Godless ACLU attacks the 1st Amendment

Status
Not open for further replies.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tackdriver:
Did anyone ever consider that declarations from an imaginary God might be offensive to athiests (who, by the way, have as much right to exist as anyone else)?
If seeing it on money, walls of schools, and reciting it every morning isn't being shoved down one's throat, I don't know what is.[/quote]

Tackdriver,

When was the last time that the ACLU brought up a lawsuit that prohibited the "non-belief" or expression of a non-God?

Maybe you should post your ethics and morals. You do have them, I assume? How would they differ from the Ten Commandments? How would they differ from their expression in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution? Or is it the fact that these expressions of truth are ascribed to a being that people call "God" that offends you?

Please tell me what's wrong with teaching morals and ethics to an immoral society?

Show me how the teaching of "Thou shalt not steal" has negatively affected society?

How much of a burden has been placed on society's shoulders by following the commandment of "Thou shalt not commit adultry"?

Please give me the statistics of additional burdens placed upon law enforcement and the judicial system by living by "Thou shalt not bear false witness".

This whining about these things "being forced down your throat" is a specious argument, because no one is forcing you to live here, or accept their beliefs.

Although if you really feel that way then maybe Cuba would be a better country for you to live in. Then your arguments would have more substance to them.

Regards,

------------------
John/az
"When freedom is at stake, your silence is not golden, it's yellow..." RKBA!
www.cphv.com

[This message has been edited by John/az2 (edited May 18, 2000).]
 
Ref Amendment 1: “prohibiting the free exercise thereof...”
Ref Amendment 2: “... shall not be infringed ...”

Those two phrases have similar intent! Quit screwing around with us!

If someone is offended because of my religious beliefs (or non-beliefs),
that’s *their* problem!
I don’t force them to pray or keep them from it. Stay out of my life.

If someone is offended because of my ownership of guns,
that’s *their* problem.
I don’t force them to own guns or to give them up. Stay out of my life.

More and more, I’m beginning to learn the *true* feeling of that old flag:

“Don’t tread on me!”

If they don't want to march in my parade, let 'em stay home, go somewhere else, have their own parade, or have a "counter" march.

So long as I don’t force someone to accept and comply with my beliefs,
it is frankly none of their danged business.

------------------
Either you believe in the Second Amendment or you don't.
Stick it to 'em! RKBA!
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>FUD wrote:
And moonshadow, with regard to public schools ... if I send my child to a private school where certain religious beliefs are taught, why do my tax dollars still go to fund public schools? After all, I'm not using any of their services. I should be credited with that money so that I can use it to pay for private school. But that's not the way it works. If my money goes to fund something than I should have a say in how it's used -- but I don't![/quote]

I agree with you -- if you don't use the public school, you shouldn't have to pay for it. I don't have any kids myself, but I still have to pay for YOURS; I don't think I should have to. Personally, I think public schools should be shut down, period. If you choose to have kids, YOU pay for 'em.

I expect this policy to become reality right after Rosie O. joins the NRA. :)
 
FUD - the majority belief does NOT define the religion of the country as that was what I was discussing.

The reason we had the Bill of Rights was exactly to avoid folks trying to shove their religion down the throats of others.

If you think that the majority religion has the right to do that - you ARE as big a threat to liberty as a gungrabber. Tough, if you don't like it.

Stop the childish sophistry and realize that in the public schools or public institutions religions are not to be given preferred advantages.

There are plenty of opportunities to engage in your religion without forcing yours on others. I don't have to see your religion in the school I pay taxes for.

So try to understand my point this time.
Historical documents that mention a faith are no problem.

If you are using them as an end-run to push
your faith - that is wrong. Why do believers of a faith have so little confidence in their message that they resort to such tricks to force their religion onto others?

Get the point.

You know these kinds of thread really piss me off. Too many homophobic, anti-ethnic threads lately. There is more to liberty and America than just holding a gun in your lap.

