Jump to content
Did you know?
  • The first recorded date of Christmas being celebrated on December 25th was in 336, during the time of the Roman Emperor Constantine. A few years later, Pope Julius I officially declared that the birth of Jesus would be celebrated on that day.
  • Santa Claus's sleigh is led by eight reindeer: Dasher, Dancer, Prancer, Vixen, Comet, Cupid, Dunder (variously spelled Donder and Donner), and Blixem (variously spelled Blixen and Blitzen), with Rudolph being a 20th-century inclusion.
  • Outdoor Christmas lights on homes evolved from decorating the traditional Christmas tree and house with candles during the Christmas season. Lighting the tree with small candles dates back to the 17th century and originated in Germany before spreading to Eastern Europe.
  • That big, jolly man in the red suit with a white beard didn’t always look that way. Prior to 1931, Santa was depicted as everything from a tall gaunt man to a spooky-looking elf. He has donned a bishop's robe and a Norse huntsman's animal skin. When Civil War cartoonist Thomas Nast drew Santa Claus for Harper's Weekly in 1862, Santa was a small elflike figure who supported the Union. Nast continued to draw Santa for 30 years, changing the color of his coat from tan to the red he’s known for today.
  • Christmas 2018 countdown has already begun. Will you be ready???
  • Why do we love Christmas? It's all about the traditions. In this chaotic world we can miss the "good old days." Christmas reminds us of that time.
bigcat1967

Is ACLU the Villian

Recommended Posts

I hate to dive into politics - and moderator - please yank this thread I started if this is to controversial.

Let me ask everyone - is the ACLU the "grinch" of Christmas when they are trying to take the government to court if the manger display is on government property?

Like to hear some opinions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My biggest beef with them is when they come and stick their nose in where nobody is offended. For example, schools have been fined for allowing prayer, when the entire student body and all the faculty is fine with said prayer. To me, it should be up to the graduates on what they want at their ceremony... If someone from the class objects, that's another story.

As far as holiday stuff goes, I think it's a very fine line. I'm not sure that government should be in the business of promoting any religion, but again if nobody's complaining except for the ACLU and some guy from California, what's it really hurting?

-Tim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't post a comment about the ACLU and still follow the 3 rules for this website, so I'll bite my tongue.:121_reindeer:

Have to agree, the only thing I would add is cut the federal funding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I used to think the ACLU didn't do anything but file frivolous lawsuits. But over the past few years I'm glad they have been around. (I won't belabor this point here.)

As for Christmas displays, I do think it's silly to make a big deal about a manger scene here or there but what you have to remember is that you are dealing with legal precedent. Once you allow one thing you have to either allow another or ban them all. If all of the Christians in town are going to object to their tax dollars going to fund a giant menorah in the display then the Jews get to complain about the manger.

Personally, I look at it as just "art" and don't read anything religious into any holiday display. Whatever you like is fine with me. It's like someone objecting to "The Last Supper" because it's depicts a scene from Christian lore. Well, yeah, but it's still a nice painting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would not care what the ACLU did as long as they were consistent. Years ago, there was a middle school in California that was teaching a mandated course in world religions. As part of the course, about 8 weeks were spent studying Islam. Students were encouraged to adopt Moslem names and observe the various rituals of Islam. Yet through it all, the ACLU did not intervene. It has always been my opinion that they are not about civil liberties but more Anti-Christian.

I actually agree with Chuck H on this one too. If your local school were to require a student to accept a mark on their hand in order to participate in class, many of you would strenuously object. That being said, the students (not instructed by faculty) should be allowed to pray voluntarily. Yet they are restricted in their display of faith. There are many instances where the rights of teachers and students have been restricted by overbearing school administrations afraid of being sued.

In the most recent headlines, there is even a case where some school officials have been arrested for violating a court order regarding school prayer. They will be tried soon and can face up to 6 months in jail.

People need to remember that the constitution grants us the freedom to practice our religion, assembly, speech. It does not grant you freedom from religion. If the ACLU were to work in those terms, I could almost support them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People need to remember that the constitution grants us the freedom to practice our religion, assembly, speech. It does not grant you freedom from religion. If the ACLU were to work in those terms, I could almost support them.

I think that's where a lot of the disagreement stems from. Some people confuse "practicing" their religion with "imposing" it. It's a fine line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Short answer to your question. Yes

But I also want to add that the government owns nothing. Local, State or Federal it was all paid for by the people.

And it is by belief that separation of Church and State is being taken as it was meant.

Greg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Short answer to your question. Yes

But I also want to add that the government owns nothing. Local, State or Federal it was all paid for by the people.

And it is by belief that separation of Church and State is being taken as it was meant.

Greg

OK. Let's get back to my example of "The Last Supper". What if a museum funded by taxpayer dollars had the opportunity to buy it for $1000. Should they be allowed to? I'd say "Sure" since it being displayed in an artistic/historical setting as a work of art.

