ACLU at it again...

shack

mrbigbluelight wrote:

No. The problem lies, rather, with school administrators. Both local and state. For underfunding schools.

So how much more are you willing to pay in taxes to make this happen? School administrators can't just print money. They have to raise taxes to get more funds. Most school districts are currently running well below optimum levels of funding. Even well funded districts are starting to worry as older buildings are needing replacement and the cost to repair and rebuild are soaring. And even if they do increase taxes...do you want that money to go to build facilities to placate the HUGE MINORITY of students that are offended by meeting in a Church or would you rather spend the money on teachers and resources to better educate the students?

mrbigbluelight wrote:

So, I say ..... once again, nice job, ACLU.

The ACLU has cost American education billions of dollars that could be used for education. Not only defending lawsuits, but in forcing implementation of policies that have no benefit to the system as a whole. My kids and the majority of everyones kid's education probably suffered in some form because of the ACLU. Yeah.....nice job. :rolleyes:

polksda

MacLeod wrote:

I have and never will understand why anything Christian is offensive especially if youre an aethiest. If I dont believe in God, then why would a church offend me??? Its just a building. If I were a devout Christian, I wouldnt be offended to hold a service in a mosque. Hell Ive been to a wedding held in a Catholic church. Didnt bother me in the least.

No offense, but I think you may be confusing "agnostic" with "atheist". An agnostic is someone who doesn't know if God exists (or deosn't care), and an atheist *actively* believes that there is NO God.

I put myself in the former camp, and as such, attending weddings, funerals, church services, or other religious observances doesn't bother me. In fact, I find some of the elaborate rituals interesting and often humorous. Being inside a building built for religious services of any faith doesn't faze me.

On the other hand, I can see where it would bother an atheist, since many atheists believe as actively in the nonexistence of God as many Christians/Muslims/Buddhists/etc. believe in the existence of God. It could be viewed as opposite ends of the spectrum.

Then again, there are members of all faiths (and nonfaiths) that enjoy splitting hairs to the Nth degree, interpreting the Bible, Koran, Talmud literally, as well as extremists of all faiths. My guess is that the plaintiff in this case is an extreme point of view, or is being used by the ACLU or other wingnuts with an anti-Christian agenda.

As far as I'm concerned, a church is just another building. What people to do inside it may hold some significance for them, but frankly it's just a venue, in this case used out of convenience.

Nonsequitur: The community concert band (administered by the local community college) I'm a member of is having a concert this Thursday in a local Methodist church since the college auditorium was already booked for another event. Should members of the band or concertgoers wishing to attend be up in arms because it's in a *gasp* church?... or because an extracurricular group affiliated with a state-funded educational institution is daring to use the facilities of a religion?

How horrible... :rolleyes:

F1nut

Instead, the school administration has limped along, hoping the status quo would continue to hold as it has since the problem.....

WHAT PROBLEM???

There is no problem with the exception of ONE zealot trying to force his will on the majority of others.

The school administration would have you accept that we COULD follow the Constitution, but it is much easier, quicker, and cheaper to do it "our" way, even if it violates the Constitution.

Obviously, you don't understand the Constitution in regards to the separation of church and state. :rolleyes:

MacLeod

Thats because THERE IS NO SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE IN THE CONSTITUTION!!! Never has been! Its another misconception like a right to privacy or a right to vote. None of these things are in the Constitution.

The only thing in the Constitution is that the government cannot establish a state religion like the Church of England. Thats it. If the founders wanted nothing at all religious in government, then they wouldnt have included so much of it in their founding of the country!!!

mrbigbluelight

F1nut wrote:

WHAT PROBLEM???

There is no problem with the exception of ONE zealot trying to force his will on the majority of others.

So we agree there is a problem. It might only be one, but one is all it takes.

And, believe it or not, I don't know if "zealot" would be the term I'd use.
"Cheesehead" might be more accurate.
If his religious beliefs are so strictly defined as to prevent his attending a graduation in a Baptist church, than I'd have to ask:
How the heck did he make it through a public high school in New Jersey ?

