Thomas Jefferson's admiration and financial support of Christianity

[DOC]

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?

In post 1097 you stated you already gave a reasoned explanation for why you stated my disrespect for Nova was appalling. In post 1099 I asked what was the post number where you gave the explanation.

Since you have not given a post number for the explanation you said you already gave (prior to post 1097) I have to conclude you made a false statement (in post 1097).

 

[Cleon]

In post 1097 you stated you already gave a reasoned explanation for why you stated my disrespect for Nova was appalling. In post 1099 I asked what was the post number where you gave the explanation.

Since you have not given a post number for the explanation you said you already gave (prior to post 1097) I have to conclude you made a false statement (in post 1097).

You've already demonstrated that you will conclude whatever you wish to conclude, and that facts play no role in this conclusion-developing process.

So yeah, I don't really care what you conclude. The facts of the matter are there for all to see.

 

[slingblade]

This post:

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.

Oddly enough, I was able to find it in about 5 seconds.

I have to conclude that Doc made a knowingly false statement.

Restrain yourselves! I know this comes as a great and earth-shattering shock to you all, but I assure you, it is true.

 

[DOC]

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.

Its no more of an endorsement then when schools teach condom use.

 

[DOC]

This post:




Oddly enough, I was able to find it in about 5 seconds.

I have to conclude that Doc made a knowingly false statement.

Restrain yourselves! I know this comes as a great and earth-shattering shock to you all, but I assure you, it is true.

So my appalling disrespect of Nova was because I only responded to a portion of her post instead of the whole post. Okaaaay, then that means there is a lot of appalling disrespect going on by almost everyone in these forums. Funny how Nova has not complained about any disrespect by me. You ought to let Nova speak for Nova. But then again I just realize this is just more of the same ol' same ol' attack the messenger with any morsel that can be found.

 

[Achán hiNidráne]

Its no more of an endorsement then when schools teach condom use.

And we have a new non sequitur from the Bible-Beater's Grab Bag Of Fundie Fallacies. (Collect them all!)

Teaching a teenager how to put on a condom is not an endorsement of anything. You're merely showing them how to use the thing. It's no more an endorsement than teaching them to drive a car in Drivers Ed , or teaching them to bake a bunt cake in Home Economics. You can either use the knowledge, or your don't.

However, when you set aside a specific set of time, for a specific group, with a specific set of beliefs that you approve of, that's an endorsement.

 

[kmortis]

So my appalling disrespect of Nova was because I only responded to a portion of her post instead of the whole post. Okaaaay, then that means there is a lot of appalling disrespect going on by almost everyone in these forums. Funny how Nova has not complained about any disrespect by me. you ought to let Nova speak for Nova. But then again I just realize this is just more of the same ol' same ol' attack the messenger with any morsel that can be found.

<sigh> DOC,
I thought we settled this "atack the messenger" thing. The only one who's attacking the messenger is me. You are a frelling idiot. A moron, really. Barely able to muster the intelligence it takes to keep sentient. I wouldn't be suprized to find that your computer has Etch-a-Sketch^tm on the side.

Now, we've established that I am the official messenger attacker. You don't have to worry about attacks from anyone else. If you think you're being attacked, then kindly look at the username, if it doens't say "kmortis" then you are not being attacked. Your argument is. Possibly someone may be questioning your motives, but that's not the same as an attack. Only I can attack you. Ok? Clear?

Moron.

Knee-biter.

Panty-waste.

Carry on.

 

[DOC]

However, when you set aside a specific set of time, for a specific group, with a specific set of beliefs that you approve of, that's an endorsement.

Who said the school was approving of the beliefs. Does setting aside a specific time to teach condom use mean the school approves of premarital sex.

 

[joobz]

Who said the school was approving of the beliefs. Does setting aside a specific time to teach condom use mean the school approves of premarital sex.

No it doesn't. your comparision is flawed. They aren't practicing sex in school, they are teaching about sex. Praying in school is practicing a religion. If sex education had active participation in class, then your comparision would be accurate.

Besides, condom use is only one part of a sex education course. They teach the facts on sex and sexually transmitted diseases. They also teach that the full proof way of preventing pregnancy and transmission of disease is abstinence. They teach to avoid missinformation from being spread, which is always more dangerous. There is a measurable real danger to children by not informing them of the reality of sex.


Now,

 

[Foster Zygote]

Who said the school was approving of the beliefs. Does setting aside a specific time to teach condom use mean the school approves of premarital sex.

No. It does not mean the school approves of pre-marital sex. It does not mean that the school disapproves of pre-marital sex either.