Now, if a courthouse can get a marble statue of the 10 commandments to display outside, then I think that is pushing the limits. Yeah, it's still a "work of art" but the message protrayed is that the "Christian" rule of law is being practiced inside. And we don't generally stone adulterers. We elect them to congress. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I won't say that I agree with everything the ACLU does, because I don't. But for the most part I support them. They actually do a lot of good things that no one ever hears about. And don't blame them for the prayer in school issue, that was the Supreme court. I am not at all religous, but I have no problem with time being alotted for students to pray if they so desire.

I have no problem with religous Christmas displays on public property, as long as no taxpayer dollars are spent on it. The danger here would be what to do when some self-proclamed religion like devil worshippers or witches want to set up a display next to the Christians and Jews.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The danger here would be what to do when some self-proclamed religion like devil worshippers or witches want to set up a display next to the Christians and Jews.

That would be awesome! I'd even buy blowmolds!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As Americans we MUST trust our founding fathers. In this respect, they knew what they were talking about: Faith is the sole domain of the church, and is NOT part of the Govt.

Since these two institutions are separate, you are free to worship how you wish. In order for that to mean anything, the State must not interfere or promote a faith. You can worship Jesus, Xenu, or the FSM -- it is your choice.

Comparative religion (the class someone was talking about) is OK in the class. In fact, I'd even go so far to say that it is OK to teach ABOUT religions. Those discussions involve comparing and/or discussing facts about the religion in question -- not faith.

Prayer and iconography (when not being discussed in a critical or objective manor) require faith. And once again, to give you the freedom to practice your faith, it can NOT be even acknowledged by the state.

Rather than complain that you can not have your faith represented in some govt office/school/state run organization, rejoice that our Founding Father's were smart enough to know that any establishment of Religion limits freedom for all.

For the rest of you... Let's face facts: You are not asking for prayer in school, or for a religious display. You are asking for YOUR prayer to be in school, or YOUR icons to be displayed. When when we allow faith into the state, we'll need to introduce science to the church... And that means the end of freedom for all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK. Let's get back to my example of "The Last Supper". What if a museum funded by taxpayer dollars had the opportunity to buy it for $1000. Should they be allowed to? I'd say "Sure" since it being displayed in an artistic/historical setting as a work of art.

Now, if a courthouse can get a marble statue of the 10 commandments to display outside, then I think that is pushing the limits. Yeah, it's still a "work of art" but the message protrayed is that the "Christian" rule of law is being practiced inside. And we don't generally stone adulterers. We elect them to congress. :P

And lots of times to the presidency

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've told this story before, but I think it bears repeating:

Once, 4-5 years ago, I got an anonymous note in my mailbox from somone, proclaming to be a Satanist, and offended by my display (which is overtly Christian). They went on to say that I needed to remove all the Christian elements, because if they were to set up a similar display in honor of Satan, surely the city would shut them down...

I really wish I could have replied, because it probably would have surprised them. I would have told them that if they sincerely wanted to set up a Satanist display, and not just so it to yank people's chains, I'd fully support their right to do it. After all, freedom of religion goes to all religions...

-Tim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it was not for the Ten Commandments displayed at the court house when I was young, I would never have known you aren't supposed to cook baby goats in their own mother's milk.:eek:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've told this story before, but I think it bears repeating:

Once, 4-5 years ago, I got an anonymous note in my mailbox from somone, proclaming to be a Satanist, and offended by my display (which is overtly Christian). They went on to say that I needed to remove all the Christian elements, because if they were to set up a similar display in honor of Satan, surely the city would shut them down...

I really wish I could have replied, because it probably would have surprised them. I would have told them that if they sincerely wanted to set up a Satanist display, and not just so it to yank people's chains, I'd fully support their right to do it. After all, freedom of religion goes to all religions...

-Tim

Wow Tim thats something else, yea they shouldnt be doing that.I mean its your yard and you can do it if you want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My short answer to the original ACLU question is yes, that is what they have turned into.

Now, as far as the First Amendment goes:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

I do not think it was intended to remove religion from government, it was intended that Congress could not establish a specific religion as The State religion. They could not require you belong to The State church or attend The State church. That was not intended to remove your exercise of your religion from government, it was to guarantee you could choose for yourself.

What I always find amazing is that the freedom of religion clause comes first, FOLLOWED by the freedom of speech. I believe that is because it was more important. Interesting that we can have this discussion openly at all because it would be dangerous or illegal in some countries, so thank the founding fathers and respect the great country you live in.

Also interesting are the that last two points of the First Amendment when viewed against the back drop of national health care debate, but that is a topic for a different discussion board......

Ron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OT:

Holland Lights wins "Most obnoxious sig line EVER" award.

