posted on December 6, 2006 09:22:47 PM new
I'll make it REAL simple for you...you said "No where in our constitution are gays given the right to marry. NO WHERE" I thought that was the point being addressed. No where in the Constitution does it say gays can't marry. NO WHERE. No one is arguing that it is illegal, unfortunately, at the state level.
posted on December 6, 2006 09:43:45 PM new
Linda: Here's what I said earlier--
"The founding fathers couldn't possibly have anticipated the handguns and the AK 47s, etc., all of which are used 99.99% of the time in the commission of crimes."
It was late, and I wasn't totally alert. What I meant was ". . . all of which are used 99.99% of the time in the commission of crimes *involving guns*."
I'll stand by that.
What's so sad about you is that you've never been taught to think logically, to think a thing through, and it's probably too late for you now. So what we get here (and I'm sure all your acquaintances get allll the time) is half-assed logic "proving" whatever it is you want to prove. You're pathetic, and what makes it worse is that you can't see it.
[ edited by roadsmith on Dec 6, 2006 09:44 PM ]
posted on December 6, 2006 11:49:33 PM new
Well I still haven't seen a photo of linduh's nativity scene in her front yard.....she screams she has the right to have one (because she's SO religious no doubt) but I have yet to see HERS!!!
If she's so much for nativity scenes why doesn't she have one???
Oh, and several times I have pointed out to poor linduh that the ACLU has defended the rights of christians.....but she's rather stupid and stubborn and just can't "get it"
posted on December 7, 2006 12:32:36 AM new
LOL....sure roadsmith....insult away....but you STILL can't prove your newly revised 'what you meant to say' either.
So you'll let it stand huh? LOL No proof of course....just your word. Sure....99% huh? I seriously doubt that one bit.
====================
coincoach.....I have already stated my position and why I have said there is NO place in the constitution that gives GAYS the right to marry.
There isn't. But it is THEY who continue to argue that the civil rights cases from te '60's should be applied in the case of gay marriage.
NO ONE is buying that nonsense....as we can clearly see by how the states are voting on this issue.
Hope that makes it clear....IF not...that's YOUR problem.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on December 7, 2006 05:48:48 AM new
Despite your patronizing responses, it is you who cannot comprehend. Several posters, including myself, have agreed that no where in the constitution does it say gays can marry. Our point is: NO WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION DOES IT SAY THEY CAN'T MARRY! No where in the constitution does it say we can send a spaceship to the moon, but we did it! Since it is NOT written in the constitution that gays cannot marry, we have every right to try to change those laws. Your positions, as skewed as they are IMO, are well known. In a nutshell,my point is your argument about the constitution has no bearing on this particular problem, as it is irrelevant.
posted on December 7, 2006 07:06:39 AM new
Add to that a bigoted and prejudiced attitude armed with propaganda from right-wing rags
delivered with a momentum that can't be slowed by shame or truth and you have Linda_K.
It never fails that her screed scribbled across the page only offers us an opportunity to butt
heads against an impenetrable wall.
In fact, her thinking is so disorganized that it can't even be called a game with well defined
rules. She leaps from statements that she can't defend to personal slander that she can't defend
to irrelevant topics such as communism which she can't define.
Roadsmith, "half-assed logic" as descriptive of Linda's thought is really too kind.
posted on December 7, 2006 08:38:13 AM new
Check out this site about the Kooks at the ACLU. http://www.aclufightsforchristians.com/
It has case histories where the ALCU has fought FOR the rights of people who wished to express their faith.
The ACLU's agenda is not Liberal, but Conservative. They wish to conserve our rights to be free from a Publicly endorsed and Financed religion. If you really wish to live in a Religious nation, if you Really want to live in a theocracy, why not move to one. There are several out there. I hear Iran is always looking for a few good men.
posted on December 7, 2006 08:58:39 AM new
I think we've agreed here that the constitution does not allow or prohibit gays from Marrying. That is not the point. You then need to start to Interpret...
Article IV
Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, RECORDS, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the CONGRESS MAY by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.
