| Posted: 14 Jul 2007 22:27 |
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 1989
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
Ok I assume this is another official type gov site since it ends with a .gov
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06.html
It just reiterates what I've said before, and of course Danny you'll interpret it differently ,but it points out that originally the founding fathers just didn't want an official religion supported financially or legally by the state. Which does not in my mind in any way mean they wanted to kill the expression of religious ideas in public places.
The page goes on to say,
"The country's first two presidents, George Washington and John Adams, were firm believers in the importance of religion for republican government."
Washington's Prayer
The draft of the circular letter is in the hand of a secretary, although the signature is Washington's. Some have called this concluding paragraph "Washington's Prayer." In it, he asked God to: "dispose us all, to do Justice, to love mercy, and to demean ourselves with that Charity, humility and pacific temper of mind, which were the Characteristicks of the Divine Author of our blessed Religion, and without an humble imitation of whose example in these things, we can never hope to be a happy Nation."
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/f0601s.jpg
Have you watched the G Washington video clips I put together from that old show One Step Beyond yet by the way.
http://www.captain-america.us/messageboard/article287.htm
__________________
|
| Posted: 15 Jul 2007 01:13 |
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 99
Join Date: Mar 2007
|
|
ACLU------ Anti Christ Liberals Union!!!!! almost every time....
|
| Posted: 15 Jul 2007 02:11 |
|
|
Registered User
|
Posts: 1825
Join Date: May 2007
|
That's what its stands for?
|
| Posted: 15 Jul 2007 04:09 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 1989
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
That's a good one hockeyman. Very true too. I can't believe I didn't think of that one.
__________________
|
| Posted: 15 Jul 2007 08:34 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 264
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
Okay look, as far as I'm concerned I've made my point. It takes a mix of things: competing ideologies, proper balance of political forces, and people behaving like responsible adults to make our government any kind of fair in such a diverse society.
You can look up quotes all day long trying to prove a particular point of view. I mean jeez, you brought up Jefferson and he coined the phrase "Separation of church and state". Could it be that the founders were simply religious people who believed government was ill served by the type of religious involvement that takes place in governments around the world? If they were- then they echo the feelings of most of Americans throughout our country's short history. That means they were neither atheists nor religious fundamentalists. It means they were freethinking pragmatists attempting to carve out some fair guidelines in an already diverse country.
The fact remains that when I find government or religion polluting each other- I'm gonna speak up. Thaqt isn't to say they're always destructive but often they are. You cited religious concern with human rights- I WISH churches would get back to that, but politics has corrupted them down into a mentality reflecting O'Reily's stupid culture war, so much more time is spent getting Bibles into China or telling gay people whats wrong with them. Likewise in government. How many bad mistakes were made in the past 6 years because the Christian Right preferred Bush to McCain? Too many to count. In reality, picking an INTELLIGENT leader would have worked out a lot better than a pious one.
I honestly don't care if a religious symbol here or there creeps through the legal whatevers. It doesn't matter to me. I'm not losing sleep because of religious symbolism, I'm losing sleep because I'm typing on this d@mn message board over this never ending argument!
It takes both sides. It takes a mix of opinions. Turning DC into a religious theme park would not solve a single problem in this country, nor would banning all religion.
Like I said to Preacher Man, the ACLU has done some good work and probably also supported some petty grievances. However, that is in response to a Christian Right with a very similar track record. Fortunately, the maniacs on the furthest extremes tend to cancel each other out most of the time so normal people can live their lives with minimal interference. I'll be the first to admit- I think America treats me great and I have every right a person could ask for, even though some of the mistakes made in our history are beyond the pale. But the balance and freedom I enjoy are the work of sensible moderates like the founders, Abe Lincoln, FDR or Dr. King. My rights are also the result of extremists seldom finding their way into power for long, because someone else canceled out their BS.
So if you're going to go on and on about how only your side could possibly be right, I say you are hurting our country. I have to speak up and expose the frauds or shoddy research when you do that. But if you want to try to find common ground- and there are examples of people on these political message boards doing so- then I congratulate you on your efforts. The country is obviously not in the best of shape these days and needs constructive dialog, not more programed partisan bickering. I'm trying to get past that, and I support your attempts to do the same.