:P

We are in TOTAL agreement on this one Chuck, lol.

Ron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So where does this fit into all of this?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/22/AR2006072200643.html

Last year, there was a petition granted to allow a nativity to be displayed inside of the Capitol building. An atheist group petitioned to have it removed. After a rather spirited debate with the person who put up the nativity, the petition was denied, so the atheist group petitioned to have their own display along side the nativity, and menora that had also been put up. The nativity people argued against the atheist right to put up their display. Finally, the atheist group was allowed to put up their small display, and guess which one was the only one to be vandalized? Yeah, the atheist display was not only vandalized multiple times, it was also stolen once. Go figure. Case in point for what Mike said above.

I am also not sure that the ACLU has brought any suits without a complaintant, as they wouldn't have any standing in the courts, so I think that all of their suits have originated on behalf of another party.

As far as things like the so called "war on christmas", I'll believe it when I see it. The last time I checked, christmas was bigger than ever. I haven't heard of anyone being forced by the government to take down displays of a religious nature that were on private property. As far as stores calling christmas trees "holiday trees" and such...nothing but a business decision. Has nothing to do with the government, ACLU or anything. An employee at a business saying Merry Christmas, when they were told by their managers to say Happy Holidays? They didn't do what they directed to do. The only employees who would complain at this are ones who are trying to stubbornly make a point, because saying Happy Holidays in no way infringes on their religious rights. Most businesses don't allow their employees to campaign for political candidates while on the job, so why should they allow them to campaign for Jesus?

Sorry...end of rant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok.. Here is the point that needs to be made. The seperation of church and state has NOTHING to do with nativity scenes, prayer in school, or the showing of ones faith.

Anyone that has at least glanced at history can tell you that "seperation of church and state" was written by the framers to stop the government from forming the ONE religion or "church" that would be ran by the government. Which was the case where the pilgrims,settlers, and revolutionaries all came from. France, Britain, and other countries. Which is the reason most of them came here to begin with!

The term "seperation of church and state" has just been twisted to fit the agenda of those (aclu?) seeking to keep God out of the public eye.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The term "seperation of church and state" has just been twisted to fit the agenda of those (aclu?) seeking to keep God out of the public eye.

(edit-> Everyone: I respect any faith that you may have. I am not out to destroy any church/religion/etc. I do not think less of you because of a religion you practice - or one that you don't. At our lowest level we are all the same - human.).

Keeping God out of the public eye? Every other day I'm hit with an advertisement for a religious organization in the mail, at last count there were TWELVE channels on my TV (all Christian, BTW), a 'Worship' section in my local paper, and 4 full-color moving message signs in front of religious institutions within 5 miles of my house.

Once again, you are upset because you believe there is only one faith, yours (as demonstrated by your use of the capital G), and you see nothing wrong with it being in govt.

But what about those that come from different faiths? Should they not be protected by the same amendment that protects YOU? What about me? I don't believe in your faith, so what should I expect of a govt that permits (and thus promotes) displays of YOUR icons?

Just remember this: The same amendment that is keeping faith out of the state is the SAME one that allows you and I to practice ours freely.

Edited by oldcqr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok.. Here is the point that needs to be made. The seperation of church and state has NOTHING to do with nativity scenes, prayer in school, or the showing of ones faith.

Anyone that has at least glanced at history can tell you that "seperation of church and state" was written by the framers to stop the government from forming the ONE religion or "church" that would be ran by the government. Which was the case where the pilgrims,settlers, and revolutionaries all came from. France, Britain, and other countries. Which is the reason most of them came here to begin with!

The term "seperation of church and state" has just been twisted to fit the agenda of those (aclu?) seeking to keep God out of the public eye.

Very will put, the seperation of church and state does not mean you can't have religion in government, it means you can't have government in religion. You are right, its been twisted by a few to destory the real meaning for all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edit-> Everyone: I respect any faith that you may have. I am not out to destroy any church/religion/etc. I do not think less of you because of a religion you practice - or one that you don't. At our lowest level we are all the same - human.).

Keeping God out of the public eye? Every other day I'm hit with an advertisement for a religious organization in the mail, at last count there were TWELVE channels on my TV (all Christian, BTW), a 'Worship' section in my local paper, and 4 full-color moving message signs in front of religious institutions within 5 miles of my house.

Once again, you are upset because you believe there is only one faith, yours (as demonstrated by your use of the capital G), and you see nothing wrong with it being in govt.

But what about those that come from different faiths? Should they not be protected by the same amendment that protects YOU? What about me? I don't believe in your faith, so what should I expect of a govt that permits (and thus promotes) displays of YOUR icons?

Just remember this: The same amendment that is keeping faith out of the state is the SAME one that allows you and I to practice ours freely.

Who's upset : )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×