Date: 10/24/2003 7:58:00 AM
From Authorid: 20778
I think that if the US is the "Melting pot" of ethnics, it should also be one for religion. So many different people live here, and I dont think that they should have one religion enforced on them, while they're practicing another. <333  |
Date: 10/24/2003 8:18:00 AM
From Authorid: 3125
Anyone with a willingness to open their eyes could see that "In God We trust" is of a religious nature. We can easily see that in our pledge of allegiance, that "One nation under God" is of a religious nature. These motto's included on any nations documents, etc would be giving more rights to those who believe in God than to those who do not believe. Our nation is not about what one believes in a spiritaul sense, but it is about the belief in "Justice and Liberty for ALL citizens"..Our nation includes those of many different beliefs, so though I have a strong belief in God, I do not feel I would be losing any of my rights to become nor to be a Christian if our government removed the word 'God' from any of our nations documents, etc. To do so would be giving ALL the same rights to choose their own paths, whatever they may be. For those words to remain in or on our government's important documents which is suppose to include ALL, regardless of their beliefs, would be favoring one group of people over another. Why is it so hard to see this?  |
Date: 10/24/2003 8:33:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 13974
Thank you Laura. And Rusure, I know we agree fully on this, yet it seems so hard for people to see. I hear almost on a daily basis how Christians are "losing their rights" in America. Though, I can see how things are changing. Christians today are notlosing their "rights" in this country, but rather their special privilages, and status. I have to say, my life as a Christian was much easier than my life as an atheist. You are commended in this country by the majority if you have a faith in Jesus, and condemned by most for being an atheist. The fact is, people are just coming out from under the thumb of Christianity, but not harming them. For the most part, atheists, and people of other faiths don't care what you believe, and in no way want to hinder your ability to worship what you like, they only ask that it doesn not stop them from living their lives as they see fit. One of my favorite quotes is when Thomas Jefferson said "The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket, nor breaks my leg."  |
Date: 10/24/2003 9:12:00 AM
From Authorid: 2030
There is a growing effort in the name of "Constitutionality" by a small but very vocal and active group of people to remove any and all trappings of religion from Government, schools and all public institutions. Is that interfering with anyones rights? Well that's one for the courts, but as you say who and where is the injured party if a coin says "In God We Trust". What harm is relly being done? What is gained other than self satisfaction for someone who has for whatever reason choosen to take offense.  |
Date: 10/24/2003 9:16:00 AM
From Authorid: 16671
LOL, I knew this was you before I checked the author id. LOL. Any whos, you know my take on this from the past week of debates. Bcar has a good answer.  |
|
Date: 10/24/2003 9:19:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 13974
I have explained it to you before. The offnese lies in the fact that this nation is made up of a multitude of people, of different races, and religions. When one is held above another by the government, it is the government sanctioning the creation of second class citizens. When one group is held to be more worthy than another, then they can no longer honestly recieve equal rights. THAT is where the injury lies. You know as well as I do that if for some strange reason the mint printed "In Satan We Trust" people would go nuts, but somehow it is ok to put "In God We Trust." But of course they have NO idea why this bothers people, right? |
Date: 10/24/2003 9:26:00 AM
From Authorid: 27046
People don't seem to understand the whole perpective on this situation. It's not about wanting to push God out, it's about knocking one religion down to where the other religions stand. Do the word's in God We Trust on the money physically or psychologically damage us? No, that would be ludicrous, but it does set an example and speaks for us as a nation on a whole. We say to all of the world that WE are one nation under God and that WE all trust in God and the truth is we don't. Why present ourselves as we do? When we see a product on TV, buy it, and then find that the commercial misrepresented the product, we get upset. This isn't any different. I personally am not bothered or upset by it's use on and in these things. It personally bothers me to see it thrown around in the court system and in our nation. We would all have a lot of days off of work and school if we got ALL the religious holidays that are recognized by ALL the people in this country wouldn't we?  |
|
Date: 10/24/2003 9:30:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 13974
And again, nobody will explain how this is "anti-christian". |
|
Date: 10/24/2003 9:46:00 AM
From Authorid: 62402
Not being of the Christian faith myself, I don't have much of a problem with it. Religion is a tool to be used to make one's self a better person. If it's Christianity, then, that's what you should persue. It, personaly, makes me have nightmares, so I don't persue it. The courts can do anything with money, and pledges, and courtrooms they want, as long as they don't trample my roses...
|
|
Date: 10/24/2003 9:52:00 AM
From Authorid: 27046
Christians are going to see it as anti-Christian Phy, because it is the Christianity that marks our documents. What they don't seem to understand it is not a personal issue with the religion. If it were ANY other religion written it would be the same circumstances and that religious group would think it was a Anti- whatever their religion is. Somehow though, I don't think the point will ever totally sink in. |
|
Date: 10/24/2003 9:57:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 13974
Of course not. Christians in this country have had special priviledges that they have grown accustomed to. Many of them feel these priviledges are their rights, and that they are entitled to them, while the rest of us should just stay out of it. The fact is as long as one religion is held (by the government) to be more righteous than another, we can never be united as a nation and call ourselves "We." It is not in God WE trust, but in God THEY trust. As long as Christianity is not held to the same standard as everyone else, it will always be "us" and "them" but never "we". |
|
Date: 10/24/2003 10:14:00 AM
From Authorid: 27046
Exactly. |
|
Date: 10/24/2003 10:16:00 AM
From Authorid: 27046
However, I can peg what you will get in response to that. The Bible tells them they are righteous, superior, and chosen. It's another circular arguement..LOL |
|
Date: 10/24/2003 10:34:00 AM
From Authorid: 2030
"Government sanctioned second class citizens." That's a load. It is simply a slogan and an an inscription placed on money, pledges, and oaths of office in a country that was and is overwhelmingly Christian. I in no way can understand how this persecutes anyone. On the flip side removing them persecutes no one in any meaningfull way either. With the exception of giving a victory to the above mentioned small but vocal and active group that wants it done away with. How about a referendum? for those liberal types who seem to think the Constitution is an ever evolving document open to new interpretation depending on how the popilar wind blows (and I don't). Why are the liberals and non-Christian coalition suddenly attempting to hide behind the Constitution. Because they would lose a referendum is why. |
Date: 10/24/2003 10:38:00 AM
From Authorid: 54987
The freedom to believe in a God and what God has nothing to do with what is on our money or pledge. When a group fights to stop people from going to their churches or temples or synagogues... then we have a problem. Early christianity prevented people from practising their pagan belief systems, not the other way round. No one is going to stop Christians practising their religions and I would be right their at the front line protesting for them. All the equal rights people are doing is making sure that all people are represented by keeping religion out of the state system. To be honest most people don't mind the wording at all, and God is really a general term for anyone's deity. It is when only one particular religion or sect demands state recognition and I hope that never comes about. Freedom for All.  |
Date: 10/24/2003 10:41:00 AM
From Authorid: 53284
I will be the desenting voice here. Often times I think that Christians are labeled by the media as "Right Wing", which may or may not be the case. The media likes everything reduced to a sound bite. So, when you watch the news or read the paper see how often adjectives like "Right Wing" are associated with Christian groups. In Berkley, there was a lawsuit by city employees who felt there were being denied promotional oppertunities because they were christian. I do not believe that christian symbols should be included in public buildings, but I do think that you should be able to put up a cross in your cubical if you work for a governmental agency. To me your little cubical is personal space.  |
|
Date: 10/24/2003 10:48:00 AM
From Authorid: 2030
You know Koolade brings an interesting point. "In God we trust". Allah is a word for GOD. Wahkan Tonka is God, Budda, Hindu, even Satanist. "God" denotes a supreme being or Deity. I don't see "Jesus" anywhere on coins, or the pledge, or the oath of office. So your next agruement on how this elevates the Christian faith would be? |
Date: 10/24/2003 11:05:00 AM
From Authorid: 36967
That is the Truth.
 |
|
Date: 10/24/2003 11:10:00 AM
From Authorid: 2030
Actually the ultimate solution is just turn your coins face down if it offends you. |
|
Date: 10/24/2003 11:13:00 AM
From Authorid: 2030
In my case the image of Monticello on the back of the nickel offends me, I think it elevates Thomas Jeffersons house above mine and makes me feel like a second class citizen. It's time we put an end to all this Monticello spam on our money and start abiding by the Constitution. |
Date: 10/24/2003 11:14:00 AM
From Authorid: 49080
I don't believe that the rights of christians in America can be dissolved. But you are right. God is being taken away from many things in our country. It seems that some of the only times that we do here God or even more less (God's Word) is when something goes wrong. God is alive within many people in our country. But there are many other people who do not know God. The media is portraying a lot of negative toward God and religion. Showing the nation on television what horrible things are happening. Do they want to show positive? No. They ought to go into our local churches and youth retreats and on missions to show the nation that God is real. God is coming back soon. Show the media how many lives are coming to Christ every day because for years people have known something was missing in the lives but never knew what. That something is GOD.  |
Date: 10/24/2003 11:51:00 AM
From Authorid: 35720
I agree with Koolade and BCAR on the "God is a general name for anyone's diety" statement.  |
|
Date: 10/24/2003 12:42:00 PM
From Authorid: 3125
BCAR, Would you mind reading my post here titled "Is this Justice for ALL?
