Thomas Jefferson's admiration and financial support of Christianity

[slingblade]

http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/discrim/11950prs20040108.html

"The city has given the Scouts nearly 70 years of exclusive use of 18 acres of prime park property in city-owned Balboa Park for $1 per year and free use of an aquatic facility on city-owned Fiesta Island in Mission Bay through preferential leases. The Balboa Park lease also contains a provision that terminates the lease if any court issues a final judgment finding the lease illegal." (see link above)

The scouts deliberately discriminate against the non-religious and homosexuals. By allowing this preferential arrangement with the public park, the city is (wittingly or un-) endorsing this discrimination.

No one in this case tried to make the Boy Scouts change a darned thing about their organization's operating practices. The ACLU simply said if the city continues to grant the scouts preferential treatment in the use of the park, the city is equally endorsing the discrimination of certain citizens.

"The Boy Scouts cannot have it both ways," said ACLU volunteer attorney M.E. Stephens of the law firm Stock, Stephens, LLP. "Having gone to great lengths to establish that discrimination against gays and non-believers is essential to their mission, and therefore protected by the First Amendment, they cannot now turn around and ask the people of San Diego to foot the bill for that discrimination." (see link above)

So, the BSA is free to continue its discriminatory exclusionary practices. They just can't have the preferential use of a public park to do so.

So, how about the ACLJ and the ACLU working together on a case, eh, Doc? You guys sleep with the enemy all the time, or just occasionally?

 

[joobz]

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.

[FONT='Calibri','sans-serif']And being kicked out of the park wasn't "forbidden to use the park" but rather they lost their privileged status of having permanent residence. Why do you think it allowable for a private group to have exclusive use to public land? [/FONT]

 

[Foster Zygote]

Well DOC, as Sling has already demonstrated, no one told the Boy Scouts what they could or could not do. They are still free to discriminate based on religion. The ruling only said that the city may not promote said discrimination by providing public facilities to the Scouts. No one said what the Boy Scouts could not do, just what the city could not do.

 

[Nova Land]

DOC,

Hi! Tonight I'm staying with friends who have a computer, so can post a little more than at the library. So before I address a recent post of yours, let me return to something I've been wanting to get back to for some time: the question of what arrest means:

The first definition of the word "arrest' in Webster's Collegiate Dictionary is to "seize (a person) by legal authority"

Yes. That is a correct definition of arrest.

Well I'm glad you agree that it's a correct definition.

We agree it is a correct definition of arrest. But you seem to be under the mistaken impression that since an arrest involves seizing a person by legal authority, that every time a person is seized by legal authority they have been arrested.

I gave you an example from my own experience in which I was physically seized, placed in a police wagon, and driven quite a distance -- but was not arrested. I can give you more examples if you need them.

When I finished high school I took off travelling. The police were concerned about runaways, and I was stopped several times (while walking down roads, carrying my belongings rolled up in a sleeping bag) to make sure I was not running away from home. Several times I was locked in the back seat of a police car while they checked to see if I matched the description of anyone they were looking for; on a couple of occasions I was taken to state police headquarters to wait while they ran their check. In each of these incidents, I was detained but I was not arrested. Being locked in the back of a police car is not the same as being arrested.

Perhaps you've flown in airplanes, or know people who have flown? Sometimes, for a variety of people, people are taken to rooms where they are detained and searched. Is it your belief that these people have been arrested? That is not my understanding of what has occurred. These people have been seized by legal authority, every bit as much as Misty Newberry was seized by legal authority -- but they have not been arrested.

Or perhaps you drive, or know friends who drive? Sometimes people driving down the highway are ordered by the police to pull over. They are ordered to stay in their car. They are not permitted to drive on, until the police officer tells them it is okay to do so. Is it your belief that these people have been arrested? These people have been seized by legal authority, every bit as much as Misty Newberry was seized by legal authority -- but they have not been arrested.

To be arrested (in the legal sense) means to be seized by legal authority. But to be seized by legal authority does not necessarily mean to be arrested. I have given you examples of a number of ways in which the police may detain a person and restrict their freedom which do not involve arrest. What happened to Misty Newberry is one more example of this.

 

[Nova Land]

If the difference between being arrested and detained is still not clear to you, perhaps this will help. Think about cars -- the kind people drive around in. If someone not familiar with cars asked you to explain what one is, how would you define a car?

