Thomas Jefferson's admiration and financial support of Christianity

[skeptifem]

The ACLU fights the boy scouts

The boy scouts of america accept government funding, and yet wish to descriminate on the basis of being a private orginization. They cant have it both ways, and the aclu is just doing its job and helping the people who get descriminated against by the boy scouts.

(and pockets 700,000 dollars of taxpayer money)

what do you mean by 'pockets?' do you have any evidence of this (coming from a government source)?

The boyscouts of america get all kinds of public funding, and descriminates. I see something wrong with that, forcing people to pay money to an orginization that is allowed to descriminate when any other public org wouldnt be allowed to especially when (ironically) a part of the no child left behind act mandates that public schools cant descriminate against the boy scouts of america using their facilities.

http://www.ed.gov/policy/rights/guid/ocr/boyscouts.html

but defends (at no charge) a child-molester group

they defend at no charge people descriminated against by the boy scouts of america, a group getting public funding. Why do you think people who are descriminated against by public organizations dont deserve the aclus help? is it simply because you like the boyscouts that you think they are entitled to descriminate against gays, women, and athiests? Or is it because you simply dont like the people they descriminate against?

(accused of contributing to the murder-rape of a 10 year old boy). If that's your definition of integrity than I guess we have a difference of opinion.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=18029

my definition of integrity means doing what is morally correct consistently, even if you dont want to. Thats what the aclu does. they defend peoples right to free speech even when what the people are saying is absolutley disgusting. I dont quite understand where you get the idea that the aclu is defending child molestation when they are defending the right of people to talk about being pro child molestation. they are two very different things. If the aclu agreed with everyones opinions who they defended they wouldnt be much of an organization at all, it would people believing a thousand contradicting things at once.

I hate child molestation and the aclu clearly states they dont endorse it at all, but sicko pervs have as much of a right to voice their opinions as i do. what is so hard for you to understand about that?

 

[skeptifem]

this is absolutely, 100% not true. ed geins hallucinations stemmed from how deeply religious he was, and how religious his mother was. he was MENTALLY ILL, he was more devout than most non killers.

oh yeah, and then theres the inquisition. those people were extremely religious.

watch him trot out the 'no true scotsman' fallacy in response.

no response to this i take it?

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Why do you think that the number #1 listened to presbyterian preacher in the world, Dr. James Kennedy, has a website with the following books listed:

Because he has no problem lying to further his agenda and his congregation and the people who watch him on TV are too ignorant and trusting to know any better. I watched him give a speech/sermon on Creation and Evolution and the lies per minute were presented at an almost superhuman rate.

And do you undstand the fallacy of arguing from popularity? Do you remember the PTL Club? Know anyone who's still a member of the Moral Majority? Have you seen Peter Popoff or Bob Tilton or Bob Lar(ceny)son lately? Kent Hovind ring a bell?

 

[DOC]

The part in bold is also not true. Again, par for the course, I'm afraid.

Well if the ACLU did not 700,000 dollars in taxpayer money for their part in kicking the boy scout camp out of Balboa Park how much taxpayer money did they get.

 

[Darat]

Well if the ACLU did not 700,000 dollars in taxpayer money for their part in kicking the boy scout camp out of Balboa Park how much taxpayer money did they get.

You do seem to get this the wrong way round a lot.

When you make a claim it is up to you to support your claim.

The proper response to drkitten's response would be:

"Here is the evidence [probably provide a link to the court documents] that the ACLU received 700,000 dollars in taxpayer money for their part in kicking the boy scout camp out of Balboa Park"

I'll also ask you - what evidence do you have for your claim that the ACLU received "700,000 dollars in taxpayer money for their part in kicking the boy scout camp out of Balboa Park"?

 

[DOC]

Well here's what one website says about the money the taxpayers's are shelling out to the ACLU.