I would like for you to see where I am coming from. Anyway, you stated " the ultimate solution is just turn your coins face down if it offends you"..In 1930's there were MANY women who resented the fact that they were a minority and they were thought to be second class citizens and they were not permitted to vote. Up to then many, though they resented it, sat back and didn't take a stand because many did not have the courage to stand up. Those who finally took a stand was a small group of women who decided enough is enough and though they were threatened and some even beaten, etc, they still stood up and fought against such an injustice. They knew that according to the constitution they were as just as much a citizen of this nation and had just as much right to vote as any man had. Now as this group escalated, more stood up and gained courage to fight for their rights. Now, By using your reasoning of "the ultimate solution is just turn your coins face down if it offends you" would not have solved the unjust issue of woman being treated like second class citizens. To simply ignore an injustice rarely solves anything but causes resentments to build. To me, you are saying that those who want to feel as if they are a part of this nation should simply ignore an injustice and let the majority have their way. It may not have seem so important to a man as to why a woman would think it so important to stand up to be counted as one with equal rights , but women knew the importance of it. The women could have simply ignored and accepted this injustice and let many have their way, but I for one am very proud of these women who demanded their rights to be treated equal. Now, I feel this way for any one who must take a stand and fight for their rights to be more than second class citizens, no matter who they are or what they stand for. I may not agree with what they believe in a spiritual sense or the lack of belief, but I do believe in LIBERTY and JUSTICE for ALL, WHOEVER they are. |
|
Date: 10/24/2003 12:49:00 PM
From Authorid: 16671
Phy, yes, I would, I'd have a fit if suddenly they put in satan we trust on coins. On currency. I can understand NOW how this is bothering people that don't believe in God. |
|
Date: 10/24/2003 12:52:00 PM
From Authorid: 16671
But of course for different reasons, because to me satan is the name that is all evil amoung evil, not because I wasn't a believer. I think that is what bothers me about some that want In God we trust taken off the money, its not that they believe God to be evil, most don't even believe that he IS, I KNOW why I would not want to deal with money that says in satan we trust. I mean, put just about anything else you want on it, and to me, it still spends the same. But to put the arch enemy of God on it, my views change. |
|
Date: 10/24/2003 12:54:00 PM
From Authorid: 3125
Rika, Most know for certain who the God is that is referenced to on our money and in our pledge. Some may pretend that it means any 'god' but would this be fair to ALL? I see no reason why the word God should be on any government document and especially on one where the nation is so full of corruption from the highest leaders to the religious world and on down to the average citizens. I will not pretend that I do not know who is referenced to in the motto "In God We Trust" I will speak out and state that "In God We Trust" is a lie and hypocritical. Can we really convince ourselves that God is pleased with a lie in any form? According to His Word He is not. |
|
Date: 10/24/2003 12:58:00 PM
From Authorid: 2030
I don't equate equal representation under the law or human rights to words on a coin. It's absurd. As absurd as the notion that 4 words on a coin somehow place a group of Americans in second class citizen status. Just as absurd as the notion of removing them would deny Christians of rights. Like I said above I feel slighted by the fact that Monticello is on the nickel, someone may feel that having an eagle on the back of a quarter gives special staus to birds and not fish. Or what about all these Whits men on coins and currency? By gosh what an outrage! The whole arguement is one absurd notion that one thing advocates another, when in the Constitution equality to all and equal rights are clearly spelled out. Is this the last injustice people have to fight for? Are coins and flag pledges, and plaques in a courthouse your idea of the epitome of Evil. Then you live in a pretty wonderfull world, and if this is what you choose as the ultimate battle for right or wrong, if you're not just on a vindictive hunt to hurt those you consider your opponents, - then you are shallow shallow people indeed. |
|
Date: 10/24/2003 1:05:00 PM
From Authorid: 3125
FB, To put Satan's name on our currency would be so terribly offensive to me and to be honest with you, I would leave this nation before I would spend a coin with that inscription on it. FB, Would this be offensive to those who worship Satan? That is why I say that our currency and our important documents should not promote any religion. The government should remain neutral. It is not about whom we serve or who we do not serve in a spiritual sense. It is about making just laws for ALL people of this nation, etc, etc. Even though those who worship Satan is a small group, what would give us more right to declare our God whom we worship on money which ALL must use? |
Date: 10/24/2003 1:32:00 PM
From Authorid: 1225
We are merely trying to get Christians to stop forcing their beliefs on everyone. Problem is: Chirstians have been doing just that for millenia, so they've gotten good at it.  |
|
Date: 10/24/2003 1:39:00 PM
From Authorid: 16671
Rusure, I see your point and I'm with you about the money. I personally don't think that having it on our money is forcing anyone to believe in God or not believe I'm with bcar on this, so many more battles are so much more important, that I for one would not waste my time fighting against those that wish to take it off the money. If Im going to exert that much energy its going to be for fighiting for those that are hungry, need medical attention, the poor, the homeless. Those things are much more important to me. |
Date: 10/24/2003 1:47:00 PM
From Authorid: 15070
I think AZ & Phydeux have pretty much stated my position for me. I don't think it's a matter of LESS "Christian"-rights, as others finally being recognized & given THEIR rights. I myself, have no problem with religious symbology. But, you cannot deny one religion, at the expense of another. You cannot validate one belief system & deny others the same. I believe fear keeps Americans in general from moving forward in tolerance. That is my opinion only......  |
Date: 10/24/2003 4:52:00 PM
From Authorid: 12966
yes, Christians are losing their rights. In order to please others they are discriminating against Christians. It is sad, but Christians are becoming the minority in America. In God we trust has been on money for a long time, why change it b/c some people have different views? I see things I don't agree with all the time, but the government does not change it b/c some people do not agree with it. why worry about what is written on the money? Do you not have anything better to worry about?  |
|
Date: 10/24/2003 6:17:00 PM
From Authorid: 54987
FB well they do say that money is the root of all evil LOL. |
Date: 10/24/2003 6:33:00 PM
From Authorid: 24924
Liquid Chicken, *HOW * are christians losing their rights? Name ONE "right", please?  |
|
Date: 10/24/2003 6:38:00 PM
From Authorid: 15070
Liquid Chicken-I have written a whole debate, asking how the removal of certain symbols can possibly be discrimination. That way we will not re-direct THIS post |
|
Date: 10/24/2003 6:39:00 PM
From Authorid: 15070
Maybe the time has come for everyone to be FIRST-class citizens |
Date: 10/24/2003 6:59:00 PM
From Authorid: 57830
Well, i really don't feel like reading all the replies, but i really liked the first thing that Rusure said :)  |
Date: 10/25/2003 9:08:00 AM
From Authorid: 12835
Actually, I think God would want His name taken off of money. Render unto Ceaser what is his....I think it's somewhat degrading to carry God around in my wallet. Think about how many Dollar bills are rolled up and stuffed in a strippers thong. How many dollars are filling drug dealers pockets and bankrolling Govt. officials. I seriously doubt one bit that God would want His name anywhere near money. If people want God, don't look at the ever deflating dollar, look instead in you heart. I am sure you will find then what you are looking for.....  |
Date: 10/25/2003 10:28:00 AM
From Authorid: 51173
I think that it is abundantly clear that Christians are slowly losing the right to publically express their faith. It's not losing "special privliges", but fundamental rights of free expression and speach. From big incidents like the Alabama Courthouse controversy and the Canadian law making parts of the Bible hate speach, to the little schoolgirl who was stopped by a teacher mid-prayer while saying grace at lunchtime (she was suspended), to the woman who wore a Cross necklace to work and was fired for it, Christians are being told to keep quiet or face punishment. Right now it's social sanctions, but I believe in my lifetime it will become legal ones. Peace, Tom  |
|
Date: 10/25/2003 10:51:00 AM
From Authorid: 24924
Papabryant, that was a HOAX about in Texas the 5-year-old Shannon. According to the 1992 story passed on by Pat Robertson's "700 Club," (he is forever passing on stories like this he KNOWS aren't true!) she'd been told by her teachers in Kingsville she couldn't say grace over her meal. One technical problem with that story. Shannon didn't exist. Or if she existed, she didn't attend Kingsville schools. But Kingsville, and all other public schools, took a mighty airwave thrashing. CONCOCTED incidents purporting to demonstrate how public schools "crush" religious liberties could fill up volumes. I've seen many of these alleged "anti-christian" stories repeated and passed along as facts in e-mails and on christian television programs. |
|
Date: 10/25/2003 11:06:00 AM
From Authorid: 24924
WHY do you feel the need to have your god plastered all over everywhere? WHY must everyone be subjected to YOUR prayers, music, slogans, billboards, proslythizing, etc? What about the scriptures that talked about Jesus going away to pray by himself in a garden on on a mountain? [1] "Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.
