its official..the ACLU is a joke

aaharvel

yep i know that many of the so-called "pilgrims" had the intentions of coming over here to establish their own theocracy government based on their own ideology, unlike the Church of England which was the reason they left to begin with. So yeah, it wasn't necessarily a separation of church and state at the beginning, but more of a "my religion is better than yours" type deal.

i'm also familiar with wallbuilders. it's an informative sight, especially when concerned with Washington, Madison, and Jefferson. But the point is, when the Constitution was drafted, ideology gave way to what our American values are today- where no one religion dictates government policy- Jefferson, Madison and Washington knew this and were involved with the idea of separation of church and state from the beginning. It's all there- look up the letters that our founding fathers had sent to the delegates in Virginia, etc. and you will see.

Of course, this stillisn't cut and dry and that's the reason why debate over the subject continues to linger to this day. For example- Christmas is a federal holiday. A federal Holy Day. And you know what- that's just fine by me. Probably not to the ACLU, but it is by me.

aaharvel

bobman1235 wrote:

I wasn't calling you a liberal blowhard, I said you said some of the same things they said. Not in this case so much, but in the past, in many other places.

I actually mostly agree with you on this topic, and even on people brandying the "anti-American" tag about (though I just ignore it, which is kind of what I was getting at), but you seem to be just as quick to label someone a Mark Levin follower as others are to label the ACLU anti-American.

Bob, that's entirely fair, and for the most part right-on. But labeling a Mark Levin follower is not the same as generalizing something or someone as anti-country, which is symbolic for EVERYTHING of that country.

Maurice

aaharvel wrote:

Of course, this stillisn't cut and dry and that's the reason why debate over the subject continues to linger to this day.

You're right. But is sure does spark lively dialogue, which I think is good.

Bring back the Politcal Forum, dammit!:D

aaharvel

oh god no please. I don't want to be labeled "Spyderman II". That guy was a dick.

candyliquor35m

I like this quote. I know things have changed but how much freedom are we willing to give up. I think we'll end up using our big guns including nuclear on any country that tries to play with us. We've been **** footing around for too long. One american life is too many to lose when we have the kind of power that we have.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin

F1nut

But then again.. a knee-jerk reaction is exactly what I would suspect from those who find it easier to label something as "anti-American" when in fact it's merely anti "your ideology." Try thinking outside the box once in a blue moon.

It is hardly a knee-jerk reaction to label anything or anyone, "anti-American" when it/they go against traditional American values. It is those core values which this country was founded upon and has thrived, but which today are crumbling around us thanks to such minority groups as the ACLU. A country divided will not stand.

aaharvel

F1nut wrote:

It is hardly a knee-jerk reaction to label anything or anyone, "anti-American" when it/they go against traditional American values. It is those core values which this country was founded upon and has thrived, but which today are crumbling around us thanks to such minority groups as the ACLU. A country divided will not stand.

When you say core values are you referring to those such as.. freedom of/from religion, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly - minority or not? Which, actually the ACLU is not. The majority of Americans support the ACLU as a whole, although most (myself included) believe that it is far from perfect. The reason for this thread, NAMBLA, and the flag burning issue are three glaring examples.

The Bush Administration is far from perfect, and both he and his staunch supporters, according to the last election and all the polls, are far and away in the minority. According to your logic this would/COULD have them be perceived by us simple majority as anti-American themselves. Not to me, they're just wrong. It's dismissive to classify all things in black/white, American/Anti-American. Life's much more complicated than that.

I stand by my post. Anti "your ideology."

MacLeod

Ive made a new years resolution to not argue so much about politics but this worthless "organization" infuriates me.

The Anti Christian Liberals Union is the most anti-American organization in existance and I consider them borderline treasonous.

It was bad enough when they were defending pedophiles but now that theyre defending terrorists and suing the government to give foreign enemy combatants captured on a foreign battlefield while they were enganged in hostilities against this country access to our courts over here!

If the aclu existed in 1942, we would never have won WWII. Could you imagine an organization suing the government on behalf of captured **** soldiers??? The line was drawn on 9/11 and its obvious which side the aclu is on. They have done nothing since 9/11 except impede and obstruct our efforts to fight terrorism.

