Thomas Jefferson's admiration and financial support of Christianity

[DOC]

It is also interesting to note that the article I mentioned above "The ACLU's 80 year war on American Values" by Alan Sears and Craig Osten states the following:

"Unfortunately, until recently, much of the ACLU’s eight-decade war on the values of most Americans has largely gone unopposed. With an annual budget of $45 million and an endowment of $41 million, the ACLU has used its army of at least 60 full-time attorneys, 300 chapters, more than 1,000 volunteer attorneys, and 300 staff members — as well as sympathetic members of the judiciary, the faculties of law schools, and the media — to engage in an ongoing campaign of legal intimidation, misinformation, and fear. To provide an idea of the vast resources at the ACLU’s disposal, according to guidestar.org, which tracks financial information on nonprofit organizations, the ACLU Foundation had net assets of $150,357,116 as of May 31, 2003."


http://www.coralridge.org/imp/impact09056.aspx

_________


You got to wonder where all that money is coming from. If it is true that the ACLU is a puppet of the ultra left as some believe, then that 150 million (as guidestar.org estimates) can surely create a lot of havoc and do a lot of damage to the values of the majority of Americans.

 

[Cleon]

We've been over this before (your memory is short).

No, you just have no argument.

When I say "the Church" I mean what the dictionary says it means when "Church" is capitalized.

No, you don't.

The entire "body" of the Church (which includes individual members and organizations that profess some beliefs or customs of the Church).

From dictionary.com:

church

/tʃɜrtʃ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[church] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun 1.a building for public Christian worship. 2.public worship of God or a religious service in such a building: to attend church regularly. 3.(sometimes initial capital letter

) the whole body of Christian believers; Christendom. 4.(sometimes initial capital letter

) any division of this body professing the same creed and acknowledging the same ecclesiastical authority; a Christian denomination: the Methodist Church. 5.that part of the whole Christian body, or of a particular denomination, belonging to the same city, country, nation, etc. 6.a body of Christians worshipping in a particular building or constituting one congregation: She is a member of this church. 7.ecclesiastical organization, power, and affairs, as distinguished from the state: separation of church and state; The missionary went wherever the church sent him. 8.the clergy and religious officials of a Christian denomination. 9.the Christian faith: a return of intellectuals to the church. 10.(initial capital letter

) the Christian Church before the Reformation. 11.(initial capital letter

) the Roman Catholic Church. 12.the clerical profession or calling: After much study and contemplation, he was prepared to enter the church. 13.a place of public worship of a non-Christian religion. 14.any non-Christian religious society, organization, or congregation: the Jewish church. –verb (used with object) 15.to conduct or bring to church, esp. for special services. 16.South Midland and Southern U.S. to subject to church discipline. 17.to perform a church service of thanksgiving for (a woman after childbirth).

Nothing in there about "individual members and organizations that profess some beliefs or customs of the Church."

So when those boys scouts (who have some Christian beliefs) in San Diego wanted to continue using their 89 year lease, the ACLU (and eventually the judge and a nearly million dollar payout by the city) comes along with that ol' Separation of Church and state lingo and says Hey boy scouts, Hey San Diego, sorry you can't do what you been doing for 89 years {not because of what the 1st amendment says, but because of some legal concept created in a 1947 (Separation of Church and State) says}.

Wow, that is a load of crap on several levels.

#1, the "Boy Scouts" is not "the Church." I don't care how you twist it.
#2, that was about what the CITY cannot do, not the Boy Scouts.

• Parents {individual members of "the Church"} cannot limit their children’s exposure to, or participation in, public school classes and assemblies on any topic — except Orthodox Jewish or Christian teachings — that violates the family’s core religious and moral beliefs.

That is about what SCHOOLS cannot do, not "The Church."

• Public schools cannot observe recognized religious, historical, and cultural holidays such as Christmas, Easter, or Hanukkah, despite hundreds of years of American tradition. {traditions of individual members of "the Church" or synogogue}. {Those traditions existed for hundreds of years (mostly because the 1947 court case with Leo Pfiffer and Hugo Black didn't happen yet).}

That is about what SCHOOLS cannot do, not "The Church."

Also, off the top of my head, I remotely remember the ACLU complaining about some underwater statue of Jesus in the ocean. I don't have the time right now, maybe somebody can look that up on the internet.

Good luck with that.

 

[Nova Land]

... Personally I think testimony before a Congressional hearing by an attorney who could be disbarred for lying under oath to Congress carries more weight than a newspaper article with no author ...

... Congressional testimony by lawyers who can disbarred and have their life's work destroyed for lying to Congress is good enough for me.