[2] Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
[3] But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth:
[4] That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly.
[5] And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
[6] But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly". THE WAY I SEE IT IS: for years and years and years, you've gotten away with all the public displays and propaganda, and you don't want anyone raining on your parade, so you have to scream about YOUR "rights" and never, ever, EVER even think or consider that YOUR so-called "rights" are infringing upon or taking away anyone else's RIGHTS. You ONLY think about or even CARE about what YOU want; and you only think about the freedom OF religion, but totally ignore FREEDOM FROM religion.
|
Date: 10/25/2003 11:28:00 AM
From Authorid: 36704
PapaBryant, Christians are having done to them what they've been doing to others for hundreds of years in this country. I can give you far more examples of other religions being told that they can worship whoever they want but Christians don't want it forced on them. People have been told to take off their pentagrams, star of david's and other religious symbols at schools long before they started asking Christians to do the same. There was just recently a muslim girl who was suspended from school for refusing to take off her head garment. Other religions for years were told they were not allowed to bring their religious texts to school, and were told it was not in anyway infringing on their right to worship their God. Where did the people who are fighting to have God removed from everything get the idea to do it, from the Christians who have been doing it to others for years. I do not mean all Christians but the ones who spread hate and intolerance. If hate and intolerance is what you teach, hate and intolerance is what you will receive back. Many Christians don't like having done to them what they did to others. Doesn't feel too good does it.  |
|
Date: 10/25/2003 11:47:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 13974
I will get to as much as I can on this. BCAR, your view seems to be more thast you don't care, than if anyone is wronged, so what are you going on about. As far as your sarcasim regarding Monticello, when the government makes a law stating that they cannot endorse one house above another, you may have a point, until then, it is empty sarcasim. As far as second class citizens, you have no idea what you are talking about, or you just aren't thinking. Am I, as an atheist able to in all honesty state the pledge of alligience as long as a God that I do not believe in exists in it? No, I cannot, at least not using the national oath. When I refuse to participate, I am labled. My service record goes out the window. Automaticly, I can no longer be a good citizen, because I refuse to pledge to a God I don't believe exists. As far as my labling goes, I am a grown man, I can deal with it. But when my kids are in school, and the pledge is recited, what should they do? Lie and say the pledge even if it does contain content that is offensive to them? Or be ostricized, and labled as anti-American? And why, all because people were paranoid during the red scare and decided to impose their faith on all of us? Now, when it comes to God, and it's vague meaning, not all religions have a deity, many people don't believe in God at all. Do these people not count? That is still putting the beliefs of some above those of others, and you full and well know it. As for Bryant and Liquid chicken, examples please? Are we going to elaborate, or just make broad statements? For the rest of the posters, I think the issues have been addressed. |
|
Date: 10/25/2003 12:27:00 PM
From Authorid: 15070
well said........ |
|
Date: 10/25/2003 12:30:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 13974
Lets look at the examples given here. One "Alabama Courthouse controversy" which he knew he was creating the situation when he did it. His choice was not about personal expressions of faith. If it were he could have put the monument in his yard, nobody would have stopped him except maybe his neighborhood association. Nobody has taken away his right to anything. All those people who said that his rights were being violated know full and well they would never support the rights of pagans to erect a monument in the courthouse with a five point star surrounding a goat head, druidic runes at each point. THAT was not about rights and more about defiance in the face of a law he knew to exist. That judge has shown himself time and again to be bigoted. "and the Canadian law making parts of the Bible hate speech," As far as this one goes, first off this is not in the United States, secondly when the ANY religious text can be used as hate speech, just because YOU hold that book holy does not make it innocent, and non-oppressive to others. Just look at people like Reverend Fred Phelps, Christian Identity, and the KKK just mention the loudest and most outspoken use the Bible to spread rhetoric of hate, and destruction. "to the little schoolgirl who was stopped by a teacher mid-prayer while saying grace at lunchtime (she was suspended)," never seen this one before, would appreciate more info. "to the woman who wore a Cross necklace to work and was fired for it," Yes she was, after being repeatedly told that she could not DISPLAY the necklace, and was asked to put it in her shirt while at work. You fail to mention that these restrictions have come about because many Christians lobbied to have things such as pentagrams, and pentacles removed from schools. Kids were being expelled, and teachers fired for wearing symbols of THEIR religion. It was ruled that if you prohibit one religious group, all must adhere to the same standard. So many school have now tried to avoid the whole thing by making these rules before it ever has to go to court. So if you want to point the finger, point it at those who's backfired plan created the problem. "Christians are being told to keep quiet or face punishment." I have yet to see this one happen. This is just a broad generalization playing off the fact that with freedom of speech comes the consequences of your opponents sharing the same freedoms. You have the freedom to say what you like, but there are ALWAYS consequences. |
|
Date: 10/25/2003 1:01:00 PM
From Authorid: 51173
Simply because you mention bigots like Phelps and the Klan does not in any way invalidate my initial claim. I would suggest you read the book Persecution by David Limbaugh. These are documented cases of religious persecution against Christians. My question to you is WHY was that woman told to put her cross under her shirt? The Supreme Court has stated that as long as there is not a safety issue that overrides other concerns, or that there is not ACTIVE prostylization that would disrupt the workplace (stopping people from working to engage in religious discussion) religious expression cannot to be prohibited in the workplace. The reason that woman was told to stop wearing her cross was pure religious discrimination. As to Catherine's post, first, your right to freedom from religion, which is valid, does not in any way allow you (that's the rhetorical "you", dear) to inhibit my freedom TO religion. You cannot stop someone from praying in public, or shouting from their roof how they love Torah simply because you don't like hearing it. It must be causing a compelling problem, such as a safety issue. And while your points in scripture are valid as well, there is also scriptural references to witness to others, and to not be ashamed of the Gospel that equally allow for public displays of faith that are covered under the free exercise clause in the Constitution. As to your other point, I was not refering to the Texas case, but the one in St. Louis. There was another one in Saratoga Springs, NY very simular. Also, Thanks to the vigilance of an alert teacher at Lynn Lucas Middle School outside of Houston, two sisters carrying Bibles (to read during Lunch hour in the library) were prevented from bringing their vile material into a classroom. The teacher stopped the students at the classroom door and marched them to the principal's office. The sisters' mother was called and warned that the school intended to report her to Child Protective Services. When the mother arrived, the teacher threw the Bibles in the wastebasket, shouting, "This is garbage!"
