Thomas Jefferson's admiration and financial support of Christianity

[Achán hiNidráne]

If voluntary prayer has always been allowed in public schools why has Senator Byrd of West Virginia been trying (for many years) to get a constitutional admendment passed that allows voluntary prayer in public schools.

Not to change the subject, but I find it odd that you decry Hugo Black's connection to the Ku Klux Klan, yet you overlook the fact that Senator Robert Byrd was also a member to that organization.

 

[Achán hiNidráne]

Cleon, I hate to say it, but you made an error in your Google search: that should be "ACLU" not "ACLJ."

However, when I made that search the only references all I found was info on from the "Protection Form Personal Intrusion" amendment from what appears to be House websites.

 

[Cleon]

Cleon, I hate to say it, but you made an error in your Google search: that should be "ACLU" not "ACLJ."

Actually, no. This clown was acting on behalf of the "American Center for Law and Justice," an anti-ACLU organization set up by Pat Robertson. The initials "ACLJ" are a deliberate attempt to have people confuse it with the ACLU.

 

[Achán hiNidráne]

OH!... My bad, sorry. Carry on.

 

[DOC]

I will offer an excellent source. I predict you will [try to] find a flaw and reject it. I sincerely hope I'm wrong.

From the U.S. Department of Education:

From the U.S. Department of Education:

Quote:
Although the Constitution forbids public school officials from directing or favoring prayer, students do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate," [ 9 ] and the Supreme Court has made clear that "private religious speech, far from being a First Amendment orphan, is as fully protected under the Free Speech Clause as secular private expression." [ 10 ] Moreover, not all religious speech that takes place in the public schools or at school-sponsored events is governmental speech. [ 11 ] For example, "nothing in the Constitution ... prohibits any public school student from voluntarily praying at any time before, during, or after the school day," [ 12 ] and students may pray with fellow students during the school day on the same terms and conditions that they may engage in other conversation or speech.

[ 9 ] Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Community Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 506 (1969).

[ 10 ] Capitol Square Review & Advisory Bd. v. Pinette, 515 U.S. 753, 760 (1995).

[ 11 ] Santa Fe, 530 U.S. at 302 (explaining that "not every message" that is "authorized by a government policy and take place on government property at government-sponsored school-related events" is "the government's own").

[ 12 ] Santa Fe, 530 U.S. at 313.

You probably don't realize this, but much of the above is thanks to the work of the American Center for Law and Justice (I believe it was founded by Pat Robertson). Now Pat has his faults, but thank God this organization called the ACLJ (composed of mostly Christian attorneys) is fighting the well financed ACLU tooth and nail. I believe that the wording "students don't leave their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gates" came directly from Jay Sekulow (head of the American Center for Law and Justice) when he argued a case in front of the Supreme Court and the Dept. Of Education "now" uses it because Sekulow and the American Center for Law and Justice won the case before the Supreme Court. They have also won other big cases.

Because of the work of the ACLU we were put in an environment where a girl was told by a principle not to read the bible on the school bus because it violated separation of church and state. We were also put in an environment where students were put in a police car for praying around a flagpole. Thank God that thru the hard expensive work of the American Center for Law and Justice we are starting to straighten out the mess the ACLU created.

 

[Cleon]

You probably don't realize this, but much of the above is thanks to the work of the American Center for Law and Justice (I believe it was founded by Pat Robertson). Now Pat has his faults, but thank God this organization called the ACLJ (composed of mostly Christian attorneys) is fighting the well financed ACLU tooth and nail. I believe that the wording "students don't leave their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gates" came directly from Jay Sekulow (head of the American Center for Law and Justice) when he argued a case in front of the Supreme Court and the Dept. Of Education "now" uses it because Sekulow and the American Center for Law and Justice won the case before the Supreme Court. They have also won other big cases.

Because of the work of the ACLU we were put in an environment where a girl was told by a principle not to read the bible on the school bus because it violated separation of church and state. We were also put in an environment where students were put in a police car for praying around a flagpole. Thank God that thru the hard expensive work of the American Center for Law and Justice we are starting to straighten out the mess the ACLU created.

