Ant-ACLU "Nativity Scene"

ebrown_p wrote:

McGentrix, Good political art is often shocking... but not everything that is shocking is good art. But you are right that I probably would have like that painting. I certainly would have defended the right of someone to paint it or display it.

Madam, I can't speak for the ACLU as a whole, and I certainly can't speak for your broad sweeping generalization that they wouldn't accept a "real nativity". There are millions of real nativities that the ACLU has no problem with... like the one at my parents house for example.

There are many of us Americans who feel that it is important that the religion of the majority not be imposed on government sponsored public life.

The first amendment to the Constitution has a clause preventing the establishment of religion. This clause was added by the founders specifically because they understood the danger of government imposed religion.

Many of us Americans feel that many religious symbols supported by public institutions or on public land cross the line. The Supreme Court has repeatedly agreed with us.

I don't believe the ACLU is against Nativity scenes. I certainly am not against nativity scenes.

I am against the use of religious symbols in publically owned spaces that would favor one religion over another simply because the one religion is the religion of the majority. That is what the Bill of Rights is for... to protect the liberties of the minority against the power of the majority.

Thanks for your reasoned answer. I don't mean to broadly sweep anything, however, I have heard & read a lot more stories of the ACLU suing over religious (mostly Christian) shows than anything else.

0 Replies

The ACLU has often defended the rights of Christians, including

- The right of students to pass out candy canes with evangelical Christrian messages.
- The right of a religious anti-abortion group to put up their advertisements in a public bus (on the grounds that you can't censor messages just because they may offend some people).
- The right of employees to put religious symbols on their desks.
- The right of churches to rend public buildings.

Saying that the ACLU is only "suing" over religious shows is patently false.

I bet that your figure-- that you disagree with 95% of the ACLU stances is greatly exaggerated. If you took the time to learn about them (outside of what political pundits say), you may be surprised.

They at least deserve respect for the fact they defend the rights of all kinds of people, including the most conservative.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

The ACLU has often defended the rights of Christians, including

- The right of students to pass out candy canes with evangelical Christrian messages.
- The right of a religious anti-abortion group to put up their advertisements in a public bus (on the grounds that you can't censor messages just because they may offend some people).
- The right of employees to put religious symbols on their desks.
- The right of churches to rend public buildings.

Saying that the ACLU is only "suing" over religious shows is patently false.

I bet that your figure-- that you disagree with 95% of the ACLU stances is greatly exaggerated. If you took the time to learn about them (outside of what political pundits say), you may be surprised.

They at least deserve respect for the fact they defend the rights of all kinds of people, including the most conservative.

If they are such great people how come they constantly attack religious symbols that are not on private grounds?

The Cross on Mount Solidad in San Diego. The Boy Scouts just about every where. A Cross as part of a city seal. 10 Commandants in several different places including some on lands that are no longer owned by govt.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

The ACLU has often defended the rights of Christians, including

- The right of students to pass out candy canes with evangelical Christrian messages.
- The right of a religious anti-abortion group to put up their advertisements in a public bus (on the grounds that you can't censor messages just because they may offend some people).
- The right of employees to put religious symbols on their desks.
- The right of churches to rend public buildings.

Saying that the ACLU is only "suing" over religious shows is patently false.

I bet that your figure-- that you disagree with 95% of the ACLU stances is greatly exaggerated. If you took the time to learn about them (outside of what political pundits say), you may be surprised.

They at least deserve respect for the fact they defend the rights of all kinds of people, including the most conservative.

Don't twist what I said, please. I never said that they only sue over religious shows, & for you to say that I did is patently false.

0 Replies

Baldimo wrote:

ebrown_p wrote:
The ACLU has often defended the rights of Christians, including

- The right of students to pass out candy canes with evangelical Christrian messages.
- The right of a religious anti-abortion group to put up their advertisements in a public bus (on the grounds that you can't censor messages just because they may offend some people).
- The right of employees to put religious symbols on their desks.
- The right of churches to rend public buildings.

