The Political Discussion Thread

[Galileo_Galilee]

how is the growing atmosphere fueled by the ACLU that on a continual basis seeks to strip the rights of Christians to display their religious identity in public not creating an oppressive one for Christians?

Quite simply, the ACLU is not doing that. You guys are not the Victims you make yourselves out to be, and quite frankly the continuing of these lies is tired and old.

I want to know why Foley isn't getting on to you for saying these kinds of things. He certainly got on to me for saying these kinds of things.

[Galileo_Galilee]

because what I'm seeing is an atmosphere where one day Christian Catholic priests won't be allowed to wear their Roman Collars when they go out in public

People just love teh hyperbole.

[mad_gater]

Quite simply, the ACLU is not doing that. You guys are not the Victims you make yourselves out to be, and quite frankly the continuing of these lies is tired and old.

I want to know why Foley isn't getting on to you for saying these kinds of things. He certainly got on to me for saying these kinds of things.

then you need to read up on the ACLU....it was founded by a communist you know

and the phrase "you shall know them by their fruits" is apt here because the only fruit the ACLU has produced is rotten to the core

they're trying their level best to silence the voice of Christians in the public square...Foley hasn't gotten on my case cuz he knows I'm right....that political correctness and the related enforcement of political correctness has gone way too far

[Goose]

then you need to read up on the ACLU....it was founded by a communist you know

The same communist who called the Soviet-style of communism "a new slavery", "[an] inhuman communist police state tyranny", and who actively tried to purge the ACLU of communist party members in the 40's?

[Goose]

Oh, and regarding the ACLU "war on religion":

Is the ACLU against religion in the public square?
Absolutely not. Churches, religious institutions, individuals, and families all have the constitutionally protected right to express their religious beliefs in the public square. Religious symbols are pervasive and are constitutionally protected in the public realm. Families have a right to display religious symbols on their homes. Individuals and their families have the right to display religious symbols on gravestones, whether in Federal or private cemeteries. Many other forms of religious expression in the public sphere also are constitutionally protected. The public airways are filled with religious messages broadcast by preachers and televangelists. Books, magazines, and newspapers are printed and distributed by commercial and religious publishers and are delivered by the U.S. Postal Service. Missionaries and street preachers share their faith door-to-door and on public sidewalks. People have the right to wear religious symbols and attire in public. The ACLU has and will continue to ensure that such constitutional rights for religious communities and individuals are fully protected.

The ACLU is definitely opposed, however, to putting the government in charge of deciding which religious symbols and expressions should be endorsed and financed. A cross in front of a church is perfectly fine. The same cross on a courthouse lawn is unconstitutional.

One of the most frequent mischaracterizations about the ACLU is that it is opposed to religious symbols in the public square. The ACLU is opposed to government promotion, financing, and endorsing of religion in the public square, and we think most Americans probably agree.

http://www.aclu.org/religion-belief/...latin-cross-qa

[mad_gater]

and I think most Americans agree that one does not surrender the individual civil liberties the ACLU claims to defend so ardently (but whereas I have borne witness to many examples of them doing the contrary) when elected to public office.....which means that SC judges such as Justice Moore (who was forced to resign because he refused to take the 10 commandments down from his office door) and even all the way up to the POTUS still retain the unalienable right to display the articles of their faith and to even encourage people to engage in prayer.....such displays by those in public office do not in the slightest violate the First Amendment's strict prohibition against the creation of a state church

[Goose]

The ACLU isn't saying that elected officials or employees of the state aren't allowed to have religious views of symbols, it's just opposed to funding or promotion of such views or symbols by official means. When a person employed or elected by or to the government encourages people, in an official capacity, to engage in certain religious activities, then that would be unconstitutional. If they do it in a person capacity, then it's fine.

[mad_gater]

then why is Gov. Perry coming under fire for encouraging people to pray and attend a prayer rally at what I am assuming is a privately-owned auditorium?

[shipper hannah]

it was founded by a communist you know

Association fallacy.

Let's play how many logical fallacies can we spot today!

[Goose]

then why is Gov. Perry coming under fire for encouraging people to pray and attend a prayer rally at what I am assuming is a privately-owned auditorium?

I'm not familiar with that case, but as long as Gov. Perry is not speaking in an official capacity or claiming to be spreading official government policy to encourage people to pray, then I personally don't see a problem with it.

[mad_gater]

The founder of the ACLU was once quoted as saying "My goal for this country is socialism"....seems pretty clear to me what his goals and the goals of th einstitution he founded are

[Goose]

The founder of the ACLU was once quoted as saying "My goal for this country is socialism"....seems pretty clear to me what his goals and the goals of th einstitution he founded are

His goals, and the goals of the ACLU, are two different things. Unless you can prove to me that ACLU is actively promoting socialism or communism, then I'm afraid that I can't believe you in this case.

[mad_gater]

not beyond a shadow of a doubt no but the fact that the founder does hold those beliefs makes the work of his institution incredibly suspect

[lordofseas]

not beyond a shadow of a doubt no but the fact that the founder does hold those beliefs makes the work of his institution incredibly suspect

John A. Macdonald was married his cousin, and was a drunkard. Therefore, Canada's constitution is invalidated because they were (mainly) proposed this man.

Faaaaaaaaaallacy.

[Goose]

Once again, just because he held (and I use the past tense of the word, since he died about thirty years ago) those views, does not make it official ACLU policy. Just because, say, the President of the US holds certain beliefs or ideas, does not make it official US government policy. The views of the individual and the views of the organisation are two entirely separate things.

Furthermore, I think you should have a look at some of the cases the ACLU has championed. The list includes quite a few Neo-Nazis, the Westboro Baptist Church, and this case, where the ACLU is defending the right of a High School athlete to post the Ten Commandments on his High School locker. Not really the sort of things an anti-religious, communist organisation would champion, is it?