I'm beginning to think that the TFL is undergoing an interesting phenomena known as group polarization where the more rational viewpoints are driven out by extremist ones.
Every viewpoint except the most extreme is a
"compromise". Idiotic political strategies that are feel-goods for the choir are proposed. Some folks drool to use their guns in lethal force situations with no real comprehension of the practical risks or moral problems of shooting someone over a VCR.
Rants are posted to other boards that probably convince folk that RKBA supports are gibbering slops.

Think I'm going to bail on this enterprise.
 
This country was founded on religious freedom and just because one group of people is exercising their religious freedom doesn't mean that they are forcing those beliefs on others -- that's where the difference lies! What happened to respecting the cultural differences of others?

If an elected official (the mayor of a town, for example) wants to begin a public meeting with a prayer -- that is his right, his freedom of religion, to do so. By saying that he can't do that because there is a seperation of church and state, is to deny him HIS religious freedom.

I have a choice to either pray along with him, or if I do not believe in his particular faith, then out if respect for HIS religious freedom, I remain quite until he is done.

As long asI am not FORCED to pray along with him, I do not have a problem with it and neither shoudl anyone else.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>If an elected official (the mayor of a town, for example) wants to begin a public meeting with a prayer -- that is his right, his freedom of religion, to do so. By saying that he can't do that because there is a seperation of church and state, is to deny him HIS religious freedom.
[/quote]

The difference is that at a public meeting, an elected offical is NOT acting as a private citizen. He or she is acting in the public role to which they were elected. No mayor's official duties include prayer. This restriction on his official behavior does not limit his private behavior at all. He's perfectly free to pray 24 hours a day -- on his own time. When he's acting as the mayor, he's on the public's dime -- ALL of the public, not just the ones who agree with his religion, but also the ones who disagree with it.

There are plenty of restrictions placed on all of those who enter public service. The Bill of Rights is perhaps the most widely known of them. If you don't want to abide by the restrictions, don't run for office.


[This message has been edited by moonshadow (edited May 18, 2000).]
 
This is easyt to solve. We just don't put these religious messages in a permanent place in public buildings. Instead, we have in each building a place where religious messages can be rotated; maybe a big screen of some kind. Monday, Christian. Tuesday, Buddhist. Wednesday, Muslim. Thursday, Jewish. Friday, Confucian. The following Monday, Voodoo. Tuesday, Satanism. And so on, through all the religions, starting over at Christianity again in a few of months.

Equal freedom of religion for everybody with equal taxpayer expenditure. What could be more fair?

Byron
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by moonshadow: ... When he's acting as the mayor, he's on the public's dime -- ALL of the public, not just the ones who agree with his religion, but also the ones who disagree with it ...[/quote]Why do we swear elected officials into office on a Christian Bible? Why do we swear to tell the truth in a court room on a Christian bible? This has been going on since our country has been founded.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Why do we swear elected officials into office on a Christian Bible? Why do we swear to tell the truth in a court room on a Christian bible? This has been going on since our country has been founded.[/quote]


Well, if we elected a president who was, say, Jewish, obviously that would change.

Should a Jewish official have to swear an oath on a Bible containing the New Testament, because it "has been going on since our country has been founded"? No. I would remind everyone that there are lots of things that have been going on since the country has been founded that nevertheless should not receive special protection.
 
Again, the 1st Amendment states (in part) “Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof; ...”

We seem to have reached a point where any display of beliefs offends
everyone else. That’s too bad.

If I want to worship the Great Pumpkin, do not interrupt me or interfere with
me in any way. I’m not forcing you to comply with my beliefs.

Glenn is totally correct when he states, “... the majority belief does NOT
define the religion of the country ... The reason we had the Bill of Rights was
exactly to avoid folks trying to shove their religion down the throats of
others.”

But the First Amendment also clearly states that the government can NOT
interfere with the free exercise of any religion (including atheism).