I am curious whether you really believe this. Very often people misjudge the how much weight to place on various pieces of evidence, consciously or unconsciously attaching great value to items that support what they believe while downgrading the value of items that contradict what they believe. That may be what's going on here. Because you have congressional testimony which supports what you believe, you may be placing an unrealistically high value on such testimony.

Far from being serious fact-finding inquiries, most congressional hearings are mainly propaganda exercises. Members of Congress call witnesses so that these witnesses can say things which will support whatever position those members of Congress hold. Very few serious questions are asked, and almost no one is paying much attention to the testimony.

There are occasionaly House or Senate hearings of a more serious nature, where people are actually paying attention to what is said, serious questions are asked, and people who misstate the facts get called on it. The Watergate hearings, Iran-Contra hearings, and the current inquiries into DOJ firings, are examples of that kind of hearing. Those are significantly different from the routine hearings on legislation such as the one Sekulow took part in.

As I pointed out earlier in this thread, Sekulow's testimony contradicts Henderson's. Is it your belief that Misty Newberry underwent a very similar experience on two separate occasions -- in 1992 as claimed by Henderson and in 1993 as claimed by Sekulow? Or do you realized that one or both men -- probably both -- were incorrect in their testimony and that nobody present cared?

The notion that either man was at risk of being charged with perjury for giving incorrect testimony at this hearing, or of being disbarred, strikes me as highly unrealistic. And, as you can see, neither man was disbarred or charged with perjury.

I personally would give very little additional weight to a statement simply because it was delivered in a statement at a congressional hearing. I would judge it by the qualifications of the person giving the testimony and by their past record for careful and honest statements. And I would try to check the facts in their statements against primary sources.

You, on the other hand, seem to be assigning almost mystical significance to the fact this was congressional testimony, and to have done almost no checking to see if the facts actually are as Sekulow represents them. This excessive trust on your part may be why you are so easily deceived by people such as Barton and Sekulow.

My time on computer is almost up, so I may not be able to post much more today. I'll continue this tomorrow if possible, otherwise will pick this up on Monday.

 

[Nova Land]

I hope you will reconsider your blind reliance on Congressional testimony. Do you, after careful thought, still believe that such testimony is to given a great deal of respect, and that lawyers who testify inaccurately are likely to be disbarred or charged with perjury?

If so, I am fairly sure that lawyers from the ACLU, People for the American Way, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and other groups have testified before congressional hearings on many occasions. When I get home I'd be willing to look up some of their testimony -- testimony for which they were neither disbarred nor charged with perjury.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Once more DOC, please read the following opinion carefully and then state specifically where it says what the church may or may not do.

"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.'" 330 U.S. 1, 15-16.

 

[DOC]

Originally Posted by DOC View
We've been over this before (your memory is short).

No, you just have no argument.

Quote:
When I say "the Church" I mean what the dictionary says it means when "Church" is capitalized.

No, you don't.

Like I said, we've been over this before. And when I use the word "Church" (capitalized) I mean just what I said way back in post #124. Maybe I should stop using the word "Church" because people are confusing it with an individual church.

From post 124:

"If you look at my quote you used in your post #68 you will see that I never used the word churches as you did. In the quote you gave, I used "church", Church, and Church again. But when I used this word three times I meant it to mean the whole body of Christian believers and Christendom in general and not an individual church per se. And when the word is capitalized as I capitalized it twice and put quotations around it once, it means exactly that (according to Webster's anyway)."

____

Webster's Collegiate Dictionary: #3 Church (cap): a) "the whole body of Christian believers; Christendom." b) any major division of this body;

The whole body of Christian believers is made up of individual believers. And the boy scouts is part of Christendom. Why do you think the ACLU went after them.

 

[DOC]

I hope you will reconsider your blind reliance on Congressional testimony.

I hope you will reconsider your blind reliance on a news organization (Religious News Service) that is Pro Jewish, anti-Christian. I could tell that after about 25 seconds of looking at their website. Jews should appreciate Christians. We're basically their only friend in Israel.

 

[Ducky]

The whole body of Christian believers is made up of individual believers. And the boy scouts is part of Christendom. Why do you think the ACLU went after them.

The Boy Scouts are not a "Christian" organization. I am an Eagle Scout, with Order of Arrow honors, and I can tell you that my Troop (1022, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan) very much takes no stance on whether Christianity is the true religion or not, and included in every service they had every faith of every member.

The only thing they didn't respect was atheists. In fact, they pretty much made it uncomfortable for atheists. They weren't a fan of homosexuals either, but the LAST thing they would call themselves is a "Christian" organization.

Perhaps you should read this:

Scouting does not seek to impose its beliefs upon others who do not share them. Virtually every religion is represented in Scouting and the BSA does not define or interpret God. That is the role of the Scout's family and religious advisors.

