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

Okie- It is obvious that Joe Notion doesn't know very much about government. He is obviously ignorant about a word he uses over and over-Theocracy.

The poor fellow would like to have people believe that we are a theocracy.

He is ignorant and deluded!

Theocracy-Definition---

the·oc·ra·cy (th-kr-s) KEY

NOUN:
pl. the·oc·ra·cies
A government ruled by or subject to religious authority.
A state so governed.

The government is run by regulations and adherence to the Constitution. The AUTHORITY of the government is derived from the Consent of the governed and in accordance with the constitution.

If Joe Nation was correct,there would have been no need for the Supreme Court to rule on abortion through Roe Vs.Wade. That ruling, under our constitution, defines actions on abortion SUBJECT TO OTHER MODIFICATIONS effected by states as is their right under the Constitution.

Okie, it would appear that Joe Nation's opinions sometime border on the hysterical.

0 Replies

bm

0 Replies

ossobuco wrote:

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.

I probably would not recommend a public prayer in a gathering in which this would not usually be expected and/or appropriate. I would strongly object to any level of government MANDATING that there must be a public prayer, or saying that there can't be one. It is not the prerogative of government, in my opinion, to say whether there shall or shall not be prayer, or what manner of prayer can and cannot be offered. In the case you cited though, it would be a matter of manners and not legality at stake.

Nevertheless, when traveling in India, I a Christian, would quite expect and not be the least offended to attend Hindu prayers, nor Buddhist prayers in Tibet, nor Jewish prayers in Israel, or Islamic prayers in Turkey, Kuwait, or Indonesia. And I would think most people traveling in a country in which Christianity was the predominant religion would expect to hear and would not be offended to hear a Christian prayer.

I think any legitimately organized and operated buisness, service, or organization should not need to fear their government and certainly should not need to fear the ACLU no matter what emblems or symbols it uses to illustrate its purpose, heritage, history, or the culture surrounding it.

The First Amendment was NEVER intended to protect the government from encroachment by religion, but was rather intended to prevent the government from being able to dictate what religious belief must be practiced, allowed, celebrated, etc. etc. etc. A government that does not encroach on religion must of necessity be areligious itself. But it has always been and should always be that many in government and among the governed will be religious.

Many of the founders believed neither the Constitution nor the Republic would survive otherwise.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

...Nevertheless, when traveling in India, I a Christian, would quite expect and not be the least offended to attend Hindu prayers, nor Buddhist prayers in Tibet, nor Jewish prayers in Israel, or Islamic prayers in Turkey, Kuwait, or Indonesia. And I would think most people traveling in a country in which Christianity was the predominant religion would expect to hear and would not be offended to hear a Christian prayer...

Yes, but hear the prayer where exactly? In a church, synagogue or mosque? Or in the school assembly? There's the rub...

0 Replies

Dartagnan wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

...Nevertheless, when traveling in India, I a Christian, would quite expect and not be the least offended to attend Hindu prayers, nor Buddhist prayers in Tibet, nor Jewish prayers in Israel, or Islamic prayers in Turkey, Kuwait, or Indonesia. And I would think most people traveling in a country in which Christianity was the predominant religion would expect to hear and would not be offended to hear a Christian prayer...

Yes, but hear the prayer where exactly? In a church, synagogue or mosque? Or in the school assembly? There's the rub...

What would it matter? Our Constitution would not and should not allow prescribed prayers in school, but if the kids wanted to send up a prayer on behalf of a seriously ill classmate or in any other case that is especially significant to them, what harm is possibly done? They receive some comfort or at least some sense they are helping in some way. Nobody is hurt.

How am I in any way harmed by hearing a prayer that I am not required to understand, repeat, or agree with in any way no matter what faith is represented in it? How is anyone harmed by this or by seeing a religious symbol? The huge majority of Americans profess some kind of religious belief. How does it hurt anybody for the historical and cultural symbols or objects 'd art or words or whatever depicting religion in our culture to be included with all other things representing our historical and cultural heritage?

When anybody can show how their person, property, relationships, livelihood, opportunities, or any unalienable, legal, or Constitutional right is violated in any way by the presence of something religious, then I'll change my opinion. Until then I will believe and keep hammering away at the principle that religion is part of our history, culture, and heritage and is rightly represented in the nation's recognition of our history, culture, and heritage.

0 Replies

When I was a kid, there was silent prayer in the classroom. When we were told to, kids would clasp their hands and (presumably) pray. Well, some did. I come from a religion that does not practice silent prayer at the spur of the moment, and I had no idea what to do. And I was uncomfortable.

I suspect, Foxfyre, you've never had that experience...