Here is the gist of the matter. Article 4 allows your Nevada marriage to be recognized in Florida, except where congress has seen fit to change that. In respect to Gay marriage, congress has seen fit to do 2 things. They have prevented the federal government from recognizing gay marriage, and they have allowed states to not recognize the gay marriages of other states. This is no longer a constitutional issue, nor is it a federal issue. They have been resolved so that now each states decides for itself and itself alone what is allowed and what is not allowed within that state.
Personally, I think this was a very weak way to go about it. The federal government should have recognized the marriages of any state as long as those people lived in a state that recognized that marriage. That would mean that if Linda were to marry another woman in Vermont, the government would recognize it as long as they lived in Vermont. They could even move to Mass. and stay married. Once they moved to Alabama, the governments (both federal and state) would not recognize the marriage and they would be forced to divorce and meet their sexual partners in the back of shady movie houses.
[ edited by dejapooh on Dec 7, 2006 09:03 AM ]
posted on December 7, 2006 09:40:57 AM new
And DOMA also says:
The second substantive section of the bill amends the U.S. Code to make explicit what has been understood under federal law for over 200 years; that a marriage is the legal union of a man and a woman as husband and wife, and a spouse is a husband or wife of the opposite sex.
The DOMA definition of marriage is derived most immediately from a Washington state case from 1974, Singer v. Hara, which is included in the 1990 edition of Black's Law Dictionary. More than a century ago, the U.S. Supreme Court spoke of the "union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony."
Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U.S. 15, 45 (1985).
DOMA is not meant to affect the definition of "spouse" (which under the Social Security law, for example, runs to dozens of lines). It ensures that whatever definition of "spouse" may be used in Federal law, the word refers only to a person of the opposite sex.
------
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on December 7, 2006 10:43:51 PM new
More bad news for Linda.
Canada won't reopen same-sex marriage debate
POSTED: 0317 GMT (1117 HKT), December 7, 2006
OTTAWA, Canada (CNN) -- Canada's House of Commons Thursday soundly rejected a motion from Prime Minister Stephen Harper to reconsider the country's 2005 law allowing gay men and lesbians to marry.
Harper's motion -- which would not have directly repealed the law but called on Parliament to reopen debate on the contentious issue -- was defeated by a vote of 123-175, with most opposition lawmakers and even some members of Harper's Conservative Party voting no.
During the campaign leading up to his election in January, Harper promised to introduce a motion to revisit the same-sex marriage law, which he opposed when it was approved last year. He said at the time that if the motion was defeated, the issue would be settled.
Former Liberal Prime Minister Paul Martin pushed the law through Parliament after a series of court rulings legalized same-sex marriage across most of the country. More than 12,000 marriage licenses have been issued to gay and lesbian couples in Canada, according to Canadians for Equal Marriage, a group that supports same-sex marriage.
Harper's motion faced an uphill battle because, while Conservatives are the largest party in the House of Commons, they do not hold a majority, and all three of the other parties opposed reopening the same-sex marriage debate.
posted on December 7, 2006 11:35:07 PM new
You know if people would just focus on their own life, live it however it pleases them with whatever values they truly hold and leave everyone else to do the same, things could be so much easier.
The so called evangelical right makes me sick to my stomach. I have never seen such a bunch of hypocrites in my life. A shining example of that would be that pastor up in Colorado recently who got canned for paying for sex with a gay male prostitute. Between him and Jimmy Swaggart bawling on national television back in the 90s about "I have sinned" because he had oral sex performed on him in the back of his limousine in Baton Rouge by a hooker and Jim and Tammy Faye Baker, who got a sinful divorce by the way, who ripped off how many millions from the "faithful," old Jim went to prison right? Oral Roberts going up to the top of the "Tower of Power" at Oral Roberts University in Tulsa and getting on national TV telling his followers that if they did not contribute a million bucks within a week, God would "call him home," he and his program got yanked off a number of local stations for that stunt as I recall for quite awhile. Let's not forget good ole Pat Robertson who regularly calls for some international leader to be assasinated, last one was the President of Venezuela I believe? This is the group that screamed "God, Gays and Guns" for what, four election cycles, thankfully they dried up and blew away with the 2006 elections. Sometimes the American public are just rock hard stupid.
