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?

I'm not from USA and am not familiar with ACLU, but the whole "ban the red and green color" seems like a mix of redicilous and stupid thing to fight for. I know I would be annoyed if they tried convincing (or even talking to) me not to use such colors because whatever reasons they might give me. I'm cool with them fighting for their own right, and they can choose not to use red and green color (I know it's just an example, but I have nothing else to say instead of that example), but if they annoy me with it - I won't like it. Same with homosexuals/vegetarians/people-who-decide-not-to-drive-a-car... fine, be what you want, do what you want, but don't force me to do the same thing you're doing.

About the corporations thing... I'm a christian, but I wouldn't wish a merry christmas to anyone I'm not sure would enjoy me wishing him/her a merry christmas. But I have friends for who I'm sure they celebrate christmas, so I do wish them a merry christmas when it's appropriate. I sure do not mind other people not wishing me a merry christmas.

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?

Clearly you are anti-liberal. So anything you post has to be viewed in that light.

I consider myself a liberal. But I also pride myself on keeping an open mind about things. Somethng I haven't noticed in the few of your posts that I've read.

The ACLU considers themselves the watchdog of american liberties. They zealously guard those liberties whenever and wherever they feel they are being weakened. Do they go too far at times? I think so. But I would much rather have them err on the side of preserving liberties then allowing them to be weakened.

Your characterization of them being anti-christian is typical conservative blowing smoke. When the ACLU fights against religious icons in schools they do so because of the constitutional mandate of the separation of church and state. NOT because of any anti-christian attitude. I've seen cases where menorahs on public grounds were also fought against. On the other hand, I've never heard of the ACLU protesting the Rockefeller Center Christmas Tree or shopping malls having Santa Clauses or other religious decorations. That's because such places are PRIVATE property so no constitutional violation exists.

My personal philosophy is that anyone should be able to do anything they want up to but NOT including interfering with the right of someone else to do what they want.

Scott<>

Hi,
I agree completely with your post and comments.
I am a Christian.
The original Mayflower Pact contains the words "God" (not Gods), and says the reason for establishing a new world is for getting away from "religious persecution", to establish a place with "religious freedom under God".
The Pledge of Allegiance states "under God", again not Gods, meaning only one.
The Supreme Court building, highest court in the land, has the 10 Commandments.
Over 2000 yrs ago, Jesus was persecuted, and died for it.
Over the past 30 years, or even more, the ACLU, and some other minorities, have fought to stop all religious activities of Christians; and to change the basic purpose of why America was originally founded. Any changes as to why this country was founded, will not stand.
The words "liberal", "left", and "right" have become highly overused by the Media, and others, such as one answer here, to the point that Christian morals and values are on trial again, as they were over 2000 yrs ago.
According to National Polls, the majority of Americans say they are Christians; but the ACLU and others have gained so much, that they now speak out against the majority. They have gained through the courts, making laws against Christians, to pray anywhere they choose, or to worship God anywhere they choose. It will change.
Prayers taken away from the public schools, and the Pledge of Allegiance taken away using the words "under God" are the latest examples of the ACLU and others, trying to destroy Christianity. The next step will try to completely do away with the Pledge of Allegiance.
In some time to come, Christians will begin voting in hugh numbers, changing laws, changing Senators and Representatives, who vote against them. The time is coming that the "laws", imposed by a minority of non-christians, will be changed.
Parents, family members, others, who greatly oppose doing away with prayer anywhere, will be heard. It has already started.
It's a sad day when companies say "don't say Merry Christmas" at work, say "Happy Holidays"... you might offend someone.
There is a great problem when you continue to offend the majority, in the name of "law", by the ACLU and others. Laws will be changed in some time to come, to reflect the majority of Americans' beliefs in Christianity.
In the meantime, don't let up, don't "give in" to those who try telling you that
"you can't do this anymore". Their time will come.
History is a study of "cycles"; with changes made when the majority of Americans have finally had enough.

Hi, SSchultz,
I tried rating your post, as a great post, with great comments. However, I got the "you must wait before spreading around more ratings" popup.
I will try again later.

Hi,

Prayers taken away from the public schools, and the Pledge of Allegiance taken away using the words "under God" are the latest examples of the ACLU and others, trying to destroy Christianity. The next step will try to completely do away with the Pledge of Allegiance.
What about those kids who attend public school and who are not christians?

Hi,
I agree completely with your post and comments.
I am a Christian.
The original Mayflower Pact contains the words "God" (not Gods), and says the reason for establishing a new world is for getting away from "religious persecution", to establish a place with "religious freedom under God".
The Pledge of Allegiance states "under God", again not Gods, meaning only one.
The Supreme Court building, highest court in the land, has the 10 Commandments.
Over 2000 yrs ago, Jesus was persecuted, and died for it.
Over the past 30 years, or even more, the ACLU, and some other minorities, have fought to stop all religious activities of Christians; and to change the basic purpose of why America was originally founded. Any changes as to why this country was founded, will not stand.
The words "liberal", "left", and "right" have become highly overused by the Media, and others, such as one answer here, to the point that Christian morals and values are on trial again, as they were over 2000 yrs ago.
According to National Polls, the majority of Americans say they are Christians; but the ACLU and others have gained so much, that they now speak out against the majority. They have gained through the courts, making laws against Christians, to pray anywhere they choose, or to worship God anywhere they choose. It will change.
Prayers taken away from the public schools, and the Pledge of Allegiance taken away using the words "under God" are the latest examples of the ACLU and others, trying to destroy Christianity. The next step will try to completely do away with the Pledge of Allegiance.
In some time to come, Christians will begin voting in hugh numbers, changing laws, changing Senators and Representatives, who vote against them. The time is coming that the "laws", imposed by a minority of non-christians, will be changed.
Parents, family members, others, who greatly oppose doing away with prayer anywhere, will be heard. It has already started.
It's a sad day when companies say "don't say Merry Christmas" at work, say "Happy Holidays".....you might offend someone.
There is a great problem when you continue to offend the majority, in the name of "law", by the ACLU and others. Laws will be changed in some time to come, to reflect the majority of Americans' beliefs in Christianity.
In the meantime, don't let up, don't "give in" to those who try telling you that
"you can't do this anymore". Their time will come.
History is a study of "cycles"; with changes made when the majority of Americans have finally had enough.

I wonder if you realize how contradictory and hypocritical this diatribe is? You start with talking about how the Pilgrims sought religious freedom. From there you go on to imply religious freedon is OK as long as you're a christian.

the ACLU is about upholding the Constitution NOT about presecuting religion. They are against the use of publicly owned facilities used to promote a SPECIFIC religion. Thjis is because of the separation of church and state mandated by the Constitution.

This display of religious bigotry is VERY offensive. You talk about "offending the majority", but you care nothing about offending the minority. That is bigotry!

You talk about "Christian morals and values are on trial". But where did those morals and values come from? They come from the Old Testament, the Ten Commandments. Why do you think its called the Judeo-Christian ethic? But you leave that part out. More bigotry!

If we have religious freedom (and we do) that means EVERYONE should have the right to worship they way they want. Jews, Moslems, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Druids, Wiccans etc. You cannot have religious freedom if you suppress ANY religion. By allowing a public entity, like a school or government building, to promote one religion over another is an affront to religious freedom and should be fought. Either EVERY religion needs to be represented or none. That is the stance of the ACLU and should be the stance of EVERY American who believes (as I do) in the principles this country was founded on!

Scott<>

I can't believe that I just read your bigoted myopic tirade.

Do you see everything in such black and white terms??

As Scott rightly said this is all down to your constitution separating church from state, get used to it. This kind of thing has been happening in the UK for years, but nobody pays it much attention any more.

I will not dissaprove of anyone's opinion here, as we all have a right to think of this subject as we wish and to save my sanity I intend to stay neutral, but have a few ideas (mine only).
Don't intend to be wishy-washy on this thread, but religious debates boggle me.