In another display of tolerance at Lynn Lucas Middle School, school administrators snatched three students' books with covers displaying the Ten Commandments, ripped the covers off, threw them in the garbage, and told the students that the Ten Commandments constituted "hate speech." |
|
Date: 10/25/2003 1:22:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 13974
"The reason that woman was told to stop wearing her cross was pure religious discrimination." Correct, on the part of Christians who created the origional rules against those of other faiths, it has in turn backfired. And I was not trying to invalidate your point, I was mentioning thes biggots because they DO use the scriptures as hate speech. As for your exapmles of teachers acting badly at Lynn Lucas Middle School, yes, they were in the wrong (while I cannot find any info on this outside of christian web sites, we will assue the details are correct) this in no way shows a pattern of such behavior in wide spread use, it does show any idiot can get a degree. I also don't think you will find anyone that DOEAN'T think this kind of behavior is intollerable, and a clear cut rights violation. But what does this prove to us? that somehow the country has turned against Christianity, and wants to wash our hands of it? It shows no more about the state of our nation than Phelps is an example of all Christianity. |
|
Date: 10/25/2003 2:31:00 PM
From Authorid: 24924
papabryant, AGAIN, no one is trying to prohibit or deny and take away your rights. You can pray anywhere you want to; you just can't do it on public, goverment or tax paid property. You can go stand on a street corner, march in the streets and proclaim out loud anything, and that way no one is forced to listen. If you have your homes, your churches, your own youth groups, religious groups and organizations and what not; that is , or should be, enough. But it isn't. You want to invade the private or public arena's where ALL types of people are with all different kinds of beliefs. Now, I do not for one second believe that you don't understand this! You don't LIKE it; you don't WANT it, so therefore to me: it is WILLFUL ignorance; and I don't know what more could be classified as a SIN than that. Phydeux, you're right, much of what has been said has been adressed time and time again, but for SOME people, it TAKES a whole bunch of times for it to sink in, and even then it doesn't register. Papabryant, that book by Limbaugh is filled with outrageous claims, misquotes, and embellished stories. Sadly, unfortunately, the religious community eats that kind of stuff up; and it doesn't matter one iota as to the whether there is any truth to it or not. |
|
Date: 10/25/2003 4:34:00 PM
From Authorid: 15070
Papa Bryant-at my son's school- they have a "Christian Club". On school grounds. My son is not yet in High School. Now-if I wanted, I could make a stink & insist on a "Wiccan" club. But why? Religion does NOT belong in a building that EVERYONE's tax dollars pay for. If I insisted it be removed, people would cry "discrimination!". Yes, I wonder how the Jewish/Muslim/Pagan/Buddist/ect students feel? You want discrimination??!? How about having an altar in your home, when officals come in & they think you have "occult" items & could be a danger to your children? It didn't happen to me, but it happened to a USMer. I have two bumperstickers on my car (Where There Is A Witch, There Is A Way & Witches-Not Just For Burning). People have yelled things at me, but it rolls off. I want you to go to my debate about how removing Christian symbols shows discrimination to Christians & then maybe I will take cries of "Foul", a little more seriously. |
Date: 10/25/2003 7:38:00 PM
From Authorid: 34487
Well, I feel that by removing any references to God, we are then basically a country that doesn't honor him and therefore one that shows favoritism toward the Atheists view. I realize all of this is what is to come and even though I don't like it, this is what will happen. It's spoken of in the Bible is seen on a daily basis and is expected by most Christians. MOst Christians, myself included, aren't surprised by these events and feel it's basically inevitable at this point.  |
|
Date: 10/25/2003 7:39:00 PM
From Authorid: 34487
typo^^^my first sentence should read, "I feel that by removing ALL references to God..." |
|
Date: 10/25/2003 8:14:00 PM
From Authorid: 24924
"favoritism toward the atheist view" *shakes head* *bangs head on brick wall* LIBERTY.....FOR ALL , is that just an atheist view???? |
|
Date: 10/25/2003 8:44:00 PM
From Authorid: 34487
Thinker, I was using "Atheist view" as an example of a preference for the ommision of God from things...not for any type of ridiculing purpose. Not all Atheists proclaim their view or purpose as "liberty for all" as you do. |
|
Date: 10/25/2003 8:53:00 PM
From Authorid: 24924
Excuse me, You choose, but I don't know ANY atheists that don't believe in religious LIBERTY. Do YOU know any? I think the problem here is your obvious lack of understanding what LIBERTY really means, or , even what atheism is. Yep, you even admitted as much on Phydeux's " Christian world domination" post. |
|
Date: 10/25/2003 9:09:00 PM
From Authorid: 34487
And I'm supposed to believe that you really know what a Christian feels or is? Funny...LOL. |
|
Date: 10/25/2003 9:12:00 PM
From Authorid: 34487
YOU are only ONE atheist and therefore CANNOT possibly speak for them all. Regardless of my admittedly small knowledge of what an Atheist is. To be honest with you, I've accumulated my opinions and ideas as to what an Atheist is by those on this site, so maybe it's not what I'm not understanding but as to how it's being represented? |
Date: 10/26/2003 3:52:00 AM
From Authorid: 62118
You Choose, how is that different from other beliefs? Are we honoring their Gods, or do you want the Christian religion to have more rights than other religions?  |
|
Date: 10/26/2003 5:51:00 AM
From Authorid: 2030
When the final threat to Liberty and Justice in this country is to remove the name God from currency and all statements in connection with government. Well then we live in a very utopian society indeed. THAT is my point. Are Christians oppressed - no. Are Athiests oppressed - no. Both groups face discrimiation of varying degrees, both face people who diasagreee with them. The worst of both groups condemn the other. All while illegal aliens are exploited, asian immigrants are enslaved and brutalized, inner cities are riddled with drugs and violence, the whole country is threatened by terror, and are children are growing up in a world where all of this just gets worse. But Sure you people go ahead and argue about words on a nickel. |
|
Date: 10/26/2003 9:26:00 AM
From Authorid: 16671
U.S. Supreme Court
The ACLJ filed suit against the State of Washington when it rescinded Joshua Davey's Promise Scholarship because he chose to major in theology at a Christian College. There was no dispute that Davey was otherwise entitled to the scholarship under the state's neutral criteria. Citing its state establishment clause prohibiting aid to sectarian colleges, the state withdrew the scholarship after Davey declared his major. The Supreme Court has granted review in this case to resolve the question whether the State of Washington violated Davey's right to the free exercise of religion under the First Amendment. Jay Sekulow will be arguing the case in December 2003.
Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
The ACLJ filed suit when Tausha Prince, a sophomore at Spanaway Lake High School in Spanaway, Washington tried to set-up World Changers, a student-led, student-initiated Bible club. School officials refused to allow the club equal status with other student clubs because it was "religious."
The ACLU sued the Shawnee County, Kansas treasurer for displaying the national motto, "In God We Trust" in the public area of the Treasurer's office. The federal court granted the ACLJ's motion to dismiss the lawsuit, calling the ACLU claim that the posting of "In God We Trust" violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment "patently frivolous without any basis in law."
The ACLJ filed suit on behalf of a pastor threatened with arrest while praying on a public sidewalk in Washington, D.C. The Court granted a Temporary Restraining Order against the U.S. Secret Service, clearing the way for the pastor and his organization to continue to pray on a public sidewalk in Washington, D.C.
A U.S. District Court jury in Riverside, Calif., has found that Riverside
County violated the constitutional rights of a nurse who was fired from
her job after she refused to dispense medication known as a
"morning-after" pill. The suit contended that Diaz was fired after she told her supervisor
that her deeply held religious beliefs prevented her from distributing
medication designed to end pregnancies because she believed she would be
participating in an abortion. The suit contended that she was fired from
her job in June 1999 shortly after she talked to the news media about
the "morning-after" pill controversy and explained her position.
Following a four-day trial in federal court that ended May 24th, the
jury found the county was liable on all three counts presented: violated
her First Amendment rights of free speech; violated her rights of
freedom of religion; and, failed to reasonably accommodate her religious
beliefs. The jury also awarded damages totaling more than $47,000 -
including $19,000 in damages for back pay, and more than $28,000 in
damages for emotional distress. The ACLJ was assisted in the trial by
attorney Robert Tyler of the firm, Tyler & Dorsa in Temecula, Calif.
AND THE LISTS GO ON AND ON AND ON.
|
|
Date: 10/26/2003 9:27:00 AM
From Authorid: 16671
Free Speech
Scheidler and Operation Rescue v. National Organization for Women
U.S. Supreme Court
On February 26, 2003, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the use of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) statute - a law designed to combat drug dealers and organized crime - could not be used against the pro-life movement. The Supreme Court forcefully rejected the argument that pro-life demonstrators were racketeers engaged in extortion. The decision removes a cloud that has been hanging over the pro-life movement for 15 years.
McConnell v. FEC (Campaign Finance Reform)
U.S. Supreme Court
The ACLJ represents a group of minors who's right to contribute to political campaigns was denied by the Campaign Finance Reform Act. A special panel considering this case ruled completely in favor of the position presented by the ACLJ. Now we are asking the high court to let that decision stand. Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow will participate in oral arguments before the Supreme Court of the United States scheduled for September 8, 2003.
Republican Party of Minnesota v. White
U.S. Supreme Court
In June 2002, the Supreme Court struck down a Minnesota law imposing speech restrictions on candidates for judicial office. The law forbade candidates for judicial office in Minnesota from announcing their views on disputed legal or political issues." The Court held that this law violated the First Amendment.
Board of Airport Commissioners v. Jews for Jesus
U.S. Supreme Court
In this landmark First Amendment case, argued by Jay Sekulow, the Supreme Court held that an airport regulation which banned all First Amendment activities within the airport terminal area was an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment. The Court held that the regulation was overbroad because it prohibited all protected expression and did not merely regulate expressive activity that might create problems such as congestion or the disruption of airport users' activities.
ISKCON v. Lee
U.S. Supreme Court
The Supreme Court considered a restriction on leafleting and another restriction on solicitation of donations in airport terminals operated by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. The Court concluded that, despite the fact that the airport terminals were nonpublic forums, a regulation barring the distribution of free literature in the terminals was unconstitutional. The Court distinguished solicitation from literature distribution, holding that the former can be banned, but the latter cannot.
United States v. Kokinda
U.S. Supreme Court
The Supreme Court held that a Postal Service regulation prohibiting solicitation on postal premises did not violate the free speech rights of a political advocacy group seeking to distribute literature on the sidewalk outside the post office.
Tuchman v. City of Scottsdale, Arizona
US District Court, AZ
The ACLJ reached a settlement with the City of Scottsdale, AZ on behalf of a Bible-study leader who the City had barred from posting information about the Bible study in City-owned kiosks because of its religious content. Under the agreement, the City allowed the Bible study leader to post information.
