Thomas Jefferson's admiration and financial support of Christianity

[joobz]

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

Do you have any other source of information? 3 points have already been demonstrated to be clear lies, I see no reason to trust any other point from that book. You will need more evidence from alternative sources to make your case.

Why do you think your source is so wrong in it's analysis? Why do the authors intentionally skew the facts? If anything, I am starting to think that there is a war against equality and the ACLU, not the other way around.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Do you have any other source of information? 3 points have already been demonstrated to be clear lies, I see no reason to trust any other point from that book. You will need more evidence from alternative sources to make your case.

Why do you think your source is so wrong in it's analysis? Why do the authors intentionally skew the facts? If anything, I am starting to think that there is a war against equality and the ACLU, not the other way around.

Having read Goebbels (often the most important books to read are those by your greatest enemies) I see much in this sort of manipulative, deceptive technique that Hitler's propaganda minister would recognize.

 

[DOC]

ACLU represents North American Man Boy Association free of charge

Quote:
An excerpt from the article cited in post 1118


"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.

Well, I do know that the ACLU represented the "North American Man Boy Love Association" free of charge in a case where a child was tortured and murdered by someone who claimed he was influenced by North American Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) literature. We've already talked about that in this thread.

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

 

[slingblade]

Well, I do know that the ACLU represented the "North American Man Boy Love Association" free of charge in a case where a child was tortured and murdered by someone who claimed he was influenced by North American Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) literature. We've already talked about that in this thread.

On what basis did the ACLU represent NAMBLA? I mean, what specifically did the ACLU argue on NAMBLA's behalf? Take as many words as you need to explain it clearly. I would like to know the specific nature of the argument presented by the ACLU.

Have you any evidence to show it was a pro bono case? May we see this evidence, if so? Please? Can you also explain why that fact would matter to your point?

By the way, can you please state your point?

If a person accused of wrong-doing says, in his own defense: "I'm not to blame. I chose to read something, and I think the author of it influenced me to do this thing. In essence, what he wrote made me do it," could you accept that?


If someone read something in the Bible, and then committed a crime based on what he read, would you blame the man, or the Bible--what he read in the Bible?

If someone read something you wrote, and then committed a crime, and in court said your ideas were responsible for his acts, would you accept that as reasonable?

 

[Foster Zygote]

Quote:
An excerpt from the article cited in post 1118


"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.








Well, I do know that the ACLU represented the "North American Man Boy Love Association" free of charge in a case where a child was tortured and murdered by someone who claimed he was influenced by North American Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) literature. We've already talked about that in this thread.

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

From the ACLU site:

Why did the ACLU defend NAMBLA?
In representing NAMBLA, the ACLU does not advocate sexual relationships between adults and children. What we do advocate is robust freedom of speech. This lawsuit strikes at the heart of freedom of speech. The defense of freedom of speech is most critical when the message is one most people find repulsive.

Do you still not get it? The ACLU does not condone illegal sex acts with minors. They only support the freedom of speech in this issue. They do this for the same reason they defend the rights of the KKK, not because they approve of its hatred, but because they exist to safeguard our constitutional rights. In a democracy everyone has freedom of speech. This right is not reserved only for those who's message does not offend you, but everyone, even those who's message disgusts you.

 

[Cleon]

Well, I do know that the ACLU represented the "North American Man Boy Love Association" free of charge in a case where a child was tortured and murdered by someone who claimed he was influenced by North American Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) literature. We've already talked about that in this thread.

Yes, and you're neglecting to mention why, but this is no surprise.

However, it remains a lie to say that the ACLU believes that "all legal prohibitions on the distribution of obscene material (including child pornography) are unconstitutional."

Not a mistake.

A simply, deliberate, slanderous lie.

Do you endorse this lie, DOC?

 

[joobz]

Well, I do know that the ACLU represented the "North American Man Boy Love Association" free of charge in a case where a child was tortured and murdered by someone who claimed he was influenced by North American Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) literature. We've already talked about that in this thread.