I believe each of us has a right to celebrate a religion if needed, and that religion and politics should not dictate what one does at home or at the workplace. In schools there should be a choice as the students are our future decision makers and need the experience of all thoughts and religious ideas to grow and find a way to get along, so why not give them the choice, instead of parents forcing their ideals down their throats. This planet is everyone's home. Now, should colors, books about christmas, and christmas decorations be banned everywhere?? "the season to be jolly" has been so commercialized that I don't even enjoy it anymore - that's my choice, but I don't mind others around me enjoying it. This has been a controversial issue for centuries, but - Gosh, lets grow up.

http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_11_1.gif (http://www.smileycentral.com/?partner=ZSzeb001_ZN)

Your answer made me look at your location. Part of this has to do with American values that you may not fully understand.

I'm sorry Chery, but I have to disagree with some of your points, though I agree with others.

The key disagreement centers around bigotry. My Dictionary defines bigot as "a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices". Bigotry leads to hatred. I have no problem in anyone following the Christian religion (or Moslem, Hindu or whatever). It is when someone tries to tell me that my following a different religion is wrong that I balk. And that's what Fred has done here. I have long supported the fact that people are entitled to their opinions, but I draw the line on opinions that have no basis in fact and that promote intolerance and/or hatred against others.

Like you, I generally shy away from religious debates because they tend to be a no win situation. But when someone is as bigoted and hypocritical as has been displayed here I feel compelled to comment.

As for school children being given a choice, I agree with the American Founding Fathers about keeping church and state separate. Having a state religion or having government promote a certain religion leads to persecution. On the other hand, I believe in the power and pursuit of knowledge. I am not averse to the teaching of ALL religions as long as they all are represented. And that is the problem because it would be almost impossible for schools to cover them all. So it would be better for that to be handled in the home.

And that is the other point that people from outside of America (and many Americans) seem to miss. The problem is not the display of religious icons or other trapings of religion. The problem is WHERE its displayed. As I said, there is no problem with having Santa Claus in malls, putting up Xmas trees and other holiday decorations as long as they are on PRIVATELY owned properties. The objection is SOLELY to the use of public/government facilities for these displays and the objection is SOLELY related to the mandates of the US Constitution not to any prejudice for or against a particular religion.

Scott<>

Dear Scott, thanks for coming to my defense, but my dad was a soldier in the US Army, my stepdad also, and my ex-husband. As a child, going to Department of Defense schools, I prayed and pledged allegiance just like all other fellow students - it never bothered us, it bothered our parents which we did not understand then, but do now and it would have been better for parents to let us make up our own minds. I had a german mother, and that's why I stayed here to take care of her while she was sick. Now I'm stuck (cancer and other illnesses) in a country that has schools run by nuns and have a political faction called CDU (Christian Democratic Union):eek: , - I still feel that Religion and Politics have no right to combine and dictate to people on what to believe or what is politcally correct. The reason I stay (for the most part) out of religious debates is that I was raped by a priest, and the media is full of priests doing things to young boys that is irreparable psychologically, and don't believe any human who sins has the right to tell me what the scriptures of any religion state and is 'false' christianity to me. I'm a big girl and can make up my own mind as to what to believe - and I believe in human values and the ability to interpret the will of religions teaching goodness and love towards one another. I was babtised a Lutheran which teaches subversion of women, so I stepped out of the church and don't pay church taxes which exist here. This is also why I did not have my child babtised and gave her the option to choose the religion (if any) to believe and follow. She had to go to a german school for a few years, and they actually graded you on your 'religion class' on the report cards - which I thought was wrong and took her out and put her into an 'ethics' class, because here you had three choices, catholic, protestant, and ethics. I had a 'wild hair' one day and told them that I'd prefer a Jewish class - you should have seen the reaction. She is still an agnostic and doing quite well in her life without being told by a human what 'God' wants her do do. We believe in being good a kind to people of all denominations unless they give us reason not to be. I am just as afraid of terrorists and fanatics as the next person, but don't put all in one barrell. The history of religious wars and Spanish Inquisition in the past, and the on-going religious wars today are enough to make me really sick of it all. I also lived in the south, my daughter was born in Georgia, and experienced all the fire and brimstone teachings; have had Jahova Witness friends; Mormon and Jewish friends; and religion was one thing we discussed out of couriosity, but not argued about. People immigrated to the US to escape persecution of their convictions and not have other's values forced down their throats and wanted freedom of religion and speech, etc, but look where it's going? There are may groups and organizations who's main function is to help others but also teach morals and religion which is just fine, as long as they don't push it too far to those who don't want anything to do with it. Isn't that the basic freedom initially escaped to? - and now, just because it's not agreed to by some who are powerful enough to make changes, the same thing that was run from is beginning to grow and fester all over again. That's why I said what I said about 'growing up' in my last post. So, again, if people need a religion as something to use as a crutch, that's fine, just don't force others to follow if they don't want to, and stop killing people over it! Because if there is a God, I'm sure that's not what 'he' wanted humankind to to. Another reason to 'grow up' after the novelty of the pretty lights (in any religion) get old, you realize most of it is commercialism anyway, and this is something we can give our kids credit to learn to realize themselves without the church or politicians getting involved. Ok, getting off my soapbox now, hope I did not offend anyone as it's not my intention, just my opinion. Peace! - too bad my smiley did not work here.. :D http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/11/11_12_4.gif (http://www.smileycentral.com/?partner=ZSzeb001_ZN)

Hi Chery,
First, let me applaud you for your bravery in talking about some of the trials you have experienced. Second, let me applaud you for what you have said here. I couldn't agree more with it.

I am jewish, but not a practicing one. I don't really believe in organized religion. In my opinion religion is a construction of mankind to explain certain mysteries. Its also a crutch mankind developed to allow it to deal with things like death, disasters, and other evils.

What I believe in is ethics. I believe in the Judeo-Christian ethic. I believe in the golden rule and I believe that everyone has the right to do what they want up to, but not including interfering with someone else's right to do the same.

My daughter is currently "trying to find herself". She is going to temple and to a church. I have supported her in this because she has the right to make her own decisions.

Scott<>

Agree with your values.

I tried to rate, but got the 'spread it' message again.
I'm sure we are not the only ones who feel this way, but it's a shame that they cannot for some reason express their views. This is a very sensitive subject, but we should all be free to express our feelings, as long as we don't harm anyone else in doing so - Also right about the 'crutch' - and some are better than drugs and alcohol and crime. I do respect the need for emotional stability for everyone and can relate with their choices, to me Ethics come first.

http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/15/15_3_35.gif (http://www.smileycentral.com/?partner=ZSzeb001_ZN)Found a new one, he's cute!

With all of the X-Mas debates and being afraid to "step on anyone else's toes"... Why is it OK to ban speaking about god and X-mas in schools and telling our kids not to use red/green colors. But... it is totally acceptable to have pictures of witches etc and black/orange colors used in schools? What morals are we teaching our kids? People tend to go along with the halloween thing because it's fun and candy is involved. Look at the true meanings.

I love this country and hope (not certain it will) stay the same. Am I conservative... yes, but I love what our country was founded on. Does this mean we cannot change and adopt new ideas or ways of life. No! What it does mean is this country was founded with certain beliefs. Beliefs that were so strong that we made a constitution, which includes being fair to all people, but not to the point where we destroy our beautiful country because we don't want ot piss off anyone. If we continue on our current path, what will the US look like in 10-20 years? I hope being PC does not destroy our country. I hope my children and their children will be able to have the same beliefs as our fore-fathers.

To those coming to the US: Don't like it here or feel offended. You think that coming to the US means you have the same rights as all americans. Yes, you do. BUT I don't think it should be to the degree that you change our country... send me your phone number... I'll meet you and help you get on the nearest plane to another country (I'll even pay for the flight) Shoot, maybe can start a campaign, everyone loves to protest. Let's start a "go back to wherever you came from movement" Let's think about this for a second... If it was so great where you came from... why did you leave? Where in the world can you go where you have the freedom's and liberty's available to you in the states? (also the ability to slam our government and any group because we get a bug up our butt. Just be careful where you pick as they tend to kill extremests!

but we should all be free to express our feelings, as long as we don't harm anyone else in doing so

Chery,
Exactly! But opinions that are bigoted or intolerant DO harm people. They promote hatred and interfere with people's freedoms.

