At Ask Me Help Desk you can ask questions in any topic and have them
answered for free by our experts. To ask questions or participate in
answering them you must register for a free account. By registering you
will be able to:
Get free answers from experts in any of our 300+
topics.
I was wondering what peoploe think about organizations like the ACLU trying to get christian icons removed from public schools. They go as far as saying that even the colors red and green count as icons for christmas and should not be used. It seems to me they are a bunch of people who fight for freedom of expression and religion as long as your not a christian. In case anyone doesn't believe they (ACLU) aren't radicals, Hellen Keller was extremely radical (on the socialist side, which is understanable from her past of overcoming disabilities) and helped in the establishment of the ACLU. Any ideas? Further, are there any christians out there who are offended when corporations prohibit employees from wishing you a merry christmas?
So to with the doing away with religion in schools, court houses and public display, they are reaching into individual teachings of some of the founding fathers, the influence of laws of varoius other nations as an outline to determine what they want the words of the constitution to say.
And we used to have slavery but we have evolved. Same story here.
We keep people on food stamps ( cards now)
State provided health care under medicade programs for the poor
For others we keep them in low paying jobs where one person can not earn enough to live on thier own at any decent level.
In general we now merley have a paid form of slavery. If you have a family you can not really just quit a job, you have to stay since you can not afford to leave.
If you want to move, can't, no money to pay movers, pay first and last months.
We have inslaved an entire new level of people, only they beleive they are entitled now.
One only has to drive a street of any inner city to see the new slave quarters of America, they are either slaves to the welfare system or slaves to the drug culture ( perhaps to both)
If we "let them free" like we did the slaves, give them pay for a certain amount of time only and pay for certain housing, and said, you are free, you are free, go live. I doubt it would be considered a good thing today.
Society have not evolved into anything really good, only change thier gods and thier masters of slaverly.
Slavery of any man is never a good thing but we have done a fairly bad job worring more lately of individual rights over group rights and the betterment of a culture. The idea of our nation being a Republic is competely forgotten most young people don't even know it, they beleive we are a democracy.
Up untill you got to the point of seperation of Church and State you were basicly right, it is often sad to see educated people having been taught this falsehood. Indeed they wanted the church to be protected from the state, but there is no, and never was historicly a seperation of Church and State. Indeed, cities were designed with the church as the main part of the city. All of the education system of the early nation was all religious.
And the major universities were all relgious based.
I sit here shaking my head at how you twist a few facts to get to a conclusion that is so against historical fact.
The First Amendment states; "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." . James Madison, one of the more influential framers of the Constitution stated: "We maintain therefore that in matters of Religion, no man's right is abridged by the institution of Civil Society and that Religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance." If that doesn't confirm that the intention was to keep separate the church and state, I don't know what does!
City planning is a more modern idea. In point of fact, most urban areas grew from trading posts or military forts that were established by rivers or crossroads. Most people didn't live in cities, but in farms lying around them. Churches grew when enough people populated an area to decide to build one.
Yes, the early education system was religion based. That's because it was mostly the clergy that was literate. So education was traditionally a function of the church. It was the US that pioneered education as a matter of a public service and under civil not religious authority. Again reflecting the doctrine of separation of church and state.
I just read your response to Need and the mind boggles at how far off you are.
We "keep" people on food stamps? Welfare reform has greatly advanced in the last couple of decades. The welfare rolls have been significantly reduced by education and work programs. No one is "kept" on food stamps. That's an individual's choice.
Public health care programs are a socialistic function not keeping people in slavery. To say otherwise is ridiculous. There are many stories of people rising above poor beginnings to become successful. To attribute a conscious act of keeping people down as a form of economic slavery is hate mongering in my opinion.
