PDA

View Full Version : ACLU wants to tear down war memorial


Crisco
09-17-2009, 09:37 PM
Because it is a cross. It's been standing for over 70 years and these bastards want to tear it down.

May God have mercy on them.


http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/aclu_war_memorials/2009/06/11/224159.html

Chris F
09-17-2009, 10:19 PM
And just think you tax dollars fund ACLU thnks to a little publically known law invented in the civil rights era. ACLU are bullies. If they had to fund their own fights and paid for theothers when they lost you would never hear from them again. So tell your elected official to pass laws that make the loser pay.

Chuck
09-17-2009, 11:31 PM
They are pure garbage.........

NateR
09-18-2009, 01:23 AM
The ACLU is one of the most anti-American organizations on the planet.

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45959

This quote is from Roger Baldwin, one of the primary founders of the ACLU (emphasis added):
I am for Socialism, disarmament and ultimately, for the abolishing of the State itself ... I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal.

KENTUCKYREDBONE
09-18-2009, 07:59 AM
Anti
Civil
Liberties
Union!

Miss Foxy
09-18-2009, 02:47 PM
Oh hell no!! I swear I will throw myself in front of it they will have to run me over!!!! :scared0011:

Buzzard
09-18-2009, 04:50 PM
The ACLU is one of the most anti-American organizations on the planet.

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45959

This quote is from Roger Baldwin, one of the primary founders of the ACLU (emphasis added):

While the quote is disturbing along with the views, your statement saying about them being one of the most anti-American organizations on the planet is a little over the top.

When going to the link you posted, I noticed it was WND. What a biased site that is.

http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/stories/2007/wndbackers.html

http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/stories/2002/wndown.html

That being said, I think the ACLU should back off this case. I don't see it as the state endorsing a particular religion. If they don't, I think that they will probably win.

Crisco
09-18-2009, 06:11 PM
While the quote is disturbing along with the views, your statement saying about them being one of the most anti-American organizations on the planet is a little over the top.

When going to the link you posted, I noticed it was WND. What a biased site that is.

http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/stories/2007/wndbackers.html

http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/stories/2002/wndown.html

That being said, I think the ACLU should back off this case. I don't see it as the state endorsing a particular religion. If they don't, I think that they will probably win.

It's a PR NIGHTMARE for any politician that backs them up.

These people are disgusting and disrespectful to the memory of those men who died for our country.

I would like to see them attempt to move a symbol of Islam or memorial with Islamic notations. I wonder how well that would go over with Obama seeing as he is on his respect Islam the most so they don't get pissed and kill everyone kick.

NateR
09-18-2009, 10:40 PM
While the quote is disturbing along with the views, your statement saying about them being one of the most anti-American organizations on the planet is a little over the top.

When going to the link you posted, I noticed it was WND. What a biased site that is.

http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/stories/2007/wndbackers.html

http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/stories/2002/wndown.html

That being said, I think the ACLU should back off this case. I don't see it as the state endorsing a particular religion. If they don't, I think that they will probably win.

Ooooh, it's run by conservatives so they MUST be liars and criminals. :rolleyes:

It's the fact that it's run by conservatives that makes it trustworthy in my opinion. To me there is nothing more untrustworthy than a liberal.

Chris F
09-18-2009, 11:36 PM
The thing is the ACLU does not understand the 1st amendment. The founders were very clear as to its meaning when the debates for days before its passage to be included on the bill of rights. The original intent was the fed could make no law that favors one religion over another not hinder anyone worship. There is no such thing as separation of church and state. That is a myth that is no where in the constitution. A memorial of a cross by no way creates a Church of America. How stupid the liberal must be to ignore the obvious for so many years.

Buzzard
09-19-2009, 12:14 AM
Ooooh, it's run by conservatives so they MUST be liars and criminals. :rolleyes:

It's the fact that it's run by conservatives that makes it trustworthy in my opinion. To me there is nothing more untrustworthy than a liberal.

Yeah, these guys are real trustworthy.:laugh:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/05/220.html

http://crooksandliars.com/dday/conservatives-never-met-criminal-they-didnt-m

Granted you could also pull up lists of liberal criminals. Crime doesn't escape any political affiliation.

bradwright
09-19-2009, 12:29 AM
Oh hell no!! I swear I will throw myself in front of it they will have to run me over!!!! :scared0011:

this i have to see....and what day and time were you thinking exactly ?:unsure-1:

NateR
09-19-2009, 12:56 AM
Yeah, these guys are real trustworthy.:laugh:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/05/220.html

http://crooksandliars.com/dday/conservatives-never-met-criminal-they-didnt-m

Granted you could also pull up lists of liberal criminals. Crime doesn't escape any political affiliation.