It's not like people really and truly believe all that religious dogma, church attendance in the US continues to plumet, divorce continues to rise and gambling, drinking and prostitution are as popular as ever. Guess it's just one of those things, "Do As I Say and Not As I Do." Linda, am I suppose to LOL LOL at this point, I get confused. LOL LOL
Seems these good God fearing people want to tell others how to live a good, clean and holy life, while they themselves just screw around, both literally and figuratively.
posted on December 8, 2006 12:50:48 AM new
"""It's not like people really and truly believe all that religious dogma, church attendance in the US continues to plumet, divorce continues to rise and gambling, drinking and prostitution are as popular as ever. Guess it's just one of those things, "Do As I Say and Not As I Do." Linda, am I suppose to LOL LOL at this point, I get confused. LOL LOL"""
You will be quickly informed (by LOLinduh) that the moral decay of America is the fault of Bill Clinton, Michael Moore, and all the rest of us left-wing liberal atheist socialist Communist baby eating do-gooders.
[ edited by mingotree on Dec 8, 2006 12:52 AM ]
The truth is that people of that ilk accept the immorality of lies, torture and illegal war. They disregard Americans who need health care. They disregard Americans with disabilities and disregard those Americans who live in poverty. Their bigotry and prejudice knows no bounds. Take all of THAT which people of her ilk disregard, practice and promote and you have the real moral decay of America.
posted on December 8, 2006 08:57:34 AM new
Imo, the moral and ethical DECAY has come from those who have continually promoted that America get away from the foundation that our founding fathers set for us.
NOT the other way around.
"The belief in a God All Powerful wise and good, is so essential to the moral order of the world and to the happiness of man, that arguments which enforce it cannot be drawn from too many sources nor adapted with too much solicitude to the different characters and capacities impressed with it." ---James Madison
Taken from today's Patriot Post The site that often quotes our founders and early President's belief in God.
=============
In the Gospel of Matthew (19:24), Jesus speaks to his disciples about wealth: "[I]t is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
The Christian life, at its foundation, is characterized by humility, which is to say that wealth, which fosters elitism, is often at odds with Christianity. The Bible does not say that prosperity is sinful, but those who place wealth above God are engaging in idolatry---as defined in the Second of the Ten Commandments.
One may rightly infer that a wealth of knowledge leading to academic elitism, like economic elitism, is also hostile to Christianity. Idolizing knowledge or wealth isolates one from the Truth and Light.
While the federal judiciary erroneously
cites the so-called "Living
Constitution" http://PatriotPost.US/Alexander/edition.asp?id=487to justify the eradication of God from the public square, it is wealthy university trustees and academic elitists who, under the aegis of "tolerance and diversity," seek to eradicate God from the academy.
How is it that historic institutions such as Harvard, Yale and Princeton have all but forsaken their Christian foundations---particularly in the last few decades?
The answer is that, commensurate with the growth of their economic and academic stores, they rely on ever-wealthier trustees and enrollment prospects. (The average tuition among these institutions is now $42,000---and that's before room and board.)
This is certainly not to say that our nation is devoid of wealthy and intelligent Christians, or that being of modest means insures one from materialist idolatry. Idolatry is not, after all, what you own, but what owns you. This is to say, however, that the potential for idolatry increases exponentially with growth in economic and academic elitism. Consequently, left-elite academicianshttp://PatriotPost.US/alexander/edition.asp?id=295, and their cadre of wealthy "Rockefeller conservatives" (economic conservatives/social liberals), who comprise majorities on most academic boards, harbor contempt for Christianity in academia.
