[Chery]

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.

[s_cianci]

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.

[ScottGem]

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<>

[SSchultz0956]

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)

[ScottGem]

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<>

[talaniman]

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) :) :) :) :)

[s_cianci]

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.

[Katiy]

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

[RickJ]

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)

[ScottGem]

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<>

[ScottGem]

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<>

[ScottGem]

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<>

[s_cianci]

Very interesting thought!