Scott<>

Some good points Cralmic. It does seem hypocritical to allow Halloween celebrations and not Xmas. However, even though Halloween does have it origins in religion, it has moved far away from them and has become very much a secular and fun celebration. Christmas, however commercialized and secular it gets still can't get far enough away from what it is, a celebration of the birth of Christ. So while I see your point, I also see enough of a difference to not make a big deal out of it.

One of the greatest strengths of this country is our freedoms. Its also one of our greatest weaknesses as well. Our enemies have often used our freedoms against us. But is the answer limiting those freedoms? For the most part I have to say no.

Scott<>

Hi,
In reply to the "nobody pays much attention to it anymore" by Curlyben, is just the type of thing that is happening to America. If left alone, changes eventually come to be accepted, unnoticed, until someone finally realizes that all changes are not good.
Removing the Ten Commandments stones, plaques, and statues from Court House lawn in many states, particularly in TN, has caused quite an uproar from the majority living in that area.
The main points here about the ACLU is that freedom of Worship is being taken away from the majority, in favor of the minority.
ScottGem's comments are normal, and he makes some good points, but still, the problem for the Majority still exists.
The Basic Fundament Right of Christians, guaranteed by our fore-fathers, is being taken away by the ACLU and other minority organizations. This is a fact!
And, it's what this debate is.

Fortunately, Tyson Food Company, largest meat producer in the world, has developed a system of Chaplains, Ministers, etc, for talking with employees, helping with employee personal problems, etc. Prayer is allowed inside this company, at certain times, certain gathering places. Their productivity has increased, and their profits are increasing, due to happier employees.

This great company's ideas are beginning to spread to other companies and corporations. Other corporations are now looking at their own policies and changes are beginning. They realize the importance of prayer, talking with ministers, and leads to their bottom line, more profit.
Everyone will begin to see some changes made in laws, upholding Christians' rights, because it's already started.

What I meant by "nobody pays attention" is that the government may come out with all these hair brained ideas which are then ignored by the general population.

The best one at the moment is the ban on smoking in pubs and fox hunting.
The policy has been so badly thought that there are MASSIVE loop holes which are being used to keep the status quo as it was.

ScottGem's comments are normal, and he makes some good points, but still, the problem for the Majority still exists.
The Basic Fundament Right of Christians, guaranteed by our fore-fathers, is being taken away by the ACLU and other minority organizations. This is a fact!
And, it's what this debate is.


First, please define what you mean by my comments being "normal".

Second, There is no such thing as a "basic right of Christians" guaranteed by our forefathers or anyone else. Please provide some proof of that or retract it. What there is is a basic right of all americans to worship as they please. That's what religious freedom means. To say any one group has these rights is bigoted, intolerant and insensitive.

As for the ACLU or anyone taking away these rights, I again ask you to prove it. In my experience the ACLU is not trying to take anyone rights away, they are all about preserving the rights guaranteed by our constitution. Please don't state something as fact unless you can provide proof of the facts.

Scott<>

Hi,
I am so sorry to read about your dis-belief, and non-practice of religion, ScottGem. You have some very good qualities you allude to, for which really make you stand out as a caring person for your daughter.
Peace of mind, good feelings about yourself and others, come from believing in God. Some, like you, find these same feelings about themselves from other sources or ideas.
Debate is endless over Religion and Politics, and many things come out in them.
I truly hope you find faith eventually, in some form or other.

Hi,
I am so sorry to read about your dis-belief, and non-practice of religion, ScottGem. You have some very good qualities you allude to, for which really make you stand out as a caring person for your daughter.
Peace of mind, good feelings about yourself and others, come from believing in God. Some, like you, find these same feelings about themselves from other sources or ideas.
Debate is endless over Religion and Politics, and many things come out in them.
I truly hope you find faith eventually, in some form or other.

Fred,
This is definitely an improvement over some of the other notes of intolerance you have posted.

I have seen many people, especially clergy, say that you find God in your heart and within yourself. If that is true, and I believe it is, then organized religion is just a way for people to find what is in themselves. For my part feel I have already found it. One does not need to practice organized religion (and notice the qualification about ORGANIZED) to follow the judeo-christian ethic that is the basis of the major religions. As long as I practice those ethics, then it should not matter that I practice the rites, rituals and trappings of organized religion.

As you say, some people find these things through a belief in God, others through different sources. To me it matters not how they find them, but that they DO find them. I judge people by how they act and behave, NOT by how they worship.

While I appreciate the sincerity in your regret about my non practice of religion, you have no need to hope that I find faith. Because I have found my own form of it. My faith is in the goodness of man. My faith is in man's ability to exercise their free will to perform acts of kindness, of heroism, of altruism, to do the right thing by their fellow man. That is what I "worship".

Scott<>

This is much better then your other notes of intolerance.

Hi,
It is the duty of every Christian to try leading others into believing in, and accepting God. That is why I truly hope you find belief and can come to prayer, attending some religious group of your choice.
I do agree with you on "not judging" anyone, in regards to if they practice any religious faith, say in church, etc, or not.
If anyone is interested, a bill is before Congress in regards to Workplace Practices in Religious matters, hopefully allowing religious employees time off for their religious beliefs, etc. here is a link.

http://www.stonescryout.org/archives/2005/03/legislation_to.html

Of course, the first rejections were from the ACLU and homosexual groups!
This was to be expected.
"Christians' Rights" maybe should have been worded as "Religious Rights", which were the reasons for founding the New World.
Religious Rights are being taken away; no question about that, whether one views it a "change for the better", or whatever.

Hello again,

Scott, you are correct in some of your statements... most people see the differences with the holidays etc. Keeping them separate and in perspective is impoortant. Unfortunately not all people can do this. I am raising my children to believe in god, fear the crap out of him... but from a respect point of view. In a nut shell, kids today and even young adults are being misled. I am a Lutheran and believe in god. I am also open mided enough to believe that if people have "A" faith that they believe in and (here's the important part) PRACTICE it then their choice is exactly that... their choice.

I have been in sales most of my life and it is a good profession, yet like and position if abused can hurt people. People believe in you and what you say. When speaking to masses in regards to a holiday and or for any purpose; whether it be for a product, religion, mental well being or whatever reason you have to be careful. My point is by commercializing the crap out of holidays and creating a new reason for a card manufacturer to design a new card and place another day on the calendar to celebrate we set OURSELVES up for trouble. We start losing sight of WHY we are doing what we are doing and the true meanings of the holidays. Sometimes I think we just don't like being told what we have to do. Maybe it's a childhood issue? Whatever. Rebellion at it's best?

Again... my point here is celebrate the holidays for what they are and what they truly mean. I do not generally share intimate parts of my life with people that I do not know, but I am teaching my kids some life long values to live by. We started a X-Mas practice a few years back where my wife and I have certain toys or things we want our kids to have. We make certain they receive these gifts. We also have selected presents, which are still very nice and they are allowed to open the night before X-Mas. Before the boys open these gifts they are to select one, which we give to someone less fortunate.
I also have taken them into neighborhoods where people are not as fortunate. We have donated certain belongings and furniture etc. I always tel them not to stare and to be polite and respect other people because we as a society need more of this. We always talk about what we saw while making donations so my boys know "things in life" do not just appear. Young adults/kids todau see what Mom and Dad have and think they should have it tomorrow. My wife and I started the same way as most people... we did not have two nickles to rub between us. We both worked until we started having kids then we both agreed for her to be a stay at home Mom. It was a difficult decision, but one well worth it.

I have done very well for myself and am self made, but grounded. I have a nice home and have (like many people) worked my butt off. My Mom raised myself and my 3 siblings on 8$ an hour so I will never forget those days. Why will I never forget? Because we were poor and I did not know it. I remember drinking milk because it was left out on the counter and we could not afford to throw it away. Mainly I remember the love we had and still have.

My Mom re-married and I could not have asked for a better step-dad. He has truly been awesome and an inspiration in my life. One of the threads I read was about being molested/raped... this is very difficult. I too have seen too much of this. I had a priest try to molest my younger brother and I. My wife had been molested by her father. A close friend of mine had been molested by her father. My biological father abused us kids. A girlfriend I had in college was abused by her father by grabbing her fingers with a pair of pliers and squeezing. I also have 3 cousins which are gay.

