ACLU strikes my town - Page 6 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

partofme · #76 (**permalink**) 07-01-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rakkasan

Part come the fuck on ..........its obvious you love this organization

i and others think they are a fucking gestapo for the fringe......

That's pretty accurate but I would expect you to at least back it up with some logical explanation rather than ignore facts when they are presented and contradict them anyway.

pramjockey · #77 (**permalink**) 07-01-2007

Back on topic:

Whether you like the ACLU or not, clearly a picture of Jesus has no place hanging in a courthouse. There really should be no debate here.

Thematic-Device · #78 (**permalink**) 07-01-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rakkasan

roger, you hit the nail on the head great post(bolded by me for emphasis)

if they were consistent i wouldnt have a problem period....but they only care for PC stupid shit

Yes because when they have lawyers defending the free speech of some of the most reviled groups in the nation they're clearly being politically correct.

And when they defend the rights of school children to espouse Christianity, it didn't happen because you didn't hear about it. But they must be anti-Christian because they don't take kindly to using government funds to erect massive statues of the ten commandments in courthouses.

I have a question Rakkasan, if I take an object and place it out of view, does it still exist?

If so, then how is it you think that just because a case doesn't get media attention it doesn't exist?

Mark_Twain · #79 (**permalink**) 07-01-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by pramjockey

Back on topic:

Whether you like the ACLU or not, clearly a picture of Jesus has no place hanging in a courthouse. There really should be no debate here.

Really, it's as simple as that.

Nothing more needs to be said.

Thread closed.

kramer · #80 (**permalink**) 07-01-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by partofme

I support the ACLU and hope they win. I have absolutely no problem with religious material on private property but do not think that places that are funded with tax money should be used as a forum for religious material.

But a large part of the people who pay taxes are religious so what harm does it do when somebody puts up a 1 picture of Jesus? Look at it this way, the rest of the vast area of the square footage of the walls in that room have no religious pictures on them, therefore, the non-religious people and those offended by religious pictures symbols have control of 99.999% of the wall area. I would think that most religious people would feel that having only 1 religious picture on the wall would clearly give the impression that only non-believers would receive justice in that courthouse.

Kramer

Lazarus · #81 (**permalink**) 07-01-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by kramer

But a large part of the people who pay taxes are religious so what harm does it do when somebody puts up a 1 picture of Jesus? Look at it this way, the rest of the vast area of the square footage of the walls in that room have no religious pictures on them, therefore, the non-religious people and those offended by religious pictures symbols have control of 99.999% of the wall area. I would think that most religious people would feel that having only 1 religious picture on the wall would clearly give the impression that only non-believers would receive justice in that courthouse.

Kramer

Well then, let us fill up that 99.999% of empty wall space with paintings of Allah, Buddha, Odin, Kokopelli, Jehovah, etc.

One breeds many.

Beer · #82 (**permalink**) 07-02-2007

Would it be offensive to think of the picture as art only?

This would promote neutrility without assuming someones faith (or lack thereof).

Meridious · #83 (**permalink**) 07-02-2007

Here is a good read:

Quote:

What 'wall of separation'?

First a quick civics lesson. The section of the Constitution that deals with religion is Amendment I of the Bill of Rights – the first 16 words of it, anyway.

There's the "Establishment Clause" ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion") and the "Free Exercise Clause" ("or prohibiting the free exercise thereof").

The "Establishment Clause" – that's the one today's courts almost always focus on – simply prohibits the federal government from "establishing" a national church, or from interfering with the established churches in the states! (Remember, several states already had state-supported "establishments of religion.")

Possibly you wonder whether the issue is really this cut-and-dried. After all, for the last half-century, judicial activists on the Supreme Court and lower courts, ACLU lawyers, the press and the secular culture in general have embraced "the constitutional separation of church and state" as though it actually existed somewhere in the Constitution. Of course, none of these words – "separation," "church" or "state" – are in the First Amendment.

Let's go back in time and witness the conversation among those who debated and approved the wording of the Bill of Rights, and find out what they really meant.