The nation's oldest academic institution, Harvard University, was established in 1636 and named for Puritan minister John Harvard. The university claims that it was "never formally affiliated with a specific religious denomination," though all its presidents were Puritan ministers until 1708. A 1643 college brochure identified Harvard's purpose: "To advance Learning and perpetuate it to Posterity; dreading to leave an illiterate Ministry to the Churches." The university's Charter of 1650 calls for "the education of the English and Indian youth of this Country in knowledge and godliness." (Harvard now has amassed a $30-billion endowment.)
Harvard alumnus, John Adams (class of 1755) wrote in 1776, "It is the duty of all men in society, publicly, and at stated seasons, to worship the SUPREME BEING, the great Creator and Preserver of the universe."
Yale, the nation's third oldest academic institution, was established in 1701 by royal charter as The Collegiate School, in response to the efforts of colonial Congregationalist ministers since the 1640s to establish a college in New Haven. The charter was granted for an institution "wherein Youth may be instructed in the Arts and Sciences [and] through the blessing of Almighty God may be fitted for Publick employment both in Church and Civil State." (Yale now boasts a $12-billion endowment.)
Yale alumnus Noah Webster (class of 1778), a devout Christian and outspoken Federalist, considered "education useless without the Bible." In the forward of the 1828 Webster's American Dictionary, he wrote, "In my view, the Christian religion is the most important and one of the first things in which all children, under a free government ought to be instructed... No truth is more evident to my mind than that the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people."
Princeton was originally founded in 1746 as the College of New Jersey, established by royal charter for "the Education of Youth in the Learned Languages and in the Liberal Arts and Sciences," and unique in that the charter allowed the attendance of "any Person of any religious Denomination whatsoever." The absence of an official denominational affiliation or criteria for attendance did not, however, connote the absence of strong denominational ties. To the contrary, Princeton was founded by "New Light" Presbyterians of the Great Awakening for the purpose of training Presbyterian ministers. Jonathan Dickinson, a Presbyterian minister and leader of the Great Awakening of the 1730s, was the school's co-founder and first president. (Princeton has a $13-billion endowment.)
Princeton alumnus James Madison (class of 1771) observed, "The belief in a God All Powerful wise and good, is so essential to the moral order of the world and to the happiness of man, that arguments which enforce it cannot be drawn from too many sources nor adapted with too much solicitude to the different characters and capacities impressed with it."
Yet today, these institutions, like the rest of the Ivy League schools---Brown, Columbia, Cornell, Dartmouth and Penn---and upper-tier institutions across the nation under the tutelage of wealthy trustees and elite academicians - tend to eschew all things Christian.
The latest chapter of Christian heritage eradication in academia is being written at the nation's second oldest university, William and Mary, chartered in 1693 in Williamsburg, Virginia, as an Anglican college.
At the behest of university president Gene Nichol, the removal of the historic Wren Chapel altar cross has been ordered "in order to make it less of a faith-specific space, and to make it more welcoming to students, faculty, staff, and visitors of all faiths." The Wren Chapel was constructed in 1732 as "a faith-specific space," and the cross was a gift from nearby Bruton Parish Church, founded in 1674. Bruton is the oldest continually operated Episcopal Church in America.
George Washington, Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson worshipped there prior to the Revolution.
Nichol wrote, "Our Chapel, like our entire campus, must be welcoming to all. I believe a recognition of the full dignity of each member of our diverse community is vital. Though we haven't meant to do so, the display of a Christian cross... sends an unmistakable message that the chapel belongs more fully to some of us than to others... The Wren is no mere museum or artifact. It touches every student who enrolls at the college. It defines us. And it must define us all."
Of course, removal of the Wren cross does not "define" William and Mary. To the contrary, it redefines William and Mary. Perhaps Mr. Nichol (and his colleagues in similar posts across the nation) should size up the eye of a needle before exiling the last vestiges of Christianity from their hallowed halls.
A William and Mary graduate once mused, "Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep forever." The name of that esteemed alumnus? Thomas Jefferson.