Folks, these are challenging times no matter who you are. To the lady that had been raped... my heart goes out to you. Please find a way to get through it. I had issues with the church because of my encounters, but ultimatley I had to come to grips with it and move on. Shawshank Redemption movie... "get busy living or get busy dying". Life is too short to hold baggage, I am not saying it is easy. Hold strong, you sound like a wonderful lady. Get your daughter, research several churches, find the right one and GO.

I have gotten way off base, but the bottom line is enjoy the holidays for what they are and not for what we believe they are for. Love your kids, family etc... a lot!

Tell someone today that you love them.
Tell someone today that you appreciate them.
Tell someone today that you believe in them.
Tell someone today that they inspire you.
Tell someone today that you're having a great day when you're not.

Sometime's we start believing in things so much that we truly believe it. Moral: Don't start believing in your own bull****. Don't manifest it change It! Stop feeding what it is you are feeding. Redirect your energy. You and the people around you will be happier for it.

Your last inspiring words on how to live life are very true to how I feel:

Tell someone today that you love them.
Tell someone today that you appreciate them.
Tell someone today that you believe in them.
Tell someone today that they inspire you.
Tell someone today that you're having a great day when you're not. We should all be positive, and be kind and complimenting, especially to those you love.
I've gotten over that rape as it happened over 40 years ago, and I help others with their problems now to include alcohol and drug abuse as well - and they also have underlying factors. Every action has a reaction, even if it's years later, so yes - the problems should be worked on and we should go on with our lives. It's the whole world which needs to act like a family at present and the disputes and wars stopped, but 'the powers that be' will not do so, it's not financially feasible.

Welcome to the forum, and I for one hope you stay on - it's a mixed 'family' with good and bad 'kids', but nonetheless one of the best forums.

http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_1_11.gif (http://www.smileycentral.com/?partner=ZSzeb001_ZN)

It's the whole world which needs to act like a family at present and the disputes and wars stopped, but 'the powers that be' will not do so, it's not financially feasible.

Man is this another issue. There is so much useless hatred. This is not something you control on a global basis, but has to start with how each of us address and treats each other, which in turn will be global. Problem is in parts of the world, they see violence as a way of life. We go to a job every day and they for centuries have fought each other. A cycle not quickly changed. Barbaric to say the least, but it is their way of life and passed down through generations. The Iraq thing is a mess. I believe in the support, weapons of mass Destruction... I believe at one time there was and maybe still is just hid well or moved to adjacent country. Whatever. It's sad... these people need to have a different view of the world and see how it should be. I just wish we would stop being the world's police. We help most everybody, at times when they don't need or want it. We are also kicked all of the time and our military folks are awesome and need supported. Period. For the world to see the impact we make, sometimes I think we should just bring everyone home and stop paying/funding all of the coutries we support in the world. Maybe, just maybe we would be respected for what we do. American's pay so much for taxes and I never complain about it. EXCEPT when someone is complaining about the USA with a mouth full of food provided by the USA. I am a third generation German to the US and my ancestors loved the US when they initially came here. I have heard stories of their lives and how they appreciated coming to the states. Anyone is welcome here as long as they respect our history our beliefs and understand they are also free to vote and exercise their beliefs.

Hey, SSchultz0956,
Joy to the World, Merry Christmas, and Happy Hanuka!
Today, Walmart and Target announced a reversal of their decision not to display signs of "Christmas" in their stores.
Previously, Walmart made the decision not to display signs with the words "Merry Christmas" or "Christmas" in their stores. Soon after, Catholics and other groups who believe in Christ announced they would boycott Walmart for the remainder of the year. Walmart didn't want to offend anyone with "Christmas" signs. Well, guess what? They did offend those who believe in Christ and action was taken.
Today, both stores will display the signs as usual during this season.
Christmas is a celebration of Christ. Without Christ, there is no Christmas.
Stand back, ACLU, be prepared for some tough fights ahead!
It's just beginning.

Not much more to be said!

Hi,
It is the duty of every Christian to try leading others into believing in, and accepting God. That is why I truly hope you find belief and can come to prayer, attending some religious group of your choice.
I do agree with you on "not judging" anyone, in regards to if they practice any religious faith, say in church, etc, or not.
If anyone is interested, a bill is before Congress in regards to Workplace Practices in Religious matters, hopefully allowing religious employees time off for their religious beliefs, etc., here is a link.

http://www.stonescryout.org/archives/2005/03/legislation_to.html

Of course, the first rejections were from the ACLU and homosexual groups!
This was to be expected.
"Christians' Rights" maybe should have been worded as "Religious Rights", which were the reasons for founding the New World.
Religious Rights are being taken away; no question about that, whether one views it a "change for the better", or whatever.

I do appreciate that you changed christian Rights to Religious Rights. There is NO maybe about it. However, one of the paradoxes of the colonization of the Americas is that while several groups did come here for relgious freedom, they did not want to extend that freedom to others. The Puritans in particular were very intolerant of other relegions. Its one of the reasons that the Founding Fathers were so adamant about separation of Church and State.

I know there is biblical basis for your statement "It is the duty of every Christian to try leading others into believing in, and accepting God." However, I do not believe that every Christian sect follows that particular teaching. And frankly, I find it extremely offensive. I do not believe that anyone has the right to even suggest that my feelings about God and religion are such that I need to be saved, converted or whatever. I would NEVER presume to tell anyone (not even my own daughter as I indicated previously) how they should feel about this. A great deal of harm has been done in the name of this particular teaching (i.e. the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition).

When I was growing up I attended temple at the Brotherhood Synagogue in Greenwich Village (NYC). This synagogue shared the facility with a church (Episcopal as I recall, but I may be wrong on that). Sabbath services were performed on Saturdays and Church services on Sundays. There was true brotherhood and tolerance between the two congregations who often shared other events. That's the way things should be. The church where my daughter goes has put no pressure on her to convert. All they have done is teach their way so she can make her own decisions.

As for that bill that you cited. The blame for that goes to the Supreme Court. I agree that Title VII sufficiently covers that. The Supreme Court weakened it. I recall a recent case where a Sikh sued and won under Title VII for the right to wear a turban on the job. So I think that Title VII already provides the protections this law purports to.

As for the ACLU, I think their objections have merit. There have been plenty of times that well meaning laws have been corrupted for evil purposes. And I can where this law has that potential. I think the ACLU action is not against the bill, but a call to tighten it up to prevent the possibility of abuse. I don't say the ACLU never goes overboard, but I do so that the ACLU ONLY concern is preserving civil liberties.

Finally, as for the Walmart and Target announcements I cheer them. I think our litigious society has caused people to bend over backwards not to offend. And that's what prompted their initial action. But, happily, sanity seems to have taken over there.

Scott<>

Everyone will begin to see some changes made in laws, upholding Christians' rights, because it's already started. Will the same changes in laws uphold the rights of other religions?


Peace of mind, good feelings about yourself and others, come from believing in God. That is a load of crap. Have you never met anyone who has peace of mind, good feelings about themselves and others, and did not believe in God? I've met plenty. I have also met people who believe in God who treat others like sh*t and feel so bad about themselves that they are alcoholics and commit adultery.

The ACLU is most likely the one most single biggest threat to American Freedom and the true republic that America is.

The desire that what is best for the majority of people even if it is not agreed on by a minority of speical interest groups is first very unamerican and next extremely dangerous, since it allows for the decay of society that we have seen very largely over the past years.

They attempts are not as much to actually prove legal principles, but to sue even when they know similar cases have been lost since the mere threat of law suit offen causes groups to give in for fear of large law suits.
Next if the groups don't give in, they will next be labeled as some form of bigoted group.

They care little for the real truths of the Constitution and the truth of its base on religion in the preamble.

No terrorist group coming from the middle east can do as much damage to our real American freedoms as this group can by filing law suit after law suit to try to use this fear to control american business and society. There idea of freedom will be where christians will have no freedom to do any religious activity in public ever.

My thoughts exactly.

Over the past 30 years, or even more, the ACLU, and some other minorities, have fought to stop all religious activities of Christians; and to change the basic purpose of why America was originally founded. Any changes as to why this country was founded, will not stand.


America was never a "Christian nation," and it never will be. You need to review your history.



The words "liberal", "left", and "right" have become highly overused by the Media, and others, such as one answer here, to the point that Christian morals and values are on trial again, as they were over 2000 yrs ago.