Polkersince85

We need to go back to the basics:

President conducts foreign policy and protects the nation
House of Representatives aproppriates funds.
Senators support their states at the Federal level
Judges interpret laws instead of trying to make them

Simple.

F1nut

You seem to be confused what our forefathers wrote about religion. 95% of Americans believe in God, put that in your pot pipe and smoke it.

The majority of Americans do not support the ACLU. Where'd you come up with that one? I stand by my post, they are an minority, anti-American group.

Your interpretation of the last election results are without merit. In fact, history shows that a little change always occurs at that time regardless of the party in power. Note, I said little change, because that's all it was. Remember who was in power when this country was attacked, something that hasn't happened since. How fast the sheep forget. The only problem I have with Bush is that he didn't have our military turn the sand to glass.

Life is not as complicated as you seem to think it is, but then again, the minority has always had a problem grasping that concept.

aaharvel

More like 97% of the people in this country believe in God. That has nothing to do with how religion should be regulated in this country. With the ACLU, If I confused you on that I apologize. The majority of Americans DO believe in the IDEA that a body like the ACLU should exist to protect constitutional rights. Again, I don't think they are perfect, far from it.. but oh geez i've gone through this over and over. Think what you like man.

Your only problem with Bush is what? Are you kidding me?!? That's the funniest thing i've seen or heard all weekend! And Btw, I don't smoke pot. I also don't drink anymore, and I don't smoke. I don't dip, and I also don't drink the radical right koolaide by the gallon.

But think what you like F1. Free country right? At least one thing we have in common is that SACD's kick ****. :cool:

Give Mark Levin, Michael Savage, and Brent Bozell my best.

MacLeod

Mark Levin rules!!

Best debater we have on the right.

hearingimpared

If you look closely at the 1st picture below, you will note that all the Marines pictured are bowing their heads. That's because they're praying.

This incident took place at a recent ceremony honoring the birthday of the corps, and it has the ACLU up in arms. "These are federal employees," says Lucius Traveler, a spokesman for the ACLU, "on federal property and on federal time. For them to pray is clearly an establishment of religion, and we must nip this in the bud immediately."

When asked about the ACLU's charges, Colonel Jack Fessender, speaking for the Commandant of the Corps said (cleaned up a bit), "Screw the ACLU." GOD Bless Our Warriors, Send the ACLU to France.

Please send this to people you know so everyone will know how stupid the ACLU is Getting in trying to remove GOD from everything and every place in America. May God Bless America, One Nation Under GOD!

What's wrong with the picture?


ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!

Nuff Said!!!

aaharvel

I agree, nothing wrong with it Hearing. I think the motus operandi of the ACLU is that they are originalist interpretators instead of "Living Constitution" interpretators. This is another example of my disagreement with them. Add it to NAMBLA, 2nd Amendment Rights, etc..

However, not everything they do MAc is "impede and obstruct terrorism." Go look at their docket if you can stomach to visit their site, you'll be surprised.

MacLeod wrote:

Mark Levin rules!!

Best debater we have on the right.

He's capable of an excellent debate as long as he doesn't lose his temper and hangs up on callers. As much as I don't like him, I admire the guy's law background. But I think the nickname "Great One" is overreaching juuuuuust a little bit..

MacLeod

Well they all do that. Boortz and Hannity are also bad about running over callers that disagree with them and then hanging up on them. It even gets on my nerves!! LOL

Rush is the only one that usually has a decent conversation with callers that disagree, but then his screeners usually weed out the nutjobs and so you usually only get people with actual opinions instead of, "youre a big fat poo poo head!"

But Levin is razor sharp. Where Rush is more of a philosopher, Levin will beat you over the head with court decisions, precedence, actual constitutional law and all kinds of things.

aaharvel

MacLeod wrote:

But Levin is razor sharp. Where Rush is more of a philosopher, Levin will beat you over the head with court decisions, precedence, actual constitutional law and all kinds of things.