By the way Pole, it stands for "The American Civil Liberties Union". Like anything else, that organization has its ups and its downs. If someone tells you otherwise, research their claims.
|
| Posted: 15 Jul 2007 15:22 |
|
|
|
Registered User
|
Posts: 1825
Join Date: May 2007
|
|
FINALLY!!!!!
|
| Posted: 15 Jul 2007 19:07 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 1989
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
|
Quote:
you brought up Jefferson and he coined the phrase "Separation of church and state". For like the zillionth time, he brought it up in a letter to a clergy to encourage the clergy that government would not interfere with him, his church or religion (you know tell them what to do or not to do) not that his religion couldn't get involved with government.
Quote:
so much more time is spent getting Bibles into China or telling gay people whats wrong with them. Oh come on, you don't want us to reach a communist country with the gospel. As pointed out before if Christianity is the forerunner for human rights, what better way to get it into China. Did you ever consider that advising gay people about the problems with their lifestyle might be helpful to them or done out of love not hostility? You don't agree with everyone in your family right? Does that mean you hate them because you disagree on things?
Quote:
How many bad mistakes were made in the past 6 years because the Christian Right preferred Bush to McCain? McCain does some stupid stuff like that McCain revamp of political financing which turned out to be a blow to freedom of which he still sticks by. There's been some other things that have stuck in my craw that escape me at the moment. I guess I'd put Bush and McCain about equal right now.
Quote:
I honestly don't care if a religious symbol here or there creeps through the legal whatevers. It doesn't matter to me. I'm not losing sleep because of religious symbolism, I'm losing sleep because I'm typing on this d@mn message board over this never ending argument! Hey great, now tell your ACLU buddies to get a life and stop terrorizing Americans, and we can all get some sleep.
You tell me what exactly the Christian right has done in recent years that would actually harm a individual's constitutional right. Most of what the Christian right has done over the years is just try to hold liberal groups at bay from making unneccessary or adverse changes to law.
Quote:
I enjoy are the work of sensible moderates like the founders, Abe Lincoln, FDR or Dr. King If they were alive today the ACLU would have a field day with them. They would be exactly what you would call a religious extremist. Invoking the name of God the way they used to would never stand with libs today.
And I by the way consider myself very moderate, don't tell anybody but maybe even a little liberal on somethings. Only you could only call it liberal if you lived in the 60's I guess. You just have to remember just because we are farther down the line in years doesn't make whatever new lib idea that comes down the pike in 2007 progress.
Quote:
By the way Pole, it stands for "The American Civil Liberties Union". Like anything else, that organization has its ups and its downs. If someone tells you otherwise, research their claims.
That's like keeping a doctor that saves a patient's limb, but purposefully cuts off another because it suits him. They got the big head. They need a little lesson in humility, and probably a history lesson or two.
__________________
|
| Posted: 15 Jul 2007 19:17 |
|
|
|
Registered User
|
Posts: 1825
Join Date: May 2007
|
|
I agree.
|
| Posted: 17 Jul 2007 01:51 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 118
Join Date: May 2007
|
|
The ACLU has been all over the map over the years, but lately ( by lately, I mean the last 30 + years) they seem to increasingly defend the presposterous worldview that America was founded with the intent that all public expression of private religious sentiument be hounded down and stomped out. I think it has a lot more to do with their own thin-skinned -ness (if that is even a word) that any real threat to civil liberties.
|
| Posted: 17 Jul 2007 04:19 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 1989
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
Hate to say it, but I think it's like the preacher's say. It's getting close to the end times when men's hearts are cold, and people turn to back on God. I guess we ought to expect it. I just can't help but get mad about stuff though. I wish things were like mayberry.
I think it's time for a lighter moment
click to listen to Barny Fife sing.
__________________
|
| Posted: 17 Jul 2007 23:20 |
|
|
|
Registered User
|
Posts: 1825
Join Date: May 2007
|
|
LOL!!!!!
|
| Posted: 18 Jul 2007 20:54 Last Edited By: preacher man |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 118
Join Date: May 2007
|
Just to show the ACLU isn't totally worthless, a rather lengthy (but still edited) quote from Ray Comfort's site, http://www.wayofthemaster.com/articles
Quote:
For the past month or so, Scotty (our sound man) has been giving out tracts outside the local DMV. When we couldn't preach at the courts, he thought that perhaps God was freeing us up to start speaking there. So, after the court order he felt compelled to preach outside the DMV for the first time. He carried a recorder in his pocket in case the authorities tried to stop him, then preached to the crowd (the recording is wonderful). He did that for four days without any complaints from the DMV.