If you look it up in a dictionary, you will find numerous different definitions of car. There are for instance, railway cars, trolley cars, and elevator cars --which are not what your hypothetical friend is interested in. The relevant definition at this site is 1. an automobile

Okay, so what is an automobile? The given definition is: A self-propelled passenger vehicle that usually has four wheels and an internal-combustion engine, used for land transport.

That sounds good. It describes what a car is clearly and simply. So you give that definition to your friend. Your friend nods in understanding. And at that point, a bus drives by...

Self-propelled -- check. Passenger vehicle -- check. Has four wheels -- check. Internal-combustion engine -- check. Used for land transport -- check. "Car!", says your friend, pointing to the bus.

The point is that, while cars are self-propelled passenger vehicles with (usually) four wheels and an internal-combustion engine which are used for land transport, not everything which is a self-propelled passenger vehicles with (usually) four wheels and an internal-combustion engine which are used for land transport is a car.

In assuming Misty Newberry was arrested, you are like the person mistaking a bus for a car. Being arrested involves being seized by legal force; but not every seizure by legal force is an arrest.

 

[Nova Land]

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.

“Blind reliance”? Hardly. I'm a skeptic; I enjoy looking things up to see whether or not they are true. That's why one of my recreations this past week, while I've had access to libraries, has been looking at microfilm to try to find newspapers which carried the Misty Newberry story, so that I can check the print version against the electronic copy I received.

It's not that I place blind reliance on the newspaper account. I simply believe – with good reason -- that the RNS account is more likely to be accurate than Sekulow’s. There is one obvious error, and several probable errors, in Sekulow's version. In contrast, I have found no errors in the RNS account yet. That doesn't mean there aren't any, but if there are no one has pointed them out yet.

In general, a contemporary newspaper account of an event is more likely to be accurate than a later re-telling of the story at a legislative hearing. In this case it is clear that Sekulow's and Henderson's accounts are inaccurate on at least one easily verified detail. (I'll go into greater detail on the problems with the Sekulow and Henderson accounts later this week, when I am back home and not so limited in computer time.)

In my experience, newpaper accounts are frequently incorrect on minor or tangential details. But by and large they tend to get the main facts of the story correct, especially as a story develops.

RNS appears to be a reputable and reliable organization. Therefore I assume their reporter likely got the essential details of the school board meeting correct –- and that, if their reporter had gotten any significant detail incorrect, (a) the ACLJ would have been in touch with RNS requesting a correction, and (b) if the story had gone uncorrected, then ACLJ would have issued a press release – to Christian news outlets such as “Family News In Focus” as well as mainstream outlets such as AP – spotlighting the errors and the RNS refusal to correct them. The fact that I do not recall any such efforts by ACLJ, and can find no record of ACLJ ever having made such an attempt, indicates to me that the RNS story is essentially correct.

You seem to disagree. But so far you have not pointed out any inaccuracies in the RNS account. Are you aware of any? If so, please identify what it is which you believe to be factually inaccurate in the RNS account.

 

[Nova Land]

I hope you will reconsider your blind reliance on a news organization (Religious News Service) that is Pro Jewish...

"Pro-Jewish"? What do you mean by that, and why does that disqualify them as a reliable news source? Jay Sekulow -- a Jew who is proud of his Jewish heritage and does not appear to hate himself or his fellow Jews -- is pro-Jewish. Are you saying his testimony can't be relied on because of that?

That doesn't make sense to me. Why should the fact someone is pro-Jewish make their statements unreliable, any more than the fact someone is pro-Catholic, pro-Baptist, pro-Presbyterian, pro-Lutheran, or pro-Methodist? Are you saying that only people who have no religious beliefs can be trusted? Or do you distrust atheists as well?

Surely it is the ability of a person to report matters honestly and accurately -- regardless of their personal religious beliefs -- which matters. Do you have any examples to present of dishonesty or inaccuracy in the RNS news item? So far you haven't mentioned any.

 

[Nova Land]

I hope you will reconsider your blind reliance on a news organization (Religious News Service) that is ... anti-Christian. I could tell that after about 25 seconds of looking at their website...

And does anybody knowledgeable agree with your 25-second assessment? There are a number of religious interest groups (such as the Catholic League) which monitor media coverage of religion. Which, if any, of these groups claim that RNS is anti-Christian?

