest polls, still well over 90% of Americans believe in some manner of deity. To exclude religion from our various national symbols, language, or art would not only be dangerous, but absurd and dishonest. A religious symbol or phrase is no more threatening or insidious than any other symbol or phrase representative of our national history, culture, and/or heritage.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

But voluntary religious groups meeting outside of class time, voluntary baccalaureate services, or children reading their Bibles during study hall? No problem whatsoever. No child should be coerced into participating in voluntary religious activities any more than any child should be coerced into participating in any activity that is a matter of personal preference.

Religion is an enormous part of our national history, culture, heritage, and laws, and according to the latest polls, still well over 90% of Americans believe in some manner of deity. To exclude religion from our various national symbols, language, or art would not only be dangerous, but absurd and dishonest. A religious symbol or phrase is no more threatening or insidious than any other symbol or phrase representative of our national history, culture, and/or heritage.

end of quote

The last line is enormously important and should be reviewed by all-

"A religious symbol or phrase is no more threatening or insidious than any other symbol or phrase representative of our national history, culture, and/or heritage"

No more threatening than Micheal Jackson, Madonna, Filthy mouthed Rap Artists, Desecraters like Serrano, and types like Howard Stern!!

Certainly no more threatening!!!!

0 Replies

I see a benefit of teaching comparative religions. But I see no benefit from posting religious symbols, text, etc., not part of a comparative religion class.

No one would stop a student from reading the bible or praying privately in a public school. But it should not go further than that.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

No one would stop a student from reading the bible or praying privately in a public school. But it should not go further than that.

Again- No link---Advocate does not tell us where IT GOES FARTHER THAN THAT!!

Advocate is ignorant of what is happening in American Society today!!

0 Replies

Joe Nation wrote:

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.

I dont care what you put on your headstone,its your stone.
But,since the govt is paying for the headstones for veterans,especially those buried overseas,then I dont know what they will allow.
You need to check with the DoD and ask them.

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?

The city confiscated the property under "eminent domain",and paid quite a bit less then the fair market value.
Thats how the city got it.
The same people that were objecting to the Mt Soledad memorial had no problem with the city paying to restore a historic Jewish Synagogue,nor did they have a problem with the city displaying a Budhist bell,a present from Japan.

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?

Your attempt to remove any and all religious symbols,no matter what they are used for,represents either a fear of or a hatred of religion.
People have always tried to destroy or remove what they fear.

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

0 Replies

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

I'm just skimming this thread and have a comment on this -

not all so long ago in a city I'll not name, I was presenting, with my clients before a city review board, a design for a - trying to remember - 90 unit residential housing project. What I do remember is the prayer before the meeting. One of the board members got up and led the group in prayer to Jesus for a wise decision.

My clients were chinese americans. Perhaps they were Christian, we'd never talked about all that. Probably they weren't. I, the architectural representative present, am not a Christian, though I was a believer up to about forty years ago. This sort of stuff is very chilling. We were all quiet. The project passed. I think we were imposed on. I did not express my displeasure to the city afterwards. My clients had to build and live there.

But this seems a tangent to the original point of the thread - not that I mind tangents - a point of fury that the ACLU would challenge a kind of shill front clinic, which I think by nature takes away the right of the patient in stress. Back when I was also anti-abortion (scratching my memory, I thought it was not moral, I never got around to worrying about legal back then). I wouldn't have been sneaky if I was organizing a clinic. I would have been straightforward. I now see it as motivated by end justifying means, a matter long ago shown as weak.

0 Replies

Advocate does not refer to authorities on the subject because he is ignorant of what is happening--However, I will do so--

Public schools can neither foster religion nor preclude it. Our public schools must treat religion with fairness and respect and vigorously protect religious expression as well as the freedom of conscience of all other students. In so doing our public schools reaffirm the First Amendment and enrich the lives of their students". Secretary of Education Richard W. Riley June 1998

PUBLIC SCHOOLS CAN NEITHER FOSTER RELIGION NOR PRECLUDE IT>

0 Replies

Okie wrote:

Quote:

The Declaration of Independence is the basis for the existence of our country, Joe Nation. The whole philosophy, laws, and rights, of this country are in fact based on one pretty basic assumption, that our rights and freedoms are given to us by our Creator, not by government.

Nope.

The Declaration of Independence: That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. (Emphasis mine)

That was a set-up to the further argument that the People had the right to revolution, but by the time they got around to writing the Constitution about the only part left of that sentence was the belief that governments derive their powers from the consent of the governed. The Creator didn't make it into the Constitution proper and neither did the 'all men being created equal', not with Virginia and the Carolinas looking on. Equality before the law didn't get in until 1868 with the Fourteenth Amendment. The rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are more assumed then defined anywhere unless you read the Sixth, Seventh and Eighth Amendments very broadly.

Religion, under the 1st Amendment, cannot be empowered by our government, nor can that government stand in the way of any citizen holding any form of faith in same. God gets to sit in a neutral corner.

That's a good way to run a free nation.

What's happening today is that abortion is opposed, not because it's bad medical practice -birth control would be far better, but because of some non-scientific religious belief that life begins at conception. That's theocratic thinking, not democratic. It's that same theocratic thinking that brought about the first George W. Bush veto against the funding of stem cell research. Poor little embryos, George will protect you!

(Tis funny, isn't it?
Conservative can use my taxes to pay for a giant religious monument in California because they believe in make-believe, but they won't stand for Science to make progress.)

No Theocracy? Where doth come the opposition to gay marriage? From the agnostics? Where doth the weirdo pseudoness of Intelligent Design arrive from? Fiction Writers of America?