From the article "No more Tax money for ACLU" by Judge Roy Moore

"A survey of recent legal fee awards in these cases shows why governments are reluctant to defend the right to publicly acknowledge God. In San Diego, Calif., the ACLU received $940,000 for kicking the Boy Scouts out of Balboa Park. In Barrow County, Ga., the county paid the ACLU $150,000 to avoid a trial for its posting the Ten Commandments in the county courthouse. Not to be outdone, in Dover, Pa., the trial court ordered the district's school board to pay the ACLU and AU $2 million for attempting to teach intelligent design in the schools."

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52268

 

[DOC]

no response to this i take it?

Well I never heard of Ed Geins but in regard to the Inquisition here is excerpts from the article "Criticisms of the Catholic Church" on Wiki.


"Aside from discussing specific cases, the Church's response (according to the Pope) is that Catholics are "fallen human beings" no less than non-Catholics and that indeed Church members, including the hierarchy, have been involved in and responsible for crimes, but that this individual guilt cannot be transferred to the body of the Church spreading through the ages. In 2000, Pope John Paul II asked publicly for pardon "for the sins of Catholics throughout the ages".


During periods of the Medieval era, the Church responded to claims of heresy through the Office of the Inquisition. During this time in history, before the separation of Church and State, an accusation of heresy could be construed as treason against lawful civil rule, and therefore punishable by death. Some were condemned by false accusation so that their lands, titles and goods would be forfeited to local rulers. In many cases, the Inquisition saved lives by providing a trial rather than summary execution.

While Pope John Paul II apologized for certain historic excesses in May 1995, many historians[citation needed], even non-Catholics, have seen that there may have been some exaggeration on the negative role played by the Church in the Inquisition. These scholars point out that the Inquision began as a way of protecting Europe from the covert penetration by the Turks who led some violent attacks against Christian coastal towns. These historians say that it is difficult, if not unhistorical, to judge by present day standards the threats, issues and resources which the leaders of that time were faced with.[citation needed]"

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

 

[Darat]

Well here's what one website says about the money the taxpayers's are shelling out to the ACLU.

From the article "No more Tax money for ACLU" by Judge Roy Moore

"A survey of recent legal fee awards in these cases shows why governments are reluctant to defend the right to publicly acknowledge God. In San Diego, Calif., the ACLU received $940,000 for kicking the Boy Scouts out of Balboa Park. In Barrow County, Ga., the county paid the ACLU $150,000 to avoid a trial for its posting the Ten Commandments in the county courthouse. Not to be outdone, in Dover, Pa., the trial court ordered the district's school board to pay the ACLU and AU $2 million for attempting to teach intelligent design in the schools."

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52268

If you are putting that forward as your evidence you do realise that you have just shown that drkitten's post was correct i.e. "The part in bold is also not true. ....."?

Are you aware of the difference between what are generally called primary and secondary sources? Looking at your posts in this thread it seems you often confuse the two.

In this instance you have provided a secondary source that lends some support drkitten's point that you were again incorrect. Granted sometimes a secondary source is all we have access to and then we have to try and evaluate the accuracy and reliability of the secondary source. However in this instance I would have thought it should be possible to find a primary source to support your claim?

 

[wahrheit]

DOC, not in the slightest have you answered any of the previous posts and questions directed at you.

Coming up with "evidence" in the form of a web link to Worldnet Daily. You cannot be in earnest!

What's next, DOC? Will you "prove" that Priscilla Presley gave birth to a baby with 3 heads by posting a link to Weekly World News?

 

[drkitten]

"A survey of recent legal fee awards in these cases shows why governments are reluctant to defend the right to publicly acknowledge God. In San Diego, Calif., the ACLU received $940,000 for kicking the Boy Scouts out of Balboa Park. In Barrow County, Ga., the county paid the ACLU $150,000 to avoid a trial for its posting the Ten Commandments in the county courthouse. Not to be outdone, in Dover, Pa., the trial court ordered the district's school board to pay the ACLU and AU $2 million for attempting to teach intelligent design in the schools."

Any idea why they were ordered to pay that?

Because those were the expenses the ACLU incurred in the suit. That's what your own sources says.