But, as I mentioned, it is ABSOLUTELY legal to hold graduations in religious buildings if there are no other alternatives.
I believe someone mentioned symbols of religious significance are usually covered up as a measure of insuring the separation of church and state.
And that is not a bad thing.
But, as I mentioned, if the principal of the high school had promised extra graduation tickets to students IF they attended a Roman Catholic mass, than he stepped on his crank. BIG TIME.
Those tickets were, by all accounts, hard to get (only 250 issued). If one could get extra tickets by observing certain religious ceremonies, than .....

.....that's one of the reasons I question the compentency of the school administrators. It's one thing to be wrong, it's another thing to be stupid.

F1nut wrote:

Obviously, you don't understand the Constitution in regards to the separation of church and state. :rolleyes:

While I'm not Thomas Paine, or Thomas Jefferson, or a Constitutional scholar, I'd like to offer my thanks to the West Side School District for making me look like one, at least when compared to that bunch. Compared to that lot, I belong on the Supreme Court !

:rolleyes:

And as far as raising my taxes to support proper school funding, by all means, tax away. I say that, and I vote that way, even armed with the knowledge and awareness that school districts/administrations that I am aware of are disgustingly overbloated.

ben62670

MacLeod wrote:

Thats because THERE IS NO SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE IN THE CONSTITUTION!!! Never has been! Its another misconception like a right to privacy or a right to vote. None of these things are in the Constitution.

The only thing in the Constitution is that the government cannot establish a state religion like the Church of England. Thats it. If the founders wanted nothing at all religious in government, then they wouldnt have included so much of it in their founding of the country!!!

AMEN!

ben62670

Ya know what put a monitor outside so he can see the whole graduation, build a little sand box outside, wrap a towel around his head, face him east, and tie his camel to an olive tree so he feels more at home. If I offended anybody please lick my butt up and down lick till your tongue turns doo doo brown! God Bless America the land of the free!

bobman1235

MacLeod wrote:

Thats because THERE IS NO SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE IN THE CONSTITUTION!!! Never has been! Its another misconception like a right to privacy or a right to vote. None of these things are in the Constitution.

The only thing in the Constitution is that the government cannot establish a state religion like the Church of England. Thats it. If the founders wanted nothing at all religious in government, then they wouldnt have included so much of it in their founding of the country!!!

Well, I don't know what you mean by "anything religious in government", as I personally don't think there should be anything religious about government, but that has nothing to do with the Constitution, just my preference

The Constitution wrote:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

That's it. They can't establish a national religion, nor can they infringe upon your right to freely exercise your own religion, whatever it may be.

Having a civil ceremony or meeting in a place of worship out of convenience doesn't break either of those stipulations, as far as I can tell....

ben62670

I'm getting scared i agree with Bob again :eek:
Except that the founding fathers of our government said that the Bible should be used as the standard for making laws in this country, and the Bible should be taught in schools.

bobman1235

ben62670 wrote:

Except that the founding fathers of our government said that the Bible should be used as the standard for making laws in this country, and the Bible should be taught in schools.

They also had slaves.

Society evolves. Unless it follows Islam.

hearingimpared

mrbigbluelight wrote:

And therein lies the problem.

NOT with the ACLU.
NOT with West Side High School senior Bilal Shareef.

No. The problem lies, rather, with school administrators. Both local and state. For underfunding schools.



And with incompetent lawyers. If that is an accurate quote, than state law(s) absolutely allow the use of religious facilities out of necessity.
There is absolutely no need for "we believe". It is a given.

But if that is an accurate quote, than District lawyer Perry Lattiboudere has revealed that he knows the district has not made a 'good faith' effort in attempting to secure other graduation facilities.

Instead, the school administration has limped along, hoping the status quo would continue to hold as it has since the problem was originally brought to their attention in 2005.
But it didn't, thanks to West Side High School senior Bilal Shareef and the ACLU.

And the school administration, not unlike a good magician, attempts to "misdirect" away from the real problem of underfunded facilities (because THEY are responsible for that) to an area that they can't be held accountable for: one of "those" people, senior Bilal Shareef, and the ever-popular straw dog, the ACLU, are "acting up", and causing "us" problems.

