Thomas Jefferson's admiration and financial support of Christianity

[fuelair]

You're still trolling here?

 

[DOC]

And the law restricting ALL non-profit organizations from endorsing specific candidates was passed in 1954.

ETA: and the ACLU had nothing to do with Congress passing the law so you are a little off base in claiming that the ACLU is "saying what the Church can and can not do." Unless, of course you are referring to other things that churches can or cannot do.

I'm referring to other things churches and private citizens can't do. If I was a betting man I would bet that the ACLU has 10 times more anti-religion cases than pro-religion cases.

 

[DOC]

What does the ACLU, liberals, etc. say churches can't do?

Well when I say churches I mean that to include religion in general. And apparantly the U.S. House of Representatives agrees that the ACLU has a definite agenda against religion.

I believe the ACLU knows it "can't win" going after our religious heritage in general elections so they tirelessly go after our religious heritage in the courts and its also costly to taxpayers.

Punch in on Google "House Ok's bill to deny ACLU legal fees in religion cases" by Tom Strode. He also gives examples of the kind of religion cases the ACLU goes after and just how much these case are costing the taxpayer.

 

[DOC]

You're still trolling here?

Is giving out important historical information like senator Lyndon Johnson introduced the bill to penalize churches and charities for endorsing candidates trolling?

 

[Taffer]

Is giving out important historical information like Lyndon Johnson introduced the bill to penalize churches and charities for endorsing candidates trolling?

No, but when you continue to adhere to things that have been shown to be wrong, it could be.

 

[Ducky]

Well when I say churches I mean that to include religion in general. And apparantly the U.S. House of Representatives agrees that the ACLU has a definite agenda against religion.

Evidence?

I believe the ACLU knows it "can't win" going after our religious heritage in general elections so they tirelessly go after our religious heritage in the courts and its also costly to taxpayers.

Evidence?

Punch in on Google "House Ok's bill to deny ACLU legal fees in religion cases" by Tom Strode. He also gives examples of the kind of religion cases the ACLU goes after and just how much these case are costing the taxpayer.

Well I did, but didn't find anything pertinent. Why don't you present your evidence yourself?

 

[Ducky]

I'm referring to other things churches and private citizens can't do. If I was a betting man I would bet that the ACLU has 10 times more anti-religion cases than pro-religion cases.

Do you have anything to back that up, or are you just asserting out of your ass?

 

[Ladewig]

I'm referring to other things churches and private citizens can't do. If I was a betting man I would bet that the ACLU has 10 times more anti-religion cases than pro-religion cases.

Again, let me reiterate once more. You would do well to get your information from amore than a single source. If you go to the ACLU website you will find stories such as these:

WASHINGTON - The American Civil Liberties Union today filed a lawsuit to protect the right of veterans and their families to choose religious symbols to engrave on headstones in federal cemeteries.

ORANGE, CA - The American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California today sued the city of Garden Grove for using an unconstitutional city code to prevent local Buddhists from expanding their congregation.

Here is the ACLU's written stance on the free excercise of religion:

The ACLU defends students' free speech rights in the public schools and defends students' rights to pray in the schools. Additionally, whenever a teacher allows children to choose their own topics for an assignment (such as which book to read, which song to sing, or which topic to study for a presentation), students may choose religious themes - and the ACLU has protected their right to do so. Schools may also offer courses about religion or about the Bible or other religious works.

Public schools themselves should not, however, be in the business of promoting particular religious beliefs or religious activities. While it is permissible for public schools to teach about religion, it is not permissible to promote particular religious beliefs. While public schools should not be leading children in prayers or religious ceremonies, they should be respectful of the religious beliefs of students. Further, public schools should protect children from being coerced by others to accept religious (or anti-religious) beliefs. Public schools should seek to create an environment conducive to learning by all students and not act as vehicles proselytizing for religious or anti-religious beliefs.

The ACLU believes that the religious education of children should be directed primarily by parents, families, and religious communities - and not the public schools.

Surely, you would agree with that, wouldn't you?

 

[Upchurch]

Well when I say churches I mean that to include religion in general. And apparantly the U.S. House of Representatives agrees that the ACLU has a definite agenda against religion.

I believe the ACLU knows it "can't win" going after our religious heritage in general elections so they tirelessly go after our religious heritage in the courts and its also costly to taxpayers.

Punch in on Google "House Ok's bill to deny ACLU legal fees in religion cases" by Tom Strode. He also gives examples of the kind of religion cases the ACLU goes after and just how much these case are costing the taxpayer.

None of that answers my question. What does the ACLU, etc. say that churches can't do?