Not a dime of it went into the ACLU's pockets, as you seem to think.

 

[drkitten]

Well if the ACLU did not 700,000 dollars in taxpayer money for their part in kicking the boy scout camp out of Balboa Park how much taxpayer money did they get.

Zero. They may well have incurred $700,000 in legal expenses in the course of establishing that the City of San Diego was engaged illegal practiced, in which case San Diego would be required to pay the ACLU's expenses as part of the judgement.

But the ACLU, by definition, doesn't not see any of that money. It's money already spent on the court case.

 

[sackett]

You say the ACLU gets taxpayer money? Well hell's afire, I don't think I'll renew my membership in that case! My measley $20US isn't needed if them unreligious libberal bastids is on Uncle Sam's tit!

Dialect aside, I carry my ACLU membership card in my wallet when I'm at home here in Detroit. Any cop who wants to see some ID will get a flash of it. Might help.

But when I travel out into the hinterland -- into the guts of America -- I leave that card at home. I don't want some small-town lawman reading my anti-Christian credentials. Wouldn't help at all.

So what's up, DOC? You aren't in law enforcement, I hope I hope I hope.

 

[drkitten]

You aren't in law enforcement, I hope I hope I hope.

Doubt it. He doesn't understand the idea of "court costs," for one.

 

[DOC]

Zero. They may well have incurred $700,000 in legal expenses in the course of establishing that the City of San Diego was engaged illegal practiced, in which case San Diego would be required to pay the ACLU's expenses as part of the judgement.

But the ACLU, by definition, doesn't not see any of that money. It's money already spent on the court case.

Do you have a source for this; and The bottom line is that taxpayers are out a lot of money because the ACLU went after the Boy Scouts.

 

[drkitten]

The bottom line is that taxpayers are out a lot of money because the ACLU went after the Boy Scouts.

No, the bottom line is that the taxpayers are out a lot of money because the City of San Diego broke the law.

That's what the court found, and that's why the case was resolved as it was. If San Diego had acted within the law, the ACLU wouldn't have had a leg to stand on.

If you drive drunk and smash into my car, is it my fault that you have to pay lots of money after I sue? Is it my lawyer's fault that you have to cover my legal costs? Is it my doctor's fault that you have to cover my medical bills? No, it's yours. You were the one breaking the law.

Bottom line -- "Separation of church and state" is a fundmental part of the bill of rights, and has been since the foundation of the United Staes. Violation of this separation, for example, by offering sweetheart deals or special privileges to religious organizations, is against the law. If a city or other government organization breaks the law, that usually takes quite a bite out of the public coffers in order to remedy the situation that should not have arisen in the first place.

If you want to prevent cities from being forced to pay money in reparation and settlement of illegal action -- make sure that the cities do not take such illegal actions.

 

[drkitten]

Do you have a source for this

It's in your own source, as previously cited.

The city will also pay the ACLU nearly $1 million in court costs and attorney fees

 

[Cleon]

It's in your own source, as previously cited.

He will ignore you--again--and the more you point this out, the more he'll ask for a "source."

Evidence that goes against his worldview just doesn't register with him. You can post it ten different times, using monosyllabic* words, and his eyes will just glaze over and he'll pretend it never happened.


* That means short words with one syllable, DOC.

 

[wahrheit]

Evidence that goes against his worldview just doesn't register with him.

I'm afraid so. Trying to discuss with DOC appears to be futile. Truly sad, though.

 

[DOC]

It's in your own source, as previously cited.

I know that; you also stated this:

But the ACLU, by definition, doesn't not see any of that money. It's money already spent on the court case.

Do you have a source for your assertion that the ACLU does not see any of the money awarded in the San Diego Boy Scout case?

 

[drkitten]

I'm afraid so. Trying to discuss with DOC appears to be futile. Truly sad, though.

On the other hand, he does a good job of providing an example of how religious fanatics lie to get their political agendas through. Every lie he tells becomes one more example on record.