Felgercarb.

 

[skeptifem]

The ACLU didnt get prayer removed from school, it seems like you seem to know nothing about the things you say. And again, THEY HAVE DEFENDED PERSONAL RELIGIOUS EXPRESSION IN SCHOOLS, SO NO, NONE OF THAT IS THEIR FAULT. your stories are of individuals who made bad choices so i dont see how any of that would be the aclus fault in any way. and you didnt even provide any evidence of those things happening in the first place, how do I know its not just more regurgitated, baseless propaganda from some preacher? I guess I dont, and should really assume thats exactly what it is, because thats where 99% of your opinions come from- directly from the mouth of someone else, who has a lot to gain from manipulating you. and you simply follow whatever they say, instead of looking up evidence for both sides and THINKING (omg!!!!!!11) about it. you just listen and repeat. how boring. i might as well be arguing with a friggin radio. this is about appropriate:

 

[Hawk one]

DOC, are you going to apologise for telling the lie that ACLU pocketed 700 000 dollars of the taxpayers money when no such thing happened?

 

[kmortis]

DOC, are you going to apologise for telling the lie that ACLU pocketed 700 000 dollars of the taxpayers money when no such thing happened?

OH...OH! I know this one....umm...

Ahh...

Err...

Hold on, it's right on the tip of my tounge....


Is the answer "no"?

I knew it.

 

[slingblade]

You probably don't realize this, but much of the above is thanks to the work of the American Center for Law and Justice (I believe it was founded by Pat Robertson).

You probably don't realize this, but I'm educated.

Now Pat has his faults, but thank God this organization called the ACLJ (composed of mostly Christian attorneys) is fighting the well financed ACLU tooth and nail.

And he is a moron for doing so. Rather like a man who beats his guard dog until it turns on him.

I believe that the wording "students don't leave their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gates" came directly from Jay Sekulow (head of the American Center for Law and Justice) when he argued a case in front of the Supreme Court

How about you go one better than "belief?" I have before me the specific court case in which these words were uttered. I know who said it, when, and in what context.

I'll give you a hint: so far, the only words you posted that match anything in this case are "Supreme" and "Court."

Let's have a quiz.

1. In what case were these words uttered?
2. In what year were these words uttered?
3. In what year was the ACLJ founded?

At the end of this quiz, you will discover everything you've said....is wrong!

Wheeee!

and the Dept. Of Education "now" uses it because Sekulow and the American Center for Law and Justice won the case before the Supreme Court.

No. This would be impossible. Take your quiz and find out how.

Because of the work of the ACLU we were put in an environment where a girl was told by a principle not to read the bible on the school bus because it violated separation of church and state. We were also put in an environment where students were put in a police car for praying around a flagpole.

We don't know that either of these incidents actually happened though.

When I thanked you for the source, I was thanking you for not providing a Geocities page. But the source you provide states very clearly that these are "anecdotal evidence." No one proved they happened, and I cannot find any evidence, such as an archived news report, for them.

Your evidence proves these anecdotes were told to a congressional hearing.

Your evidence proves they are anecdotes, and thus not evidence.

Your evidence also bites itself in its own metaphoric backside and admits these cases were settled in the students' favor, thus negating the claim that prayer and bibles are forbidden.

Let me know when you are ready to apologize for being so poorly educated and so ridiculously mendacious.

 

[DOC]

DOC, are you going to apologise for telling the lie that ACLU pocketed 700 000 dollars of the taxpayers money when no such thing happened?

I won't even address your use of the word lie, because I've done it so many times before.

When the ACLU apologizes to the girl who was told by her principle she can't read the bible on the school bus because she was violating the separation of church and state; and when the ACLU apologizes to those two students who ended up in a police car for praying around a flagpole, I'll apologize to the well funded ACLU for saying that they, instead of the ACLU lawyers, got 700,000 of taxpayer money (in the case where the Boy Scouts got kicked out of Balboa Park after a 90 relationship with the city). I still don't know what happened to the additional $250,000 + of taxpayer money that went to court costs.