Oh please. No one is trying to take away your freedom of worship. All we are trying to do is make sure that public education is not used to force Christianity upon others.



According to National Polls, the majority of Americans say they are Christians; but the ACLU and others have gained so much, that they now speak out against the majority.


Okay. For the last time: Democracy is not about the rule of the majority. That is "mob rule." Look it up. There's a big difference.



Prayers taken away from the public schools, and the Pledge of Allegiance taken away using the words "under God" are the latest examples of the ACLU and others, trying to destroy Christianity. The next step will try to completely do away with the Pledge of Allegiance.


We're not trying to destroy Christianity. We're trying to destroy Theocracy.



In some time to come, Christians will begin voting in hugh numbers, changing laws, changing Senators and Representatives, who vote against them. The time is coming that the "laws", imposed by a minority of non-christians, will be changed.


Excellent! We'll form a great sister country to Iran.


On a side note, I am not a Christian (I used to be), but I do celebrate Christmas and Easter as secular holidays.

You'll notice there hasn't been any (serious) effort to prevent the _students_ from wearing religious objects to school. You're blowing this issue way out of proportion. Calm down. We athiests are generally happy if we are left alone.

psi42

Very, Very, well said.

Hi,
Fr Chuck has really hit the nail on the head, so to speak.
I applaude you. Your comments are so very, very true.

This is just so much anti-liberal garabge.

The ACLU is most likely the one most single biggest threat to American Freedom and the true republic that America is.

The desire that what is best for the majority of people even if it is not agreed on by a minority of speical interest groups is first very unamerican and next extremely dangerous, since it allows for the decay of society that we have seen very largely over the past years.


The ACLU has often been over zealous in guarding civil liberties. But these statements are ridiculous and pure anti-liberal hogwash.

The contradiction of the second paragraph is amazing. The ACLU is trying to protect minority interests by not allowing any one group to have a preference.

Of course it doesn't surprise me that Fred would applaud this anti-liberal propaganda and misinformation as truth.

Scott<>

The ACLU has often been over zealous in guarding civil liberties. But these statements are ridiculous and pure anti-liberal hogwash.

The contradiction of the second paragraph is amazing. The ACLU is trying to protect minority interests by not allowing any one group to have a preference.

Of course it doesn't surprise me that Fred would applaud this anti-liberal propaganda and misinformation as truth.

Scott<>

Hi,
ScottGem's post doesn't surprise me either. So what else is new?
Arguments concering the ACLU are ongoing, and even the term "over zealous" is only partial truth; only scratches the surface.
It all remains to be seen, with changes taking place at a faster pace; seriously questioning many laws passed as a result of them.

If anyone is really interested about all this "hogwash", then here is a link, containing other links to laws, cases, court rulings, ACLU activities, and is good information on where they stand:

http://stoptheaclu.com/

This link does contain some "amazing" information about "preferences".

Hi,
ScottGem's post doesn't surprise me either. So what else is new?
Arguments concering the ACLU are ongoing, and even the term "over zealous" is only partial truth; only scratches the surface.
It all remains to be seen, with changes taking place at a faster pace; seriously questioning many laws passed as a result of them.

They shouldn't surprise you. I've been consistent in my views. I believe I have supported those views with facts and logic. I haven't had to back pedal and restate my position because I've mistated facts or truths.

I will say that the actions of the ACLU are open to interpretation. Which leaves us in the realm of opinion. I just feel that personal biases are causing some misinterpretation of the facts.

Scott<>

Hi,
Fr Chuck has really hit the nail on the head, so to speak.
I applaude you. Your comments are so very, very true.
Dude, I've asked you 3 questions in this thread and you've answered none. Why?

The most obvious fact to show that the ACLU is not really there to protect freedoms but only to further their own agenda and that of their support groups.

When have they lately defended a Christian for his rights. When are they sueing a court house to let a Christian show his symbol of faith.

How about law suits against other relgions, I did not see them fighting to make the lady in Florida take off her face covering in her Drivers licence photo.

They sue if someone talks wrong about homosexual activity but when have they supported a Christian value. They support the very minory fringe groups. One person in a school system does not like something, but all the rest do, so what happens law suit.

They are firmly behind trying to make new laws from legal court actions.
The courts get the blame, but it is normally these people that start the issues.

American values, the real values that the majority of americans want.

Why do you think that the democrats actually won the two governors races, it was because the democrat governors spoke about their religion belief and their faith. The liberal agenda is losing votes, losing the democrats all of their power base. A few are finally seeing that it is faith, American values and moral values that actually wn elections.

Of course there will be a minorty of people not happy when American values come back into place, but that is what a Republic is, the good for the majority of the people.

These frivious law suits they file are a waste of tax payer money, a waste of the courts time and in general ( not all of course) but the majority are just bad for American values and culture.

Hi,


If anyone is really interested about all this "hogwash", then here is a link, containing other links to laws, cases, court rulings, ACLU activities, and is good information on where they stand:

http://stoptheaclu.com/

This link does contain some "amazing" information about "preferences".
Let me guess: you think Fox News is "Fair and Balanced". :D

The most obvious fact to show that the ACLU is not really there to protect freedoms but only to futher thier own agenda and that of thier support groups.

And what fact is that?


When have they lately defended a Christian for his rights. When are they sueing a court house to let a Christian show his symbol of faith.

How about law suits against other relgions, I did not see them fighting to make the lady in Florida take off her face covering in her Drivers licence photo.

This one questions actually help prove my point and show your lack of understanding ot the ACLU and its purpose.

The point I have been making is that the ACLU is about defending the Constitution. In the focus of this discussion, specifically the separation of Church and State. So to ask about them "sueing a court house to let a Christian show his symbol of faith." is ridiculous. They would only sue to prevent ANY religious display on public property. Note that they have protested having menorahs and the display of the Ten Commandents, both jewish symbols.

And why would they try to prevent the driver's license photo?


They sue if someone talks wrong about homosexual activity but when have they supported a Christian value. They support the very minory fringe groups. One person in a school system does not like something, but all the rest do, so what happens law suit.

They are firmly behind trying to make new laws from legal court actions.
The courts get the blame, but it is normally these people that start the issues.

American values, the real values that the majority of americans want.[/QUOTE

Again, you prove my point. I've said before, that my philosophy is that anyone can do what they want up to but NOT including interfering with someone else's right to do the same. So why should any group, even if they be the majority, be allowed to oppress interfere with someone else? School's are PUBLIC institutions. They should not and cannot be used to promote any one group's ideals to the detriment of the anothers. And THAT is real American values! That is the principles that great men like Jefferson, Franklin, Adams and others of the founding fathers fought for!

[QUOTE=Fr_Chuck]Why do you think that the democrats actually won the two governors races, it was because the democrat governors spoke about thier religion beleif and thier faith. The liberal agenda is losing votes, losing the democrats all of thier power base. A few are finally seeing that it is faith, American values and moral values that actually wn elections.

Of course there will be a minorty of people not happy when American values come back into place, but that is what a Republic is, the good for the majority of the people.

These frivious law suits they file are a waste of tax payer money, a waste of the courts time and in general ( not all of course) but the majority are just bad for American values and culture.

I don't think you even know what American values are. You want to think you do. But it seems your idea is that the majority can impose their will on the minority. America is more about individual rights, the philosophy I stated. Its about freedom and liberty. You want to believe the liberal agenda is losing votes, but the fact is that the callous disregard of the middle and lower classes by the current administration is swinging things back.

Scott<>

Let me guess: you think Fox News is "Fair and Balanced". :D

ROFL! Its amazing what claptrap these people will believe in. I tried reading that site that Fred pointed to, but it was so disjointed, so hard to follow and so full of assinine comments I couldn't stomach it for very long

Scott<>

Hi,
I haven't responded to specific questions, to "prove" points, as others seem to really like doing. They have time to sit at their computer all day; I don't.

Facts about certain issues can be found anywhere on the web, and not worth the time to re-print, or research by me. If anyone has any questions about what someone else states, they can research it themselves on the web; find out if what is stated is really true or not; whether it's any of my statements, or statements others make.
It is your right to use words such as "assinine comments", or any other definitive words. One has to realize though, that we all have opinions.