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

Using your same reasoning, Do I assume that the ACLU has really likes Rush Limbaugh's point of views?
ACLU Asks Court to Protect Confidentiality of Rush Limbaugh's Medical Records


You haven't addressed or commented on a single point I've made. not even the questions I've posed.
Let me ask one more time:
1.) Do you have any other source of information? 3 points have already been demonstrated to be clear lies.
2.) Why do you think your source is so wrong in it's analysis?
3.) Why do the authors intentionally skew the facts?
4.) What is your goal in trying to vilify the ACLU?
5.) What do you consider enough evidence to support your argument?
6.) What do you consider enough evidence to refute your argument?

 

[Ducky]

I see doc is returning to the same old crap we've already shown to be crap. This is nothing new, and is his SOP.

In about 20 posts, he'll go back to claiming school prayer is illegal and wil get you arrested. Then he will cycle back to communist judges he doesn't like, and then go back to insulting the ACLU, despite being shown over and over his views and posts on the subject are just plain wrong.


Of course, this whole thread was about THomas JEfferson, but DOC was thoroughly refuted on all his points on TJ 20 pages ago.

So he's about due to cycle back and claim TJ went to services (without showing evidence of this) daily and all the other crap we've destroyed in this thread.

 

[Nova Land]

Good news! Although I have not yet been able to locate a printed copy of the news story which appeared in the St. Petersburg Times, I have found (and photocopied) two magazine articles dealing with the Misty Newberry incident -- one from October 1991, the other from January 1992.

I will type up and post excerpts from these tomorrow, after I get home and catch up a little on sleep. I think these items provide answers for several of the questions that have come up in this thread.

 

[DOC]

Do you still not get it? The ACLU does not condone illegal sex acts with minors. They only support the freedom of speech in this issue. They do this for the same reason they defend the rights of the KKK, not because they approve of its hatred, but because they exist to safeguard our constitutional rights.

Well then why did they turn down this man who wanted to trademark the slogan "White Pride Country Wide". I personally don't agree with the slogan but if the ACLU was serious about all freedom of speech, no matter what it says, they shouldn't have rejected the case on the grounds they did.

From the Website "Political Correctness Watch"

"In March 2005, the ACLU not only turned my case down but took the opportunity to slam white people and Christians. Renee Hamilton, legal assistant for the ACLU-MN, wrote:

"Thus, when the PTO examined Moritz's mark, their rejection of his mark was reasonable given that such a slogan has just but one meaning i.e. superiority of what he term (sic) `the white race' over all other races and their brand of Christianity over the other religions."

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com/2006_08_01_archive.html

 

[DOC]

So he's about due to cycle back and claim TJ went to services (without showing evidence of this) daily and all the other crap we've destroyed in this thread.

Well Mr. Ducky (aka foulsound), I see you changed your nickname for some reason and didn't tell me. You still haven't shown us where Jay Sekulow lied like you said he did. I asked you 3 times where he lied but you won't answer that question. So I have to assume you made a false statement.

Also, I've shown 3 sources that Jefferson went to Christian services in the congressional building so I know that is a false statement. A false statement is a false statement no matter what name you use.

 

[slingblade]

Well Mr. Ducky (aka foulsound), I see you changed your nickname for some reason and didn't tell me.

Wow. Way to make everything about you.

Many of us have known about this for days.

If you're feeling left out, perhaps you should drop by more often, and pay attention to someone besides yourself, some words besides your own, or some thoughts produced by people not you. Hmmm?


(and it was FOWLsound. Gads. Get one thing right, can't you?)

 

[Ducky]

Well Mr. Ducky (aka foulsound), I see you changed your nickname for some reason and didn't tell me.

Oh brother. Yes despite my name change being documented and explained in 3 different threads and mentioned in 4 others, you're right. I did it just to try to pull one over on you. You got me. I give up.

