 |
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by fredg
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<>
Dude, I've asked you 3 questions in this thread and you've answered none. Why?Quote:
Originally Posted by fredg
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.
Let me guess: you think Fox News is "Fair and Balanced". :DQuote:
Originally Posted by fredg
And what fact is that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck
This one questions actually help prove my point and show your lack of understanding ot the ACLU and its purpose.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck
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?
[QUOTE=Fr_Chuck]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!
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck
Scott<>
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 longQuote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
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.
And Ann Coulter is god, everything she writes is Gospel truth.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Come on open your eyes and see what is really going on around you!
This is a damn good idea, teach it fine but DON'T teach it as science which is what has almost happened.Quote:
Originally Posted by SSchultz0956
ID is so linked with religion it's scary, and to try and teach it along side Darwin is a total farce !
You think?Quote:
Originally Posted by SSchultz0956
Of course History is fabricated, its written by the WINNING side ffs!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curlyben
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 !Quote:
Originally Posted by SSchultz0956
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Curlyben
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by fredg
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<>
Ok time to take a breath and get off your high horse !Quote:
Originally Posted by SSchultz0956
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curlyben
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SSchultz0956
Ok so you can cut&paste from a website.
Now please address this point
Just to help you out hereQuote:
Originally Posted by Curlyben
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dictionary.com
Have I made my point yet??Quote:
Originally Posted by Dictionary.com
Yet you spend all day posting on at least 3 discussion boards.Quote:
Originally Posted by fredg
I see you believe that segregation was a good thing and blacks should seat at the back of the bus.Quote:
Originally Posted by fredg
The day Fred answers a direct question on a difficult subject is the day I turn to Islam !
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by SSchultz0956
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<>
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!Quote:
Originally Posted by Curlyben
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<>
Another good point!Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Oh? Fred's bigotry is showing again? Where was this?Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottGem
Nice.
Very nice.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by SSchultz0956
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.
No, that's just silly. Religion is based on faith, science is based on evidence and logic.Quote:
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.
Ahem. Why don't you consult the Supreme Court about "separation of Church and State."Quote:
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 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by SSchultz0956
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
And we used to have slavery but we have evolved. Same story here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck
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.
I sit here shaking my head at how you twist a few facts to get to a conclusion that is so against historical fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by cralmic
Scott<>
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:30 PM. |