 

[skeptifem]

Who said the school was approving of the beliefs. Does setting aside a specific time to teach condom use mean the school approves of premarital sex.

I think this is the key difference that you are missing. setting aside time to pray doesnt involve any sort of education or teaching, which incidentally is the purpose of sending children to school.

 

[ceo_esq]

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.

I agree that Ms. Newberry does not appear to have been arrested. However, to whatever extent you're interested, there's at least a good chance that those times you were transported to the station in a police car and detained there - assuming you would have been physically restrained if you had attempted to leave - you were actually arrested without realizing it. The statutory definition of arrest varies from state to state, but usually means (I'm simplifying here) the seizing or detaining of a person by any act that indicates an intention to take him into custody and which subjects him to the actual control of the person making the arrest. On at least some occasions, what happened to you appears to have gone beyond what we call a "Terry stop", and I'm aware of instances where federal or state courts have ruled that similar facts effectively constituted an arrest - even if both the detainee and the officer thought the detention did not rise to the level of a full arrest, there were no charges brought, the detainee was not Mirandized, and no formal arrest record was created.

 

[ceo_esq]

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.

You know that a display of a Christmas tree all by itself is generally OK, right?

At any rate, nearly four months ago in this thread we were also considering the question of the ACLU's sympathies in such cases, and I made the following post, which I'll repost now for the benefit of anyone who's joined the thread in the intervening time.

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.

One of these days I should get around to that broader survey I talked about, but it would be time-consuming.

 

[joobz]

You know that a display of a Christmas tree all by itself is generally OK, right?

What do you mean by ok?

At any rate, nearly four months ago in this thread we were also considering the question of the ACLU's sympathies in such cases, and I made the following post, which I'll repost now for the benefit of anyone who's joined the thread in the intervening time.

That is an interesting statistic, but I do not know what the cases were so it is difficult to find too much meaning in pro-con definitions.

Definitely, if the ACLU has held a bias that can be proven (your analysis would go toward demonstrating it), then they should be brought to task.
But all cases that have been mentioned so far haven't demonstrated this.

 

[ceo_esq]

What do you mean by ok?

I mean constitutional.

Definitely, if the ACLU has held a bias that can be proven (your analysis would go toward demonstrating it), then they should be brought to task.

I don't know about that. They're entitled to harbor or exhibit whatever biases they like.

But all cases that have been mentioned so far haven't demonstrated this.

If anyone has a handy list of the cases that have been mentioned so far, that would be great to see. I know there are a number of posts in this thread I've missed.

 

[joobz]

I mean constitutional.

What's the justification of that? or is the christmas tree taken as a symbol of the secular holiday, christmas?

I don't know about that. They're entitled to harbor or exhibit whatever biases they like.

I agree, but then they would have been operating under false pretenses.

If anyone has a handy list of the cases that have been mentioned so far, that would be great to see. I know there are a number of posts in this thread I've missed.

I've only back read 2-3 pages, so I do not have a list. I've only seen the boyscout case and the prayer case mentioned.

 

[DOC]

ACLU AGENDA -- According to article

I don't know about that. They're {ACLU} entitled to harbor or exhibit whatever biases they{ACLU} like.


If anyone has a handy list of the cases that have been mentioned so far, that would be great to see. I know there are a number of posts in this thread I've missed.

Since you stated that the ACLU is entitled to harbor or exhibit whatever biases they like, let's take a look at what some people think are those biases:

An excerpt from the article


"One needs only to look through one of the policy guides of the ACLU, listen to their founders and the speeches by their leaders, or go to its Web site and read actual documents it has filed in court, to get a clearer picture of the ACLU agenda. Consider these ACLU positions and imagine what America would be like if these dreams were fulfilled:
• All legal prohibitions on the distribution of obscene material (including child pornography) are unconstitutional.
• Pornographic outlets can locate wherever they please — whether next to churches or day-care centers or near residential neighborhoods.
• Tax-funded libraries should not restrict access by children to pornography on the Internet.
• Parents should have no legal recourse when it comes to shielding their children from exposure to hard-core pornography.
• The military cannot enforce even the most basic codes of conduct —such as discipline for disrespectful behavior toward a superior officer.
• The military cannot stop open displays of homosexual behavior within its ranks.
• Parents 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.
• Public schools cannot observe recognized religious, historical, and cultural holidays such as Christmas, Easter, or Hanukkah, despite hundreds of years of American tradition.
• All legislative, military, and prison chaplaincy programs should be abolished.
• All criminal and civil laws that prohibit polygamy (having multiple wives) and same-sex “marriage” should be done away with."