What, exactly, do you think you were entitled to from me regarding this very public name change? Should I have sent you an engraved announcement?

You still haven't shown us where Jay Sekulow lied like you said he did. I asked you 3 times where he lied but you won't answer that question. So I have to assume you made a false statement.

You can assume it all you want, but as I have repeatedly pointed out, we have shown several times, in several posts in this thread where sokelew misrepresented the truth about what happened in his congressional testimony.

We have clearly shown...the kids were not arrested. NO charges were filed, theior rights were not read to them. ergo, it is a lie to say they were arrested.

Also, I've shown 3 sources that Jefferson went to Christian services in the congressional building so I know that is a false statement. A false statement is a false statement no matter what name you use.

You've shown me one wiki page, and something form a very suspect source (ie, Dr. Kennedy's website) which we have shown repeatedly does not care to fact check itself. Try again.

You have yet to provide a direct original source proving it. How about that? Surely it is mentioned somewhere in Jefferson's writings directly if he went so often, right?

I have posted several things that you have ignored. Do you care to comment on my post regarding the Boy Scouts?

You're a liar, and you've been shown to be a liar over and over. Lie away, liar.

 

[DOC]

Let me ask one more time:
1.) Do you have any other source of information? 3 points have already been demonstrated to be clear lies.
2.) Why do you think your source is so wrong in it's analysis?
3.) Why do the authors intentionally skew the facts?
4.) What is your goal in trying to vilify the ACLU?
5.) What do you consider enough evidence to support your argument?
6.) What do you consider enough evidence to refute your argument?

You, you, your, you, your, you, your, you. Like I've said several times, this thread is not about me. If you don't like something I said, say why and give your facts. Maybe ask one or two questions of me, but six is a bit much for someone like me who has already left 272 messages.

1. Clear lies in your opinion maybe, but not mine. The ACLU definitely has an anti-Christian agenda in my opinion. You can have whatever opinion you want.

4. My goal is to inform people about the side of the ACLU your not going to hear about in the mainstream media. I agree with the author of the book "The 10 ways the ACLU is destroying America" -- the policies of the ACLU (and those forces that have contributed to their 150 million in assets that one group reported in 2003) could destroy the American values that made this a great nation. I don't want to see us go the way of the Roman Empire. You've got your opinion, I've got mine, and Alan Sears and Craig Osten (post #1118) have theirs.

 

[skeptifem]

You, you, your, you, your, you, your, you. Like I've said several times, this thread is not about me.

wow someone has an ego, lol.

let me repost it with bolding on the parts that you missed:

Let me ask one more time:
1.) Do you have any other source of information? 3 points have already been demonstrated to be clear lies.
2.) Why do you think your source is so wrong in it's analysis?
3.) Why do the authors intentionally skew the facts?
4.) What is your goal in trying to vilify the ACLU?
5.) What do you consider enough evidence to support your argument?
6.) What do you consider enough evidence to refute your argument?

question 3 does not mention the words 'you' or 'your', and you still didnt answer it.

and hey heres a reason people are asking questions of you: you are making assertions.

lol. are we just supposed believe whatever you say without asking questions?

If you don't like something I said, say why and give your facts.

No, it doesnt work that way. If YOU make an assertion, YOU need to support it. this fallacy is called 'shifting the burden of proof'.

Maybe ask one or two questions of me, but six is a bit much for someone like me who has already left 272 messages.

urgghghgh fsdsg

4. My goal is to inform people about the side of the ACLU your not going to hear about in the mainstream media. I agree with the author of the book "The 10 ways the ACLU is destroying America" -- the policies of the ACLU (and those forces that have contributed to their 150 million in assets that one group reported in 2003) could destroy the American values that made this a great nation. I don't want to see us go the way of the Roman Empire. You've got your opinion, I've got mine, and Alan Sears and Craig Osten (post #1118) have theirs.