 

[ceo_esq]

It can be difficult to characterize a litigation position as "pro-religion" or "anti-religion", of course. I do think it could be instructive to consider where the ACLU tends to align itself in different kinds of religion-related cases. My impression (unscientific but informed by years of reviewing religious rights jurisprudence) has been that, very generally speaking, the ACLU exhibits no significant anti-religious bias when it comes to the Free Exercise Clause, but possibly a slight preference for non-Christian plaintiffs. At the same time, it's been my impression that the ACLU has some tendency to adopt what DOC might call a hostile stance toward religion when it comes to the Establishment Clause.

Out of curiosity, I quickly reviewed the published federal court records just from the past 6 months to find religious rights disputes in which an ACLU-affiliated entity is or has been involved either as an amicus or as counsel. I found 11 such cases - a tiny sample, of course - which presented the following characteristics:

• The 11 cases presented 6 establishment of religion questions, 5 free exercise questions, and 2 other religious discrimination questions (some cases involve more than one relevant claim, obviously).
• Where a free exercise question was raised, the ACLU adopted what DOC would call a "pro-religion" position 80% of the time (in favor of Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, and Scientologist plaintiffs) and an "anti-religion" position 20% of the time (against Christian plaintiffs).
• Where an establishment of religion question was raised, the ACLU adopted what DOC would call an "anti-religion" position 100% of the time (5 times involving Christianity, once involving theism versus atheism/agnosticism).
• 100% of the (non-free exercise, non-establishment) religious discrimination claims in which the ACLU involved itself concerned alleged discrimination against atheists backed by the ACLU.

Now, as I suggested, six months of published court records is a tiny sample and does not account for a variety of important factors, but I couldn't help noticing that it is at least consistent with the general impressions I mentioned above. It would be interesting to conduct a broader and more in-depth review of ACLU litigation habits.

 

[Achán hiNidráne]

Well I did, but didn't find anything pertinent. Why don't you present your evidence yourself?

I think DOC is referring to Rep John Hostettler (R. IN) and H. R. 2679 "Public Expressions of Religion Protection Act" which is designed to keep plaintiffs from recovering legal fees when the government loses Establishment Clause cases.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:h.r.02679:

It's a horrid, vindictive little piece of legislation, designed by Christo-fascist scum like DOC to create a chilling effect against those who would raise legal challenges to their theocratic agenda.

 

[DOC]

Evidence?



Evidence?



Well I did, but didn't find anything pertinent. Why don't you present your evidence yourself?

Well for some reason when I reply to a post like this one, only the question appears on my screen and not the quote above it. I'm new on this Randi site maybe someone can tell me if I doing something wrong. All I'm seeing now is Evidence? Evidence? and than your final questions. All the quotes above your questions are not visible. I'll guess I'll have to scroll back and forth between post 106

Question 1, I did give you evidence. The last paragraph of post 103.

Question 2, Have you ever seen a proposition or measure on a ballot that calls for the taking of in God we trust off the US currency. No , and you probably never will, because the people who want to get all religion out of the public sector knows it doesn't stand a chance... There's also a thing called empiricle evidence -- the evidence of experience -- "that's the evidence I use sometimes". so when I say I believe the sun is going to rise tomorrow I'm basing it on empirical evidence. I'll get to your third question shortly.

#3. The article I pointed out in the last paragraph of post 103 says the ACLU succeeded in preventing the Boys Scouts of America from using Balboa Park in San Diego because they mention God in their oath. Sorry Boys scouts, thanks to the work of the ACLU you can't use the park. And in the process the city of San Diego was stuck with a 800,000 dollar legal bill.
I think that is pertinent to the claim that the ACLU has an agenda.

 

[Ducky]

Well for some reason when I reply to a post like this one, only the question appears on my screen and not the quote above it. I'm new on this Randi site maybe someone can tell me if I doing something wrong. All I'm seeing now is Evidence? Evidence? and than your final questions. All the quotes above your questions are not visible. I'll guess I'll have to scroll back and forth between post 106

Question 1, I did give you evidence. The last paragraph of post 103.

Question 2, Have you ever seen a proposition or measure on a ballot that calls for the taking of in God we trust off the US currency. No , and you probably never will, because the people who want to get all religion out of the public sector knows it doesn't stand a chance... There's also a thing called empiricle evidence -- the evidence of experience -- "that's the evidence I use sometimes". so when I say I believe the sun is going to rise tomorrow I'm basing it on empirical evidence. I'll get to your third question shortly.

#3. The article I pointed out in the last paragraph of post 103 says the ACLU succeeded in preventing the Boys Scouts of America from using Balboa Park in San Diego because they mention God in their oath. Sorry Boys scouts, thanks to the work of the ACLU you can't use the park. And in the process the city of San Diego was stuck with a 800,000 dollar legal bill.
I think that is pertinent to the claim that the ACLU has an agenda.

None of this is evidence of your assertions. In fact, several posts since mine has shown just the opposite of your assertions. DO you have a response to this, or as usual are you going to ignore evidence presented to you that is contrary to your position?