The date is June 8, 1789. James Madison – key architect of the Constitution and a leading member of the First Congress – is proposing the following wording for what ultimately will become the religion clauses of the First Amendment:

"The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed."

The representatives debate this for a bit, and then turn it over to a committee consisting of Madison and 10 other House members, which comes up with a new version:

"No religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed."

More debate. Madison explains that "he apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience."

Rep. Benjamin Huntington complains the proposed wording might "be taken in such latitude as to be extremely hurtful to the cause of religion." So Madison suggests inserting the word "national" before the word "religion," to assuage the fears of those concerned over the establishment of a national religion – and of being compelled to conform to it. (After all, wasn't that precisely the reason their forefathers the Puritans had come to America in the first place – to escape the tyranny of England's compulsory state religion?)

But Rep. Gerry balks at the word "national," because, he argues, the Constitution created a federal government, not a national one. So Madison withdraws his latest proposal, but assures Congress his reference to a "national religion" had to do with a national religious establishment, not a national government.

A week later, the House again alters the wording this way:

"Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or to prevent the free exercise thereof, or to infringe the rights of conscience."

Meanwhile, the Senate debates other versions of the same amendment and on Sept. 3, 1789, comes up with this wording:

"Congress shall make no law establishing articles of faith or a mode of worship, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion."

The House doesn't like the Senate's changes and calls for a conference, from which emerges – finally – the wording ultimately included in the Bill of Rights:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

OK, now that we've "witnessed" the debate over the First Amendment, do you really think the Founding Fathers wanted to make kids into criminals for saying "Merry Christmas" at school? Did they intend for the Supreme Court to outlaw prayer in the nation's learning institutions, when all of their own congressional sessions to this very day open with a prayer?

Of course not. In fact, Joseph Story, appointed by President James Madison to the Supreme Court in 1811, where he served for the next 33 years until his death, explained exactly how the high court regarded the First Amendment in his celebrated "Commentary on the Constitution of the United States":

Probably at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and of the amendment to it now under consideration [First Amendment], the general if not the universal sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the State so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience and the freedom of religious worship. An attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation.

The real object of the [First Amendment] was, not to countenance, much less to advance Mahometanism [Islam], or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects, and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment, which should give to an hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government.

Even today, Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist, in reviewing the same 1789 First Amendment deliberations you just "witnessed" comes to the same conclusion as Story:

On the basis of the record of these proceedings in the House of Representatives, James Madison was undoubtedly the most important architect among the Members of the House of the Amendments which became the Bill of Rights �

His original language, "nor shall any national religion be established," obviously does not conform to the "wall of separation" between church and State idea which latter-day commentators have ascribed to him. His explanation on the floor of the meaning of his language – "that Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law" is of the same ilk. �

It seems indisputable from these glimpses of Madison's thinking, as reflected by actions on the floor of the House in 1789, that he saw the Amendment as designed to prohibit the establishment of a national religion, and perhaps to prevent discrimination among sects. He did not see it as requiring neutrality on the part of government between religion and irreligion. �

Rehnquist adds tellingly that "None of the other Members of Congress who spoke during the August 15th debate expressed the slightest indication that they thought the language before them � would require that the Government be absolutely neutral as between religion and irreligion. The evil to be aimed at, so far as those who spoke were concerned, appears to have been the establishment of a national church, and perhaps the preference of one religious sect over another; but it was definitely not concerned about whether the Government might aid all religions evenhandedly. �"

Oh, by the way, as if to thumb its nose through time at the ACLU two centuries later, the very day after the House of Representatives adopted the First Amendment's religion clauses, Rep. Elias Boudinot proposed a resolution asking the president, George Washington, to issue a national Thanksgiving Day Proclamation.

Boudinot said he "could not think of letting the session pass over without offering an opportunity to all the citizens of the United States of joining with one voice, in returning to Almighty God their sincere thanks for the many blessings he had poured down upon them."

On Sept. 25, 1789, Boudinot's resolution was passed, and within two weeks Washington responded with the following Presidential Proclamation. Read it carefully:

Now, therefore, I do recommend and assign Thursday, the 26th day of November next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed; for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted; for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and, in general, for all the great and various favors which He has been pleased to confer upon us.