QUOTE OF THE WEEK
"Thomas Jefferson, William and Mary's most famous alum, described the teachings of Jesus Christ as 'The most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man.' Surely the continued presence of a religious symbol celebrating the life of a man who advocated one to, 'Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you,' is in accordance with William and Mary's highest values." ---Lieutenant Hunter Abell (W&M '02)
========
"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 favors."
-- George Washington (Thanksgiving Proclamation, 3 October 1789)
Reference: George Washington: A Collection, W.B. Allen, ed. (543)
===========
"It is the duty of all men in society, publicly, and at stated seasons, to worship the SUPREME BEING, the great Creator and Preserver of the universe. And no subject shall be hurt, molested, or restrained, in his person, liberty, or estate, for worshipping GOD in the manner most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience; or for his religious profession or sentiments; provided he doth not disturb the public peace, or obstruct others in their religious worship."
-- John Adams (Thoughts on Government, 1776)
Reference: The Works of John Adams, Charles Adams, ed., 221.
--------
""I consider the government of the U.S. as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises."
-- Thomas Jefferson (letter to Samuel Miller, 23 January 1809)
Reference: Jefferson Writings, Peterson, ed., 1186.
[ edited by Linda_K on Dec 8, 2006 09:43 AM ]
posted on December 8, 2006 12:01:43 PM new
Let's see Linda is up to her shannigans again.
First she changes the topic from an assult against Christmas to gun control.
She does what she accuses every one else of doing.
Then she refuses to answer a question: If it (the constitution) doesn't give gays, or ANYONE the right to marry, where does it DENY those rights to anyone?
Once again when Linda is backed into a corner, she runs and hides and then has to come back with more C&P's instead of answering the question. She cant answer the original question because she has no defense.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on December 8, 2006 12:15:31 PM new
Linda has a problem with "civils rights" that are granted in the Constitution being taken away, but she says nothing when it is the Republican party that wants to take our rights away.
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has sparked a nationwide debate about the First Amendment after saying the war against terrorism may force the United States to reexamine freedom of speech guarantees.
Gingrich, a potential Republican presidential candidate in 2008, said Monday that a “different set of rules” may be needed to reduce the terrorists’ ability to use the Internet to recruit and communicate. "We need to get ahead of the curve before we actually lose a city, which I think could happen in the next decade," Gingrich said in a speech covered by the Union Leader of Manchester. The address has been widely disseminated and debated on Internet sites such as HOTSOUP.com, an issues-based social network.
“Scary,” said Badger38, a regular commentator at HOTSOUP. Gingrich’s remarks are “a bit like a speech given by Tommy Franks in 2003 in which he talked about the scrapping of the Constitution if another terrorist attack took place on U.S. soil.” A veteran who goes by the username “independentvoter” said fear should not immobilize the nation or lead to the elimination of freedoms “that millions have died for. As for me, I am a Marine (72-76; once a Marine, always a Marine). I wasn’t afraid to die for my freedoms back then and I sure as hell am not afraid to die for them today.”
In the same discussion Loop, others argued that Gingrich may have a point. “You know, he’s right,” wrote Mikekeyy. “Those freedoms just hinder those trying to protect us. Besides, if you’ve got nothing to hide, why should you care? The only ones they’re after are the terrorists.”
Some gave Gingrich credit for thinking outside the box at a time when most politicians are trapped by convention. “It is all clear cut to me folks: watch and listen intensely the next few months as Newt and all other politicians sprout objections to the way things have been run in Washington,” said Mayor Jon Tucci of Weston, W.Va.
“They know that there is a very intelligent populace like never before that has finally caught on to the shenanigans in our house. The age of mass communication and nearly-split-second information at the fingertips of the voting public demands honesty and, hopefully, integrity,” Tucci wrote. “Some of the old timers will never change, but, the savvy Newt and all like him will try and turn the plate over and uncover that twist – that niche that he and other feel will pull them up out of the murky waters to the promised throne.” Join the debate at www.hotsoup.com.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on December 8, 2006 02:50:16 PM new
Oh gosh , isn't linduh just so holy, so close to god... !!!
well, here's one of her prayers:
linda's Prayer:
"""Dear MERCIFUL lord, please show your infinite love and kindness by having anyone I don't like tortured. I know you don't care if they're guilty or innocent and it really shouldn't matter ....making them suffer is what you and I really love.