 

[slingblade]

I won't even address your use of the word lie, because I've done it so many times before.

When the ACLU apologizes to the girl who was told by her principle she can't read the bible on the school bus because she was violating the separation of church and state; and when the ACLU apologizes to those two students who ended up in a police car for praying around a flagpole, I'll apologize to the well funded ACLU for saying that they, instead of the ACLU lawyers, got 700,000 of taxpayer money (in the case where the Boy Scouts got kicked out of Balboa Park after a 90 relationship with the city). I still don't know what happened to the additional $250,000 + of taxpayer money that went to court costs.

You were never once asked to apologize to the ACLU.

But you owe me one for lying to me.

 

[Cactus Wren]

Everybody is entitled to their opinion. I'll just be happy if people read 20% of my 173 posts and then they can have an opinion too.

I've read every posting you've made to this thread, DOC, and my conclusion is that you seem to think you can make an inaccurate statement accurate by repeating it.

 

[Hawk one]

I won't even address your use of the word lie, because I've done it so many times before.

You mean you've tried some pathetic semanticism in the hopes that this will excuse all the dozens of untruths you've told in this thread.

And what else am I suppose to call an obvious falsehood anyway? You claimed ACLU pocketed 700 000 dollars for a case, which was so obviously false, even your own source said otherwise.

So stop the bs about "not intending to deceive". Because the fact of the matter is that you keep telling untruths, and you never retract them or apologise for them. And it's also clear you're telling them because you have an agenda. If that's not lying, I don't know what is.

When the ACLU apologizes to the girl who was told by her principle she can't read the bible on the school bus because she was violating the separation of church and state; and when the ACLU apologizes to those two students who ended up in a police car for praying around a flagpole, I'll apologize to the well funded ACLU for saying that they, instead of the ACLU lawyers, got 700,000 of taxpayer money (in the case where the Boy Scouts got kicked out of Balboa Park after a 90 relationship with the city). I still don't know what happened to the additional $250,000 + of taxpayer money that went to court costs.

It was pretty obvious I didn't require you to apologise to the ACLU, but to everyone you've been lying to in this thread.

More importantly, the ACLU weren't the ones telling the girl she couldn't read the bible on the school bus. The principal did. He should be the one apologising. If the ACLU needs to apologise, they'll need to have supported the principal. Where is your first-hand source that ALCU supported the principal on this? I can guarantee you won't find any such source, but I also know that won't stop you from keeping on saying they're somehow responsible. Because that's the most dishonest path, a path you've been treading with more or less every post in this thread.

And remember, if the boyscouts hadn't been doing anything illegal, there wouldn't have been a court case to start with. It was the boyscouts getting illegal privelidges are what cost the taxpayers so much money. Remember that part? Of course you do, but you keep on omitting such an important detail. And guess what, there's something called "lying by omitting", when the details omitted changes the nature of the case entirely.

And again, why do you lie when everyone can see you're lying? What makes you think that keeping on telling untruths will make anyone take you seriously? Why doesn't it occur to you that such immoral - not to mention hypocritical, considering you continously imply you're the one standing on the moral high ground - behaviour will be more likely to make more atheists than the other way around? What's so difficult about admitting you're mistaken? And why is your faith apparently so weak you need to listen to fundie lies to keep it up?

 

[DOC]

I've read every posting you've made to this thread, DOC, and my conclusion is that you seem to think you can make an inaccurate statement accurate by repeating it.

Your mistaken in your conclusion. But former chief Justice Rehnquist had a similar feeling to you regarding the current use of the term 'separation of church and state" by the courts.

From an opinion by Chief Justice Rehnquist: (See post 380 for entire opinion, source, and URL)

"There is simply no historical foundation for the proposition that the framers intended to build the "wall of separation" that was constitutionalized in Everson.