Well if all you read is brainwashed-liberal propaganda websites, then of course you'd believe that all conservatives are corrupt criminals.

NateR
09-19-2009, 01:21 AM
There is no such thing as separation of church and state. That is a myth that is no where in the constitution.

I agree 100%. There is nothing in the founding documents of this country to even mentions the phrase "separation of church and state." It was never the intention of our founders.

Buzzard
09-19-2009, 01:51 AM
Well if all you read is brainwashed-liberal propaganda websites, then of course you'd believe that all conservatives are corrupt criminals.

Well if all you read are brainwashed-conservative propaganda websites, then of course you'd believe that all liberals are corrupt criminals.

I agree 100%. There is nothing in the founding documents of this country to even mentions the phrase "separation of church and state." It was never the intention of our founders.

And you know this because........?

If you keep your church out of the states, then the states should keep out of your church.

If only our forefathers would have watched this video.:laugh:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wV_REEdvxo

Chris F
09-19-2009, 02:00 AM
Well if all you read are brainwashed-conservative propaganda websites, then of course you'd believe that all liberals are corrupt criminals.



And you know this because........?

If you keep your church out of the states, then the states should keep out of your church.

If only our forefathers would have watched this video.:laugh:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wV_REEdvxo

We know this Buzzard because the Founder debated for days on this and all those debates are transcribed. Also they wrote countless letters on the issue and we have many of them as well. And nowhere in the context of the 1st amendment is the phrase separation of church and state. The only place that exist is in a letter written by Jefferson to a preacher where he promises there will be no Church of America. So a cross memorial does not in any way establish a church of America. So it is not a violation of the 1st.

NateR
09-19-2009, 02:03 AM
Well if all you read are brainwashed-conservative propaganda websites, then of course you'd believe that all liberals are corrupt criminals.

Nice try but I don't think I know of a single conservative propaganda website. If you know of any please send them my way, I'd like to check them out. :)


And you know this because........?


Um, all you have to do is read the original founding documents of this country and tell me if the phrase "separation of church and state" appears in any of them. Have you read the Declaration of Independence? Have you read the Constitution? I have, it's not in there.

Buzzard
09-19-2009, 02:13 AM
We know this Buzzard because the Founder debated for days on this and all those debates are transcribed. Also they wrote countless letters on the issue and we have many of them as well. And nowhere in the context of the 1st amendment is the phrase separation of church and state. The only place that exist is in a letter written by Jefferson to a preacher where he promises there will be no Church of America. So a cross memorial does not in any way establish a church of America. So it is not a violation of the 1st.

I think the ACLU is wrong in this instance, but think if they do fight it they will win. My question was how NateR knows what was in the minds of the men long ago, not a question of there being the separation of church and state. Everyone here seems to have psychic powers but me.

Chris F
09-19-2009, 02:18 AM
I think the ACLU is wrong in this instance, but think if they do fight it they will win. My question was how NateR knows what was in the minds of the men long ago, not a question of there being the separation of church and state. Everyone here seems to have psychic powers but me.

Because those men wrote what they thought down and gave speeches in congress when they were developing the 1st amendment. Go to your local college library and log on to the national archives and read those transcripts. It is all in there.

Buzzard
09-19-2009, 02:19 AM
Nice try but I don't think I know of a single conservative propaganda website. If you know of any please send them my way, I'd like to check them out. :)

WND, but you already read that one.:wink:


Um, all you have to do is read the original founding documents of this country and tell me if the phrase "separation of church and state" appears in any of them. Have you read the Declaration of Independence? Have you read the Constitution? I have, it's not in there.

My question was not of the "separation of church and state" issue, it was questioning your psychic abilities to know what all of these men were thinking. I am familiar with the written words, but not the unwritten inner thoughts.

Buzzard
09-19-2009, 02:24 AM
Because those men wrote what they thought down and gave speeches in congress when they were developing the 1st amendment. Go to your local college library and log on to the national archives and read those transcripts. It is all in there.

Yes, one can read the written words, but one can't know all of the unwritten thoughts. You can read my thoughts as I have written them down, but you only know what I allow you to.