And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations, and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions; to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our National Government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have shown kindness to us), and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally, to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone knows to be best.

These inspiring words from the father of our country would no doubt have inspired a lawsuit threat from the ACLU had the group been around then.

While I AGREE in general principle with a "wall" of separation of church and State, the ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE had NOTHING to do with it.

There should be a NEW constitutional amendment that expressly details the separation of Church and State, so that activist judges will stop taking a damned snail-mail letter to a church 200 years ago and inserting THEIR idea of its meaning into the CONSTITUTION. Their rulings over the last 50 years border on imagination.

The USSC has practically established a constitutional amendment of their own, using a letter. Worse, their rulings in the past 50 years have been so confusing that this matter is the most-appealed and reviewed USSC topic in its history.

They seem to make up shit as they go along.

It is utterly ridiculous, the assertions made based on Jefferson's letter.

Nuts.

CYDdharta · #84 (**permalink**) 07-02-2007

How does anyone know the person in the painting is actually Jesus?

Mark_Twain · #85 (**permalink**) 07-02-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by kramer

But a large part of the people who pay taxes are religious so what harm does it do when somebody puts up a 1 picture of Jesus? Look at it this way, the rest of the vast area of the square footage of the walls in that room have no religious pictures on them, therefore, the non-religious people and those offended by religious pictures symbols have control of 99.999% of the wall area. I would think that most religious people would feel that having only 1 religious picture on the wall would clearly give the impression that only non-believers would receive justice in that courthouse.

Kramer

Your argument would hold some validity if a Satanist were also allowed to hang a picture of Anton LaVey. I'm gonna hazard a guess that you might have a problem with that. . .

But in reality, your argument holds no validity whatsoever, in that the Constitution and its writer's original intent clearly shows that there is to be NO intermingling of church & state functions.

Mark_Twain · #86 (**permalink**) 07-02-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Meridious

Here is a good read:

While I AGREE in general principle with a "wall" of separation of church and State, the ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE had NOTHING to do with it.

There should be a NEW constitutional amendment that expressly details the separation of Church and State, so that activist judges will stop taking a damned snail-mail letter to a church 200 years ago and inserting THEIR idea of its meaning into the CONSTITUTION. Their rulings over the last 50 years border on imagination.

The USSC has practically established a constitutional amendment of their own, using a letter. Worse, their rulings in the past 50 years have been so confusing that this matter is the most-appealed and reviewed USSC topic in its history.

They seem to make up shit as they go along.

It is utterly ridiculous, the assertions made based on Jefferson's letter.

Nuts.

Dude, I started to post a reply to your ridiculous cut & paste job that is so full of falacious thinking I actually fell out of my chair from an overexuberance at laughing at the idiotic argument I just read.

But then, I realized that the article you pasted here was originally posted on World Net Daily.

All one need know about the viewpoints found at WND can be found in the very first sentence of this link: WorldNetDaily - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Is it any surprise that a conservative website funded by religious fundamentalists would have this opinion?

Now, think about 200+ years of American jurisprudence. Which side of the issue have the courts usually favored? Why do you think that is?

I'm still laughing. You actually quoted from a site to the far right of FAUX News! Yeah, I believe what they have to say! And as Shrek once said, "Monkeys might fly out of my butt!"

timj219 · #87 (**permalink**) 07-02-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rakkasan

and lets take a survey on how many people here support rush fucking limbaugh..................

survey says!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! the square root of zero give a fuck about rush limbaugh........

fuck man name another non homosexuall supporting, non religious bashing deed the ACLU did?????????

Well they represented Jerry Falwell and they've represented christian students who wanted to have bible study groups on school property. I believe they are also representing a student at this very moment who protested against the day of silence gay rights activity.

Rakkasan · #88 (**permalink**) 07-02-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by timj219

Well they represented Jerry Falwell and they've represented christian students who wanted to have bible study groups on school property. I believe they are also representing a student at this very moment who protested against the day of silence gay rights activity.

ah but once again what are they known for????