Posted on 09/22/2005 10:29:39 AM PDT by NYer
GRANTS PASS, OR, September 22, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The founder of the American Civil Liberties Union was a card-carrying communist whose goal was to undermine the Judeo-Christian foundations of America, according to author David Kupelian.
The ACLU is “engaged in trying to eliminate every vestige of Judeo-Christian expression in public places in America,” Kupelian explained in his landmark book, The Marketing of Evil: How Radicals, Elitists, and Pseudo-Experts Sell Us Corruption Disguised as Freedom, according to a review by Agape press. “It's frightening -- and they are using our tax dollars to do this. They use the laws of the land to get American taxpayers to spend their hard-earned money, actually financing their own destruction.”
The ultimate goal of the ACLU is to see an America “with little or no public vestige left of religious faith and the traditional family,” according to the Alliance Defense Fund’s Alan Sears and Craig Osten, who wrote the book, The ACLU vs. America.
The goals of the ACLU were clear from the group’s founding, as indicated by the writings of its founder, Roger Baldwin: “I am for socialism, disarmament, and ultimately for abolishing the state itself as an instrument of violence and compulsion. I seek social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class… Communism is the goal.”
The ACLU “positions itself as the great defender of rights, [but] is against the right of parents not to allow their children to participate in assemblies and curricula that actively undermine and ridicule their religious beliefs,” according to Sears and Osten, commenting on the ACLU’s successful bid to force public school children in California to attend classes that indoctrinate them with homosexual propaganda.
Read a review of The ACLU Vs. America: Exposing the Agenda to Redefine Moral Values, by Alan Sears and Craig Osten at:
http://www.townhall.com/bookclub/sears1.html
Read a review of David Kupelian’s The Marketing of Evil: How Radicals, Elitists, and Pseudo-Experts Sell Us Corruption Disguised as Freedom, at:
http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/9/afa/2020...
The goals of the ACLU were clear from the group’s founding, as indicated by the writings of its founder, Roger Baldwin: “I am for socialism, disarmament, and ultimately for abolishing the state itself as an instrument of violence and compulsion. I seek social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class… Communism is the goal.”
Communism, and the legalization of sexual perversions.
By the time [S]he is forty a [Wo]man has the face [S]he deserves.
[Dear G-d! Evil is as ugly as it gets]
September 15, 2005JEWISH CHAPEL BUILT WITH FEDERAL FUNDS: NO OUTCRY FROM ADL, ACLU or AU
Catholic League president William Donohue commented today about the absence of outcry from the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AU) over the building of a Jewish chapel at the U.S. Naval Academy. From September 16-18, several events will take place at the Naval Academy celebrating the opening of the Commodore Uriah P. Levy Center and Jewish Chapel; formal dedication will take place Sunday. Here is what Donohue had to say:
“The Catholic League understands the central role that religion plays in the lives of most Americans, and it is particularly sensitive to the need for religious expression among our men in women in uniform. That is why we congratulate the Naval Academy for opening the Jewish Center and heartily approve of federal funds being used to build the Jewish chapel. Our problem is with the hypocrites at the ADL, ACLU and AU.
“To the applause of the ADL, ACLU and AU, Catholic schools are denied government money for the purchase of maps in the classroom, but the federal government can spend nearly 2 million dollars to build a Jewish chapel at the Naval Academy without a word of protest from any of them. Catholic kids in New York City public schools cannot have a crèche in their classroom but Jewish kids can have a menorah (all to the approval of the ADL), and now a U.S. military building on the grounds of the Naval Academy can display a huge Star of David on its exterior without a peep from any of the church-and-state watchdog groups. Moreover, since 1845 the Naval Academy has had a non-sectarian prayer said before lunch, but the ADL and the ACLU now want it censored; the ADL has even written to the Armed Services Committees of the House and Senate calling the practice ‘deeply troubling.’
“In other words, prayer rugs can be purchased with federal funds to accommodate suspected Muslim terrorists in Guantanamo Bay, and Jewish chapels can be built with federal monies, but Christian kids can’t sing ‘Silent Night’ in the classroom. Got it everyone?”
I believe that the label of these political fanatics still falls into the category of attempting to create an aristocracy. The intent of Baldwin, Mussolini, Bill Clinton and the ACLU is to be able to eventually proclaim: "L'etat, c'est moi!".
bump
“In other words, prayer rugs can be purchased with federal funds to accommodate suspected Muslim terrorists in Guantanamo Bay, and Jewish chapels can be built with federal monies, but Christian kids can’t sing ‘Silent Night’ in the classroom. Got it everyone?”
It's all about "otherness." The population is divided into two groups: the host population, and "the other." "Freedom" (and even secularism) demands the suppression of the religion, mores, customs, etc., of the "host" and the exaltation of those of the "other." In the United States, for example, "separation of church and state" demands that all public manifestation of the "host religion" be removed from the public square. Any public manifestation of chr*stianity means that "medieval theocracy" is about to rear its ugly head. At the same time this same secularism demands that the religions of "other" groups be publicly lauded and supported, because if they are not "medieval theocracy" is about to rear its other head. In other words, a cross in a public park is a symbol of "chr*stian theocracy" and the absence of a menorah in a public park is also a symbol of "chr*stian theocracy!"
It must be remembered that in Israel Jews are the "oppressive" host population and the Arabs (including chr*stian Arabs, the most anti-Semitic chr*stians in the world) are "the other." Just as in the US public funds can be spent to build Jewish but not chr*stian houses of worship, in Israel Arabs may live anywhere (else Israel is an oppressive racist society) but Jews may not live in any Arab areas (else Israel is an oppressive racist society). In other words, in Israel the Jews are the "rednecks." But of course the "palaeos" take all their anger at American Jewish liberals out on the Israelis, casting their lot with the Arab "others" rather than the Jewish "rednecks."