That being said, (my new favorite statement), I haven't read the transcripts in entirety, only bits and pieces of them as needed.

We are in agreement on the feeling that the ACLU is wrong in this instance. I'd like to leave it on a positive note.

NateR
09-19-2009, 02:26 AM
My question was not of the "separation of church and state" issue, it was questioning your psychic abilities to know what all of these men were thinking. I am familiar with the written words, but not the unwritten inner thoughts.

Just read the actual words of the Founding Fathers, not what modern revisionist historians claim the Founding Fathers said.

Because those men wrote what they thought down and gave speeches in congress when they were developing the 1st amendment. Go to your local college library and log on to the national archives and read those transcripts. It is all in there.

Yes exactly, that's where I picked up most of my information. We don't have to guess what men like George Washington, John Jay, Thomas Jefferson, etc. wanted to accomplish when founding America, because they wrote it all down (or had it transcribed) and were very clear so that no one would misunderstand them.

I've gone through and dug up these quotes before, but I believe you are smart enough to do your own research, Buzzard.

Buzzard
09-19-2009, 02:52 AM
Just read the actual words of the Founding Fathers, not what modern revisionist historians claim the Founding Fathers said.



Yes exactly, that's where I picked up most of my information. We don't have to guess what men like George Washington, John Jay, Thomas Jefferson, etc. wanted to accomplish when founding America, because they wrote it all down (or had it transcribed) and were very clear so that no one would misunderstand them.

I've gone through and dug up these quotes before, but I believe you are smart enough to do your own research, Buzzard.

Quick google research links below.

http://en.allexperts.com/q/Church-State-Issues-2126/2008/4/Founding-Fathers-Stance-Separation.htm

http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html

http://www.theology.edu/journal/volume2/ushistor.htm

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ed_buckner/quotations.html

http://www.theocracywatch.org/separation_church_state2.htm

http://www.eadshome.com/congress.htm

http://undergod.procon.org/viewanswers.asp?questionID=001358

Since you brought up Jefferson, here is a quote from the last link in regards to Jefferson's idea of a "wall of separation between church and state."

a wall of separation between church and state.' It's downright silly to act as if those specific words, 'separation of church and state,' have to be in the Constitution for the concept to be there.

I have even include a link showing a view in agreement with your ideas.

Enjoy!

NateR
09-19-2009, 03:07 AM
Quick google research links below.

http://en.allexperts.com/q/Church-State-Issues-2126/2008/4/Founding-Fathers-Stance-Separation.htm

http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html

http://www.theology.edu/journal/volume2/ushistor.htm

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ed_buckner/quotations.html

http://www.theocracywatch.org/separation_church_state2.htm

http://www.eadshome.com/congress.htm

http://undergod.procon.org/viewanswers.asp?questionID=001358

Since you brought up Jefferson, here is a quote from the last link in regards to Jefferson's idea of a "wall of separation between church and state."



I have even include a link showing a view in agreement with your ideas.

Enjoy!

Go to the library, read the words of the Founding Fathers. Don't waste your time searching through websites whose only purpose is to sell an agenda. It's nice that the internet puts so much information at your fingertips, but real, HONEST research is going to take a few weeks, maybe even months.

Also, as someone who has designed a few websites, I can tell you that SEO (search engine optimization) and accuracy of information are not necessarily related. Someone can have a site that is filled with blatant lies, but since they know the tricks for getting their site ranked at the top of search engine listings, they will make it to the first page every time. Basically, what I am saying is just because some of these might have been the first results you received, does not prove that their information is accurate.

The internet is a tricky place and, if you go to write college-level term papers, you will find that it is NOT considered to be a reliable source of information... at all.

Buzzard
09-19-2009, 09:05 AM
Go to the library, read the words of the Founding Fathers. Don't waste your time searching through websites whose only purpose is to sell an agenda. It's nice that the internet puts so much information at your fingertips, but real, HONEST research is going to take a few weeks, maybe even months.

Also, as someone who has designed a few websites, I can tell you that SEO (search engine optimization) and accuracy of information are not necessarily related. Someone can have a site that is filled with blatant lies, but since they know the tricks for getting their site ranked at the top of search engine listings, they will make it to the first page every time. Basically, what I am saying is just because some of these might have been the first results you received, does not prove that their information is accurate.