The school administration would have you accept that we COULD follow the Constitution, but it is much easier, quicker, and cheaper to do it "our" way, even if it violates the Constitution.

So, I say ..... once again, nice job, ACLU.

I hope that the poster quoted above by mrbigbluelight is not confussed with this hearingimpared!!!! I would hate to be once again misquoted.:)

DollarDave

ben62670 wrote:

Ya know what put a monitor outside so he can see the whole graduation, build a little sand box outside, wrap a towel around his head, face him east, and tie his camel to an olive tree so he feels more at home. If I offended anybody please lick my butt up and down lick till your tongue turns doo doo brown! God Bless America the land of the free!

Best sumamrization to date in this thread.

For heavon's sake, the moron doesn't have to even attend the stupid graduation ceromeny to get his diploma!

These dammned Islamist need to go somewhere else with there intolerance. I, for one, am sick and tired of them, the ACLU, and intolerant people that subscribe to their perspectives. I am Christian and occasionally that will be evident in a public setting - too bad for those that don't believe as I do. Get over it, or go somewhere else.

MacLeod

bobman1235 wrote:

They also had slaves.

Society evolves. Unless it follows Islam.

About 2% of the population had slaves and it was people with these same Christian morals and values that abolished slavery.

Society evolves thats true, but you still dont abandon the principles and values that the country was founded on. Especially when those priciples and values are responsible to creating the greates nation that ever has or ever will exist.

Im not religious at all however I do believe deeply in Christian values. I mean, how can you disagree with the 10 Commandments?

I dont think you have to be a die hard church goer and Bible thumper or even believer in God to belive in and strive to live by the values taught and held sacred by Christianity.

And the difference between muslim governed countries is that they are ruled by religion and by the church. In our society, we simply use our values as a foundation for our laws. For example, if youre a muslim living in a muslim country and convert to Christianity, you can be executed. No such thing even close in this country.

bobman1235

Hey Mac, I 'm 100% in agreement with you as long as you're talking about the VALUES and not the MEDIUM. There are Christian values outside of Christiandom. The fear of hell (or the lure of heaven) tend to be a good motivator for those who would otherwise be disinclined to treat their fellow man with respect; that doesn't mean that everyone needs to be taught Christian dogma to follow a "righteous path." I don't need to be told that Moses brought the Ten Commandments down from on high to know that they're a good idea (well, most of them).

Not trying to stomp on anyone's religion here. But if you believe in God you should believe in Him because you think it's the Truth, not because you think he's a good role model.

ohskigod

mrbigbluelight wrote:

So, I say ..... once again, nice job, ACLU.

yep, and luckily, the ACLU will get to profit from it. they'll keep a pecentage of a judgement or settlement of course, to cover "legal costs" or as I call it, "money so we can do this again and make more money", but hey....guess I'm splitting hairs here.

The ACLU will profit off a cash strapped school system, the kids will suffer, all in the name of Civil Liberty? Because the building with the convenience of 4 walls and a roof for which to hold a graduation happens to have a ....."GASP" a cross? MY GOD, thats worse than pooring acid on kittens!!! I guess you dont get it tiger :rolleyes:

arent there bigger problems for the aclu to tackle. like when a college student cant say what he believes because it doesnt follow far left ideals that usually thrive on college campuses. I see people's rights trampled all the time, and no ACLU gets involved. Why? no cash, no benefit. The ACLU that has done good in the past no longer exists.

ever wonder why they mostly pick on small towns or poor districts like this, because they can tfight it. quick settlement = quick cash. SUre, they'll take some high profile stuff to look good, but believe me, the quick buck is what its about. It's allways the power and the cash.

mrbigbluelight

hearingimpared wrote:

I hope that the poster quoted above by mrbigbluelight is not confussed with this hearingimpared!!!! I would hate to be once again misquoted.:)

Uhm..........:o ..........oooops ! ......first quote I goofed up on because I was entering multiple quotes on one post. I made a mistake.

hearingimpaired wrote:

I've finally come to my senses, and realize that mrbigbluelight is always right. I don't know what I was thinking. To make up for the errors of my ways, I'm shipping all my high-end gear, along with a fist full of cash, as a small token of my gratitude. Others should take note of what I'm doing, and follow my example, without questioning. Do it now.