Sorry I haven't replied to my own thread in wuite some time, but I've been busy. First, yes I am anti-liberal scotty, but you need to understand that here at the university of Iowa I am a speck of red in an ocean of blue, and it's the liberals here that have made me this way. Also, most conservatives that voice their political views in forums like this are usually extreme like me. SO long as the liberal I converse with isn't arrogant, I'm extremely tolerant and actually intrigued.

However, I have read some posts that perpetuate extreme ingorance. The ACLU is the most radical organizations in America. They are anti-christian, pro-prostitution. Makes a lot of sense huh? Anyway, someone mentioned that public schools force christianity upon students if there are religious icons. Prepostorous!! Let me tell all of you one thing that has bothered me most about the liberal garbage I read everyday in this country. Prohibing the colors of CHRISTmas is ridiculous! Another example is not allowing intelligent design to be taught in school. Think about this: We are bringing up an ignorant genereation of youth. They are ignorant to things like culture, religions in our country, and accurate history of our nation. But they aren't ignorant to things like sex, drugs, etc. It kills me to see this happening. Is it so wrong to have "under God" in the pledge. NO, it's not the students complaining it's the stubborn parents. Leacing it in there actually teaches our children that the framers WERE strongly Christian. PSI42 is completely wrong and needs to go back to school. Yes, that's right, the foudning fathers of this country were christian and DID base many things that they did off that belief. Here in Iowa CIty, there is a muslim girl who isn't even a citizen but making a problem because they are going to build a statue of an angel for hope in a public park. She's an idiot! The city isn't even paying for it, the money is coming from donations made by people. Being ignorant to other cultures results with genecide. Ignorance to one's own culture leads to suicide. Present time, it's not PC for a christian like me to say stuff like this. Yet, ACLU and other crack heads like them can do whatever they want. Our society is leaning to become anti christian. The ten commandments aren't offensive to anyone but some loud mouth that wants to be on CNN. Fact: The definition of a religion is A) a belief in God, or B) a system of beliefs. Atheism is a RELIGION because it's based on a belief of secularism, and belief in No deity. By eliminating all religious icons we are endorsing their religion. This is irrefultable fact. You are violating my rights to represent my religion in this nation.

Stated earlier by scott (I think) it was said religion is a social construct. So's race. It's a social construct and has no biological reasoning behind it (confirmed by Harvard University). So why is it that you dem's fight for affirmative action, but don't fight for religious equality. You may say you do, but by tearing down my religion not just in papers, but even in forums like these (it happens all the time) you are discriminating against me.

Sorry for the ramble there. Anyway, my main point is though, that we are teaching ignorance in our schools. The history they learn is fabricated. All they learn about is secularism. THere are secular ways of teaching religion, and it can only help them. The only thing is that all the muslim, jewish, atheist, etc, parents out there are worried that there children might be free-thinkers and convert to christianity. That's where the problem is. People tend to think that they have a right to interpret the constitution as though they were the Supreme Court. Well you're not. Freedom of Religion means to not set a specific national government. Not, prohibit religion from public places.

Let me guess: you think Fox News is "Fair and Balanced". :D

And Ann Coulter is god, everything she writes is Gospel truth.

Come on open your eyes and see what is really going on around you!

Another example is not allowing intelligent design to be taught in school.

This is a damn good idea, teach it fine but DON'T teach it as science which is what has almost happened.

ID is so linked with religion it's scary, and to try and teach it along side Darwin is a total farce !


ANyways, my main point is though, that we are teaching ignorance in our schools. The history they learn is fabricated.

You think?

Of course History is fabricated, its written by the WINNING side ffs!

And Ann Coulter is god, everything she writes is Gospel truth.

Come on open your eyes and see what is really going on around you !!


Yeah, just the way you guys view CNN the way the ACLU views prostitution, nothing better in the whole world.

Yeah, just the way you guys view CNN the way the ACLU views prostitution, nothing better in the whole world.

Before you start on me please notice where I come from !

This is a damn good idea, teach it fine but DON'T teach it as science which is what has almost happened.

ID is so linked with religion it's scary, and to try and teach it along side Darwin is a total farce !

Obviously you don't know what science is. If we define Biology it's the life processes or characteristic phenomena of a group or category of living organisms, including their structure, function, growth, origin, evolution, and distribution. Creationism teaches this along with evolution, just from two different points of view. Evolution. By the way, is not the most solid theory. If you don't teach creationism along with it, you distort it and propagate your own liberal position.

Hi,
I haven't responded to specific questions, to "prove" points, as others seem to really like doing. They have time to sit at their computer all day; I don't.

Facts about certain issues can be found anywhere on the web, and not worth the time to re-print, or research by me. If anyone has any questions about what someone else states, they can research it themselves on the web; find out if what is stated is really true or not; whether it's any of my statements, or statements others make.
It is your right to use words such as "assinine comments", or any other definitive words. One has to realize though, that we all have opinions.

It doesn't work that way, in my opinion. One should not make statements unless one is prepared to prove, support and defend them when challenged. If they can't, they need to retract them. Its not up to other people to research your statements its up to you to back them up. What you fail to realize is that much of the time that a statement is challenged its because the challenger HAS researched and found no basis for the statement being challenged.

I do not make any statement that I am not prepared to backup. There may be times I find that I can't back up what I've said, though that is rare. But in such cases I will retract what I've said.

In the past, you have accused me of making up rules, but this seems to be what you are doing here. In all my experience, the burden has always been on the individual to back up their statements not the challenger.

There is also the issue of once you enter a discussion you need to be prepared to follow through. This is why I usually don't get involved in things likes. If you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen. But if you refuse to support or retract what you say, then it is you who appears the fool.

Scott<>

Obviously you don't know what science is. If we define Biology it's the life processes or characteristic phenomena of a group or category of living organisms, including their structure, function, growth, origin, evolution, and distribution. Creationism teaches this along with evolution, just from two different points of view. Evolution. by the way, is not the most solid theory. If you don't teach creationism along with it, you distort it and propogate your own liberal position.

Ok time to take a breath and get off your high horse !

How can creationism be taught as a SCIENCE when it is based TOTALLY on faith ?

At least Evolution is a Theory and until it is disproved or updated it's the best we have.

Creationism has it place in Religious Studies NOT in science.

Ok time to take a breath and get off your high horse !

How can creationism be taught as a SCIENCE when it is based TOTALLY on faith ?

At least Evolution is a Theory and untill it is disproved or updated its the best we have.

Creationism has it place in Religious Studies NOT in science.


Straight from the dictinoary:Biology it's the life processes or characteristic phenomena of a group or category of living organisms, including their structure, function, growth, origin, evolution, and distribution

ID does all of this. If you don't like it you can write webster and tell him he's wrong.

Sorry curly no more for now, I need to go to church.

Straight from the dictinoary:Biology it's the life processes or characteristic phenomena of a group or category of living organisms, including their structure, function, growth, origin, evolution, and distribution

ID does all of this. If you don't like it you can write webster and tell him he's wrong.


Ok so you can cut&paste from a website.
Now please address this point


How can creationism be taught as a SCIENCE when it is based TOTALLY on faith ?

Just to help you out here


sci·ence Audio pronunciation of "science" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sns)
n.

1.
1. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
2. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
3. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
2. Methodological activity, discipline, or study: I've got packing a suitcase down to a science.
3. An activity that appears to require study and method: the science of purchasing.
4. Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.



faith Audio pronunciation of "faith" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fth)
n.

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.


Have I made my point yet??

Hi,
I haven't responded to specific questions, to "prove" points, as others seem to really like doing. They have time to sit at their computer all day; I don't.Yet you spend all day posting on at least 3 discussion boards.


Facts about certain issues can be found anywhere on the web, and not worth the time to re-print, or research by me. If anyone has any questions about what someone else states, they can research it themselves on the web; find out if what is stated is really true or not; whether it's any of my statements, or statements others make.
I see you believe that segregation was a good thing and blacks should seat at the back of the bus.

The day Fred answers a direct question on a difficult subject is the day I turn to Islam !