The internet is a tricky place and, if you go to write college-level term papers, you will find that it is NOT considered to be a reliable source of information... at all.

Is the internet only a good source of info when you use it?:unsure-1:

Did you read any of the info the links provided? If so, what do you disagree with? If not, how can you judge what was linked?

Have a good morning and enjoy the fights later this evening.

VCURamFan
09-19-2009, 02:17 PM
Is the internet only a good source of info when you use it?:unsure-1:

Did you read any of the info the links provided? If so, what do you disagree with? If not, how can you judge what was linked?

Have a good morning and enjoy the fights later this evening.
There's a distinct difference between using the internet for a quick reference & using it as a primary source for a serious discussion. If someone tells you to check the cource document, & instead you grab some quotes from a random website, it's like bringing a wiffle-ball bat to face off against Nolan Ryan.

NateR
09-19-2009, 03:54 PM
Is the internet only a good source of info when you use it?:unsure-1:

Did you read any of the info the links provided? If so, what do you disagree with? If not, how can you judge what was linked?

Have a good morning and enjoy the fights later this evening.

What we got going on here is not a serious, intellectual discussion, it's an internet discussion, which is a completely different thing. The anonymity of the internet destroys any hope of a true intelligent discussion. I have no idea of your true credentials and you have no idea of my true credentials, so we can both pretend to be experts on information that we just Googled five minutes ago. That is not conducive to an honest, intellectual debate.

When you were in college, were you allowed to write research papers using only internet opinion-sites and blogs as source material? I'm not talking about those 100-level, "easy-A" classes that many colleges use to boost enrollment (even in those classes, I was only allowed to use a maximum of two internet sources, but they had to be fact-based, not opinion-based sites). I'm talking about the upper level classes where you are seriously seeking a degree.

So, again, read the words of the Founding Fathers in context, without all the commentary, opinion, and "translation" surrounding it. Then you can form your own opinion about what they are saying and not rely solely on the opinion of others.

Also, check out the State Constitutions from those days. Article 22 of the Constitution of Delaware (1776) states this (emphasis added):

ART. 22. Every person who shall be chosen a member of either house, or appointed to any office or place of trust, before taking his seat, or entering upon the execution of his office, shall take the following oath, or affirmation, if conscientiously scrupulous of taking an oath, to wit:

" I, A B. will bear true allegiance to the Delaware State, submit to its constitution and laws, and do no act wittingly whereby the freedom thereof may be prejudiced."

And also make and subscribe the following declaration, to wit:

" I, A B. do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration."

And all officers shall also take an oath of office.

Now does that sound like a government that wants to expel religion from the public square? And Delaware was not an anomaly. Many of the original 13 states had similar oaths written into their constitution:

Section 10 of the Pennsylvania State Constitution (1776 - emphasis added):
SECT. 10. A quorum of the house of representatives shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of members elected; and having met and chosen their speaker, shall each of them before they proceed to business take and subscribe, as well the oath or affirmation of fidelity and allegiance hereinafter directed, as the following oath or affirmation, viz:

I do swear (or affirm) that as a member of this assembly, I will not propose or assent to any bill, vote, or resolution, which stall appear to free injurious to the people; nor do or consent to any act or thing whatever, that shall have a tendency to lessen or abridge their rights and privileges, as declared in the constitution of this state; but will in all things conduct myself as a faithful honest representative and guardian of the people, according to the best of only judgment and abilities.

And each member, before he takes his seat, shall make and subscribe the following declaration, viz:

I do believe in one God, the creator and governor of the universe, the rewarder of the good and the punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by Divine inspiration.

And no further or other religious test shall ever hereafter be required of any civil officer or magistrate in this State.

Section IX of the Vermont Constitution (1777 - emphasis added):
SECTION IX. A quorum of the house of representatives shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of members elected; and having met and chosen their speaker, shall, each of them, before they proceed to business, take and subscribe, as well the oath of fidelity and allegiance herein after directed, as the following oath or affirmation, viz.

" I ____ do solemnly swear, by the ever living God, (or, I do solemnly affirm in the presence of Almighty God) that as a member of this assembly, I will not propose or assent to any bill, vote, or resolution, which shall appear to me injurious to the people; nor do or consent to any act or thing whatever, that shall have a tendency to lessen or abridge their rights and privileges, as declared in the Constitution of this State; but will, in all things' conduct myself as a faithful, honest representative and guardian of the people, according to the best of my judgment and abilities."