CUPO and Sarastano v. City of Newburyport, Massachusetts
U.S. District Court, Boston
The ACLJ filed suit against the Mayor of Newburyport, who said the messages on commemorative bricks placed in a city park were "religious" and needed to be removed because some persons in the community were "offended" by them. The City therefore removed the bricks in late September 2000. In May 2001, after a federal court decision holding the Mayor's decision unconstitutional, the City of Newburyport agreed to restore the two bricks in Woodman Park.
Johnson & Benton v. Knight
U.S. District Court, Hartford CT
A federal court granted an ACLJ motion to dismiss a lawsuit against a Connecticut state employee who shared her religious beliefs. The court ruled that sharing religious beliefs is free speech not harassment.
Back to Top | ACLJ Home
National Security
United States v. Recio
U.S. Supreme Court
In this criminal case involving the interpretation of federal conspiracy law, the Supreme Court of the United States held on January 21, 2003 that a criminal conspiracy did not automatically terminate simply because the government, unbeknownst to the defendants, defeated the conspiracy's object by thwarting the crime before it occurred. Conspiracy was a distinct evil which could be prosecuted regardless of whether the substantive criminal offense ultimately ensued. The decision in this case will aid the federal government in the nation's war against terrorism.
Patriotism and Religion
National Motto
National Motto: In God We Trust
U.S. District Court, Topeka, KS
The ACLU sued the Shawnee County, Kansas treasurer for displaying the national motto, "In God We Trust" in the public area of the Treasurer's office. The federal court granted the ACLJ's motion to dismiss the lawsuit, calling the ACLU claim that the posting of "In God We Trust" violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment "patently frivolous without any basis in law."
Pledge of Allegiance
U.S. v. Newdow (Pledge of Allegiance)
U.S. Supreme Court
In this case, the Supreme Court of the United States is being asked to review the ruling of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that declared the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional because of the phrase, "one Nation under God." The ACLJ filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court representing members of Congress and over 150,000 citizens from all fifty states, asking the high court to take the case and ultimately to overturn the decision.
Religious Expression on Public Property
Freedom from Religion Foundation v. City of Marshfield
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
The case involved an Establishment Clause challenge to a City's display of a statue of Christ in a public park. In response to a lower court ruling holding the display unconstitutional, the city sold the portion of the park containing the statue to a private group. But on appeal, the Seventh Circuit held that because the display could still be perceived as a government endorsement of religion, the lower court should adopt a plan to differentiate clearly between the privately-owned property on which the statue sat, and property owned by the City. The city developed such a plan, and the statue remains on display.
CUPO and Sarastano v. City of Newburyport, Massachusetts
U.S. District Court, Boston
The ACLJ filed suit against the Mayor of Newburyport, who said the messages on commemorative bricks placed in a city park were "religious" and needed to be removed because some persons in the community were "offended" by them. The bricks were removed by the city in late September 2000. In May of 2001, after a decision by U.S. District Court Judge Morris Lasker, the City of Newburyport agreed to replace the two bricks in Woodman Park.
Ten Commandments Cases
Books v. City of Elkhart, Indiana
U.S. Supreme Court
On May 29, 2001, the Supreme Court declined to hear the case of Elkhart v. Books involving the display of a Ten Commandments monument on city property. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit had held the display unconstitutional as a violation of the Establishment Clause. Three Justices dissented, however, from the Supreme Court's denial of review, saying that the Ten Commandments serves a foundational role in secular, legal matters, and does not send a message of governmental endorsement of religion.
Back to Top | ACLJ Home
Pornography
Child Online Protection Act (COPA)
Ashcroft v. ACLU
U.S. Supreme Court
This case involves the constitutionality of the Child Online Protection Act ("COPA"), passed by Congress to control minors' access to pornography on the Internet. The Act requires commercial publishers on the World Wide Web to restrict access to materials that are deemed harmful to minors by use of adult identification numbers, credit cards or other similar means. On May 13, 2002, the Supreme Court upheld the portion of COPA requiring pornographers to abide by community standards with respect to what was deemed harmful to minors. The Court remanded the case back to the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, for a determination of other First Amendment issues raised in the case.
Child Pornography Prevention Act (CPPA)
Ashcroft v. The Free Speech Coalition
U.S. Supreme Court
On April 16, 2002, the Supreme Court held unconstitutional The Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 (CPPA), which banned the distribution and possession of pornography depicting computer-generated children engaged in simulated sexual activity. In a 6-3 decision, the Court held that the law violated the First Amendment because it prohibited materials not deemed obscene under existing law, such as many books and movies that involve themes of teen-age sexual activity.
Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA)
Requires public libraries and schools that receive certain federal funds to install filtering and blocking software on computers to prevent children from viewing pornography on the Internet.
Back to Top | ACLJ Home
Prayer
Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe
U.S. Supreme Court
In this case argued by Jay Sekulow in 2000, the Supreme Court, by a 5-4 vote, struck down a school board policy which allowed for student messages, including invocations, before football games. The Court held that the policy of allowing such invocations constituted an impermissible government endorsement of religion in violation of the Establishment Clause.
Gentala v. City of Tucson
U.S. District Court (US Supreme Court)
This is another equal access case in which the ACLJ is fighting on behalf a group of citizens who applied to use a public park for a National Day of Prayer event. The city officials agreed to let them use the park for free but charged a fee for use of the amplification equipment. This fee is waived for other similar groups. Our clients were singled out for unequal treatment because of their message. Following its decision in Good News Club v. Milford Central School, the Supreme Court vacated a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling against our client and ordered the court to reconsider the case in light of the Good News Club decision.
Rev. Patrick Mahoney, et al., v. United States Department of Treasury and United States Secret Service
U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C.
The ACLJ filed suit on behalf of a pastor threatened with arrest while praying on a public sidewalk in Washington, D.C. The Court granted a Temporary Restraining Order against the U.S. Secret Service, clearing the way for the pastor and his organization to continue to pray on a public sidewalk in Washington, D.C.
Reverend Pierre Bynum v. United States Capitol Police Board and United States Capitol Police
U.S. District Court in Washington
A pastor was threatened with arrest after leading a small prayer tour inside the public areas of the Capitol. The Court issued an injunction ordering the Capitol Police to refrain from restricting the First Amendment conduct of others within the U.S. Capitol - including the act of bowing one's head, closing one's eyes, and clasping one's hands.
Back to Top | ACLJ Home
Student Rights
Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe
U.S. Supreme Court
In this case argued by Jay Sekulow in 2000, the Supreme Court, by a 5-4 vote, struck down a school board policy which allowed for student messages, including invocations, before football games. The Court held that the policy of allowing such invocations constituted an impermissible government endorsement of religion in violation of the Establishment Clause.
Chandler v. Siegelman
11th Circuit and U.S. Supreme Court
After the Supreme Court remanded the case to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals for reconsideration in light of Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, the Eleventh Circuit reaffirmed and reinstated its earlier judgment in Chandler I - marking a major victory for student prayer. The court upheld the constitutionality of a school board policy that permitted that prayer at graduation. The Supreme Court subsequently denied petition for writ of certiorari.
Board of Ed. of Westside Comm. Schools v. Mergens, 496 US 226
U.S. Supreme Court
In this landmark case, argued by Jay Sekulow, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Equal Access Act. The Act requires public secondary schools receiving federal funds to allow student religious groups to hold meetings before and after school, in the same manner as other non-curricular groups.