...Anyways, someone mentioned that public schools force christianity upon students if there are religious icons. Prepostorous!!!! Let me tell all of you one thing that has bothered me most about the liberal garbage i read everyday in this country. prohibing the colors of CHRISTmas is rediculous! Another example is not allowing intelligent design to be taught in school. Think about this: We are bringing up an ignorant genereation of youth. They are ignorant to things like culture, religions in our country, and accurate history of our nation. But they aren't ignorant to things like sex, drugs, etc. It kills me to see this happening. Is it so wrong to have "under God" in the pledge. NO, it's not the students complaining it's the stubborn parents. Leacing it in there actually teaches our children that the framers WERE strongly Christian. PSI42 is completely wrong and needs to go back to school. Yes, that's right, the foudning fathers of this country were christian and DID base many things that they did off of that belief. Here in Iowa CIty, there is a muslim girl who isn't even a citizen but making a problem b/c they are going to build a statue of an angel fo hope in a public park. She's an idiot! The city isn't even paying for it, the money is coming from donations made by people. Being ignorant to other cultures results with genecide. ignorance to one's own culture leads to suicide. Present time, it's not PC for a christian like me to say stuff like this. Yet, ACLU and other crack heads like them can do whatever they want. Our society is leaning to become anti christian. The ten commandments aren't offensive to anyone but some loud mouth that wants to be on CNN. Fact: The definition of a religion is A) a belief in God, or B) a system of beliefs. Atheism is a RELIGION b/c it's based on a belief of secularism, and belief in No deity. By eliminating all religious icons we are endorsing their religion. This is irrefultable fact. You are violating my rights to represent my religion in this nation.

Stated earlier by scott (i think) it was said religion is a social construct. So's race. It's a social construct and has no biological reasoning behind it (confirmed by Harvard University). So why is it that you dem's fight for affirmative action, but don't fight for religious equality. You may say you do, but by tearing down my religion not just in papers, but even in forums like these (it happens all the time) you are discriminating against me.

Sorry for the ramble there. ANyways, my main point is though, that we are teaching ignorance in our schools. The history they learn is fabricated. All they learn about is secularism. THere are secular ways of teaching religion, and it can only help them. The only thing is that all the muslim, jewish, atheist, etc, parents out there are worried that there children might be free-thinkers and convert to christianity. That's where the problem is. People tend to think that they have a right to interpret the constitution as though they were the Supreme Court. Well you're not. Freedom of Religion means to not set a specific national government. Not, prohibit religion from public places.

I'm not going to respond again to the diatribe against the ACLU since I've already done so enough. I agree with you that prohibting the colors of Xmas is ridiculous.

As for intelligent design, I actually believe in intelligent design, but maybe not the way the religious right does. In another thread I discussed my beliefs as a deist. Basically that some intelligent force created the universe and then left it alone to develop. This to me is intelligent design. I see no conflict with intelligent design and evolution. If an intelligent force created the universe, why couldn't evolution be part of that design? It makes much more sense to me that such a force created the ground rules and let those rules work.

You are correct when you say that "Freedom of Religion means to not set a specific national government (I think you meant religion)". But its not Freedom of religion that prohibits "religion from public places". Its Separatation of Church and State. That's a different issue. And that's the mistake you make. No one is stopping you from worshipping or believing what you want. The point is preventing the use public property and/or funding to promote any religion.

Also, your "irrefutable fact" is not a fact at all. I'm not sure I agree that atheism constitutes a "system of beliefs". Rather it's the ABSENCE of belief.

You complain bitterly about education not teaching enough. But you totally neglect the role of parents in this. I was not taught religion in schools, but my parents made sure I was aware of other cultures. In another post I spoke of attending the Brotherhood Synagogue. I was given books to read about different cultures. The point is, its not up to PUBLIC schools to promote religion, that's a task for the home. And if students reject the teachings it's the fault of the parents.

Finally, I must comment on your chauvanisitic statement that other religions are afraid their children will convert to Chritianity. Isn't it just as possible that christian children might choose to convert to other religions?

But the issue is Separation of Church and State. Its not prejudice or persecution of any specific religion. Its making sure that there is no hint of state support for any one religion.

Scott<>

Ok time to take a breath and get off your high horse !

How can creationism be taught as a SCIENCE when it is based TOTALLY on faith ?

At least Evolution is a Theory and untill it is disproved or updated its the best we have.

Creationism has it place in Religious Studies NOT in science.

There is this absolutely great scene in Inherit The Wind (the play based on the Scopes Monkey Trial). In the scene the character representing Clarence Darrow askes the character repesenting William Jennings Bryan how long the first day was!

Creationism is a strict interpretation of the Bible. The Bible is a set of stories handed down through the ages to account for natural phenomena. As such, to apply a strict interpretion would not seem to make sense. Creationism is based solely on religion and has no place in scientific teaching. I don't believe that the story of creation conflicts directly with evolution.

Scott<>

Yet you spend all day posting on at least 3 discussion boards.

Another good point!


I see you believe that segregation was a good thing and blacks should seat at the back of the bus.

Oh? Fred's bigotry is showing again? Where was this?

Scott<>

Oh? Fred's bigotry is showing again? Where was this?

Scott<>
But Scott, facts about certain issues can be found anywhere on the web, and not worth the time to re-print, or research by me.

Nice.

Very nice.

Is it so wrong to have "under God" in the pledge. NO, it's not the students complaining it's the stubborn parents. Leacing it in there actually teaches our children that the framers WERE strongly Christian. PSI42 is completely wrong and needs to go back to school. Yes, that's right, the foudning fathers of this country were christian and DID base many things that they did off that belief.


Okay, first off, we need to recognize the founding fathers _did_ have their flaws. The ideal of America is to make things _better_ not to live in the eighteenth century.

Second off, many of the founders were Deists.

Third off, I never said none of the founders were Christian. I said America was never a Christian nation. There's a difference.



Fact: The definition of a religion is A) a belief in God, or B) a system of beliefs. Atheism is a RELIGION because it's based on a belief of secularism, and belief in No deity. By eliminating all religious icons we are endorsing their religion. This is irrefultable fact.


No, that's just silly. Religion is based on faith, science is based on evidence and logic.


People tend to think that they have a right to interpret the constitution as though they were the Supreme Court. Well you're not. Freedom of Religion means to not set a specific national government. Not, prohibit religion from public places.

Ahem. Why don't you consult the Supreme Court about "separation of Church and State."

They are ignorant to things like culture, religions in our country, and accurate history of our nation. But they aren't ignorant to things like sex, drugs, etc. It kills me to see this happening. Is it so wrong to have "under God" in the pledge. NO, it's not the students complaining it's the stubborn parents. Leacing it in there actually teaches our children that the framers WERE strongly Christian. PSI42 is completely wrong and needs to go back to school. Yes, that's right, the foudning fathers of this country were christian and DID base many things that they did off of that belief.

I missed this the first read. Yes the founding fathers were on the surface christian. But that's because colonists came from christian countries. What the founding fathers based things on was the judeo-christian ethic, not specifically christian religion. The important point is that religious freedom and separation of church and state were important to them. I was a poli sci major and I did my senior thesis on the Articles of Confederation. So I did a great deal of research into the backgrounds and thoughts of the founding fathers. I can say with confidence that founding fathers would not agree with your position.

But what really sinks you is your reference to "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. You need to learn the history of the Pledge. In fact, the Pledge was never even envisioned by the Founding Fathers. The Pedge was written in 1892 by a Baptist minister who was expressing the ideas of his cousin, a utopian socialist! The original Pledge did NOT include "Under God". That was added in 1954 based on a campaign by the Knights of Columbus. According to surviving relatives of the original author he would have objected to that change.

Scott<>

Up until you got to the point of separation of Church and State you were basically 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 separation 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.

God was thanked for all the things he had done for our nation in almost ever form.

The separation statement not done until Thomas Jeffererson, in a speech, never in law, was again based for the protection of the Church.

But even on the forming of our nation, there was never true religious freedom, The Church of England was basically an enemy church and members had to form a new church since membership in the Church of England required loyalty to the King of England. So they were not free in their religious belief during the revolutionary war.

The idea of a plege, and other added things the US has is indeed added, but even then the fact that our government felt we were based under God at that time in history even adds how much more the US was faith based still to that time. It has only been recently when our nation has tried to remove God from its teaching.