Okay, that has to be accurate ! :eek:


.....okay, I made that second quote up myself.


....but still......that second quote has some real , uhm ..... something to it.
Something to consider, I think. Heck of an idea.


I know the ACLU would approve.

hearingimpared

mrbigbluelight wrote:

Uhm..........:o ..........oooops ! ......first quote I goofed up on because I was entering multiple quotes on one post. I made a mistake.





Okay, that has to be accurate ! :eek:


.....okay, I made that second quote up myself.


....but still......that second quote has some real , uhm ..... something to it.
Something to consider, I think. Heck of an idea.


I know the ACLU would approve.

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA see a sense of humor in the mist of a heated polital discussion is always a good thing. . .

Now I wish I knew how to live by that little bit of wisdom. LOL

candyliquor35m

This is rather disturbing:

Dear Friend,

States from Maine to Montana are in revolt against Congress’s REAL ID scheme. By adding your voice today, you can help us prevent this ‘Real Nightmare’ from becoming a reality.

The REAL ID Act requires every American to have a standardized driver’s license -- a de facto national ID -- to fly on commercial airlines or enter government buildings. It also requires driver’s licenses to have a “machine readable component,” that will be read everywhere, from retailers to airports.

This component -- combined with state databases of drivers’ information -- will create one-stop shopping for identity thieves. More importantly, it will invade people’s privacy by allowing easy tracking and monitoring of ordinary, law-abiding Americans.

Last month, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) proposed regulations to implement REAL ID. As required by law, the department is now accepting public comments on these proposed regulations.

Take Action: Submit your own comments telling the Department of Homeland Security and Congress that REAL ID is a 'Real Nightmare.'

Anyone in America has the right to submit comments to the government on this proposal. The government hasn’t made submitting comments easy, but that just makes your comments more valuable. And we’ve made it much easier to submit comments than it normally is, with a step-by-step guide and talking points.

The number of comments will be watched by many influential Members of Congress, not just your own. So today you really have a chance to make a difference on the national stage. The extra impact is definitely worth the extra effort!

Take Action: Your comments to the Department of Homeland Security will make a huge difference in this debate.

REAL ID creates enormous administrative burdens for state governments, and it’s a massive unfunded mandate that will cost state taxpayers tens of billions of dollars. The law forces state governments to remake their driver’s licenses, restructure their computer databases and create an extensive new document storage system.

Five states have already said ‘no’ to Real ID, making the program pointless. More states are expected to follow suit. We hope this activity, combined with your comments today, will convince Congress to rethink this ill conceived law.

Submit Comments: Tell DHS and Congress that Americans reject REAL ID.

Congress needs to go back to the drawing board and fix Real ID. Many influential members of Congress will be paying close attention to the number of comments submitted by the public on REAL ID. By submitting your comments today, you will make it clear to DHS and Congress that Americans oppose this costly, intrusive and unworkable program.

Tell DHS and Congress that Americans reject REAL ID.

Thank you for your extra effort today, it really does make a difference. I look forward to writing you to say, “this ‘Real Nightmare’ for Americans is over.”

Sincerely,

Caroline Fredrickson
Director
ACLU Washington Legislative Office

P.S. For more information on the ACLU's efforts to defeat REAL ID, go to:
http://www.realnightmare.org

JOIN THE "REAL" REVOLT

In an almost unprecedented revolt, five states: Maine, Idaho, Arkansas, Montana and Washington, have passed anti-Real ID resolutions or legislation. This type of legislation has been filed in more than 30 states.

Influential Members of Congress are paying attention.

We need your voice, too! Help flood the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) with comments on REAL ID: a real security and privacy nightmare for Americans.