0 Replies

Dartagnan wrote:

When I was a kid, there was silent prayer in the classroom. When we were told to, kids would clasp their hands and (presumably) pray. Well, some did. I come from a religion that does not practice silent prayer at the spur of the moment, and I had no idea what to do. And I was uncomfortable.

I suspect, Foxfyre, you've never had that experience...

Uncomfortable with prayer? Sure I have when it was inappropriate or preachy or accusatory prayer. Been miserably uncomfortable in many situations for varous reasons as both a child and an adult? Oh yes. Many, many times. Were you materially or psychologically damaged by your experience? Neither was I.

Whose responsibility is it that I or you or anybody be comfortable? The child who loves that moment of silence is uncomfortable when not allowed it too. How do you handle it when a situation makes one person uncomfortable but to change it makes another person uncomfortable? Where is it written that being comfortable or even to not be offended is a constitutional right? And in a world where one man's meat is another man's poison, do we even want to TRY to start legislating comfort zones?

I'm very much a person who thinks function needs to precede form, and common sense should prevail in all things. Common sense tells me that the presence of religious things in no way harms anybody and, in a culture such as ours with a long and strong religious component to our heritage, religious things deserve to be there. To eliminate them would be not only foolish, but dishonest.

.

0 Replies

Dartagnan wrote:

When I was a kid, there was silent prayer in the classroom. When we were told to, kids would clasp their hands and (presumably) pray. Well, some did. I come from a religion that does not practice silent prayer at the spur of the moment, and I had no idea what to do. And I was uncomfortable.

I suspect, Foxfyre, you've never had that experience...

What is this, now everyone should be spared from feeling "uncomfortable?" Not possible in my opinion. I am uncomfortable when people express no belief in God whatsoever, but do I complain, no. Live and let live. Belief in nothing is a belief just as much as belief in something. Tolerance goes both ways. If one side of this argument shoves too hard, the other side shoves back. And as the old saying goes, many people forsake being atheists in foxholes.

0 Replies

I wonder how "comfortable" some of us would feel if Islam became the leading religion in the U.S., and all the kids kneeled toward Mecca during class.

What I don't get is this: You can pray in church and at home, and you can say a silent prayer any old time at all. Why the need to do it publicly around people who don't share your religion?

0 Replies

Dartagnan wrote:

I wonder how "comfortable" some of us would feel if Islam became the leading religion in the U.S., and all the kids kneeled toward Mecca during class.

What I don't get is this: You can pray in church and at home, and you can say a silent prayer any old time at all. Why the need to do it publicly around people who don't share your religion?

I can't disagree with you totally at all. However, if a student wishes to mention his or her faith at a commencement exercise while giving a valedictory speech, that right should not be quelled.

And much of this revolves around the religion being relatively benign, in that Christianity teaches love for ones neighbor, whereas if Muslims pray in school but advocate killing ones neighbor, I think there is a stark difference. Hey, Christmas programs have been traditional in this country forever, but now all religious reference is being wiped out. I am fully aware that Christmas Day cannot be tied to the actual birth of Christ, so the holiday Christmas is sort of a manmade institution, but nevertheless, such things like Christmas, the general Christian culture and biblical roots that we have are part of our tradition. Face it, our roots are not Muslim.

If you wish to go by the letter of the law, religious influence is going to be reduced, but to what benefit? I believe such is reflected more as an effect than a cause of the decline of our society. To phrase a different way, the pushing of prayer out of the school is not a cause of more societal problems, but instead a reflection of more societal problems, because it illustrates a decreasing percentage of people have religious moral groundings. Such moral groundings tend to restrain and keep society more healthy, in that it reinforces family structure, honesty, and responsibility in peoples personal lives. I realize there are honest atheists, and I realize there are crooked religious people, but I am speaking in general terms.

0 Replies

Here is some background of the removal of prayer from public schools.

Myth 8: O'Hair removed God / Bible / prayer from schools

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MYTH 8: Madalyn Murray O'Hair, an atheist, single-handedly removed God, the Bible and prayer from public schools in 1962.
Atheist leader Madalyn Murray O'Hair played no role in the Supreme Court's school prayer decision of 1962.

In the Engel v. Vitale case, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-1 against New York's "Regents' prayer," a "non-denominational" prayer state education officials had composed for public schoolchildren to recite.

The government-sponsored religious devotion was challenged in court by a group of parents from New Hyde Park?theists, some believers. O'Hair was not involved in the case at all.