You are doing an extremely poor job of informing anyone of anything.

 

[Mojo]

Well then why did they turn down this man who wanted to trademark the slogan "White Pride Country Wide". I personally don't agree with the slogan but if the ACLU was serious about all freedom of speech, no matter what it says, they shouldn't have rejected the case on the grounds they did.

Intellectual property and free speech are different issues.

 

[DOC]

Originally Posted by DOC

Well then why did they turn down this man who wanted to trademark the slogan "White Pride Country Wide". I personally don't agree with the slogan but if the ACLU was serious about all freedom of speech, no matter what it says, they shouldn't have rejected the case on the grounds they did.

Intellectual property and free speech are different issues.

Well, then, that's what the representative of the ACLU should have said and not the following (according to the website)

From the Website "Political Correctness Watch"

"In March 2005, the ACLU not only turned my case down but took the opportunity to slam white people and Christians. Renee Hamilton, legal assistant for the ACLU-MN, wrote:

"Thus, when the PTO examined Moritz's mark, their rejection of his mark was reasonable given that such a slogan has just but one meaning i.e. superiority of what he term (sic) `the white race' over all other races and their brand of Christianity over the other religions."

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com/2006_08_01_archive.html.

_________

What does White Pride have to do with Christianity? And she implies that if it wasn't reasonable they would have taken the case.

 

[joobz]

Maybe ask one or two questions of me, but six is a bit much for someone like me who has already left 272 messages.

Thank you for answering the questions you did. I realize that the number of questions appear to be many. However, you had ignored my previous posts, so I simply posted a summary of the points I wanted addressed.

You, you, your, you, your, you, your, you. Like I've said several times, this thread is not about me. If you don't like something I said, say why and give your facts.

The first three questions were related to the source you used, the last three questions dealt with your arguments, not you.

1. Clear lies in your opinion maybe, but not mine. The ACLU definitely has an anti-Christian agenda in my opinion. You can have whatever opinion you want.

Fact isn't a matter of opinion. You cited examples (to support your opinion) that were found to be false. That makes your reference either a lie or misinformed. Now that you know the truth, if you continue to use that source it becomes a lie.

Of course you can hold what ever opinion you want. But not all opinions are equal, especially in a debate format. If you support that opinion on wrong information, expect to be called on it. It would be like me saying, "I think Michael Jackson is a bad person becuase he shot JFK." the basis for my opinion in that that sentence is a lie and brings the entire opinion into question. there may be more justifiable reasons, but if you only have lies to support your case then you don't have a very solid reason to hold your opinion.

4. My goal is to inform people about the side of the ACLU your not going to hear about in the mainstream media. I agree with the author of the book "The 10 ways the ACLU is destroying America" -- the policies of the ACLU (and those forces that have contributed to their 150 million in assets that one group reported in 2003) could destroy the American values that made this a great nation. I don't want to see us go the way of the Roman Empire. You've got your opinion, I've got mine, and Alan Sears and Craig Osten (post #1118) have theirs.

I find the entire basis of that book to be suspect. We easily found lies in it. Therefore any reference to that book can not be taken seriously. Furthermore, you have failed even at the simplist task of giving an example of where the ACLU has been anti-christian, let alone "Destroying America".
-----
You will also need to explain how anti-christian is related to Destroying America? Allow me to raise a counter argument
1.) Slavery is a horrible injustice. No human has a right to own another.
2.) America was founded on the principle of all men are created equal, therefore america's charter is inherently anti-slavery
3.) The Bible condones slavery. Both old and new testament (Leviticus 25:44-46, Exodus 21:2-6, Exodus 21:7-11, Exodus 21:20-21, Ephesians 6:5, 1 Timothy 6:1-2)
4.) Christian morals is in opposition to American values.
5.) Slavery nearly destroyed America, culminating in a Civil war that could have forever ruined us.

Christianity nearly destroyed our country.
----

My 5th and 6th questions are very important and need your attention.