Therefore, the non-believer can not be forced to participate in public prayer.
But neither does public prayer break the leg of the non-believer, therefore he
should not interfere and has no “right” to be offended.

“Free exercise thereof” is pretty darned clear to me. Let’s cut the other guy
some slack. The First Amendment in NO way says you can not practice your
religion if I can see you do it.

If someone offers up a prayer to Allah, my faith is not so tentative that I’m
offended. Let’s hear a prayer from the Buddhist, Shinto, Christian, and a few
words of encouragement from the atheist. None of it hurts me. None of it
hurts you.

Give a fellow American a break and (in the words of Don McNeal) let’s just say,

“Each in his own words, each in his own way, for a free world united in peace
let us bow our heads and pray”. (Yes, even the atheist can ponder quietly for
a minute on the benefits of peace.)
------

Now let’s quit trying to shove our views down each others throats and protect
each American’s right to believe what he wants (so long as it does not hurt
another person physically, financially, etc.). We need no tyrants
misinterpreting the Second Amendment OR the First Amendment.


[This message has been edited by Dennis (edited May 18, 2000).]
 
When my money pays to support a God I don't believe in, then I've been gipped, plain and simple.
What harm do the 10 commandments cause? None I'm sure...except for the little buddhist kid that wonders why the four noble truths aren't posted... is there something the matter with me?
It's my opinion that the teaching of morals and ethics is the responsibility of parents and family, not public schools that can hardly teach kids to read, write and compute.
I'm certainly not a revisionist. I don't object to teaching the historical significance of religious doctrines. I object to someone feeling the need to post the 10 commandments and such as if some kid's going to look up there and say, "Damn, you know I was going to shoot 12 people to death today, but since God says not to, then I guess I shouldn't."
It certainly didn't stop the crusaders.
As for mr AR's suggestion that I should go to Cuba, you can blow that out your bum my friend. Maybe you'd be better off there so that you can tell everyone what to believe.
Heaven forbid that anyone here should sway from the party line.
And all of you are right that I am not protected from being offended. Some people find murder and rape to be offensive, I just happen to add hypocritical fundamentalism to my list.
I always have the choice of turning my head the other way.
That's just me, and I think I'm also granted the right to disagree, or to feel offended in the first place.
As far as all these comments about the benevolence of the founding fathers is concerned, who's being the revisionist? Many of the founding fathers were scared to death of the idea of common people being able to decide the future of the state. Some of these people owned slaves and let's not forget what the Boston Tea Party was about... a bunch of rich white guys who didn't want to pay their taxes (a la Dazed and Confused) :eek:. These were also the same people that tried to get G. Washington declared a king.
As far as the creator endowing me with rights, that's the Declaration of Independence, which isn't ANYWHERE in the U.S. Constitution. The bill of rights refers to PEOPLE, and it is my hope that I still qualify as a person.
I don't think I'll be posting David Hume's arguments for the absence of God or the problem of evil in local schools any time soon.
It would probably go over like a fart in church.
 
I'm one of the people the ACLU is trying to keep from being offended.

I'm pretty indifferent to their efforts, frankly. The US is a Judeo-Christian culture, always has been, and I see things like they're campaigning against as just part of the background noise. It's a minor trapping that is really a remnant of tradition, and should be kept as such. Of course, I feel the same way about the Confederate flag in SC.

As far as the prayer goes, when I'm on my own time, and eating with friends who say Grace, I feel a strong need to honor their beliefs. When I was in school, and thus not on my own time, and there was a public prayer, I got annoyed about the wasted time. Does that seem backward to anyone else? Or does it mean that I value people more than institutions?