One year later, a case originated by a Philadelphia-area man named Ed Schempp challenging mandatory Bible reading in Pennsylvania schools reached the Supreme Court. At the same time, Murray O'Hair was challenging a similar practice as well as the recitation of the Lord's Prayer in Maryland public schools. The Supreme Court consolidated the cases and in 1963 ruled 8-1 that devotional Bible reading or other government-sponsored religious activities in public schools are unconstitutional.

The Engel and Schempp cases were a result of the changing religious landscape of the United States. As religious minorities grew more confident of their rightful place in American society, they came to resent the de facto Protestant flavor in many public schools. Litigation was inevitable. The high court's rulings striking down mandatory prayer and devotional Bible reading in public schools would have occurred if O'Hair had never been born. The controversial Texas atheist serves as a convenient villain for Religious Right propagandists who hate religious liberty and church-state separation.

It is also important to remember that neither of these rulings removed prayer or Bible reading from public schools. Truly voluntary religious exercises in public schools have never been held illegal. The rulings of the early '60s simply prevented the government, through the public schools, from intervening in sensitive religious matters. Voluntary student-initiated Bible study and prayer clubs were reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in 1990, when the justices upheld the Equal Access Act, a federal law that permits students to form religion clubs at public high schools under certain conditions.

The rulings from the 1960s are also not hostile toward religion, as the justices took pains to point out. In the Abington decision, Justice Tom Clark wrote for the court majority, "t might well be said that one's education is not complete without a study of comparative religion or the history of religion and its relationship to the advancement of civilization. It certainly may be said that the Bible is worthy of study for its literary and

historic qualities. Nothing we have said here indicates that such study of the Bible or of religion, when presented objectively as part of a secular program of education, may not be effected consistently with the First Amendment."

0 Replies

Dartagnan wrote:

I wonder how "comfortable" some of us would feel if Islam became the leading religion in the U.S., and all the kids kneeled toward Mecca during class.

What I don't get is this: You can pray in church and at home, and you can say a silent prayer any old time at all. Why the need to do it publicly around people who don't share your religion?

Oh yeah, it's that old 'be seen and not heard' argument that would relegate Christians and their activities to exist only in the shadows where they can't offend the sensibilities of the anti-religious type. I wouldn't agree to that even if you would say that somebody like Cindy Sheehan should spew her bile in private and not in public. Or that all freedom rallies or protests or civil rights marches or flag burnings should be held in private clubs or out of sight in backyards so that those who don't abscribe to those ideologies would not have to be exposed/angered/upset/bothered/uncomfortable (pick one) by them.

Why should everybody but the religious be able to say what they think, feel, wish to express? This is still a first amendment issue, you know, but not a freedom of religion issue so much as a freedom of speech issue.

And so long as I am not required to participate, I don't care how many other people wish to kneel in whatever direction and pray to whatever deity or non deity they wish.

0 Replies

D'Artagnan wrote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When I was a kid, there was silent prayer in the classroom. When we were told to, kids would clasp their hands and (presumably) pray. Well, some did. I come from a religion that does not practice silent prayer at the spur of the moment, and I had no idea what to do. And I was uncomfortable.
***********************************************************

Not as uncomfortable as my daughter, who, when attending a class in Health in the local High School was subjected to a viewing of the proper way to place a condom on a banana. The "VISITING" teachers were from some kind of anti-AIDS group.
***********************************************************

Prayer in a class made D'Artagnan "uncomfortable".

The politically correct morons who go around with overly explicit presentations about sex not only make people UNCOMFORTABLE, they present material which parents may want to either introduce themselves or have their children excused from the class.

But moral corruption and acute embarrassment is not as deadly as silent prayer!!!

Only in Politically Correct land!!!!!!!

0 Replies

Discriminators are never uncomfortable until their position of superiority is threatened.

0 Replies

Joe Nation wrote:

Discriminators are never uncomfortable until their position of superiority is threatened.

Who is discriminating? The ones who want to keep their religious freedoms or those who want to allow them those freedoms only in the privacy of their own homes and churches?

Reminds me of the redneck oldtymers of my youth who would spit tobacco and drawl, "Shoot, I don't have any problem with the Negros, as long as they stay in their place."

0 Replies

Fox, would you feel differently were your small child in a public school subjected to a daily religious ceremony based on a religion not yours? I think most people would be upset. Moreover, telling the child he or she can leave the room tends to make the child a pariah. This is what the separation of church and state is all about.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

Fox, would you feel differently were your small child in a public school subjected to a daily religious ceremony based on a religion not yours? I think most people would be upset. Moreover, telling the child he or she can leave the room tends to make the child a pariah. This is what the separation of church and state is all about.