And each member, before he takes his seat, shall make and subscribe the following declaration, viz.

" I ____ do believe in one God, the Creator and Governor of the Diverse, the rewarder of the good and punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the scriptures of the old and new testament to be given by divine inspiration, and own and profess the protestant religion."

And no further or other religious test shall ever, hereafter, be required of any civil officer or magistrate in this State.

All of these excerpts came from here:
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/18th.asp

This kind of site is helpful for finding the information quickly; but it would still be necessary to check these against the source documents to ensure that they have not been altered (either by error or intent) in any way. That's not being distrustful or a conspiracy theorist, it's just responsible research. So, if nothing else, I've at least given you a starting point to begin your own research.

Other ideas, check out the writings of John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, and read George Washington's Farewell Address from 1796.

Buzzard
09-19-2009, 09:48 PM
There's a distinct difference between using the internet for a quick reference & using it as a primary source for a serious discussion. If someone tells you to check the cource document, & instead you grab some quotes from a random website, it's like bringing a wiffle-ball bat to face off against Nolan Ryan.

If Nolan Ryan were pitching a wiffle-ball, I'd have no problem using a wiffle-ball bat.:wink:

Like NateR says below, we're having an internet discussion. We're not writing a college level thesis. Some of the links provided supply the sources from the material used to make the statements at hand. Did you read the links before affirming that they weren't intellectually valid?

I'll address NateR in another post.

Enjoy the fights tonight. As long as it remains civil, I will continue to enjoy this.

Chris F
09-20-2009, 12:11 AM
If Nolan Ryan were pitching a wiffle-ball, I'd have no problem using a wiffle-ball bat.:wink:

Like NateR says below, we're having an internet discussion. We're not writing a college level thesis. Some of the links provided supply the sources from the material used to make the statements at hand. Did you read the links before affirming that they weren't intellectually valid?

I'll address NateR in another post.

Enjoy the fights tonight. As long as it remains civil, I will continue to enjoy this.

Buzzard when you cite websites that are obviously biased then it leaves to the realms of discussion to the idea of propaganda and talking points. Since we are addressing the founders there are no real credible sources outside their own words.

Buzzard
09-20-2009, 05:53 AM
Buzzard when you cite websites that are obviously biased then it leaves to the realms of discussion to the idea of propaganda and talking points. Since we are addressing the founders there are no real credible sources outside their own words.

Chris, some of the sites were pro-religion. I'll address other things tomorrow or the day after, a lot of football on to watch tomorrow.

Buzzard
09-20-2009, 08:25 AM
What we got going on here is not a serious, intellectual discussion, it's an internet discussion, which is a completely different thing. The anonymity of the internet destroys any hope of a true intelligent discussion. I disagree.I have no idea of your true credentials and you have no idea of my true credentials, so we can both pretend to be experts on information that we just Googled five minutes ago.I don't or haven't pretended to be any such expert. I am able though to use the internet to find information out as needed though. My only credentials are that I am human and always looking for knowledge. I have never stated that I possess any degrees nor have I ever given details about my education levels. At least I don't believe I have. That is not conducive to an honest, intellectual debate.If the people involved in the debate are honest, I feel it doesn't hinder it at all.

When you were in college, were you allowed to write research papers using only internet opinion-sites and blogs as source material? I'm not talking about those 100-level, "easy-A" classes that many colleges use to boost enrollment (even in those classes, I was only allowed to use a maximum of two internet sources, but they had to be fact-based, not opinion-based sites). I'm talking about the upper level classes where you are seriously seeking a degree.I never owned a computer until the mid 90's, and it wasn't around when I graduated from high school.

So, again, read the words of the Founding Fathers in context, without all the commentary, opinion, and "translation" surrounding it. Then you can form your own opinion about what they are saying and not rely solely on the opinion of others.I don't rely on the opinions of others. I use available information and form my own TYVM. My opinion is still that religion and government don't mix. There are others including founding fathers who share this same opinion. You too seem to be intelligent enough to find that out for yourself too.