That's what confuses me though.. correct me if i'm wrong but ultra-conservatives like Levin, Hannity, Limbaugh, etc.. approach the Constitution as an "originalist" interpretation, do they not? So do the ACLU. It's actually progressives/liberals/democrats like myself who see it as a "living Constitution." That's why I have no problem with Christmas as a federal holiday nor that picture that HearingImpaired just posted.

MacLeod

No, the aclu is a far left wing wacko orginazation that uses the Constitution to progress its agenda. Liberalism does not win at the ballot box, so the left has to inact its agenda thru the courts and thats what the aclu does.

I never met them but I can guarantee you that the Founding Fathers never meant for our court system to be used by enemey combatants from a foreign nation that ARE NOT citizens of this counrty. Nor was it intended to allow child molesters to pass out their literature on city streets. Likewise, it wasnt meant to guarantee that illegal aliens will be given free health care. And there is absolutely NO mention of the "seperation of church and state" anywhere in the Constitution.

aaharvel

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

That's right. But the basic premise is there, like it or not. That's like one person saying "ANdrew just posted." Another person can say- "Andrew just wrote a post on the forum." Different words, same result. Same conclusion.

It wasn't until 1802 when the Jefferson wrote the Danbury Letter that "SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE" was written. Jefferson wrote the Danbury Baptists in the first place because of a grievance within the 1st Amendment. Jefferson, through his words, put all doubts to rest with this letter. This paved the way for the Establishment Clause that we use today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause_of_the_First_Amendment

If you still don't believe me, then by all means- look it up on us.gov or read the papers yourself. Read about the establishment clause on wikipedia, where it was not only passed by Congress but approved by the US Supreme Court. Wikipedia isn't some "anti-american" anti-Christian anti-Bush conspiracy base. Jimmy Wales, it's founder, is a registered Republican.

Bottom line: Separation of church and state does exist.

hearingimpared

What exactly was the ACLU's original mission statement does anyone remember, I forget because of all the watered down crap they have been doing the last seven years.

I remember when they were a good and well respected organization what the heck happened?

MacLeod

The Constitution states that the government shall not establish an official state religion like England had. It says nothing about religion being excluded from policy. Having "In God We Trust" in the Pledge of Allegiance is not establishing a religion nor is displaying a Nativity Scene on public property.

As for the Danbury Letter, that was taken out of context and even if it werent, its not what our laws are based on. Our laws are based on the Constitution.

aaharvel

From 1921:

"The mission of the ACLU is to preserve all of these protections and guarantees:

Your First Amendment rights-freedom of speech, association and assembly. Freedom of the press, and freedom of religion supported by the strict separation of church and state.

Your right to equal protection under the law - equal treatment regardless of race, sex, religion or national origin.

Your right to due process - fair treatment by the government whenever the loss of your liberty or property is at stake.

Your right to privacy - freedom from unwarranted government intrusion into your personal and private affairs."

hearingimpared

MacLeod wrote:

Well they all do that. Boortz and Hannity are also bad about running over callers that disagree with them and then hanging up on them. It even gets on my nerves!! LOL

Rush is the only one that usually has a decent conversation with callers that disagree, but then his screeners usually weed out the nutjobs and so you usually only get people with actual opinions instead of, "youre a big fat poo poo head!"

But Levin is razor sharp. Where Rush is more of a philosopher, Levin will beat you over the head with court decisions, precedence, actual constitutional law and all kinds of things.

My favorite conservative talk show host is Dennis Praeger. He is very sensible. He just recently came under attack because he felt that an elected official in, I think, Minnesota who is a Moslem and took his oath on the Koran should have had a Bible present at the swearing in ceremony.

hearingimpared

aaharvel wrote:

From 1921:

"The mission of the ACLU is to preserve all of these protections and guarantees:

Your First Amendment rights-freedom of speech, association and assembly. Freedom of the press, and freedom of religion supported by the strict separation of church and state.

Your right to equal protection under the law - equal treatment regardless of race, sex, religion or national origin.

Your right to due process - fair treatment by the government whenever the loss of your liberty or property is at stake.

