Replies

Everytime I read one of your posts, I don't know where to start. OK, how about here:

"The ACLU hates Christianity"

Nonsense. And clearly a sign of your frame of reference in this argument.
Take a look. The vast majority of ACLU members are of a Christian denomination. But certain Christian movements repeatedly support efforts that force others to live according to what in your words are “America's traditions of faith” which often, at least, arguably intrudes on the civil rights of another group; and like most non-religeous civil rights cases, the ACLU is always the first to act. And that continually puts them in an adversarial position against some (and usually very vocal) Christian organization.

What you probably will never accept is that there no true “American Traditions of Faith”. We are a pluralist society. There are countless “faiths” here. Some are followed by more than others. Some have been here longer than others. But all are supposed to enjoy equal protection under the law.

There are caveats of course. And most have to do with the idea of not infringing upon the rights of others. But “infringed upon” usually does not include “being uncomfortable with” which always seems to be lurking somewhere around gay issues.

“The ACLU, founded by Communists”
I can’t believe you would resort to something as hoary as red-baiting. Founded by communists? Hell, for all I know they were (though I’m inclined to doubt your sources on the subject). God knows if anyone had civil rights issues in this country it was the communists. But that is clearly irrelevant because however they were founded, the institution fights for civil rights, not communism. And the two are hardly related.

So your “founded” claim is just silly, regardless of accuracy. I’m Presbyterian, but don’t ask me to defend the life or views of John Knox. The editors of Consumer Reports were long accused of being communists, but it is the first place I’ll look to buy a new refrigerator.

Frankly, I don’t agree with everything the ACLU has fought for, but they are more idealistic than I am. I have to admire their focus though. Everything they do involves a civil liberty issue. Communism is not part of the plan.

I’m not going to spend time taking on each of your examples of judicial tyrannies. The counter arguments to each are obvious to any objective individual. These seem more to be a listing of issues you passionately disagree with than examples of judicial overreaching.

Speaking of which, I hate to say it, but the most glaring example of judicial overreach in recent years was “Bush vs. Gore”. However one may be pleased with the outcome, their logic was completely absurd. Constitutional law experts on all sides of the political spectrum are ripping that decision to shreds.

“I and many others would be quite happy to leave homosexuals alone if they left the rest of us alone as well, not intruding nor demanding the laws conform for their convenience.”

So if one member of a long-term gay couple is in the hospital and the other doesn’t have any of the rights in dealing with their care that a spouse would, too bad, right? In fact some decades long estranged sister could march in and start calling the shots leaving the partner helpless. But they shouldn't say anything because that would be bugging the rest of us with their gayness.

So if another long term gay couple can’t be assured that their estate will go to each other in the event of one passing as could a married couple, they should just lump it, right? Because that trying to change things would be demanding that the laws treat them fairly – “for their convenience”.

If they can’t rent an apartment, get a joint-loan, be signed onto the other’s insurance plan, or just hold hands in public, that’s just tough. Because to speak up about it wouldn’t be leaving us alone, or worse, be asking for “special privileges”. Those special privileges every married couple enjoys.

WOSG, if you want them to leave you alone, give them all the rights we heterosexuals enjoy and they will never have any reason to bug you again. If you truly have no complaints with gay people, this should be no problem for you.

I’m left handed - a minority if there ever was one – and one that used to be considered a sign of the devil. But left handers haven’t been bugging you much lately have they? We haven’t been insisting on our “rights” (so to speak) have we? Because no one is infringing on our rights! We are not being treated unfairly in any meaningful way. But if we were, I assure you us “lefties” (no pun intended) would be suing up a storm and demanding our rights (there’s that word again) and I would welcome the ACLU’s legal expertise in a flash.

“Oh, but that is different!” you say. “It is ok to treat gays differently because…”

(sorry, I shouldn’t be putting words in your mouth. Go ahead and finish the sentence, but don’t use anything that references back to any particular religious doctrine because our Government isn’t supposed to either.)

And finally, I am indeed quite awake now, and fully aware that the Supreme Court has elements from different cultures religions and philosophies evident in their facility. In fact, they made a specific effort to be inclusive and to show that they hear and respect words of wisdom from a variety of sources and do not judge strictly by any one set of them. If there is one thing I think you and I will both agree upon is that wasn’t the point of Judge Roy Moore’s “display”. And if you’re not sure, just ask him.