 

[DOC]

Here's the article I was referring to in the previous post about the Boy Scouts.

http://erlc.com/article/house-oks-bill-to-deny-aclu-legal-fees-in-religion-cases

It also said that the ACLU was successful in getting a cross removed from a World War One war memorial. And they got $63,000 in fees in the process. But that got the American Legion angry and I personally wouldn't want to mess with the war veterans of the American Legion.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Yes, the ACLU does have an agenda. It's agenda is to provide legal assistance to citizens who feel that their rights are being infringed or that the government is doing something unconstitutional.

The myth that the ACLU trolls for lawsuits exists only in the minds of accomodationists like D. James Kennedy, Jay Sekulow and David Barton.

 

[Achán hiNidráne]

Question 1, I did give you evidence. The last paragraph of post 103.

And since when are the the lies of a Christo-fascist politician (who's name you can't even get straight) considered evidence?

Question 2, Have you ever seen a proposition or measure on a ballot that calls for the taking of in God we trust off the US currency. No , and you probably never will, because the people who want to get all religion out of the public sector knows it doesn't stand a chance...

Ad populum fallacy.

The majority of American people can want whether they want. But this government doesn't and shouldn't do what the people want. It's why we have the Bill Of Rights: a comprehensive list of everything the government doesn't and shouldn't do no matter what the majority wants. The very first amendment says that while people have every right to believe what they want, we don't write religion into the law.

Yes, a bunch of Cold Warriors during the 1950s thought that adding "God" to the pledge (Why does a free society have something as totalitarian as a "Pledge Of Allegiance" anyway?) and the currency would magically keep the "commies" away. Just because we are yet to correct that mistake doesn't make you, or the alleged majority of Americans, want constitutional.

However, being a theocrat,who believes we all should be obeying the mythical celestial tyrant you mindlessly worship, the blasphemous ideas of "indiviudal liberty" and "divided government" means crap to you.

There's also a thing called empiricle [sic] evidence -- the evidence of experience -- "that's the evidence I use sometimes". so when I say I believe the sun is going to rise tomorrow I'm basing it on empirical evidence. I'll get to your third question shortly.

Empirical evidence has nothing to do with "experience" or anecdote. It has to do with observation and experimentation. Hypothesis, experiment, observation, theory and all that.

Crack open a science text book sometime.

 

[Achán hiNidráne]

Here's the article I was referring to in the previous post about the Boy Scouts.

http://erlc.com/article/house-oks-bill-to-deny-aclu-legal-fees-in-religion-cases

It also said that the ACLU was successful in getting a cross removed from a World War One war memorial. And they got $63,000 in fees in the process. But that got the American Legion angry and I personally wouldn't want to mess with the war veterans of the American Legion.

FYI, it's a press release on a Southern Baptist Convention WWW site.

'Nuff said.

 

[Charlie Monoxide]

I'd like to help DOC out here. Don't forget most documents at the time included the phrase "year of our Lord" when indicating dates.

AH HA! Take that you loathsome liberal left-wing ACLU loving heathens!

Charlie (trolling for Jebus) Monoxide

 

[Dr Adequate]

It also said that the ACLU was successful in getting a cross removed from a World War One war memorial. And they got $63,000 in fees in the process. But that got the American Legion angry and I personally wouldn't want to mess with the war veterans of the American Legion.

You are referring, I take it, to the "Mojave Cross"?

But surely it is wrong to commemerate the sacrifice of Jewish servicemen with a Christian symbol.

I mean, First Amendment aside, that's just bad taste.

 

[DOC]

And since when are the the lies of a Christo-fascist politician (who's name you can't even get straight) considered evidence?



Ad populum fallacy.

The majority of American people can want whether they want. But this government doesn't and shouldn't do what the people want. It's why we have the Bill Of Rights: a comprehensive list of everything the government doesn't and shouldn't do no matter what the majority wants. The very first amendment says that while people have every right to believe what they want, we don't write religion into the law.

Yes, a bunch of Cold Warriors during the 1950s thought that adding "God" to the pledge (Why does a free society have something as totalitarian as a "Pledge Of Allegiance" anyway?) and the currency would magically keep the "commies" away. Just because we are yet to correct that mistake doesn't make you, or the alleged majority of Americans, want constitutional.

However, being a theocrat,who believes we all should be obeying the mythical celestial tyrant you mindlessly worship, the blasphemous ideas of "indiviudal liberty" and "divided government" means crap to you.



Empirical evidence has nothing to do with "experience" or anecdote. It has to do with observation and experimentation. Hypothesis, experiment, observation, theory and all that.

Crack open a science text book sometime.

What Christian-fascists polititian are you talking about, and according to my Webster's college dictionary the word empirical means :

1. derived from experience or experiment.

2. depending upon experience or observation alone, without using scientific method or theory, especially in medicine.

3. verifiable by experience or experiment.