No, it isn't what the separation of Church and State is all about. The separation of Church and State is about your govenrment not being able to require you to worship or believe or recite or profess any religion or religious belief and not being able to either favor you nor punish you for what you do or do not bleieve That means your government cannot favor or reward any one religion over any others, and any benefits or privileges awarded to one religion must be made equally available to all.. In this way religion has no chance to coerce government and religion is 100% safe from any govenrment interference.

If I was going to put my kids in a religious school of another religion, I would explain quite specifically to them what to expect and to be respectful and courteous in any religious exercises they might be required to attend. This is one way we teach our kids how to be respectful and tolerant of those different from themselves.

I don't think a 'daily religious ceremony' is appropriate in any public school nor is it appropriate for any government employee to lead a religious prayer or activity in a public school. But I have no problem with a moment of silence in which the kids can think anything they want but which some use to pray. And I have no problem with an appropriate impromptu prayer that the kids ask for during a time of grief or concern or fear.

Why would anybody have a problem with these things whether or not they held religious beliefs?

Kids might as well learn at a young age that rules and laws cannot and should not be made based on the feelings of one or two. Rules and laws should be made to be as equitable and reasonable as possible for the whole. And in my public school, where school prayer was very much allowed and also Bible reading, I was in a denomination that was in a very small minority within the student body. And I wasn't hurt in the least by that, nor was I brainwashed or inconvenienced by that in any way.

0 Replies

And this discussion reminds me of another some months ago. In this case it was suggested that any benefit awarded by govenrment to any group or any person must be made equally available to all. In other words, if you pay one person for not growing corn or raising pigs, you have to pay everybody who doesn't grow corn or raise pigs.

If that was the general policy, think how little influence any special interest group would have on government. I wish the ACLU would push for that policy to eliminate so many current equities and would get off the back of religion.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I wish the ACLU would push for that policy to eliminate so many current equities and would get off the back of religion.

Yeah!

Quote:

ACLU Defends Church's Right to Run "Anti-Santa" Ads in Boston Subways (1/8/2002)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

BOSTON--The American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts and a local attorney today filed a First Amendment lawsuit against the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) for removing subway advertisements promoting the views of a local church and refusing to sell additional advertising space to the church.

One of the controversial ads, paid for by The Church of the Good News, said that early Christians did not celebrate Christmas or "believe in lies about Santa Claus, flying reindeer, elves and drunken parties." A second ad, which was rejected by the transit authority and never posted, said, "There is only one true religion. All the rest are false."

"The transit authority has lost at least three other cases involving its refusal to display various ads because of their content or viewpoint," said John Reinstein, Legal Director of the ACLU of Massachusetts. "We are confident that the court will preserve the principles of religious liberty and free speech and rule in favor of our client."

The church, represented by the ACLU and Boston civil rights attorney Harvey Schwartz, seeks an injunction ordering the transit authority to sell them advertising space and prohibiting officials from using a vague advertising policy to filter out ad campaigns it finds objectionable.
link

Quote:

ACLU's Defense of Religious Liberty (3/2/2005)

The right of each and every American to practice his or her own religion, or no religion at all, is among the most fundamental of the freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. The Constitution's framers understood very well that religious liberty can flourish only if the government leaves religion alone.
The American Civil Liberties Union has a long history of working to ensure that religious liberty is protected...

Recent ACLU involvement in religious liberty cases include:

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

August 4, 2005: ACLU helps free a New Mexico street preacher from prison.

February 2005: ACLU of Pennsylvania successfully defends the right of an African American Evangelical church to occupy a church building purchased in a predominantly white parish.

December 22, 2004: ACLU of New Jersey successfully defends right of religious expression by jurors.

November 20, 2004: ACLU of Nevada supports free speech rights of evangelists to preach on the sidewalks of the strip in Las Vegas.
November 9, 2004: ACLU of Nevada defends a Mormon student who was suspended after wearing a T-shirt with a religious message to school.

August 11, 2004: ACLU of Nebraska defends church facing eviction by the city of Lincoln.

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

June 9, 2004: ACLU of Nebraska files a lawsuit on behalf of a Muslim woman barred from a public pool because she refused to wear a swimsuit.

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

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

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

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

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

April 17, 2002: In a victory for the Rev. Jerry Falwell and the ACLU of Virginia, a federal judge strikes down a provision of the Virginia Constitution that bans religious organizations from incorporating.
link

Now I must admit, sometimes, some chapters of the ACLU do go a little bit overboard and the news tends to report on that the most. I mean, what's more newsworthy?

ACLU defends people's rights, once again!

or

ACLU threatens everything you hold dear!

I don't know about you, but if I was a news editor I'd go for option two. It sells more.

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know