Everytime I read one of your posts, I don't know where to start. OK, how about here: "The ACLU hates Christianity" Nonsense. And clearly a sign of your frame of reference in this argument. Take a look. The vast majority of ACLU members are of a Christian denomination. "

Boy, are you naive!! My frame of reference is to see their actions and draw obvious conclusions.The ACLU has been one of the most destructive and evil organizations in America. I can cite many cases where the ACLU has refused to assist in Christians whose rights are attacked while engaging in lawsuits that were designed to rob the religious of their rights of free expression. At the same time, the ACLU 'defends free expression' by pushing any non-Christian An example is how the ACLU sued to FORBID the saying of Christian prayers, yet sued to PERMIT the saying of Wiccan prayers in same situations - hmmm. hypocrisy? I'd like to defend our real constitution and freedoms from their depredations.

The ACLU has defended NAMBLA and child pornography. They have tried to take "In God we trust" off of coins, and "under God" out of the pledge. They have tried to eliminate Christian chaplains in the military. They have fought against tax-exempt status for churches. They have defended public sex businesses and obscene material as protected under the 1st amendment ('free expression' you know), but have sued to forbid students from voluntary free expressions of religion at graduation ceremonies and before mealtimes. The ACLU has gone the extra mile to degrade, distort and destroy the First Amendment as an open door for obscenity, while attacking real first amendment freedoms (such as attacks on political speech such as done in Campaign finance "reform" laws).

Some food for thought on the ACLU: http://www.geocities.com/graymada/aclu.html

http://www.etherzone.com/2003/lang091003.shtml

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/1777/aclu.htm http://www.prisonplanet.com/analysis_mays.html

For it’s first 60 years 80% of ACLU Board and Committee Members had Communist affiliations, and 90% of its cases were involved in defending Communists.

Btw, where is your evidence for the religious affiliation and faith of members?

But certain Christian movements repeatedly support efforts that force others to live according to what in your words are “America's traditions of faith” which often, at least, arguably intrudes on the civil rights of another group; In absoluately NONE of the cases I cited has anyone been forced to believe in anything. As for being 'forced to live' ... egads, I have to live according to moral dictates of the puritans who smother us with sex harrassment laws and political correctness, I am forced to live with seatbelt laws and drug laws and laws require, I cant cut my trees down without permission from the city. I am forced at gunpoint to pay for the killing of unborn humans in my town. I find it bizarre in the extreme that civil rights to do as I please in my bedroom are violated by a host of laws that says I cant choose to freely associate when I rent out my bedroom; the power of govt to condemn property, take it to protect an endangered bird or build a stadium. Not to mention govt regulations of parents. and against this, all of which could be considered a 'civil right' as much or more so than acts of sodomy, you claim the religious will take away someone's "civil rights"?!? Isnt that more than a tad selective?

and like most non-religeous civil rights cases, the ACLU is always the first to act. And that continually puts them in an adversarial position against some (and usually very vocal) Christian organization. Again you show your naivety about this organization ...

What you probably will never accept is that there no true “American Traditions of Faith”. We are a pluralist society. There are countless “faiths” here. This is very poor logic and history. The faiths are certainly countable, and that there are many faiths doesnt take away from the realiy that the majority of our founding fathers were Protestant anglo-saxon Christians. They derived their faith and culture from the mother ship England.

Even as a Catholic, I can recognize the protestant element in this heritage of our country. Likewise, any non-Christian must see that our faith tradition has been largely Christian. It's all I was trying to say.

Some are followed by more than others. Some have been here longer than others. But all are supposed to enjoy equal protection under the law. I never suggested otherwise; on the other hand, you have - by denying Christians equal access to the political sphere (you dont see it that way, but it's true if you think through it logically). I never supposed that some belief systems have preferred access to the public sphere. But you are the one who wants to put the Christian faith in an inferior position to the Communist belief system, simply because you falsely think faith cannot inform our moral judgements about public policies. this is an incorrect reading of church and state separation.

It's easily explained by considering an analogy: A religious group that says "thou shalt not bear false witness" tries to make sure we enforce perjury laws. To turn that around and say "No, we are not ALLOWED to have that law, because to allow it would enforce a religious view". That of course is ABSURD, as the Christian religion has a pure expression of good morality and so ANY DECENT LEGAL SYSTEM WILL APPROXIMATE CHRISTIAN MORES. Even the legal system in Israel or India. (In fact, they do. And note: Neither have gay marriages. hmmmm, are we enforcing Hindu morality by opposing gay marriages? )

I dont think Communist (im)moral belief systems should have such a preference.

There are caveats of course. And most have to do with the idea of not infringing upon the rights of others. But “infringed upon” usually does not include “being uncomfortable with” which always seems to be lurking somewhere around gay issues.