Take Action: Send your comments to DHS:
http://action.aclu.org/site/PageServer?pagename=REALID_comments&JServSessionIdr007=61m7b6q3z2.app23a

polksda

Well, let's separate fact from fiction before we go nuts in outrage:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/traffic/realid.asp

Origins: In May 2005, the U.S. Congress passed, and President George W. Bush signed into law, the "Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief Act." Contained within that legislation was the "Real ID Act," provisions requiring every state to issue drivers' licenses that comply with a national
standard.

The "Real ID Act" was a response to the September 11 terrorist attacks on the U.S., attacks that were facilitated by 18 of the 19 hijackers having obtained fraudulent identification (including U.S. drivers' licenses) that helped them board the planes they hijacked and flew into the Pentagon and World Trade Center buildings.

The "Real ID Act" mandates that by 11 May 2008, each U.S. state implement systems ensuring that motorists who apply for licenses are who they say they are and do not pose security risks. After that date, persons looking to obtain or renew drivers' licenses issued by any of the 50 states will have to provide documentation of identity (e.g., birth certificate, passport), documentation of residency address (e.g., utility bills), and documentation showing they are in the United States legally (e.g., birth certificate from a U.S. state or territory, U.S. passport, U.S. permanent residency card).

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security will extend the 11 May 2008 deadline to 31 December 2009 for states that both ask for this postponement and provide a compliance plan, so it is reasonable to assume that motorists of at least some states will have until the end of 2009 before they are required to provide extensive information if they're to retain their drivers' licenses.

Numerous states are up in arms about this law, primarily because they maintain that having to vet every holder of a driver's license will be a lengthy and expensive process, one that will hopelessly snarl their motor vehicle and public safety departments. State officials have also expressed concerns about maintaining individuals' rights to privacy.

The federal Department of Homeland Security (DHS) says that a Real ID-compliant driver's license will be required in order to
access a federal facility, board federally-regulated commercial aircraft, and enter nuclear power plants.

To many citizens the Real ID Act smacks of a national ID card program, but the DHS maintains that is not so. It says: "The proposed regulations establish common standards for States to issue licenses. The Federal Government is not issuing the licenses, is not collecting information about license holders, and is not requiring States to transmit license holder information to the Federal Government that the Government does not already have (such as a Social Security Number)."

As for the Internet-circulated account of an unnamed former resident of Alaska who experienced problems obtaining a California driver's license, while the 2008 implementation of the Real ID Act would require such an applicant to provide proof of who she was and where she lived as part of the recredentialing process, we could find no information about the federal government's having enacted a plan to issue complying motorists with "Federal ID Numbers," let alone anything about those numbers being "inserted under the skin of their hand." Those parts of the missive are imagination or misinformation run amok. The insertion of machine-readable devices into the body parts of compliant citizens is a recurring feature in apocalyptic or "evil corporate/government" rumors, such as claims that Mondex is replacing money with biochips inserted into people's hands, or that the government is inserting RFID chips into the homeless to better keep tabs on them. (A related rumor asserts that the security strip embedded in U.S. currency helps the government keep track of how much money any person is carrying.)

As of April 2007, the DHS lists these requirements for a Real ID-compliant driver's license:

* A photo ID or other identity document that includes full legal name and date of birth.

* A birth certificate or other documentation of date of birth.

* Proof of Social Security number (or ineligibility for one).

* Documentation of residency address, such as a utility bill.

* Proof of lawful entry/residency status in the U.S.

Note that the above list details the minimum standards required under the Real ID Act; individual states may still choose to implement more stringent requirements (and at least some states already do exceed the Real ID standards by thumbprinting motorists and/or requiring proof of name change). However, the Homeland Security requirements themselves contains no mention of requiring proof of marriages and divorces, requiring motorists to submit to being fingerprinted, or inserting ID numbers into people.

candyliquor35m

Here's what I wrote:

"You must be out of your mind trying to tell the states what to do and what their drivers licenses should look like. Haven't you read the constitution. The states are independant of the federal government and can do whatever they want. Five states have already said ‘no’ to Real ID, making the program pointless. More states are expected to follow suit. Get a life and stop harassing innocent folks.

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

hearingimpared

To make this even more interesting that one stop shopping ID might be what the Book of Revelation is talking about !!!!