Do you know what that is taken from? "POSITION STATEMENT : REAFFIRMATION OF THE POSITION OF THE BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA ON "DUTY TO GOD" June 7, 1991"

Oops. You're wrong again. Boy Scouts does not equal "Church."

 

[Jeff Wagg]

I have to agree with Ducky here. The organization is unapologetically pro-religion, and parts of it (in the US) are heavily influenced by local churches (LDS particularly), but it is not a Christian organization. You can get awards in Hinduism for example.

Check out http://www.scoutingforall.org for more info.

 

[Ducky]

I have to agree with Ducky here. The organization is unapologetically pro-religion, and parts of it (in the US) are heavily influenced by local churches (LDS particularly), but it is not a Christian organization. You can get awards in Hinduism for example.

Check out http://www.scoutingforall.org for more info.

Point of clarifacation:

Scouting For All is not the BSA. Everything else in your post is accurate tho.

Scouting for All is a spinoff of the BSA that welcomes homosexual, atheist, and women scouters.

 

[Hawk one]

The whole body of Christian believers is made up of individual believers. And the boy scouts is part of Christendom. Why do you think the ACLU went after them.

Because the scouts and the city were breaking the laws about a public park being equally available for everyone.

They were restricting other people's constitutional freedom, which is something ACLU is fierce to protect. The court deemed them guilty because it was obvious that their deal was illegal.

That you still cannot fathom something as simple as this is after reading any report even being remotely unbiased a testament to how closeminded you are. That you still keep up the same lies after having them exposed as lies dozens of times already is a testament to how you don't pay any attention at all to what we say?

When are you going to stop lying? When are you going to realise that your lies and your venomous attacks isn't going to win any converts whatsoever? When are you going to understand that people like you are what drives other people away from Christianity, because they can't live with a religion so full of liars and smug hypocrites?

 

[Ducky]

I hope you will reconsider your blind reliance on a news organization (Religious News Service) that is Pro Jewish, anti-Christian. I could tell that after about 25 seconds of looking at their website. Jews should appreciate Christians. We're basically their only friend in Israel.

This post is the definition of hypocritical.

 

[Cleon]

Originally Posted by DOC View
We've been over this before (your memory is short).

No, you are just incapable of admitting error.

Boy Scouts != Church.

Even if they were, the case was about what the city could not do, not the Boy Scouts.

 

[Foster Zygote]

DOC, are you ,for some reason, avoiding answering my question about the Supreme Court opinion? Can I take it that you cannot show that the opinion grants the government the power to dictate what any religious organization may or may not do and that your prior argument about the effect of this case is invalid?

 

[DOC]

go to next message

 

[DOC]

Originally Posted by DOC

We've been over this before (your memory is short).

No, you are just incapable of admitting error.


Boy Scouts != Church.

I wish I had to admit an error because then Judge Napoleon Jones would have to admit an error and the Boy Scouts wouldn't have been kicked out.

From the article: The Boys Scouts vs. the ACLU by Hans Zeigler

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/zeiger/040114

Last July, U.S. District Judge Napoleon Jones ruled that the Boy Scouts of America is a religious organization. Their presence in Balboa Park was considered a violation of the separation of [size=+2]church[/size] and state.

 

[Cleon]

I hope you will reconsider your blind reliance on a news organization (Religious News Service) that is Pro Jewish, anti-Christian. I could tell that after about 25 seconds of looking at their website. Jews should appreciate Christians. We're basically their only friend in Israel.

You know what really pisses me off?

Nova doesn't get a lot of computer time. He has spent a considerable amount of time and energy researching this issue, and has posted a number of times with a lot of substantive information about the topic at hand. He has put a lot of effort into this, and shown you nothing but complete respect--which you keep demonstrating you don't deserve.

Your responses to him, when you bother to condescend to acknowledge them, are pathetic. You ignore the entire post and only respond to a single sentence with the same garbage that he just completely debunked. Only you won't acknowledge that, of course--the information he posts just doesn't even register with you.


The disrespect you've shown to Nova is absolutely appalling, and you should be ashamed of yourself.

But that would require you to engage in some form of self-criticism, and your ego (to say nothing of your shallow, fragile faith) won't permit it.

 

[Cleon]

Originally Posted by DOC

We've been over this before (your memory is short).

Keep saying that. You're still wrong.

Cope.

 

[DOC]

The disrespect you've shown to Nova is absolutely appalling, and you should be ashamed of yourself.

Please give an example of my appalling disrespect to Nova.

People should know by now when they make a non-specific negative claim about me, I usually ask them to be specific.

 

[Cleon]

Please give an example of my appalling disrespect to Nova.

People should know by now when they make a non-specific negative claim about me, I usually ask them to be specific.

In this single post, you've managed to verify everything I've said.

Way to go.