What about the opposition to gender equity? Women being on a equal par with men? Horrors, that's not the Biblical nor the Koranic way. It is, however, what is meant by being created equal, but conservatives don't like the notion of any kind of equality especially the kind that might reduce their own sense of superiority.

Sorry to go on so, and I haven't even gotten to the religious nuts behind the Iraq War adventure and their hopes for the advent of Armageddon- there's some real theocracy for you, it's only cost us a third of a TRILLION of our tax dollars, not to mention nearly three thousand American lives.

Lookit, let's live by the Constitution, let's. Go build the biggest stained glass or clear glass cathedral and sing in it till you are blue (or red) in the face, just don't imagine that hooking yourself to religious delirium gives you any special insight into how to conduct the workings of this nation, whether it is it's tax policy or foreign policy, the pursuit of Science or Medicine or any of it's other missions.

Joe(It clouds rather than clear your logic zones)Nation

0 Replies

Joe Nation wrote:

Okie wrote:

Quote:
The Declaration of Independence is the basis for the existence of our country, Joe Nation. The whole philosophy, laws, and rights, of this country are in fact based on one pretty basic assumption, that our rights and freedoms are given to us by our Creator, not by government.

Nope.

The Declaration of Independence: That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. (Emphasis mine)

That was a set-up to the further argument that the People had the right to revolution, but by the time they got around to writing the Constitution about the only part left of that sentence was the belief that governments derive their powers from the consent of the governed. The Creator didn't make it into the Constitution proper and neither did the 'all men being created equal', not with Virginia and the Carolinas looking on. Equality before the law didn't get in until 1868 with the Fourteenth Amendment. The rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are more assumed then defined anywhere unless you read the Sixth, Seventh and Eighth Amendments very broadly.

Religion, under the 1st Amendment, cannot be empowered by our government, nor can that government stand in the way of any citizen holding any form of faith in same. God gets to sit in a neutral corner.

That's a good way to run a free nation.

Fair enough to a point, but I think the statement in the Declaration is pretty basic, whether it made it to the Constitution or not, and you must admit the recognition of the Creator and God pretty much runs through the fabric of our beginnings. I see no reason to banish all mention of God from the institutions, buildings, memorials, and way of life. Nobody is being forced to believe any religious belief. We simply should not deny the traditions that formed the country. I don't think it was that uncommon for teachers long ago to read to the students from the Bible. In fact, I recall a little of that when I attended schools. Nobody complained. There was no effort to convert. It was simply the culture that existed. You need to understand that I do not advocate widespread use of such practice, but I am opposed to the pendulum swinging too far the other way, wherein a student that is valedictorian for example, is prohibited from making any statement about his or her religious belief in their speech at commencement exercises. After all, I thought we had freedom of speech. And a teacher should be allowed to have a Bible on his or her desk if they wish to without being thrown out of the school.

Quote:

What's happening today is that abortion is opposed, not because it's bad medical practice -birth control would be far better, but because of some non-scientific religious belief that life begins at conception. That's theocratic thinking, not democratic. It's that same theocratic thinking that brought about the first George W. Bush veto against the funding of stem cell research. Poor little embryos, George will protect you!

On what basis do you determine when an unborn child is a child with rights? And if the majority votes that a man should have a right to kill his neighbor, that is also Democratic thinking, Joe Nation, but I am certainly not in favor. Part of the basis of this country is to protect the rights of individuals from the tyranny of the majority. The question really boils down to does an unborn child have rights? It seems it does in some cases already, such as if you harm a pregnant woman and kill her child, I think you are liable, so how could that be if the child has no legal standing?

Quote:

(Tis funny, isn't it?
Conservative can use my taxes to pay for a giant religious monument in California because they believe in make-believe, but they won't stand for Science to make progress.)

No Theocracy? Where doth come the opposition to gay marriage? From the agnostics? Where doth the weirdo pseudoness of Intelligent Design arrive from? Fiction Writers of America?

What about the opposition to gender equity? Women being on a equal par with men? Horrors, that's not the Biblical nor the Koranic way. It is, however, what is meant by being created equal, but conservatives don't like the notion of any kind of equality especially the kind that might reduce their own sense of superiority.

Obvious you don't understand the Bible. Some of the greatest men in the Bible were women, and nowhere is there any reference to women being inferior. There is a distinction in the roles of women and men, but those roles do not necessarily trump each other. Women and men are biologically different, so therefore men cannot bare children. Was God prejudiced? The answer is No. In fact, the teachings of Christianity project a hereafter wherein there is no gender distinction or one being over another.

Quote:

Sorry to go on so, and I haven't even gotten to the religious nuts behind the Iraq War adventure and their hopes for the advent of Armageddon- there's some real theocracy for you, it's only cost us a third of a TRILLION of our tax dollars, not to mention nearly three thousand American lives.

Lookit, let's live by the Constitution, let's. Go build the biggest stained glass or clear glass cathedral and sing in it till you are blue (or red) in the face, just don't imagine that hooking yourself to religious delirium gives you any special insight into how to conduct the workings of this nation, whether it is it's tax policy or foreign policy, the pursuit of Science or Medicine or any of it's other missions.

Joe(It clouds rather than clear your logic zones)Nation

No problem about you going on. Agreed there are religious nuts, but basically there are nuts, and nuts manifest themselves in all kinds of ways, religious and otherwise, but such will never be eliminated. There are religious hustlers that make their living on other people in that way, just as there are political hustlers, corrupt businessmen, you name it. There are more scams these days than you can shake a stick at, but I guarantee that eliminating all religious reference from public life is not going to erase the problems you perceive. I think they will become worse. A belief in God does provide a moral anchor to society that has served us pretty well in the past, and without it, I think society and culture degenerates further.

0 Replies

Free speech for me but not for thee. ACLU busted!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know