Did you talk to George today? Did you tell him to keep torture as an American religious value?
Thank you in advance for letting my leaders, who I worship more than you (sorry), know just how right and holy torture is, after all, it SAVED America!.
I know your son would approve, too!LOL!""
posted on December 8, 2006 03:25:50 PM new
The trouble with giving away some of our liberties on a "temporary" basis is that they probably wouldn't be re-instated. When I was in politics we noted that no "temporary" tax was ever rescinded, that we were aware of.
posted on December 8, 2006 03:46:22 PM new
might be the reason you're no longer IN politics.
Taxes are NOT anywhere near the same catagorie as liberties are. NO where near.
And I don't buy this 'probably won't' BS.
Meanwhile you liberals have absolutely NO problem taking away the OTHER civil right/liberties of others....say religious folks. Not ONE bit of hesitation on your part.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on December 10, 2006 11:19:14 AM new
THE ACLU FIGHTS FOR CHRISTIANS
The ACLU fights just as hard for INDIVIDUAL free exercise of religion as the ACLU fights against GOVERNMENT endorsement, sponsorship, or establishment of religion. Despite this fact, many people spread misinformation about the ACLU around the internet, innocently and maliciously, falsely claiming the ACLU is anti-religion or anti-Christian.
This list of FACTS counteracts that misinformation. These links represent just a few of the many examples of the ACLU defending the free speech and free exercise rights of Christians (for purposes of this list, the word “Christian” means a person who self-identifies as “Christian”).
In every example, the ACLU is defending the right of a Christian to speak as a Christian or to practice Christianity.
Here is the current version of this EVER GROWING list:
ACLU Files Suit to Protect Free Speech Rights of Christian Protesting Wal-Mart's Policy on Gays
ACLU of Georgia and Baptist Church File Religious Discrimination Lawsuit
ACLU of Rhode Island Files Appeal on Behalf of Christian Prisoner Barred from Preaching at Religious Services
ACLU of Michigan Defends Catholic Man Coerced to Convert to Pentecostal Faith in Drug Rehab Program
ACLU of New Jersey Joins Lawsuit Supporting Second-Grader's Right to Sing "Awesome God" at Talent Show
After ACLU Intervention on Behalf of Christian Valedictorian, Michigan High School Agrees to Stop Censoring Religious Yearbook Entries
ACLU Helps Free New Mexico Street Preacher From Prison
ACLU of WA Wins Right of Christian Minister to Preach in Spokane Plaza
ACLU Fights for Baptist Preacher in Illinois
ACLU Defends Rights of Christian Group to Make Religious Protest at Funerals
ACLU Backs Christian Abortion Protester in Ohio
ACLU of Oregon Defends Religious Liberty Of Adventist School Boys Basketball Players
ACLU Backs Missouri Nurse Penalized for Wearing Cross-Shaped Lapel Pin
ACLU Defends Christian Street Preacher in Las Vegas
ACLU Argues for Legal Recognition of Small Christian Church
ACLU of MA Defends Students Punished for Distributing Candy Canes with Religious Messages
ACLU of Nebraska Defends Church Facing Eviction by the City of Lincoln
ACLU Defends Church's Right to Run "Anti-Santa" Ads in Boston Subways
ACLU Defends Inmate's Access to Material from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
Following Threat of ACLU of Virginia Lawsuit, Officials to Agree Not to Ban Baptisms in Public Parks
ACLU Defends Families Fighting Removal Of Religious Symbols from Florida Cemetery
ACLU Supports Right of Iowa Students to Distribute Christian Literature at School
ACLU Argument In Support of the Display of a Christian Cross in a Public Forum
ACLU Defends Free Speech Rights of Christians And Others On Main Street Plaza
ACLU Defends Prisoner's Rosary Beads
ACLU Defends Christian Group's Anti-Abortion Ads On Phoenix Buses
ACLU Pledges to Back Church in a Zoning Battle
ACLU of PA Files Discrimination Lawsuit Over Denial of Zoning Permit for African American Baptist Church
ACLU Offers To Represent Private Prayer on Public Property and
ACLU Joins Falwell To Fight For Church Incorporation Rights
This page is maintained by Allen Asch. You can find email contact info at that link if you would like to suggest additions to the list or to make other comments.