|
|
Date: 10/26/2003 11:55:00 AM
From Authorid: 34487
RodTod....you're assuming again, I'm not insinuating that Christians should have more rights than anyone else. I never have. If you reread my comments it's clear that even though I enjoy seeing the name of God, I'm not naive enough to think this will continue. I also believe that Rusure brought up an excellent point that by placing God on anything in this country ultimately, we aren't honoring him since this country isn't representative of what God desires for us. She added a new perspective on this issue for me and ultimately changed my opinion to a large degree. |
|
Date: 10/26/2003 11:57:00 AM
From Authorid: 34487
Excellent point there BCAR. |
|
Date: 10/26/2003 12:05:00 PM
From Authorid: 34487
RodTod....my reference to the point Rusure made that altered my opinion, isn't on this particular post by the way. Just wanted to clear up some possible confusion there. :) |
|
Date: 10/26/2003 2:39:00 PM
From Authorid: 2030
I'm accused of sarcasm, true enough. I find it hard not to take a sarcastic tone over issues as trivial as something like "Godspam". St. Pete makes an excellent point, God most likely wouldn't want anything to do with money. The whole issue here, and we all well know it, isn't about liberty. It's about some warped idea of fairness and it's vindictive and it's about taking shots back and forth and putting folks "in their place". And that's where I lose my composure. There are REAL issues out there people. |
|
Date: 10/26/2003 7:07:00 PM
From Authorid: 51173
Thinker writes, "Papabryant, that book by Limbaugh is filled with outrageous claims, misquotes, and embellished stories. Sadly, unfortunately, the religious community eats that kind of stuff up; and it doesn't matter one iota as to the whether there is any truth to it or not." ---- Then why hasn't CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, the NY Times, etc. called Limbaugh out on his book for misquotes, et al? They haven't attacked his book on those grounds at all. He is NOT misquoting anyone. |
|
Date: 10/26/2003 7:42:00 PM
From Authorid: 51173
Phydeux writes: " Correct, on the part of Christians who created the origional rules against those of other faiths, it has in turn backfired." ------- Which rules? It was believers who wrote the Constitution, which established religious freedom for all in this country. What I think you are refering to are not laws but social sanctions - and all groups have them, including Christians, unfortunately. I AM relieved that you distinguish between false Christians like Phelps and other Christians. Actions like the ones he takes stain all true believers, unfairly. But as noticable as people like Phelps are, they do not have the force of government behind them. Schools do. There are a few times where such abuse of governmental power prohibiting religious expression is unintentional, based on misunderstanding of the law. But more and more we are finding people who KNOW BETTER, yet still attempt to prevent Christians from public display of their faith, which is part of their worship (Thinker's scripture referenced duly noted). And as the woman wearing the cross at Target show, its spreading to the rest of society. |
|
Date: 10/26/2003 8:24:00 PM
From Authorid: 54987
Because Limbaugh is a total crackpot. |
|
Date: 10/26/2003 8:30:00 PM
From Authorid: 51173
Thinker writes: "papabryant, AGAIN, no one is trying to prohibit or deny and take away your rights. You can pray anywhere you want to; you just can't do it on public, goverment or tax paid property." ---- This belies a fundamental misunderstanding on your part Thinker on what the court has said public display of religion on governmental property. In "Regan v. Taxation with Representation" the opinion states "The government may no deny a benefit to a person because he exercises a constitutional right." Meaning exercising religious belief is not grounds for denying use of governmental property, or receiving benefits for the government. In "Epperson v. Arkansas" the Court states "The First Amendment mandates government neutrality between religion and religion, and between nonreligion and religion." This plays right into other cases : "Perry v. Sinderman" ("... if the government could deny a benefit to a person because of his constitutional protected speech or associations, his exercise of those freedoms would in effect be penalized and inhibited.") - "MacDaniel v. Paty" ("... government may not use religion as a basis of classification for the imposition of duties, penalties, and privileges, or benefits"- meaning they must maintain absolute neutrality.) -- "Everson v. Board of Education" ("State power is no more to be used so as to handicap religions, than it is to favor them.") ---- and perhaps the three most important cases to our question here: "Board of Education v. Mergens" ("... if a state refuses to let religious groups use facilities open to others, then it would demonstrate not neutrality but hostility towards religion.") and "Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v City of Hialeah" ("...often stated the principal that the First Amendment forbids an official purpose to disapprove of a particular religion or of religion in general." -- and "Employment Division v. Smith" ("...government may not impose special disabilities on the basis of religious views or religious status." -- By these cases, I make the case that religious groups CANNOT be barred from expressing their faith on government property, provided they meet all zoning and safety laws, and that other groups - religious or otherwise - are allowed to use the facilities. |
|
Date: 10/26/2003 9:26:00 PM
From Authorid: 51173
LSG writes: "Papa Bryant-at my son's school- they have a "Christian Club". On school grounds. My son is not yet in High School. Now-if I wanted, I could make a stink & insist on a "Wiccan" club. But why?" --------------- Why not? You're allowed to have one. My point is that, as David Limaugh's book points out, there have been schools that DO have Wicca clubs, and Muslim clubs and Jewish Clubs - but prohibited Christian clubs. I know of no case where Wicca clubs were banned when Christian clubs existed (although I do know of several protests, and one case in Arizona where a Wicca club was banned along with all religion clubs.)--------------------------------------------LSG writes: "Religion does NOT belong in a building that EVERYONE's tax dollars pay for." ---- See my answer to Thinker for the Supreme Court cases that state that opinion is wrong. ----------------------LSG writes: "If I insisted it be removed, people would cry "discrimination!". Yes, I wonder how the Jewish/Muslim/Pagan/Buddist/ect students feel?" ----------Again, see my earlier answer. I would also again point you to Limbaugh's book, and several articles by Michelle Malkin and Ann Colter. For a different, non Christian perspective, see articles by Dennis Prager and the book "America's Real War" by Rabbi Daniel Lapin, who details anti-Christian bias and how IHO it spells disaster for American Jews.------------------------------- LSG writes: "You want discrimination??!? How about having an altar in your home, when officals come in & they think you have "occult" items & could be a danger to your children? It didn't happen to me, but it happened to a USMer." -- I imagine the woman at Lynn Lucas Middle School could have sympathy for her. As long as there were no other issues that complicated it (I am not familiar with it myself) I am sympathetic as well. My point is that there are far more cases of anti Christian persecution like this than persecution against minority religions. I think statistics bear this out. ------------------- LSG writes: "I have two bumperstickers on my car (Where There Is A Witch, There Is A Way & Witches-Not Just For Burning). People have yelled things at me, but it rolls off." -- Again, while you know what I think about people who do things like this, those who yell at you out of the window are engaging in SOCIAL sanctions, not legal ones. Social sanctions are inherant when we have the right to choose our own behavior, including whom we wish to associate with. Had they done something to move from social sanctions to criminal act (which I am glad the didn't) THEN they could punished, because they then violate your right to be secure in your person. Until then, unfortunately they have the right to be jerks. But namecalling is very different than the type of punishment these Christians are seeing as a result of practicing their faith, or the Wiccan mother you describe. It's apples and oranges. |
|
Date: 10/26/2003 9:31:00 PM
From Authorid: 51173
Sorry Koolaid, but the fact that CNN, ABC, CBS, etc. aren't jumping up and down saing the book is filled with lies says Limbaugh isn't a crackpot. If he were, his book would be attacked as such, and its not. Those organizations, who would jump at the opportunity to slam the book just on ratings value alone know he's telling the truth. They CAN'T attack it because its true. |
|
Date: 10/27/2003 9:20:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 13974
One, Bryant, Limbaugh's book is full of holes and problems. The largest being the only source of information for any of the claims and examples he has made have been his book. There is not other point of reference, nobody else seems to know about this except for him, how odd. And as for "What rules?" The rules about not allowing people to wear religious symbols stems from Christians banning students for wearing pentacles, and pentagrams, never realizing such bans would also include their own religious symbols. "My point is that there are far more cases of anti Christian persecution like this than persecution against minority religions." Where do you get your statistics? Since we aren't having a length contest, I wont post a massive list but just look at what is out there. Gays being beatin and killed, kids being expelled from school for worshiping other faiths that Christianity calls evil. The recently overturned sodomy laws. The current attempt to find a way to not only prevent gay marriages, but make them illegal in the first place. Christian charities that claim they just want to help people, but insist the person declairs Jesus as their lord and savior first (these charities are now also federally funded, making the government a participant in this picking and choosing christians over others.) For BCAR, for this being trivial, why do you keep participating. You try to cal this debate foolish, yet you keep responding. If it is just a big waste of time, isn't it a bigger one for you to take time out to repeatedly respond to it. I have an idea. Since there are so many issues in the world and according to BCAR, it is only worth discussing the largest, lets all figure out which problem in the world is the biggest, and never discuss anything else. Sure that makes perfect sense. For both sides being discriminated against, you are right, but one recieves special treatment from the federal and stae governments. FB, see, Christian's are defended by the courts against the groups who would take away their rights. I don't see anyone trying to stop them. What I do see is the people who want "In God we trust" and "Under God" removed to create equal footing recieving death threats. |
|
Date: 10/27/2003 10:42:00 AM
From Authorid: 24924
Phydeux says it much better than I, but for those who ignorantly say that these matters are "trivial" and "is it hurting anyone?" for the IGWT to be all over everything: I'd like to point out that IF it is no big deal and is such a "trivial" matter, then tell me, why was there such an overwhelming outcry ; why was there such vocal outrage when the Newdow/pledge ruling came out a few months ago? Why does anyone and everyone get so freaking nervous and send a gadzilllion e-mails around the net asking for endorsements to keep the under God spam in there????? Eh?? Why is everyone and his brother writing books condemming anyone who has anything to say against the godspam? IF it is so "trivial" and shouldn't matter , then WHY are those very people who say this, why are they usually the first ones to let THEIR voice of support be heard?? I've said it before, and I'll keep on saying it: WERE A FEW LITTLE WORDS THE *ONLY* THING, I'D NEVER HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY, BUT IT IS WAY WAY WAY MUCH MORE THAN THAT!!! The greed is overwhelming with the Christian FUNDAMENTALISTS! THEY WANT IT ALL, NOTHING BUT ALL. I could copy and paste pages and pages of proposals and requests for a whole slew of things that have and are before Congress and the courts BY THE WELL-ORGANIZED AND SUPPORTED RELIGIOUS RIGHT, in order to legislate more and more religion into goverment and all our lives!!! And, While I certainly disagree with the conclusion that many people will suddenly be unable to determine right from wrong if religion fails, and if all their religious slogans and symbols are removed (resulting in the fall of civilization I'm sure) *wink*, I do know there are a certain number of people who are absolutely dependent on religious dogma to define their moral outlook (fundamentalists in a word).