Steve
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>When my money pays to support a God I don't believe in, then I've been gipped, plain and simple. [/quote] How about when MY tax money does not go to what I support?? I understand you cannot please everyone all the time however this Country was founded by men with a very strong belief in God it was in many of the works of the time and can be found in the state constitutions of most of the states that the founding Fathers represented. A school that teaches good moral ethics based on the ten commandments is a school that would tend to be much more well balanced and would most likely not encounter the problems of a student wanting to shoot up the school. You are correct, the parents SHOULD teach good morals and ethics at home, to have them reinforced at Scool would definitely be a bonus. It is the very lack of morality that is causing the problems we have today, these kids are not being taught morals, values, or much of anything else that is socially redeeming at home OR at school. Where do you draw the line?? and when you do draw it is it so far out of touch with reality that it only exascerbates the problem? How many Christian school shootings have you heard of? Those Children are being taught the same moral ethics and values that they learn at home (hopefully). Again your right from it is no greater than my right too it. Show me how it degrades, demoralizes, detracts, defames or otherwise offends any of those children? those documents were and are part of our history, displaying those documents does not violate anyones rights and I believe that the message contained within them would be of far more benefit than not. To object solely because of a reference to God or a Creator is ridiculous especially when the greater majority of Americans believe in God or a Creator so why is a reference too them bad?. If majority rules why is the vocal minority getting its way? Can you honestly say that if your child came home from school and said know what we learned in school today?? That it is bad to steal, it is bad to lie, it is bad to dishonor your parents it is bad to kill someone, that you or ANY parent would have a problem with that? I am going to go out on a limb here and say you would most likely praise your child for being attentive in class and learning some good moral lessons.... If my tax dollars support a school and I want the 10 commandments up and your tax dollars do as well and you want them down where is the fair and equitable solution that best serves our children and society as a whole?


------------------
...“ They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” --Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.

Whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it.
---Richard Henry Lee, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788

Take care and God Bless, El Jefe

The ANTI-HCI Site!
 
El Jefe, good point that I overlooked. Proportionally speaking, there should have been a school shooting at a Christian school by now but there wasn't. There are cases where students have drawn guns but no shots have been fired. Maybe there is a benefit to teaching the ten commandments in school after all. Consider the following <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>WE REAP WHAT WE SOE
Clarence Schultz, U.S. Navy Chaplain (retired)

With all the increasing violence in and out of schools, what in the world is happening with our kids today? Let's see ... Madeline Murray O'Hare complained that she didn't want any prayer in our schools, and we said OK.

Then someone said you had better not read the Bible in school. The Bible that says thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, and love your neighbor as yourself. And we said OK.

Dr. Benjamin Spock said we shouldn't discipline our children when they misbehave because their little personalities would be warped and we might damage their self-esteem. And we said, well, an expert should know what he's talking about so we won't do it anymore.

Then someone said that teachers and principals better not discipline our children when they misbehave. And the school administrators said no staff member in this school had better discipline a student when they misbehave because we don't want any bad publicity, and we surely don't want to be sued. We accepted their reasoning.

Then someone said, let's let our daughters have abortions if they want and they won't even have to tell their parents. And we said, hey, that's a grand idea.

Then some wise school board member said, since boys will be boys and they're going to "do it" anyway, let's give our sons all the condoms they want so they can have all the "fun" they desire, and we won't have to tell their parents they got them at school. And we said, that's another great idea.

And then some of our top elected officials said that it doesn't matter what we do in private as long as we do our jobs. And agreeing with them, we said it doesn't matter to me what anyone, including the President, does in private as long as I have a job and the economy is good.

And someone took and published pictures of nude children and made them available on the internet. And we said, they're entitled to their free speech.

And the entertainment industry said, let's make TV shows and movies that promote profanity, violence, and illicit sex. And let's record music that encourages rape, drugs, murder, suicide, and satanic themes. And we said, it's just entertainment that has no adverse effect, and nobody takes it seriously anyway so go right ahead.

So, now we're asking ourselves why our children have no conscience, why they don't know right from wrong, and why it doesn't bother them to kill strangers, their classmates, and themselves. Probably, if we think about it long enough and hard enough, we can figure it out. Maybe it has to do with "we reap what we sow."
csusncr.jpg
[/quote]

[This message has been edited by FUD (edited May 19, 2000).]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top