It seems that you do not need much evidence to hate the ACLU. I am certain there are truthful accounts that can be found to suport your view. This wouldn't suprise me. The question is what precentage of their work is required must be against christianity in order for you to feel justified in that claim?

Further, it seems you hold your reference sources to a completely different standard than you hold the ACLU. It has been quite easy to find them false. Yet you do not fault them for that. What would your opinion be had we used the ACLU sources and they were found to be equally fallacious?

 

[joobz]

Well then why did they turn down this man who wanted to trademark the slogan "White Pride Country Wide". I personally don't agree with the slogan but if the ACLU was serious about all freedom of speech, no matter what it says, they shouldn't have rejected the case on the grounds they did.

From the Website "Political Correctness Watch"

"In March 2005, the ACLU not only turned my case down but took the opportunity to slam white people and Christians. Renee Hamilton, legal assistant for the ACLU-MN, wrote:

"Thus, when the PTO examined Moritz's mark, their rejection of his mark was reasonable given that such a slogan has just but one meaning i.e. superiority of what he term (sic) `the white race' over all other races and their brand of Christianity over the other religions."

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com/2006_08_01_archive.html

I agree that trademark law is a seperate issue from free speech. Indeed, the ACLU is very mindful of the fact that trademarking can, in fact, limit free speech.

However, I have absolutely no reason to believe this ever occured. I could not find supstantiating proof of this event, and it contridicts other cases that the have supported.
http://www.aclu.org/privacy/speech/14830prs20020506.html

The second case, Yahoo v. La Ligue Contre le racisme et L'antisemitisme, arose last year when two French groups obtained a judgment against Yahoo in France under a French law that makes it illegal to engage in speech related to Nazism, including the display and possession of Nazi memorabilia.
Yahoo then asked a federal judge in California to declare the French judgment unenforceable in the U.S. The judge granted the request last year, saying that "it is preferable to permit the non-violent expression of offensive viewpoints rather than impose viewpoint-based governmental regulation upon speech. The government and people of France have made a different judgment based upon their own experience."

Fought anti-hate speech legislation on campuses
http://www.aclu.org/studentsrights/expression/12798prs19990811.html

and the ACLU supports a hatecrime bill that contains an exclusion preventing hate speech unrelated to a crime to be used as evidence.
http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/gen/28947leg20070308.html

 

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by DOC

Well then why did they turn down this man who wanted to trademark the slogan "White Pride Country Wide". I personally don't agree with the slogan but if the ACLU was serious about all freedom of speech, no matter what it says, they shouldn't have rejected the case on the grounds they did.





Well, then, that's what the representative of the ACLU should have said and not the following (according to the website)

From the Website "Political Correctness Watch"

"In March 2005, the ACLU not only turned my case down but took the opportunity to slam white people and Christians. Renee Hamilton, legal assistant for the ACLU-MN, wrote:

"Thus, when the PTO examined Moritz's mark, their rejection of his mark was reasonable given that such a slogan has just but one meaning i.e. superiority of what he term (sic) `the white race' over all other races and their brand of Christianity over the other religions."

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com/2006_08_01_archive.html.

_________

What does White Pride have to do with Christianity?

We might know the answer to this question if you actually did some research. I'll look into it later.

Again DOC, this is not a matter of free speech. No one is restricting this racist's right to state "white pride". He can say it all he wants. He was simply denied a trademark.

It doesn't help your argument that people have to scroll down through so much of this guy's crap to find the reference. Here's one of my favorite bits from this website that you used to support your position.

MORE ON CAREER WOMEN

They are picky about who they will marry, tend to have flings, put off having children to the point of infertility, keep dirty homes and are miserable to boot. So why marry a career woman? The argument that working women make lousy wives was given a new lease of life last week by Forbes, a top American business magazine, prompting a slew of furious protests from women readers. One typical response was that the article was "blood-boilingly misogynistic".