Since social animals (which are too unintelligent to understand natural or supernatural concepts) are capable of acting cooperatively without religion, we have to ask ourselves, WHY is it the case that some humans (with far superior reasoning abilities) have lost the capacity to function cooperatively WITHOUT mythology and SUPERSTITION to support them?
There is only one possible answer that I can see: religion has created the moral void it fills. Much as a drug addict requires a fix to avoid painful withdrawl symptoms, a society permeated by religious morality AND religious signs and public symbols will experience some disorder if belief in religion fails (what any of the fundamentalists has failed to establish is that this disorder will even be noticable compared to ALL the other disorders of human history, let alone be the gloom & doom ruination of us all). In their minds eye if the brainy elite among us do not encourage religion as the opiate of the masses, society will fail, and there'll be widespread "sinning" and lawlessness, and no one will be able to function without their daily "FIX" of pledging and seeing IGWT on their money, getting a "high" (the false comfort and authority of religion) so that we might all "profit" $$$$ (though the smooth continuation of our civilization).
PERSONALLY speaking, I find deliberately trading in and supporting lies to be repulsive and an affront to what the natural world view ought to stand for. The truth of the matter is that there is NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE to support god beliefs, and this should NOT be hidden any more than any other observation. As a person who does not believe the ends justify the means, I could not accept the DECEPTION and coersive, intrusive practices the fundamnetalists DO and suggests even if they HAD supported the necessity of it with any coherent argument.
Furthermore, just how far should "we" go to prop up the failing institutions of organized theism? Organized religion is falling daily to scientific advance. It's a mistake to think fundamentalists will be easily and painlessly converted to liberal Christianity anymore than a transition to atheism from fundamentalism is easy or painless.
And what would "we" do if religious control of society begins failing IN SPITE OF (or more than likely, BECAUSE of, see the medieval Church and modern Iran) an incestuous relation between Church and State. The only way to prop up religion at that point would be to abolish popular rule and institute direct THEOCRACY, forbidding ANY dissent and quelling rebellion....... any bloody way they can!
The bottom line is, religion is bound to fail, perhaps not in THIS century, but eventually education will improve to the point that the average person learns that reality is better understood through careful REASON rather than CONTROL, forced obedience/adherance to dogma and emotional appeals.
Society will someday HAVE to deal with this, and reactionary methods are never a desirable answer to social problems. What we should be trying do, rather than just dispute religious claims, is to fight the idea that theism and morality are in ANY way connected (the only connection is in theistic doctrines). And then the success or failure of human civilization would be even less conected with the success or failure of superstition.
|
|
Date: 10/27/2003 10:58:00 AM
From Authorid: 24924
Papabryant, I don't know what YOU are seeing with regard to those television stations, but everytime I saw where there were an opposing person with an opposing viewpoint to the likes of Falwell, Coulter, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Sharpton, et al, they were shouted down, and couldn't wedge a word in; or were cut off, and the microphone pulled! I could write a book here in rebuttal to LIMBAUGH and O'Reilly's books, but I'll just stop right here (for now) and say that All those guys are loud mouthed control freaks. |
|
Date: 10/27/2003 11:10:00 AM
From Authorid: 2030
The reason Phydeux that you can never seems to understand. Is that my reason for participation is to point out the utter foolishness of this issue and perhaps that alone is some common ground. Of course in your characteristic condecending way you choose to dismiss anyone's opinion other than your own and you allies. But no matter, I'll participate when and if I want. |
|
Date: 10/27/2003 11:19:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 13974
Ok you choose, I forgot to respond to your comment about Thinker not knowing how a Christian works, and what you think atheists are all about. As you said, your information on atheists is limited to say the least. The fact is you know very little about atheists, and seem to have no inclination to know any more. Still, regardless, since Thinker is just ONE atheist, and doesn't know all of the rest (as I am sure you do not know all Christians) I will get you a bit more information to work with. For one, I am currently under a publishing contract to write a book about Atheists in America, and have interviewed quite a few. I can tell you, as for every atheist I met, they believed fully in the rights of all Americans to their faith, and to practice such as they see fit. Just because a person is not religious, does not make them ANTI-religious. It simply means they do not believe. Simple as that, nothing less, nothing more. I don't believe in the Easter Bunny, does that mean I want to ban Easter, and destroy it, burning down Easter picnics? Of course not. So why must it be any different with religion? Just because a person doesn't believe in your God, and doesn't want it imposed upon them is a far cry from wanting to destroy your faith. The attitude of most atheists towards religion is "Hey, if that is what you want to believe, be my guest." Now being completely honest, many atheists also take pity upon the faithful, but again, this doesn't mean they hate your religion, or want to harm it, or interfere with your rights. Many people think that Atheists are anti-Christianity because they want things like "In God we Trust" taken off of the money, because they are American's, and this excludes them. Who is the "We" in that motto, if not the American people? This seems to hold the faithful above the non-faithful, are we less than Americans to you because we don't believe in your God? We run into the same issue with "under God" in the pledge. This was not part of the pledge, and was added during the red scare when atheists were labeled communists. So in order to pledge yourself to this country, you must do so by including God in order to use the sanctioned pledge. While the pledge having not contained any reference to God excluded nobody, it was altered so that it excluded the non religious. Does this sound like liberty for all? As far as all the atheists I have known in my life, this is the viewpoint. And how can we know what Christians are like? I was raised a Christian, and was devout. I prayed for hours on occasion, I believed in God, and his teachings with all my heart. If I remember correctly, the same goes for Thinker for most of her life too. And when you said "To be honest with you, I've accumulated my opinions and ideas as to what an Atheist is by those on this site" in what way did we ever say that we want you to lose any liberties? I cannot say I have read all the atheist posts on this site, but from what I had, they all seem very much in line with what I wrote above, with the exception of a very few, very young outspoken voices. It seems as though you don't want to understand our views, and that is your right, but I think there are better ways of us resolving issues than griping at people we don't listen to, or even try to understand. I have seen your side, I lived the life of the faithfull. I don't ask you to give up your faith to understand us, but we do ask that you try and listen, instead of forming assumptions about a subject you know little about, and people you turn a deaf ear to. |
|
Date: 10/27/2003 11:28:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 13974
Ok BCAR, Maybe I was a bit condecending with you, but I felt that was the only way to express te follishness of your statement and participation. Sure you can participate when and where you like, but participating in something you call a waste of time? Oh, well, it is your time to waste. |
|
Date: 10/27/2003 11:32:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 13974
And out of curiosity, why would I WANT to dismiss my opinions, and those who agree with me? |
|
Date: 10/27/2003 1:07:00 PM
From Authorid: 51173
Phydeux writes: "One, Bryant, Limbaugh's book is full of holes and problems. The largest being the only source of information for any of the claims and examples he has made have been his book." ---- The sources, as he lists, are news stories found and available for review through the AP, Lexus-Nexus, or newspapers/t.v. station reports in the cities where they occur. Your statement would be the EXACT statement other news organizations would use WERE IT TRUE! Since his sources are available for verification, your arguement is demonstratably wrong. You can logically disagree with his conclusion, but to base it on Limbaugh's "lack" of verifiable data is not a good reason. He HAS the data backing him up. -------------------------------------------- You write: "The rules about not allowing people to wear religious symbols stems from Christians banning students for wearing pentacles, and pentagrams, never realizing such bans would also include their own religious symbols." --- Again, I ask "What rules?" They certainly aren't codified into law? I know of only one case where "Satanic" symbols were banned in a public school, and that because the district had a dress code for students and the issue was t-shirts, not jewelry. Perhaps you can point out another one? ------------------------------------------------ You write: "Gays being beatin and killed, kids being expelled from school for worshiping other faiths that Christianity calls evil." ---- You set up a straw man here. In order to make your claim stick YOU must come up with an example of not just a case of a kid being expelled WHO worships Pagan, Buddhist, etc. deities, but 1.)that the STATED reason is their religion, 2.) that the organization is affiliated with a recognized denomination or free standing body of worship identifiably Christian by a majority of adherents to Christianity (which would exclude Mormons, JW's and groups like Phelps' church.), 3.)that the kid expelled is NOT engaged in behavior that disrupts the normal school day (i.e. going around saying "I'm going to kill you with my magic spell, BWAAAAAAHHHAAA."), and 4.) are not in a position where such an act is not allowed, such as a public school or private school that accepts public funds (private school that do not accept public funds CAN exclude people for whatever reason they like, according to the Supreme Court. Only when they accept government funds do they have to follow government rules on neutrality. Until then it is a matter of conscience.) Please provide such an example. I'll step out on a limb here and say you will not find one. -------------------------------- You write: "The recently overturned sodomy laws...." --- Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist and secular groups also opposed overturning the law, and oppose gay marriage. Can't lay this on the Christians alone. And since when is it a crime to oppose legislation one finds contrary to the public good? Its fine if you disagree with them; that is what the ballot box is for. You will not find Christians picking up guns to force reimposing the sodomy laws. Straw man. ---------------------------- You write:"Christian charities that claim they just want to help people, but insist the person declairs Jesus as their lord and savior first (these charities are now also federally funded, making the government a participant in this picking and choosing christians over others.)" ---- Find one. Amnesty International tried, and found NONE ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD that required conversion before assistance was given. Zero. Nada. Zipppppoooo... AI is no friend to Christian missions; they are openly hostile to Christian missions. Their data was used before the Indian Supreme Court recently when Hindu radicals accused Christian missions in Orisa province of the same thing. THIS... IS... A... MYTH. |