posted on December 10, 2006 11:32:07 AM new
LOL....at helping Christians....what a joke.
Guess some believe 'helping' means working to remove all things religious.
======
ACLU fulfilling their communist agenda
Below are the communist goals being implemented by the ACLU in their quest to destroy America's culture and traditions:
Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions, by claiming their activities violate civil rights.
Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers associations. Put the party line in textbooks.
Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all form of artistic expression.
An American communist cell was told to "eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings," substituting shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms.
Control art critics and directors of art museums. "Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art."
Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.
Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio and television.
Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural and healthy."
Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a "religious crutch."
Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the grounds that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state."
Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of "the big picture." Give more emphasis to Russian history since the communists took over.
Obliterating the American past, with its antecedents in principles of freedom, liberty and private ownership is a major goal of the communists then and now.
Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture – education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.
Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.
Anyone who has been following the destructive path of the ACLU can easily see how effective these communist goals have been implemented to "promote democracy" and protect your "civil rights."
Lenin stated: "Communism alone is capable of providing really complete democracy." (See Tucker, "The Lenin Anthology".
James Madison, known as the "Father of the Constitution" had something different to say about a democracy:
Democracy is the most vile form of government ... democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention, have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property, and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.
Perhaps it's time to recognize the ACLU as the American Communist Lawyers Union instead of their disingenuous "civil rights" stage name.
posted on December 10, 2006 12:14:56 PM new
Thanks for the list, Mingo, on the ACLU. It's SO EASY for the neocons to demonize the ACLU and thereby agitate their base. Linda's laughing at your list, but obviously she hasn't read it.
posted on December 10, 2006 12:20:03 PM new
The ACLU fights just as hard for INDIVIDUAL free exercise of religion as the ACLU fights
against GOVERNMENT endorsement, sponsorship, or establishment of religion.
Despite this fact, many people spread misinformation about the ACLU around the internet, maliciously, falsely claiming the ACLU is anti-religion or anti-Christian.
Roadsmith, linduh can't read or comprehend very well hence never is able to learn anything...she will NEVER "get it". Mis-information is her agenda.
Fortunately she's in the minority...the majority of voters obviously are tired of the phony "attack on religion" and recognize it for what it is....phony.
posted on December 10, 2006 12:28:03 PM new
From linduh's post:
""James Madison, known as the "Father of the Constitution" had something different to say about a democracy:
Democracy is the most vile form of government ... democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention, have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property, and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. """
Then why are our troops dying and being maimed in Iraq????
I believe bushy and linduh have both said we're fighting for democracy in Iraq.
posted on December 10, 2006 01:15:32 PM new
SURE roadsmith....there are those who will read what is posted and ASSUME it's the truth.
Then there are those of us who research things out for ourselves....and learn like I pointed out yesterday....that the article mingotree posted was a FARSE and had NO bearing on what ACTUALLY occurred.
so....her listings that those cases happened....doesn't mean they ACTUALLY did....get it? I know it's hard for some to not just follow along like SHEEP and believe everyting they read.
And just who in the heck is allen asch????
According to a quick google search on 'who is allen asch' it's a CHEF at the Univ. of Nevada
Like I care to just BLINDLY believe a list a CHEF'S/instructor's OPINION.....lol lol
Nope....I prefer FACTS....something you liberals don't appear to care about one bit.
You'll make up anything....post it as FACTS....whether it IS nor not. Pretty darn sad for those who THINK they're intellectuals.
) but I have yet to see HERS!!!
.