 

[DOC]

ACLU AGENDA -- According to article

I don't know about that. They're {ACLU} entitled to harbor or exhibit whatever biases they like.


If anyone has a handy list of the cases that have been mentioned so far, that would be great to see. I know there are a number of posts in this thread I've missed.

Since you stated that the ACLU is entitled to harbor or exhibit whatever biases they like, let's take a look at what some people think are those biases:

An excerpt from the article "The ACLU'S 80-Year War on American Values" by Alan Sears and Craig Osten.

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


"One needs only to look through one of the policy guides of the ACLU, listen to their founders and the speeches by their leaders, or go to its Web site and read actual documents it has filed in court, to get a clearer picture of the ACLU agenda. Consider these ACLU positions and imagine what America would be like if these dreams were fulfilled:

• All legal prohibitions on the distribution of obscene material (including child pornography) are unconstitutional.
• Pornographic outlets can locate wherever they please — whether next to churches or day-care centers or near residential neighborhoods.
• Tax-funded libraries should not restrict access by children to pornography on the Internet.
• Parents should have no legal recourse when it comes to shielding their children from exposure to hard-core pornography.
• The military cannot enforce even the most basic codes of conduct —such as discipline for disrespectful behavior toward a superior officer.
• The military cannot stop open displays of homosexual behavior within its ranks.
• Parents 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.
• Public schools cannot observe recognized religious, historical, and cultural holidays such as Christmas, Easter, or Hanukkah, despite hundreds of years of American tradition.
• All legislative, military, and prison chaplaincy programs should be abolished.
• All criminal and civil laws that prohibit polygamy (having multiple wives) and same-sex “marriage” should be done away with."

 

[Foster Zygote]

Since you stated that the ACLU is entitled to harbor or exhibit whatever biases they like, let's take a look at what some people think are those biases:

How about some actual evidence.

An excerpt from the article


"One needs only to look through one of the policy guides of the ACLU, listen to their founders and the speeches by their leaders, or go to its Web site and read actual documents it has filed in court, to get a clearer picture of the ACLU agenda. Consider these ACLU positions and imagine what America would be like if these dreams were fulfilled:
• All legal prohibitions on the distribution of obscene material (including child pornography) are unconstitutional.

This is a lie. The ACLU does not condone the production or distribution of child pornography.

From their site:

H. R. 4623, the "Child Obscenity and Pornography Prevention Act of 2002" is a hasty attempt drafted by the Department of Justice to override the United States Supreme Court's decision in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. ____ (2002). While the intentions of the authors may be good, the bill is fatally flawed. We therefore urge you to vote against this bill.

H.R. 4623 seeks to ban "virtual child pornography," and prohibit "pandering" of images as child pornography even if the images are not obscene or child pornography. It creates a whole new category of prohibited speech, prohibits using sexually explicit materials to facilitate offenses against minors, creates extraterritorial jurisdiction, and creates a database of minors who have been exploited in the creation of child pornography.

The ACLU opposes child pornography that uses real children in its depictions. Material, however, which is produced without using real children, and is not otherwise obscene, is protected under the First Amendment. H.R. 4623 attempts to ban this protected material, and therefore will likely meet the same fate as the provisions stricken from the Child Pornography Prevention Act (CPPA) in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition.

• Tax-funded libraries should not restrict access by children to pornography on the Internet.

Another lie. The ACLU does not object to restricting children's access to pornography, only the manner in which said restiction was proposed. Again, from their site:

We believe the majority of Americans share our conviction that parents and teachers -- not the federal government -- should provide children with guidance about accessing information on the Internet. The same children we "protect" today by blocking certain information from their view, will become the Internet citizens of tomorrow. The time to teach them good Internet citizenship and critical thinking skills in evaluating information is now. Blocking teaches nothing.

Mandatory filtering is a one-size-fits-all federal solution. It deprives parents, schools and local libraries the opportunity to consider other approaches to Internet safety, including training classes to help children bring critical skills to the Internet; adult supervision of Internet use by minors; highlighting recommended sites to assist parents in navigating the Internet; and establishment of limited time periods for supervised use of the Internet by young children. The choice to embody one or several technological or non-technological solutions is best made by local authorities in light of local conditions, values and resources.

Blocking programs are clumsy and ineffective. Despite advances in the technology, they still continue to block non-objectionable sites, while allowing inappropriate material to be viewed. This type of arbitrary censorship is a blatant violation of the First Amendment when mandated by the federal government.

 

[ceo_esq]

What's the justification of that? or is the christmas tree taken as a symbol of the secular holiday, christmas?

Bingo. That's what the Supreme Court thinks, anyway.