Saying that the ACLU is only "suing" over religious shows is patently false.

I bet that your figure-- that you disagree with 95% of the ACLU stances is greatly exaggerated. If you took the time to learn about them (outside of what political pundits say), you may be surprised.

They at least deserve respect for the fact they defend the rights of all kinds of people, including the most conservative.

If they are such great people how come they constantly attack religious symbols that are not on private grounds?

The Cross on Mount Solidad in San Diego. The Boy Scouts just about every where. A Cross as part of a city seal. 10 Commandants in several different places including some on lands that are no longer owned by govt.

Exactly & that is what i was referring to. Also, why don;'t they sue over the menorrah & the Islam cresent being on public grounds in NYC?

0 Replies

Quote:

If they are such great people how come they constantly attack religious symbols that are not on private grounds?

Because they agree with many Americans that publically sponsored religious symbols of any religion are contrary to our values and our Constitution. The Supreme court has often agreed with them.

Do you not understand why symbols on public grounds that promote a specific religion may cause a problem both socially and constitutionally?

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

Quote:

If they are such great people how come they constantly attack religious symbols that are not on private grounds?

Because they agree with many Americans that publically sponsored religious symbols of any religion are contrary to our values and our Constitution. The Supreme court has often agreed with them.

Do you not understand why symbols on public grounds that promote a specific religion may cause a problem both socially and constitutionally?

Do you have any proof that a majority of Americans agree with the ACLU? Last time I checked they were going to court with only 1 or 2 people in a whole community that were bothered by such displays.

0 Replies

Baldimo wrote:

ebrown_p wrote:
Quote:

If they are such great people how come they constantly attack religious symbols that are not on private grounds?

Because they agree with many Americans that publically sponsored religious symbols of any religion are contrary to our values and our Constitution. The Supreme court has often agreed with them.

Do you not understand why symbols on public grounds that promote a specific religion may cause a problem both socially and constitutionally?

Do you have any proof that a majority of Americans agree with the ACLU? Last time I checked they were going to court with only 1 or 2 people in a whole community that were bothered by such displays.

It doesn't matter if the 'majority' of Americans agree or not. Our system exists to protect the rights of the minority opinion.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

ebrown_p & they accept religious symbols of other than Christian....why?
The menorrah & Islamist cresent in NYC & on public property.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Baldimo wrote:
ebrown_p wrote:
Quote:

If they are such great people how come they constantly attack religious symbols that are not on private grounds?

Because they agree with many Americans that publically sponsored religious symbols of any religion are contrary to our values and our Constitution. The Supreme court has often agreed with them.

Do you not understand why symbols on public grounds that promote a specific religion may cause a problem both socially and constitutionally?

Do you have any proof that a majority of Americans agree with the ACLU? Last time I checked they were going to court with only 1 or 2 people in a whole community that were bothered by such displays.

It doesn't matter if the 'majority' of Americans agree or not. Our system exists to protect the rights of the minority opinion.

Cycloptichorn

Not according to what ebrown said.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Baldimo wrote:
ebrown_p wrote:
Quote:

If they are such great people how come they constantly attack religious symbols that are not on private grounds?

Because they agree with many Americans that publically sponsored religious symbols of any religion are contrary to our values and our Constitution. The Supreme court has often agreed with them.

Do you not understand why symbols on public grounds that promote a specific religion may cause a problem both socially and constitutionally?

Do you have any proof that a majority of Americans agree with the ACLU? Last time I checked they were going to court with only 1 or 2 people in a whole community that were bothered by such displays.

It doesn't matter if the 'majority' of Americans agree or not. Our system exists to protect the rights of the minority opinion.

Cycloptichorn

Then why did so many Dems talk about the "popular vote gong to Al Gore" If it doesn't matter what the majority wants?
I agree that it shouldn't matter but it seems that we all only agree on that when it has something to do with what we want personally.

0 Replies

Reading skillz...

Quote:

they agree with many Americans that publically

many

most

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Reading skillz...