|
Date: 10/27/2003 1:17:00 PM
From Authorid: 51173
Thinker writes: "Papabryant, I don't know what YOU are seeing with regard to those television stations, but everytime I saw where there were an opposing person with an opposing viewpoint to the likes of Falwell, Coulter, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Sharpton, et al, they were shouted down, and couldn't wedge a word in; or were cut off, and the microphone pulled! I could write a book here in rebuttal to LIMBAUGH and O'Reilly's books, but I'll just stop right here (for now) and say that All those guys are loud mouthed control freaks." ------ thei issue isn't whether anyone thinks they're jerk - its whether they got the facts right. If you can write such a book, do it; I know some publishers and can pull some strings. Problem is verification, Cat. They go through it, and so will you. If you're wrong... |
|
Date: 10/27/2003 3:25:00 PM
From Authorid: 24924
They do not "get their facts straight". There is no way that I could go through EACH book and line by line, write a rebuttal HERE; and sorry, the only way I'd write a book is if I had a famous name. Do you really think anyone would have bought a book Limbaugh wrote if it hadn't been for him being the brother of Rush? But, I'll just give you ONE example of Bill O'Reilly on Fox News, during a brief debate with a representative from Freedom From Religion Foundation, where he slanders atheists by calling Hitler an atheist. He was absolutely arrogant to his guest. He talked over her constantly and was incredibly obnoxious and quite in DENIAL. He claimed he could not see how religion was a factor in the World Trade Center attack. DOH!! He made a quote: "We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not on the power of government...[but] upon the capacity of each and every one of us to govern ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God." ALLEGEDLY by James Madison. um, where did Mr O'Reilly read this quote? From the David Barton guy's book of quotations which Barton himself admitted he put BOGUS quotes in there? Several history and Madison scholars say this is a bogus quote and that no such quote has ever been found among any of James Madison's writings. None of the biographers of Madison, past or present have ever run across such a quote, and most if not all would love to know where this false quote originated. Apparently, O'Reilly did not check out David Barton and or the authenticity of the quote whilst doing his "extensive research" he CLAIMS to have done.
But to church-state separationists and historians of the post-colonial period, something about this Madison quote has never felt quite right. It seemed unlikely that the same Madison who advocated "total separation of the church from the state" and battled to disestablish the Anglican Church in Virginia would say it. The sentiment appeared to clash with his well-known ADVOCACY of a healthy DISTANCE between religion and government.
|
|
Date: 10/27/2003 3:54:00 PM
From Authorid: 24924
THIS IS ONE WRITER'S CRITIQUE OF O'REILLY: "On my fathers birthday he recieved a gift from my aunt. Not surprisingly, it turned out to be a copy of Bill O'Reilly's new book "Who's Looking Out for You?" I was, at first, completely disinterested. I find it truly saddenning that someone like O'Reilly, who consistently displayes absolutely abysmal knowledge of history and science, is this country's top rated journalist. However, I hardly find it surprising, for reasons that many may find insulting (for that reason I will not go into detail about them here). My disinterest in the book gave way when my mother mentioned that she heard that there was a chapter in the book on secularism and, if you read it, you would never lose another argument about whether our founders wanted religion involved with government or not. A bold statement like that caught my attention. I know O'Reilly's an arrogant, condescending idiot. But could he really have that smoking gun information that will reveal us "intolerant secularists" (his words not mine) as the "liars" that we are? The short answer is: no, he doesn't even come close. It obviously doesn't occur to him that a secularist like me would write an essay critiquing him, but then again, he's a top-rated journalist and a best-selling author. He's used to people buying his obvious lies and outrageous drivel!
Like any mediocre, right-wing hack, O'Reilly can't resist attacking atheism. Of course, he does so with arguments that have been long discredited. He most likely knows this, but he also probably knows that his audience most likely doesn't. He starts out with the false notion that "without affirmations of eternal life, and infallable justice, eventually dog-eat-dog turns into human-exploit-human" (not exact words, but close). This would have to mean that all atheists really have no basis for acting morally, which means that there is no secular justification for ethics. We have proven that, in a practical/emprical sense, this does not even matter: while atheists represent up to 13% of the population, they only represent less than 1% of prison population. As for having no secular justification for being moral; I guess that reputation, human empathy, and concern for society really mean nothing. We need the God of Abraham crammed down our throats in order to be good people. What rubbish!
After his pseudophilosophical "refutation" (not) of atheism, O'Reilly attempts to affirm his position with a pseudoscientific one. The tired old "nature is perfect, and therefore must have been created" argument is used. I guess O'Reilly has overlooked the fact that 99% of all creatures that have ever lived on this planet have died without progeny, and that the existing life-forms exhibit dire imperfections that are directly related to their evolutionary decent. For instance, humans usually develope back problems late in life. This is directly related to our primate ancestry, as other primates are acustomed to better back support by virtue of walking with the assitance of their arms. Then there is the study on how people who regularly attend church tend to have better health than those who don't. Of course, O'Reilly omits the fact that such results have yet to be repeated by any other university, and many believe that the fact that the university that administered the study failed to account for the fact that many people are immobile and cannot make it to church caused the difference that was found. At last, there is the old "Big-Bang proves God" argument, "No human could possibbly do that" he says. I would suggest that Mr. O'Reilly consult two of the physicists that revolutionized that theory, Alan Guth and Michio Kaku, who most emphatically think that we can. If he did so he might not be so inclined to use the long disredited argument of William Craig, but who knows?
Well we've had pseudophilosophy and pseudoscience, what do we need to top it all off? That's right! Pseudohistory. He starts out with one out of context quote from Thomas Jefferson on rights coming from God and then procedes with several rhetorical questions: What would old Tom think about removing "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance? Well, we honestly can't know for one simple reason, there was no Pledge of Allegiance during his lifetime. Our founding fathers obviously did not see the need for a pledge, they did not create one. The Pledge of Allegience was originally written by a Baptist minister in the late 19th century. Here's the real kicker, the original did not contain the words "under God" or any religious references at all! Those two words were added in 1954, during the McCarthy hysteria. I do think, however, that Thomas Jefferson might of object to the use of "In God we Trust" as our national motto, because it would have to usurp the position of the motto that HE originally came up with: E Pluribus Unum, which was latin for "Of Many, One". Strangely, O'Reilly fails to share these important facts.
Then there is the old "Benjamine Franklin called for prayers during the constitutional convention" argument. Of course, what O'Reilly and all other anti-seperationists omit is the fact that his proposal was voted down! And no fraudulent anti-seperationist tyrade would be complete without the old phony Madison quote: "We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not on the power of government...[but] upon the capacity of each and every one of us to govern ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God." O'Reilly utterly fails to provide a source for this quote. That's for one simple reason, it's a phony. Strangely enough, for someone who claims to have high credentials in history, O'Reilly does not know these important facts".
|
|
Date: 10/27/2003 4:15:00 PM
From Authorid: 24924
Papabryant, I check out the Christian networks, and listen very carefully to WHAT is being said, and WHO is saying it. What I hear just makes me sick, and spurs me on with renewed energy to fight such filthy LIES that is being fed to American people on a 24/7 basis, and MOST of these people are innocent believers who do NOT , or CAN NOT for whatever reason, check the sources, references, authenticity of all the claims and assertions by these preachers, religious hacks and crooks who are out to make fortunes. I am sick but realize that is is simply much to much |