RNS has been reporting on religion-related news for more than 70 years, with the cooperation of spokespeople of numerous Christian groups. Can you cite me examples of Catholic spokespeople denouncing RNS news coverage? Can you cite me examples of Protestant groups denouncing RNS news coverage? Are there any Christian groups you are aware of which have instructed their spokespeople not to speak to RNS reporters due to perceived bias in RNS coverage?

The key question, of course, is not whether RNS is pro-Christian, anti-Christian, or neutral. The question is whether they are able to report objectively on the stories they cover.

George Bush, for instance, is pro-Republican and anti-Democrat, but that alone should not mean everything he says has to be discarded as biased. It is quite possible for a person to be personally pro-Republican and anti-Democrat and still to speak truthfully about events they have witnessed or participated in.

Similarly, Jay Sekulow is pro-Jewish, pro-Christian, and anti-atheist, but that alone should not disqualify his testimony; it is quite possible for people to be pro-Christian without letting that interfere with an objective recitation of facts.

In evaluating Sekulow's testimony, the question should be whether it is factually accurate and is presented in a way which gives the reader a correct understanding of the matter, or whether it is inaccurate and presented in a way which misleads the reader. Similarly, in evaluating the RNS news brief, the question should be whether the item is factually accurate and is presented in a way which gives the reader a correct understanding of the situation, or whether it is inaccurate and presented in a way which misleads the reader.

When I get home I will detail 3 key points on which Sekulow's testimony is misleading and inaccurate. What can you point to which is inaccurate or misleading in the RNS item?

 

[Nova Land]

I won't be able to post again until Monday, and that will again be limited, so please forgive me for posting quite so much while I have the opportunity.

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...

The RNS clipping was provided to me by the Rutherford Institute, from their files, in response to a request I sent to them for information about the Misty Newberry incident. In questioning the reliability of the RNS clippping, then, you are also (albeit indirectly) questioning the reliability of the Rutherford Institute. Are you familiar with this group, and do you have any grounds for believing they would deceive me on a matter such as this?

There is a reason I wrote to the Rutherford Institute for information rather than to the ACLJ. While it has been more than a decade since I was paying much attention to the work of these two groups, back in the late 1980s and early 1990s I followed the work of both these groups quite closely. I was on both groups' mailing lists. I listened regularly to the Rutherford Institute's daily radio spot "Freedom Under Fire", and I listened regularly to news of Sekulow and the ACLJ as reported on James Dobson's "Family News In Focus". I also had a friend who provided me with extensive news clippings, as well as selected audio from Christian radio programs, which enabled me to follow news concerning these groups (and other people, groups, and news stories I was interested in) during the months of the year when my work schedule did not permit me to listen to the radio myself.

From that, I came away with a fair amount of respect for the people at the Rutherford Institute. I disagreed with many of the stands which the Rutherford Institute took, but I respected the integrity of the people working there. That is a statement I am not able to make regarding Jay Sekulow or the ACLJ.

 

[DOC]

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

Originally Posted by DOC
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.

Anybody can throw out an accusation. Backing it up with a reasoned explanation is another thing. You shown you can throw out an accusation but I would still like the explanation. Without an explanation its just trollish behavior and I believe hurts one's future credibility.

 

[DOC]

If the difference between being arrested and detained is still not clear to you, perhaps this will help.

The bottom line is that the two students who had been praying for their school were handcuffed and placed in the back of a police car (in front of their friends and classmates). After at least 15 to 20 minutes in the police car (handcuffed) they were then driven to the other side of the school and released out of site of their friends and classmates.

Whether you use the first definition in Webster's Collegiate Dictionary that says arrest is defined "to seize (a person) by legal authority" or use some police definition of detained, it doesn't change the facts of the above paragraph. Anyway you cut it you probably got a couple of very scared handcuffed kids.

 

[slingblade]

Anyway you cut it you probably got a couple of very scared handcuffed kids.

But you don't have proof that voluntary prayer in public schools is against the law. Which is why you told that story, remember?

 

[DOC]

But you don't have proof that voluntary prayer in public schools is against the law. Which is why you told that story, remember?

Oh sure you can go in the bathroom and pray, but try asking the principal to schedule a time for students to have voluntary prayer if they want. It won't happen.