Also, check out the State Constitutions from those days. Article 22 of the Constitution of Delaware (1776) states this (emphasis added):



Now does that sound like a government that wants to expel religion from the public square? And Delaware was not an anomaly. Many of the original 13 states had similar oaths written into their constitution:

Section 10 of the Pennsylvania State Constitution (1776 - emphasis added):


Section IX of the Vermont Constitution (1777 - emphasis added):


All of these excerpts came from here:
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/18th.asp

This kind of site is helpful for finding the information quickly; but it would still be necessary to check these against the source documents to ensure that they have not been altered (either by error or intent) in any way. That's not being distrustful or a conspiracy theorist, it's just responsible research. So, if nothing else, I've at least given you a starting point to begin your own research.

Other ideas, check out the writings of John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, and read George Washington's Farewell Address from 1796.

NateR, I guess my eyes must be playing tricks on me, but I can't seem to find any mention of God or Jesus in the CONUS. The only exception in the CONUS and the BOR would be when they state the year as in year of our Lord. That though isn't indicative of any specific religion and was indicative of the speech patterns of the day.

Isn't there also something which bars any religious test to be able to hold a public office? It would seem to me that the writers would have included something in it if they meant for our new nation to be founded under one God and Christianity as the one true religion. Heck, the words "under God" weren't in the original Pledge of Allegiance.

Can you please show me where in the CONUS and BOR it mentions God, Jesus, or Christianity?

Again, I will state that I think the ACLU is pushing this cross removal issue too far, but I believe that they will win it if the lawsuit goes to court.


You overlooked this article in the Virginia Constitution, June 29, 1776.

SEC. 16. That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other.

Notice how it only says one is to practice "Christian" concepts of "forbearance, love, and charity towards each other" and not Christianity itself. It is also the only mention of the word Christian in the bill itself.

It might be a shock to you to know that you don't need to be a Christian to practice those concepts and that they aren't owned by Christianity.:wink:

It's much too late to continue this now. Have a good night.

NateR
09-21-2009, 12:41 AM
I have never stated that I possess any degrees nor have I ever given details about my education levels. At least I don't believe I have.

I know you haven't, that's why I decided the safest option was to just assume the best.:)

If the people involved in the debate are honest, I feel it doesn't hinder it at all.

That's a little over-idealistic isn't it? With the anonymity of the internet, how can one person possibly know whether the another person is being honest or not?

I never owned a computer until the mid 90's, and it wasn't around when I graduated from high school.

Well you got me beat, I didn't own a computer until 1999 and didn't start taking classes in Graphic Design until 2002. I got my Associates degree in May 2005 and got the job running Matt's site in December 2005. By then the internet was a part of everyday life, so my college had fairly well-established policies on what was considered reliable and what wasn't. For the most part, the internet was considered an unreliable source of information, except in certain instances; but even those exceptions needed to be backed-up by other forms of media.

I don't rely on the opinions of others. I use available information and form my own TYVM. My opinion is still that religion and government don't mix. There are others including founding fathers who share this same opinion. You too seem to be intelligent enough to find that out for yourself too.

I agree with you to an extent. We don't want state sponsored religion, because nothing would drain the love and spirituality out of Christianity faster than to make it mandated by the government. The Founding Fathers understood this better than us because they were fighting against the tyranny (to include religious tyranny) of England at the time. However, they understood that they were creating a Christian Nation and that religion (specifically the Christian religion) was necessary to preserve human freedoms.

NateR, I guess my eyes must be playing tricks on me, but I can't seem to find any mention of God or Jesus in the CONUS. The only exception in the CONUS and the BOR would be when they state the year as in year of our Lord. That though isn't indicative of any specific religion and was indicative of the speech patterns of the day.

I guess my eyes must be playing tricks on me as well, because I don't recall quoting anything from the US Constitution or Bill of Rights.

Isn't there also something which bars any religious test to be able to hold a public office? It would seem to me that the writers would have included something in it if they meant for our new nation to be founded under one God and Christianity as the one true religion.

You obviously didn't read the excerpts I quoted.

Can you please show me where in the CONUS and BOR it mentions God, Jesus, or Christianity?

It doesn't because the States did not want to establish a national church. Originally, the restriction only applied to the federal government, not the state governments.

Again, I will state that I think the ACLU is pushing this cross removal issue too far, but I believe that they will win it if the lawsuit goes to court.

Unfortunately, I agree on both counts. ("Unfortunate" in the fact that the ACLU has enough lawyers in their pockets to win a case like this, not unfortunate that I agree with you.)


You overlooked this article in the Virginia Constitution, June 29, 1776.

Notice how it only says one is to practice "Christian" concepts of "forbearance, love, and charity towards each other" and not Christianity itself. It is also the only mention of the word Christian in the bill itself.