So I went and preached to 90 - 100 people who were standing in line. It seemed that everyone listened and some even thanked me. Afterward, a security guard relayed that the manager said we couldn't give out literature or preach.
So we went in and spoke to the manager. I explained that I was a pastor and that the local police had given us permission to speak. She replied that it was State property, under the jurisdiction of the California Highway Patrol, and that officers would be arriving any moment to speak to us. After waiting outside for 15 minutes, we concluded that she was bluffing. I wanted to find out what law we were supposedly violating, and the lawyers could fight that too.
When we arrived back at the ministry, there was a call from the ACLU. They said they believed that our First Amendment rights were being violated, and wanted more information about the court order. I told them that we already had representation, but if they could apply any pressure to the judge, we would be grateful.
So they're not totally worthless, though they are usually on the other side of this issue. I remember being marginally involved in a situation at the San Diego Gay Pride Parade where they said we were violating the rights of the sodomites by preaching to them.
|
| Posted: 18 Jul 2007 21:29 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 1989
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
Well if they don't know which side of the fence they sit on, it can be pretty confusing. I'd probably say more than 90 percent of the time they are going to be against anything dealing with religion unless it's foot washes for muslims in schools. They don't seem to care about that. I just don't think they have a set standard for anything. I believe we'd be better off if individual citizens took things to court vs a group that does nothing but go to court.
__________________
|
| Posted: 19 Jul 2007 01:12 |
|
|
|
Registered User
|
Posts: 1825
Join Date: May 2007
|
|
| Posted: 19 Jul 2007 01:13 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 99
Join Date: Mar 2007
|
|
They don't care in Dearborn Michigan Either ,...they fought for the muslims there- to play there music(whatever it is ).... there chanting (whatever you call it) at certain times of the day ,whenever they pray( being muslims)..... but here is the kicker local christain churches cannot ring there chuch bells in those same neighborhoods. I live here IN AMERICA not in hodgie land take that stuff back over there!!! A friend of mine parents has to hear that everyday ,alot of them fought the city council and you guest and the Anti-Christ Liberals Union and where did it get them .... booooola boooooola walla walla bingbang chanting all day long.... no thanks i'll pass on the ACLU! I don't tell people what religion they should practice, I try to worry about myself but by gosh if (they )being the ACLU tell me or other people who do believe in Christ that I Can't Have religous artifacts or music whatever... and people who as far as I'm concerned don't belong here they can play there stuff.... i DON'T THINK SO
|
| Posted: 19 Jul 2007 03:06 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 118
Join Date: May 2007
|
Tim, here is a possibility. Is it possible that the wacko cases that the ACLU tackles ("That painting of Jesus that no one even knew was there is a threat to the republic!") are the ones that get all the press?
I mean, I know of 3 or 4 cases just in my limited circle of street preachers who have had the ACLU at least offer to go to bat for them. But I found out about those cases through personal contacts, not because it was given any attention through the Old or New Media.
|
| Posted: 19 Jul 2007 19:32 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 1989
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
I'm with hockeyman, I think preacher man if you are seeing some instances of good on the part of the ACLU is more like an anomaly. It would also suggest to me that the ACLU is made of different individuals with varying opinions. It would seem as though they are contradicting themselves. I guess it's kind of like having a conservative democrat or a liberal republican.
The things they do wrong are really wrong and way out on the fringes usually, and usually filled with hypocrisy. I just heard on Fox News the ACLU is fussing about letting people know when sex offenders move into a neighborhood. Parents need to know if their neighbor might be a danger to their kids. Some lady called them the American Criminals Liberty Union on the news.