 

[Ducky]

Oh sure you can go in the bathroom and pray, but try asking the principal to schedule a time for students to have voluntary prayer if they want. It won't happen.

For good reason:

(Read very very carefully DOC, there's important info in this)

Public schools are not hostile to student’s religious expression. In fact, voluntary student-sponsored religious clubs operate smoothly in a majority of the nation’s 15,000 school districts as well as students’ ability to pray privately at school. Likewise, the government cannot deny groups’ access to government facilities and parks just because of the religious nature of their expression. Many of the examples of suppression of religious speech are already illegal, and can be addressed under current law.

The impact of this type of amendment would go far beyond what its supporters claim.
A school prayer amendment would allow government officials to make decisions that favor a particular faith. While school employees would not organize prayers, the amendment would allow administrators to impose their religious beliefs by permitting students to hold prayers at mandatory school events. It would also allow public funds to be used by religious institutions.

Source.

But, of course we know DOC thinks the ACLU is evil godless and out to get baby jesus.

 

[Mojo]

Oh sure you can go in the bathroom and pray...

Ah, so that's what they were doing in there. I wondered why they kept saying "oh my God!"

 

[slingblade]

Oh sure you can go in the bathroom and pray, but try asking the principal to schedule a time for students to have voluntary prayer if they want. It won't happen.

Of course it won't and you know it! That's exactly the sort of thing the principal and the school cannot do! They cannot schedule a portion of the school day so students can pray. That's an endorsement.

What part of that don't you get? What part of "keep your religion to yourself and don't bother me while I'm learning" don't you get?

Let's make it so that your kids have to get on their knees five times a day and face Mecca, then spend hours turning Tibetan prayer wheels, then sacrifice a goat to Zeus, then circle the school deosil and widdershins three times each while reciting the Rede, then cast Odinic runes, and then spend an hour or so listening to a Cantor read...and maybe, just maybe, somewhere in the midst of all that we can teach your kids how to read, write, and do sums. But probably not.

 

[Cleon]

Anybody can throw out an accusation. Backing it up with a reasoned explanation is another thing. You shown you can throw out an accusation but I would still like the explanation. Without an explanation its just trollish behavior and I believe hurts one's future credibility.

Already did. Being true to form, you ignored it.

 

[joobz]

The problem here is that we are defending or having to explain the reasoning behind specific seperation of church and state rulings. This can (in some people's minds) set an assumed standard that if in one instance an antichristian bias can be demonstrated, then that will justify said person's belief in a ACLU led antichristian agenda.

Many fallacies exist about the ACLU (arlington cemetary is one that comes to mind). When each of these are discounted, it should raise awareness in DOC or other conservative minds as to the reason for that lie to exist. Who gains in telling that lie. Instead, these lies just reinforce the conservative mind set. I would hazard to guess that even instances where the ACLU has no involvement, they will be blamed by proxy and serve to "prove" the other lies.

Allow me to test that theory. I have seen one particular instance 2 years ago in the Philadelphia area where one school removed a christmas tree from a "Holiday" display for reasons of "seperation of church and state". The problem was that the display also contained a Menorah and a kwanzaa fruit bowl or cup or something and these were left. This is obviously a violation of church/state (as would be the initial display), but as a cultural demonstation to have all present is less a violation as to remove one and keep the other two.


Does this example prove an antichristian bias in the world? Does it prove the ACLU hates christianity? Or does it prove that people get things wrong?

 

[DOC]

Originally Posted by DOC View

Anybody can throw out an accusation. Backing it up with a reasoned explanation is another thing. You shown you can throw out an accusation but I would still like the explanation. Without an explanation its just trollish behavior and I believe hurts one's future credibility.

Already did. Being true to form, you ignored it.

No Explanation, no credibility. [size=+3]Specifically[/size] What is your reasoned explanation as to why you said my disrespect of Nova was absolutely appalling.

If you already gave a reasoned explanation, then what is the post number where you gave it.

 

[Cleon]

No Explanation, no credibility.

You are the last person here who is qualified to speak of "credibility."

Now, Nova just posted several more rather substantial posts. Are you going to ignore them completely, or clip everything except for a single sentence, and respond to that with your same tired old crap?

ETA: I see you opted for the latter. Quelle surprise.