Once upon a time Catholicism was considered "other." I don't know how it became identified with the traditional American majority culture (maybe through all those old movies in which religion was always Catholicism?). But I notice that other ancient ethnic versions of chr*stianity (Byzantine Orthodoxy, Copts, Armenians, Syrians, etc.) still manage to float beneath the liberals' radar screens. Why don't these churches ever take part in the culture war? They seem utterly silent.
Poor Zoroaster! He always gets blamed for what is an inherent part of Monotheistic religion, that just as surely as G-d exists and created the world, history has a goal. How could anyone who believed in a personal G-d believe otherwise (unless they were "deists")?
The Marxists held that men were predatory because of fundamental economic inequalities; once industrialization occurred, the mechanism was there to redress them and, as men were entirely products of such relations, they would become new men.
But here's he rub: being atheists (and believers that the world is basically and ultimately without purpose), why make a value judgement against inequalities or predation or a goal of eradicating them? Why even hold that there are "problems" to be solved? If the universe really is the meaningless coincidence that Marxists (and all atheists) hold, then "problems" don't exist--we're lucky to be here at all! I'll never understand the atheistic mentality.
Unfortunately.
Ethics are created by human heads, just because they aren't backed up by a conception of God doesn't mean we may not place value on our emotional sentiments. Hume would say that we derive our sense of emotional education form, for example, literature, and that those sentiments are worth something an can be the basis for how we choose to order society.
So people get to impose their hang-ups on society, but G-d doesn't. Uh-huh. And aren't the "values" we place on our emotional sentiments subjective?
I've often wondered why atheists are so het up over "bettering society." Ants don't try to "better" their society. Cows don't worry about "perfecting the world." Earthworms don't fret themselves into anemia over "social justice" (or "animal rights," for that matter). Why are we any better than the other animals? Atheists would save themselves a lot of frustration if they just enjoyed life. But for some reason they never do. Gotta keep "ending injustices" and such like.
The Marxist (and Hegelian) view of history is that it is guided by the limits of human reason, by the concept of an ideal world that human reason can conceive of; the sense of "conscience" needn't be underwritten by an outside agency. To the atheist, our various conceptions of moral action involving a God are simply projections of our reason onto an fictional being; it gives our highest aspirations weight and gravity. Contrary to Dostoevsky, an atheist needn't be a nihilist;
Of course not. He always has the option of being internally inconsistent. And he always seems to take it!
an atheist gives meaning to his own world and creates values that he wishes to live by.
Then he blocks traffic at hospital emergency rooms to protest the "cultural genocide" of gender-specific pronouns or the killing of chickens by humans rather than by foxes.
I do think that Marx's dialectic has a mystical component that he and his followers tried to cover up (Edmund Wilson's "To the Finland Station" is the book to read on this), it is a sublimated spiritual impulse, in my opinion.
Not only Marxism, but "secular humanism" is pervaded with a bizarre mysticism. Why else maintain that while G-d is groundless, a planetary totalitarian society is necessary to save Holy Mother Earth ("she is not a thing!")?
The point is that while atheism can provide justification for an individual set of "hang-ups" (I won't call it a moral code), it cannot justify the imposition of these hang-ups on anyone else. But atheists seem to be just as adept at this as the Theists whose "oppression" they so decry.
I've got an essay on Theonomic Positivism at my web site. See also here.
Logically, if one rejects the concept of G-d (or of some form of inherently meaningful universe), then nothing can really be said to be "necessitated," can it?
If we can conceive of a better way to organize human effort through society, that is an expression of human reason.
Who is "we," and who decides what is "better?" And what do you do with people who disagree?
An atheist would simply say that people who believe in god are really just expressing their highest conception of what is good or ideal; that we invented god to act as an outside surrogate for the way we would like to think and behave. An atheist would argue that this transference isn't really necessary to have a just society because the concept for a just society doesn't come from god but from our own reason.
And people who realize this are the people who see the world "as it really is" and get to impose their values on everyone else, correct?
Also, there were plenty of atheistic philosophers in the ancient world;
Um . . . did I say there weren't?
Lucretius, for example whose views could hardly be dismissed as mere "hang-ups."
Why not? They were the views of Lucretius. If they are the subjectively chosen values of a single individual (or even every single individual), what more are they than "hang-ups?"
I think you are making a straw-man argument, and taking a segment of irrationalists and their inconsistencies and making their arguments that of serious non-believers. A good part of Western Philosophy is agnostic or atheistic, and the men who comprise that tradition are hardly cranks (Lucretius, Epicurus, Hume, Hobbes, Machiavelli, Shopenhauer, Nietzsche, Marx, James, Russell, Bruno, Stove, etc.).
You obviously didn't check the links in my previous post.
So why are you a conservative? To save money?
later read/pingout.
Savage says the the ACLU should be investigated under the RICO statues..........not exactly sure what that means, but it sure sounds like a good idea.
I think y'all are giving them too much credit for deep thought. It's mostly a power grab. They use the tactic that to weaken others is to thus make their own side (relatively speaking) more powerful. And a cleverly designed whisper campaign (e.g., the suppressive pervasiveness of political correctness, which even has injected itself into the judicial branch) is just the thing.
Ping
You take "western civilization," I'll take the rebuilt Jerusalem Temple.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.