__________________
|
| Posted: 20 Jul 2007 00:56 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 122
Join Date: Feb 2007
|
|
When they start to adopt a brown shirt as their uniform of choice, worry!
|
| Posted: 20 Jul 2007 01:06 |
|
|
|
Registered User
|
Posts: 1825
Join Date: May 2007
|
okay
|
| Posted: 20 Jul 2007 02:24 |
|
|
|
Registered User
|
Posts: 1825
Join Date: May 2007
|
|
lol
|
| Posted: 20 Jul 2007 03:39 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 118
Join Date: May 2007
|
Ok, Tim, let me throw the other side at you.. lets say a man steals a car, he goes to jail, serves his time, gets out, moves into your neighborhood. Car thieving has a very very high recidivism rate. You own a car. Do you have the right to know that a former car thief lives in your neighborhood?
Keep in mind that the recidivism rate for sexual crimes is actually pretty low compared to other crimes, especially when the crime is something like statutory rape.
So here's another scenario. A guy who is barely eighteen has a consensual sexual relationship with his girlfriend who is barely 16. He goes to jail for statutory rape, serves his time, gets out. Should he be ostracized and tracked for the rest of his life for that? Do we really need to track a 60 yr old man who 4o + years earlier had a fling with a girl just a year and a half younger than him?
|
| Posted: 20 Jul 2007 10:31 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 109
Join Date: Jun 2007
|
|
Man, I make what I think is a very simple and clear statement and look at the can of worms it opened up. I'm glad that this debate took place and I've decided who the winner is. But I won't post it. By my ID, I'm pretty sure all of you can figure out which side of the fence I stand on.
|
| Posted: 20 Jul 2007 14:54 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 1989
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
|
Quote:
Do you have the right to know that a former car thief lives in your neighborhood? Why not? It's not like I'd shoot him or anything I'd just make sure my cars are locked all the time and parked close to the house.
Quote:
So here's another scenario. A guy who is barely eighteen has a consensual sexual relationship with his girlfriend who is barely 16. He goes to jail for statutory rape, serves his time, gets out. Should he be ostracized and tracked for the rest of his life for that? No, but can't the law distinguish between two kids, and 35 year old pervert attacking a child? Or is common sense that too much to ask from our justice system? Seriously, I do wonder.
__________________
|
| Posted: 20 Jul 2007 17:03 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 118
Join Date: May 2007
|
|
Quote:
Why not? It's not like I'd shoot him or anything I'd just make sure my cars are locked all the time and parked close to the house.
So do your neighbors have a right to know about everything in your past? You may not have anything to hide, but some of us have a pre-Christ history that we are glad nobody knows about.
Quote:
No, but can't the law distinguish between two kids, and 35 year old pervert attacking a child? Or is common sense that too much to ask from our justice system? Seriously, I do wonder.
One of the problems with the way the laws are currently written is that it does not distinguish between various forms of sexual crimes. There was a law passed here in Georgia that said no registered sex offender can live or work within 1000 feet of a church, school, daycare center, bus stop, park, or anyplace where children congregate.
So suddenly the aforementioned 18 year old (who is now in his 40's and happily married) has to move because there is a bus stop in front of his house that his own kids use! He's not allowed to go to his own church where he's been a member for 15 years! He has to change jobs because when he started working there there was not a daycare down the street and now there is! He can't take his kids to McDonalds because children congregate there! All this despite the fact that his crime was a)ancient history b) consensual and c)did not involve a child!
Unfortunately, crusading politicians looking to score easy points with the law and order crowd trumpet about these laws and "how we're protecting your children". No, what you're actually doing is harassing people who have served their time.
If we can track sex offenders because "they might do it again", then when need to track car theives and b&e men and jewel theives and jaywalkers and red light runners... all of these crimes have much much higher recedivism rates than sex crimes do. Of course, the media won't tell you that because it behooves them to keep you scared that there's a pervert around every corner.
well, that was nice and off topic, wasn't it? And no, I never went to jail for a sex crime.(I know somebody reading this will wonder that)
|
| Posted: 20 Jul 2007 17:53 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 1989
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
|
Quote:
So do your neighbors have a right to know about everything in your past? No, but be honest if your neighbor had something in his past that might affect or threaten you, you'd want to know. There is a difference between violent or threatening crimes, and whether or not you were arrested for public drunkedness, stealing chewing gum, etc. It boils down to something we don't have anymore, and it's the ability for our laws to operate within the lines of common sense and wisdom. If I had to choose though, the sex crimes would be the one that I'd want to be aware of. Like I said the two teeagers example is nothing that should be a big deal. I'd go as far as a 20 year old and 16 year old. Cause you know college kids go out with high schoolers, and you know how many kids do more than just date. The real sex crime offenders are lucky to be let out of jail much less complain that the community they live in wants to be warned. It's my job to protect my family, and personally I want to know if there is a threat to my family. I don't care if some pervert or ex-pervert has his feelings hurt. Don't get me wrong I understand where you are coming from. In theory you shouldn't be ostracized once you have served your time, but this is a rather unique situation that we didn't have to really deal with in the past. Unfortunately it seems to be spurred on by the creation of the internet.