Each state established it's own parameters for how much of a role religion would play in it's government. Again, the restrictions against the government showing favor towards one religion over another ONLY applied to the Federal Government at the time. Also, in the context of US history, the word "religion" in these documents is a reference to the different denominations of Christianity. Show me evidence of one of the 13 original states practicing Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Shinto, Atheism, etc., then you might be able to make a case that it is referring to all world religions; but it's not.

It might be a shock to you to know that you don't need to be a Christian to practice those concepts and that they aren't owned by Christianity.:wink:

The concept is not a shock, but I don't agree. Look at the whole of human history and tell me what nation or major kingdom on the earth practiced those principles prior to Christ's Resurrection (roughly 29 AD). Aside from the nation of Israel, of course, since they were given the gospel of Christ centuries before Christ's birth.

Chris F
09-21-2009, 01:15 AM
NateR, I guess my eyes must be playing tricks on me, but I can't seem to find any mention of God or Jesus in the CONUS. The only exception in the CONUS and the BOR would be when they state the year as in year of our Lord. That though isn't indicative of any specific religion and was indicative of the speech patterns of the day.

Isn't there also something which bars any religious test to be able to hold a public office? It would seem to me that the writers would have included something in it if they meant for our new nation to be founded under one God and Christianity as the one true religion. Heck, the words "under God" weren't in the original Pledge of Allegiance.

Can you please show me where in the CONUS and BOR it mentions God, Jesus, or Christianity?

Again, I will state that I think the ACLU is pushing this cross removal issue too far, but I believe that they will win it if the lawsuit goes to court.


You overlooked this article in the Virginia Constitution, June 29, 1776.



Notice how it only says one is to practice "Christian" concepts of "forbearance, love, and charity towards each other" and not Christianity itself. It is also the only mention of the word Christian in the bill itself.

It might be a shock to you to know that you don't need to be a Christian to practice those concepts and that they aren't owned by Christianity.:wink:

It's much too late to continue this now. Have a good night.

Buzzard every legal document at that point in time in history was dated in a way to show who was king at that said time. SO when the colony dated their constitution wiht the Year of our Lord they are clearly saying Jesus is King. You can argue till you are blue in the face but the historiography is pretty clear. Even secular humanist historians know this is the truth. They just avoid discussing it.

Chris F
09-21-2009, 01:20 AM
Also Buzzard dyd that there was actual official state religions in some states till as late as 1849? Look it up, even the Internet more then likely has a thing to say about it. Which states skip my mind at the moment but the fact is only the federal government was prohibited from making laws that affect faith. In 1849 with the populist movement and the GOP starting states rights became less of an issue and Big Gov became the goal. The only founder who like big gov was Hamilton.

KENTUCKYREDBONE
09-21-2009, 08:04 AM
It seems to me that having Crosses at a memorial is FAR from establishing a Religion! To me this is just another example of the ACLU deciding to be hostile to the Christian side of American Culture! I don't get how a group can think that crosses are more dangerous than NAMBLA either! On a side note it appears that we all think the ACLU is being to extreme in this case!

Chuck
09-21-2009, 12:32 PM
It seems to me that having Crosses at a memorial is FAR from establishing a Religion! To me this is just another example of the ACLU deciding to be hostile to the Christian side of American Culture! I don't get how a group can think that crosses are more dangerous than NAMBLA either! On a side note it appears that we all think the ACLU is being to extreme in this case!

:sign0011:

NateR
09-21-2009, 11:57 PM
It seems to me that having Crosses at a memorial is FAR from establishing a Religion! To me this is just another example of the ACLU deciding to be hostile to the Christian side of American Culture! I don't get how a group can think that crosses are more dangerous than NAMBLA either! On a side note it appears that we all think the ACLU is being to extreme in this case!

It is pretty sickening that the ACLU will support an organization like NAMBLA, but will attack just about every public expression of Christianity. What's next, do they sue the Armed Forces to get them remove all the cross-shaped tombstones at Arlington? :angry:

TexasRN
09-22-2009, 01:28 AM
It is pretty sickening that the ACLU will support an organization like NAMBLA, but will attack just about every public expression of Christianity. What's next, do they sue the Armed Forces to get them remove all the cross-shaped tombstones at Arlington? :angry:


Don't give them any ideas. They just might try that next.


~Amy