Your right to privacy - freedom from unwarranted government intrusion into your personal and private affairs."

They seem to be overstepping those four very honorable commitments.

hearingimpared

MacLeod wrote:

The Constitution states that the government shall not establish an official state religion like England had. It says nothing about religion being excluded from policy. Having "In God We Trust" in the Pledge of Allegiance is not establishing a religion nor is displaying a Nativity Scene on public property.

As for the Danbury Letter, that was taken out of context and even if it werent, its not what our laws are based on. Our laws are based on the Constitution.

. . . our Constitution was based in part on the Judeo/Christian values as set forth in the Bible.

shack

Even Jefferson didn't call for the govenment to be free from God...just prohibited from establishing or forcing a particular religion on any individual. As I recall, Jefferson was even known to pray in Congress. If Jefferson's work is the foundation for the current "separation" between Church and State...He certainly didn't practice it.

aaharvel

Never heard of Prager, Hearing. But he seems to forget that "so help me God" is not exclusive to the Christian one. They're have been many officials in our history who did not place their hands on the bible, but other religious books that they saw fit. Heck, some Christian leaders and Presidents didn't even place their hand on the bible; they simply held it at their side.

5 Presidents that didn't use the bible:

John Adams
Q. Adams
Theodore Roosevelt (he did so for his 2nd term)
Herbert Hoover
Franklin Pierce

These men swore on a book of laws, as well as the Constitution. Afterall, that's what they swore to defend. Not the bible.

DarqueKnight

If all this guy wants to do is have the same last name as his wife, it would have been easier for him to simply change his last name to his wife's last name before they got married. There's usually an easier alternative path around government red tape.

hearingimpared

aaharvel wrote:

Never heard of Prager, Hearing. But he seems to forget that "so help me God" is not exclusive to the Christian one. They're have been many officials in our history who did not place their hands on the bible, but other religious books that they saw fit. Heck, some Christian leaders and Presidents didn't even place their hand on the bible; they simply held it at their side.

5 Presidents that didn't use the bible:

John Adams
Q. Adams
Theodore Roosevelt (he did so for his 2nd term)
Herbert Hoover
Franklin Pierce

These men swore on a book of laws, as well as the Constitution. Afterall, that's what they swore to defend. Not the bible.

If you look closer you will find that each of those Presidents either: A). had no Bible present because it was a rush job because of an assasination (thus Teddy taking the oath on the Bible 2nd time round); or . the Bible was present and predominant at the swearing in ceremony. Those five presidential examples have been played to death this past two months and Praeger proved the above examples to be true.

He did not make or insinuate that "so help me God" was a Christian exclusive, he is Jewish. He was making the point that the Bible has been integral in America and as a gesture of good will by the public servant who was sworn in might have shown that good will. . . instead of just simply swearing on a book that is foreign and mostly unknown to most Americans. It was that simple. I have no problem with anyone swearing on their belief system's Holy Book but I think Praeger makes a good point. As you would imagine Praeger being Jewish has no belief in the Bible, atleast not the New Testament.

aaharvel

hearingimpared wrote:

If you look closer you will find that each of those Presidents either: A). had no Bible present because it was a rush job because of an assasination (thus Teddy taking the oath on the Bible 2nd time round); or . the Bible was present and predominant at the swearing in ceremony. Those five presidential examples have been played to death this past two months and Praeger proved the above examples to be true.

He did not make or insinuate that "so help me God" was a Christian exclusive, he is Jewish. He was making the point that the Bible has been integral in America and as a gesture of good will by the public servant who was sworn in might have shown that good will. . . instead of just simply swearing on a book that is foreign and mostly unknown to most Americans. It was that simple.

I have no problem with anyone swearing on their belief system's Holy Book but I think Praeger makes a good point.

Well if that's the case, then so do I. That's cool.

polksda

Normally I despise everything the ACLU stands for and the causes they usually support, but in this case I think they're right on the money. I'm so sick and tired of people decrying gender discrimination, but only when the female is on the short end of the stick. Fair is fair.

Macho **** aside, men's rights is an issue that needs more exposure...