Quote:
So suddenly the aforementioned 18 year old (who is now in his 40's and happily married) has to move because there is a bus stop in front of his house that his own kids use! Well this is where we need law makers that have a brain in their head and want to actually make a difference and not just look good in front of a camera.
The problem with sex crimes is that the victim never will get over it. Somebody steals your car or your jewelry and there just happens to be no violence involved. You'll be changed, maybe scared, but not like if someone attacks you physically. That affects the person attacked, their families, their future spouses and children, and basically all relations they'll ever have in the rest of their lives. It's the closest thing you can get to murder. Nobody has a right to do that to another person. Think of it this way, if the victim will suffer the rest of their life, doesn't it make sense the offender also suffer consequences the rest of their life.
Also I think it's important to point out since I believe in strong penalties I also believe in making sure beyond any reasonable doubt the accused is actually guilty. Again one would think it to be common sense, but that's the world we live in. We've lost the ability to judge, or use reason in today's society.
__________________
|
| Posted: 20 Jul 2007 21:58 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 118
Join Date: May 2007
|
|
Quote:
It's my job to protect my family, and personally I want to know if there is a threat to my family.
I maintain that you are actually in greater danger of having your car stolen by having a prior car thief living in your neighborhood than your kids are by having a person with a prior molestation charge in the neighborhood. I'm not saying let them babysit, mind you, but there's not any reason for the level of fear people have on this issue.
Quote:
The problem with sex crimes is that the victim never will get over it.Think of it this way, if the victim will suffer the rest of their life, doesn't it make sense the offender also suffer consequences the rest of their life.
I disagree with you Tim. It's not the same as murder. Once you get it through your head ( I mean the victim here) that what happened wasn't your fault, and in reality had nothing to do with you, most people that undergo that go on to outlive the unpleasant period in their life. I don't know from personal experience, but I assume there are some long lasting effects on the part of the perp too. In other words, he's still an ex-con with a record and certain avenues in life are closed to him, and probably should be.
My point with all this is that as much as the ACLU drives me bonkers sometimes, we have to be careful what side of an issue we line up on, because sometimes it's not as simple as "The ACLU wants to let perverts move in next door to me unawares!". The laws are complicated and sometimes a group is opposed to just one facet or implementation of a law.
As much as I am opposed to the sin of child molestation (as any reasonable person would be), I try to default to liberty. I try to limit the expansion of government even against people I don't like, because a threat to their liberty will eventually come to be a threat to my liberty, as soon as I get on the wrong side of "the law".
|
| Posted: 21 Jul 2007 06:57 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 264
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
Wow- miss a little, miss a lot.
Preacher Man- thanks not for taking my side, but rather for digging through what is obviously a complex issue to defend the side of rational inquiry and critical thinking. Personally I see enough tempers and argument in my day to day- so when I hit the internet I like to read some well defended rational arguments, especially coming from people who look at things differently from myself.
For followers of the Tim v. Danny ongoing series (probably just Tim and myself), despair not. I'll be around for a response this weekend. This week was pretty busy.
|
| Posted: 21 Jul 2007 14:36 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 118
Join Date: May 2007
|
|
Quote:
rational inquiry and critical thinking.
Not something I get accused of a whole lot by some of my libertarian brethren (they don't like preachers). You're very kind.
I'm actually on nobody's side. I'm for liberty and if the ACLU is being stupid, I'll say they are being stupid, but if it is the rare occassion that they're being useful, I'll give credit where credit is due.
|
| Posted: 21 Jul 2007 15:22 Last Edited By: Pole805 |
|
|
|
Registered User
|
Posts: 1825
Join Date: May 2007
|
|
I agree with you, you got to the point where... it is stupid.
|
|
|