When the constitution refers to seperation of church and state it relates to that organization that would suggest a specific religion. . .A school should not enforce prayer, a business should not mandate religious meetings, you should not be discriminated against for your religion. . .It does not say that anyone person should not pray in a school during school hours or that an employee can not make or attend a chrismas dinner or that you have to be of a certian religion to get hired some where. It says what it says to protect the right of an individuals FREEDOM to CHOOSE. . .if a school leads prayer you can say that the one not wanting to pray doesn't have the freedom not to. . .if a company mandates employee participation to some Christmas dinner, you could say that the person not wanting to does not have the freedom not to. . .In American you can practice religon ANYWHERE. . .but as a country based of "freedom of choice" you can not orchestrate any religion in a place where another person may not have the right not to participate or feel obligated or pressured to engage in the activities that encompass that practice. I find it ironic that all kinds of things are being banned because of the "christian" reference, but I have yet to hear of anyone complain about slogan on U.S. currency IN GOD WE TRUST.
Hi, Wilkinslaedi,
You make a very, very good point with the currency of America.
I am sure that will be, sooner or later, pounded on by the ACLU and other minority organizations, with court cases before judges of their choice, who make rulings against God, American values and morals, and religions.
The use of In God We Trust on currency has been around for a long time. If the ACLU or anyone wanted to protest this, I suspect they would have done so by now.
I do agree that it may be offensive to atheists, but since it doesn't specify which god we are supposed to trust in, it is sufficiently non sectarian.
I notice, however, that Fred ignores all the other EXCELLENT points that wilkinslaedi makes. He has put in a nutshell what I have been trying to get across. He explains simply enough, so everyone should be able to understand it, what separation of church and state means and why it is unconstitutional to allow civil authority to promote any specific religion.
The Planet Is Our Home, Countries Just Different Rooms....
IN RESPONSE TO FR_CHUCK I thought the initial post was about Christmas colors in public schools, and the ACLU... but this has gotten to be a debate further into the deep frustrations of people today. There are so many 'organizations' (most of them are really crutches of a sort) that have cropped up due to these fears and frustrations; i.e. KKK, ACLU, Women's Movements, Masons, religions, sects, terrorist groups, and more.. SOME GOOD AND SOME BAD, SOME HALF AND HALF...
This planet is our home, and we seem to be a very unhappy family on it, and those weak ones who don't join or start a new group, turn to drugs, alcohol, psychosis, just as a means of escape - so something is wrong with the 'reality' they are forced to comply with. What's wrong? Has anyone really cared, or just used all of these situations to get on soapboxes and put themselves above others just to feel better. Too bad this family of siblings just can't yell at each other, get the problem over with and join together at a table as any normal family. There is also micromanaging, corporate competition, industrial spying, and even mobbing at the workplace among other things. Why??
As in every family, some rules have to be followed and we look upon the 'parents' to set these rules. But the 'parents of this world' are too busy to take care of the basic needs of the family. They are responsible for the financial security - therefore jobs, to pay taxes, and feed the personal, physical and emotional needs of this big family. The 'world parents' don't think about equall allowance for all because some of the 'children' do less 'chores' and therefore get less allowance. Some 'children' are just plain lazy but still want what everyone else gets, and sometimes more - if they don't get it, they throw tantrums. Does this sound familiar??? Now the circle continues, as those 'children' who work for this allowance honestly, see the lazy ones get the same benefits, and start thinking why should they work for something and let the other get it for free... Does this ring a bell???? And yes, as in every family, there are sometimes Abusive Parents....
I don't think it's 'slavery' to ask a family member to do his/her fair share within this family, but since the kids are so many, and not enough money to spread around, food is better than starving. If these hungry kids don't get taught values and have kids of their own and expect them to be fed and get their toys for free too. I don't think a small allowance is bad for doing nothing to contibute.
Those that like doing their chores and enjoy the rewards see this and think about putting their hard earned allowance in a safe stash and not share it and turn thrifty. Why?? - because when they did share it, it was wasted on unnecessary materialistic products, and then were asked for more because food was then needed. Boy, what a terrrible viscious circle..
Now if those lazy kids get hurt, and there is no more money for doctors, a bandaid is better than nothing, so why complain?? If you didn't need that expensive stereo, rings, etc, you'd have money for the doctor..so if you don't learn how to bake, you can't expect to have your cake and eat it too. Get the meaning????