You seem to be the one with comfort issues - you are uncomfortable letting the PEOPLE decide this rather than having it decided by Judicial tyrants egged on by extremist special interests. I am more comfortable letting the people decide.

“The ACLU, founded by Communists” I can’t believe you would resort to something as hoary as red-baiting. Founded by communists? Hell, for all I know they were (though I’m inclined to doubt your sources on the subject). You didnt know this basic historical fact?!? I cant believ e you stooped to the hoary old claim of "red-baiter" when faced with historical evidence. "Anarchist Roger Baldwin founded the ACLU in 1919, after his release from prison where he served a sentence for draft evasion, at a party attended by Socialist Party notable Norman Thomas, future Communist Party chairman Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, and Soviet agent Agnes Smedley." Source: Chuck Morse, lots more. This is well-known.

God knows if anyone had civil rights issues in this country it was the communists. But that is clearly irrelevant because however they were founded, the institution fights for civil rights, not communism. You are Wrong. They were founded as a front group to assist the Communist party advance its interests and the interests of fellow-travelling socialist radicals.

And the two are hardly related. Wrong again. The ACLU was a cover organization designed to assist and product the Communist party without being tied to closely with it since they wanted other allies. Their main goal was to promote "civil rights" as a way to enable Communists and Communist ideals to more easily insinuate itself into institutions of American life.

http://www.chuckmorse.com/communistbackground_aclu.html

Frankly, I don’t agree with everything the ACLU has fought for, but they are more idealistic than I am. It is not "idealistic" to harm the education system by insisting that wew cant have educational choice but we must all submit to a monopoly secularist education system. Yet that is what the ACLU sued for.

I have to admire their focus though. Everything they do involves a civil liberty issue. Communism is not part of the plan. All this tells us is that you bought their cover story hook, line, sinker. Birds of a feather still flock together, though, and CPUSA is happy to link to the ACLU from their homepage. "For it’s first 60 years 80% of ACLU Board and Committee Members had Communist affiliations, and 90% of its cases were involved in defending Communists."

http://www.prisonplanet.com/analysis_mays.html

(sorry, I shouldn’t be putting words in your mouth. Go ahead and finish the sentence, but don’t use anything that references back to any particular religious doctrine because our Government isn’t supposed to either.) You still havent explained or justified this particular belief that discriminates against the religious. Why are only irreligious belief systems valid reasons for laws? Why this DOUBLE-STANDARD?

here's an example where the ACLU went out of its way to oppose religious expression and support:

In 1999, Joshua Davey, a student at Northwest College in Kirkland, Washington was awarded a $1,125 Promise Scholarship. The Promise Scholarship provides financial assistance to students primarily from low income families who exhibited high academic credentials and are enrolled in an accredited public or private post-secondary school within the state of Washington.

Davey first received a letter from the Governor stating that he had been granted the scholarship. But when Davey declared his majors (Pastoral Ministries and Business Management), the state withdrew the scholarship, citing a policy that said: "students who are pursuing a degree in theology are not eligible to receive any state-funded financial aid, including the new Washington Promise Scholarship."

A federal district court ruled against Davey in October 2000. The ACLJ appealed to the Ninth Circuit and won. Now the Supreme Court has taken up the case

More results of the ACLU hatred of Christianity and religion:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35420

LEST WE FORGET ... The ACLU thought the most important thing to do after 9/11 was tear down "God Bless America" banners ... "Separation of church and state" was used by the ACLU to demand that a banner proclaiming "God bless America," erected outside a school shortly after Sept. 11, 2001, to honor the 3,000 murdered Americans, must be taken down."

from the article:

"In Texas, a U.S. District judge decreed that any student uttering the word "Jesus" at his school's graduation would be arrested and locked up. "And make no mistake," announced Judge Samuel B. Kent, "the court is going to have a United States marshal in attendance at the graduation. If any student offends this court, that student will be summarily arrested and will face up to six months incarceration in the Galveston County Jail for contempt of court." "

Nobody was being coerced by the voluntary public expressions of student at THEIR Graduation ceremony.
It is a travesty to call this an 'establishment' of religion.

The intolerant bigots are the ones who want to stop these kinds of non-coercive public expressions of faith. If an insulting radical speaker got up and demeaned America
the same leftist crowd would demand his "right" to speak and be heard by the very
crowd he insults. Only offensive, irreligious expressions are to be considered
worthy of 1st amendment protection.

They spit on the First Amendment when they trash the rights of schools and students this way.
We are building a 'high wall' of separation between ourselves and real FREEDOM,
which includes the freedom to let ALL KINDS OF BELIEF in the public square.