And in doing so, also trying to re-write history by changing the base of God's role in the forming of our nation, and the faith of its founders.

But then those of extreme liberal nature are also re-writing or at least finding new meanings to the bible itself to justify their personal beleifs and ideas.

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 even then, in most cases the votes in the Supreme Court are normally very split, which means that the idea being voted on is not agreed to as correct merely an opinion based on their beliefs.
So in general the same ruling, if a case came back with a new court may easily be found to go the other direction.

That's a good piece of news that I did not know and very interesting. I always enjoyed the pledge, though. Thanks for the added info.
http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/16/16_11_7.gif (http://www.smileycentral.com/?partner=ZSzeb001_ZN)

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.

Have we really did away with it?

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 their own at any decent level.

In general we now merely 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 believe 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 their gods and their 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 completely forgotten most young people don't even know it, they believe 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.

Scott<>

When the constitution refers to separation 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 certain 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.

Very good comment about currency.

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.

Scott<>

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 contribute.

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...

You go girl!

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 kind of gnawed at me and I felt the need to say something.


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.

Scott<>

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.

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.

Your interpretation of the Constitution does not jive with almost 200 years of judicial interpretation as well as the thoughts of the framers of that document. The practical fact is that the judiciary consistently over the years has ruled that public funds and facilities may not be used to display icons and representations that reflect any one religion. This means that either they allow space for ALL relgious expresssion or none. This, in no way, inhibits the rights of individuals to exercise their religious freedom in private or non-governmentally supported facilities. Has the ACLU or anyone ever tried to prevent the display of the Christmas tree in Rockefeller Center? In fact, it has grown in stature over the years. But its on private property.

Its your right to believe the judiciary has wrongly interpreted the Constitution. Its your right to go to court to challenge that interpretation. Personally, I agree with the judicary's interpretation. But the fact remains that it IS the judciary's interpretation and until overturned, remains the law of the land.

As for the ACLU attacking only Chritianity, I don't believe that is true. I think the perception exists because, since Christianity is the majority, more attempts are made on the behalf of Chritianity then any other religion.

Scott<>

Your interpretation of the Constitution does not jive with almost 200 years of judicial interpretation as well as the thoughts of the framers of that document. The practical fact is that the judiciary consistently over the years has ruled that public funds and facilities may not be used to display icons and representations that reflect any one religion. This means that either they allow space for ALL relgious expresssion or none. This, in no way, inhibits the rights of individuals to exercise their religious freedom in private or non-governmentally supported facilities. Has the ACLU or anyone ever tried to prevent the display of the Christmas tree in Rockefeller Center? In fact, it has grown in stature over the years. But its on private property.

Its your right to believe the judiciary has wrongly interpreted the Constitution. Its your right to go to court to challenge that intepretation. Personally, I agree with the judicary's interpretation. But the fact remains that it IS the judciary's interpretation and until overturned, remains the law of the land.

As for the ACLU attacking only Chritianity, I don't believe that is true. I think the perception exists because, since Christianity is the majority, more attempts are made on the behalf of Chritianity then any other religion.

Scott<>

Judicial interpretation... well... hmmm... I think I'd call it judicial legislation. (A single person deciding for the country as a whole, inother words, TOTALITARIANISM)

Judicial interpretation...well...hmmm...i think i'd call it judicial legislation. (A single person deciding for the country as a whole, inother words, TOTALITARIANISM)

Oh? Then you think the US system of checks and balances doesn't work? You think you could devise a better system?

This is another example of an emotional reaction rather than a factual one. This is one of your more outrageous answers. Its just total garbage.

First, its never a single person making such a decision. Through the Appeals process, there are generally several layers to go through to rule on the initial decision. Second, Appelate courts are general not one person but a panel of judges. Third, the legislature can still override a decision but rewriting the law to conform to the Constitution or by amending the Constitution.

Scott<>

Either EVERY religion needs to be represented or none. That is the stance of the ACLU and should be the stance of EVERY American who believes (as I do) in the principles this country was founded on!
Sounds damn good to me!! (thanks Scott) :) :) :) :)

Your interpretation of the Constitution does not jive with almost 200 years of judicial interpretation as well as the thoughts of the framers of that document. The practical fact is that the judiciary consistently over the years has ruled that public funds and facilities may not be used to display icons and representations that reflect any one religion. This means that either they allow space for ALL relgious expresssion or none. This, in no way, inhibits the rights of individuals to exercise their religious freedom in private or non-governmentally supported facilities. Has the ACLU or anyone ever tried to prevent the display of the Christmas tree in Rockefeller Center? In fact, it has grown in stature over the years. But its on private property.

Its your right to believe the judiciary has wrongly interpreted the Constitution. Its your right to go to court to challenge that intepretation. Personally, I agree with the judicary's interpretation. But the fact remains that it IS the judciary's interpretation and until overturned, remains the law of the land.

As for the ACLU attacking only Chritianity, I don't believe that is true. I think the perception exists because, since Christianity is the majority, more attempts are made on the behalf of Chritianity then any other religion.

Scott<>

Well then the only right thing to do is to allow space for ALL religious expression. "Rights" that can only be exercised in private or on private property aren't rights at all. Even in the most oppressive regimes, anyone can do whatever (s)he wishes in private as long as (s)he doesn't get caught. Christians hold secret worship services in Pakistan all the time. If they get caught they'll be beheaded so they obviously spend a lot of time praying to God for his mercy and protection. Under the old Iraqi regime, one could burn pictures of Saadam Hussein in private but woe to him/her if (s)he got caught! To say that 1st amendment protections are only applicable in private is to categorically deny them. Everyone claims that the ACLU is supposed to safeguard our liberties but in reality they take liberties away from us rather than guarding them.

They usually go after children or groups that can't defend themselves. Notice they never go after the UAW or NOW?

I think "judicial interpretation" goes way to far in attempting to erase references to God.

Our forefathers recognized Him frequently.

And considering Thanksgiving is tomorrow, I'll share this:

Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor; and Whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me to "recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness:"

Now, therefore, I do recommend and assign Thursday, the 26th day of November next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed; for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enable to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and, in general, for all the great and various favors which He has been pleased to confer upon us.

And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions; to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our National Government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have shown kindness to us), and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone knows to be best.

Given under my hand, at the city of New York, the 3d day of October, A.D. 1789.

George Washington. (1789 Thanksgiving Proclamation)

Well then the only right thing to do is to allow space for ALL religious expression. "Rights" that can only be exercised in private or on private property aren't rights at all. Even in the most oppressive regimes, anyone can do whatever (s)he wishes in private as long as (s)he doesn't get caught. Christians hold secret worship services in Pakistan all the time. If they get caught they'll be beheaded so they obviously spend a lot of time praying to God for his mercy and protection. Under the old Iraqi regime, one could burn pictures of Saadam Hussein in private but woe to him/her if (s)he got caught! To say that 1st amendment protections are only applicable in private is to categorically deny them. Everyone claims that the ACLU is supposed to safeguard our liberties but in reality they take liberties away from us rather than guarding them.

Don't equate "private" with "secret". They are two different things. I will agree with this statement; 'Rights that can only be exercised in secret aren't rights at all.' But not with the statement as you worded it.
When I referred to "private property", I was talking about property owned by a private entity (person, corporation etc.).

Your attempt to twist my use of the word private to mean secret is a blatant attempt to twist the truth. Also I never said anything about doing something in private, I referred to private property. It shows the lengths you are willing to go to try and make your point.

As for your contention that the ACLU takes liberties away, show me one case where that happened! Remember, the ACLU is about preserving INDIVIDUAL freedoms.

Scott<>

They usually go after children or groups that can't defend themselves. Notice they never go after the UAW or NOW?

You have to be kidding! That's one of the most asinine statements we've seen here.

Scott<>

I think "judicial interpretation" goes way to far in attempting to erase references to God.

Oh? Then how come the Supreme Court refused to strike the words "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance? I'm not sure if it ever has been challenged before (there is a current challenge being mounted that should also fail), but the words 'In God We Trust' remain on US Currency.

Judicial Interpretation has NEVER tried to "erase references to God", they have only try to prevent references used on governmentally supported property.

Scott<>

Very interesting thought!