If kids want to 'run' away from home, do they know where they want to go, what they want to learn, and did they save a little in preparation for this trip?? Do they think that if they take the TV with them, they can just plug it in anywhere and continue without doing chores elsewhere? We are talking about values here...
If a farmer does not prepare his crops in time, he will starve in the winter. Should he expect his neighboring farmer to feed him? Come on.. you don't deserve what you don't work for.
Work is needed to keep things going and pay taxes for the future nourishment, but if every kid is lazy or sneaky, and does not pay their fair share, then that tax bin is empty - don't blame it on others.
Once you've been around and see what other 'parents of this world' are doing with the funds available, and see how many mouth's they have to feed and how they are coping with the kids that never 'contribute' and those that work hard, without going crazy, then you can make judgements. Take each country and look what their 'dad' is doing, and what some of the 'older kids' in the family have done, good or bad. Look at the rationality of it all - and then complain about Christmas lights and colors.... I think 'perspective' has been lost here somewhere. This is only my opinion and I could be wrong, but so is a lot of stuff with this world.. and I think that this is how I would explain the situation to a 'grandchild' at this point to make some sense of the mess. I still don't know how to explain the solution though, do you??? I do feel however, that it's time to stop arguing for a while....
I debated with myself about responding to the quote below. I agree with much of what you have said, so I initially decided to pass on this comment. But it kinda gnawed at me and I felt the need to say something.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cralmic
I am raising my children to believe in god, fear the crap out of him... but from a respect point of view.
This is one of the reasons I do not believe in organized religion. So many sects, especially christian sects, are based on the hell and damnation theory of religion. They teach fear of god as a basic principle. To me that's just plain wrong. If there is a god watching us, listening to our prayers, etc then that god would be a benevolent being. Religion should be teaching love, respect, brotherhood, tolerance, not fear. The saying goes you get more results with a carrot than a stick.
I debated with myself about responding to the quote below. I agree with much of what you have said, so I initially decided to pass on this comment. But it kinda gnawed at me and I felt the need to say something.
This is one of the reasons I do no believe in organized religion. So many sects, especially christian sects, are based on the hell and damnation theory of religion. They teach fear of god as a basic principle. To me that's just plain wrong. If there is a god watching us, listening to our prayers, etc then that god would be a benevolent being. Religion should be teaching love, respect, brotherhood, tolerance, not fear. The saying goes you get more results with a carrot than a stick.
Scott<>
Absolutely agree. Fear never 'begets' respect, believe me.
It's love, truth, encouragement, and nourishment, guidance, but never fear. You might think it's respect, but winds up as hatred that will be vented sooner or later.
I was wondering what peoploe think about organizations like the ACLU trying to get christian icons removed from public schools. They go as far as saying that even the colors red and green count as icons for christmas and should not be used. It seems to me they are a bunch of people who fight for freedom of expression and religion as long as your not a christian. In case anyone doesn't believe they (ACLU) aren't radicals, Hellen Keller was extremely radical (on the socialist side, which is understanable from her past of overcoming disabilities) and helped in the establishment of the ACLU. Any ideas? Further, are there any christians out there who are offended when corporations prohibit employees from wishing you a merry christmas?
My friend, any American anywhere, anytime has the right to say "Merry Christmas" , "Happy Hannukah" , "Happy Kwanzza" , "Merry X-mas" , "Season's Greetings", display red and geen, purple and orange, black and white, display a Nativty scene, a star of David, a menorah , Santa Claus or any other symbol, icon or greeting (s)he wishes. Just read the 1st amendment to the US Constitution. Any agency or judge that tries to stop this is breaking the law. And yes, it offends me, as does any blantant disregard for the laws of our land. Now, for some reason, the ACLU and the courts seem to attack only those expressions that appear to be rooted in Christianity. I don't know why this is, but regardless they do not have the legal right to attack any form of expression as long as it is peaceful and not inherently disparaging to any legitimate humanitarian interests. That said, the judicial branch of our government should not even entertain any lawsuits that are aimed at quelling any form of expression or aimed at destroying or modifying the agenda of any legitimate organization that isn't breaking the law.
Linear Mode