Quote:
they agree with many Americans that publically

many most

Cycloptichorn

I stand corrected.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Reading skillz...

Quote:
they agree with many Americans that publically

many most

Cycloptichorn

Most would be a majority and you already said it isn't what the majority want, but what the minorty need for protection.

If there are only 2 people in a community of 500 should the will of those 500 people be over ran by the will of 2 and a bunch of lawyers?

0 Replies

Baldimo wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Reading skillz...

Quote:
they agree with many Americans that publically

many most

Cycloptichorn

Most would be a majority and you already said it isn't what the majority want, but what the minorty need for protection.

If there are only 2 people in a community of 500 should the will of those 500 people be over ran by the will of 2 and a bunch of lawyers?

If it is found that the majority is trampling the rights of the minority, yes.

This is called 'America.' Where you have the freedom to do something as long as it cannot be shown to be harmful to another person. If it is shown that your actions are harmful, then you cannot do it.

Say that 500 white people didn't want 2 black people living in their town. Would you still be making the same argument?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Quote:

Most would be a majority and you already said it isn't what the majority want, but what the minorty need for protection.

If there are only 2 people in a community of 500 should the will of those 500 people be over ran by the will of 2 and a bunch of lawyers?

Come on Baldimo... you are arguing basic civics. I suspect (and hope) that you are just arguing for the sake of arguing.

If we were going to have a majority rule, there would be no need for a Constitution. The majority doesn't need to be protected against what the majority wants. A primary role of the Constitution is to keep the majority from passing certain laws that take away Constitutional rights from people who aren't the majority.

If the majority of people in a community think that gun ownership by private citizens is a good thing-- there is no need for a second amendment, is there.

The second amendment is only necessary in communities where the majority want to enact laws prohibiting guns.

0 Replies

LoneStarMadam wrote:

ebrown_p & they accept religious symbols of other than Christian....why?
The menorrah & Islamist cresent in NYC & on public property.

It would help if you provided links/pictures to support your post. I am not aware of what you're referring too.

As far as your question as to why they appear to be targeting Christianity, it is simply because Christianity is the greatest offender of encroaching the seperation of church and state. If there are 100 instances of a Christian church trying to put the 10 commandments in government buildings, and 1 instance of an Islamic mosque doing the same with their rules then of course more cases will involve Christianity.

0 Replies

Baldimo wrote:

should the will of those 500 people be over ran by the will of 2 and a bunch of lawyers?

If they are breaking the law, then YES. I doubt you'd be willing to against that, would you?

0 Replies

maporsche wrote:

LoneStarMadam wrote:
ebrown_p & they accept religious symbols of other than Christian....why?
The menorrah & Islamist cresent in NYC & on public property.

It would help if you provided links/pictures to support your post. I am not aware of what you're referring too.

As far as your question as to why they appear to be targeting Christianity, it is simply because Christianity is the greatest offender of encroaching the seperation of church and state. If there are 100 instances of a Christian church trying to put the 10 commandments in government buildings, and 1 instance of an Islamic mosque doing the same with their rules then of course more cases will involve Christianity.

Geatest offender? Moreso than another religion that has called us thegreat satan & try to force us to their religious beliefs?
Even if that were true, that the Crristians are the greatest offenders, since you're giving a warped definition of the Constitution, there is also an equql rights clause, equality, to allow ones religious symbol & not another, is discrimination.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29942

http://www.thomasmore.org/news.html?NewsID=135

0 Replies

Madam,

I agree with you that if some religious symbols (the crescent or menorah) are allowed while others (the cross) are forbidded... this is fundamentally unfair. I would, however, have to hear both sides of the case in order to form an opinion. Were there facts that your sources failed to report?

But the Constitutional ban on establishment of religion should be consistantly enforced.

The reason Christian practices are more often questioned court than other religions is because the majority of Americans are Christians. Civil rights are designed protect a minority from the majority since the majority doesn't need protection.

0 Replies

Ant-ACLU "Nativity Scene"

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know