Rehnquist continued:
The greatest injury of the "wall" notion is its mischievous diversion of judges from the actual intentions of the drafters of the Bill of Rights. No amount of repetition of historical errors in judicial opinions can make the errors true. The "wall of separation between church and state" is a metaphor based on bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned."

 

[slingblade]

Doc, are you going to take my quiz or not? We can do it one question at a time, if 3 are too much.

I mean, at least one answer has already been provided for you, and you've even quoted the answer once. Surely you didn't miss it?

1. Name the case in which these words were spoken: "It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate."

Come on, look hard! It's right here in this thread, and on this page! You can do it! What case? Who v. whom? I have faith in you!

 

[kmortis]

DOC, are you going to apologise for telling the lie that ACLU pocketed 700 000 dollars of the taxpayers money when no such thing happened?

OH...OH! I know this one....umm...

Ahh...

Err...

Hold on, it's right on the tip of my tounge....


Is the answer "no"?

I knew it.

I won't even address your use of the word lie, because I've done it so many times before.

When the ACLU apologizes to the girl who was told by her principle she can't read the bible on the school bus because she was violating the separation of church and state; and when the ACLU apologizes to those two students who ended up in a police car for praying around a flagpole, I'll apologize to the well funded ACLU for saying that they, instead of the ACLU lawyers, got 700,000 of taxpayer money (in the case where the Boy Scouts got kicked out of Balboa Park after a 90 relationship with the city). I still don't know what happened to the additional $250,000 + of taxpayer money that went to court costs.

Wow, can I call it or what? I'm goin' for the mil next.

 

[Ducky]

I've noticed that some people in these forums seem to believe that by "continuously" saying things like:

1) all the sidestepping

2) all the rest of the crap you posted

3) we destroyed your stance

-- that it verifies the truth of the statement. By "continuously" doing this ploy though, they are really insulting the intelligence of the readers because it implies that the readers aren't smart enough to make up their own minds about the contents of the forum. It also shows an intense bitterness for all things religious which is antithetical to the true American spirit. But when you think about it, the founder of the ACLU was at one time a communist and communism is certainly antithetical to the true American spirit. So we shouldn't be surprised.

That's a nice try DOC, but anyone can read the topic, and anyone can read your own words, which I quoted, as to what the topic of this thread is.

Also, that's a nice Ad Hominem you have in there. I must be communist, and therefore antithetical to the American spirit, is that it?

Still waiting for an answer DOC. Did you mean to say everyone in this thread that points out your lies to be an anti-religious, anti-American communist, or did you just mean me?

 

[DOC]

Lack of Logic and Dignity

We're starting to get into another "attack the messenger phase". I realize that's just par for the course in these forums especially when your talking about an emotional topic. The tactic that has resurfaced in several posts is the tired "your a liar, DOC". I realize its probably going to continue so every 100 posts or so I'll just repeat my standard response in case any of the new viewers are interested.

______

A Lack of Logic and Dignity

The first definition Webster's Desk Dictionary gives for the word lie is [a false statement made with "deliberate intent to deceive".]

In this entire forum there is not 1 shred of evidence that anyone has made a false statement with a "deliberate intent to deceive". Therefore every post in this forum that accuses a person of lying is without evidence and is an empty assertion. Whether its one person or five persons making accusations (it doesn't matter) -- without proof of deliberate intent to deceive, its empty. It might have some shock value to immature people reading it (for awhile), but its still empty.

In fact, it will probably have a reverse effect when people realize it's an "attack the messenger tactic" and to hell with the message.

Assertion: A logical and dignified person does not publicly accuse a person of degrading behavior such as deliberately intending to deceive without undeniable evidence.

Therefore a logical argument can be made that every post in this forum that accuses a person of lying lacks logic and dignity.

 

[Ducky]

DOC, see post #698 regarding "attacking the messenger" and please answer for your ad hominem attack before trying to play the moral high ground.