Nuff' said!
Nuff' said!
Great point...
me thinks the aclu and the naacp need to find better things to do with their time and money than try and rewrite the past.
Orange is just CRIMSON with a lot of yellow in it!!
Do you want to speak to man in charge, or the woman that knows whats going on?
yes, and I dont want any politicians on Federal property, but I aint gettin my way on that one any time soon.
isnt that a cemetary in france?
This chain letter has changed a good bit since it first surfaced in 2002. In its current form, it appears to be warning conscientious Christians that the ACLU is out to remove crosses from government cemeteries. This is not true, nor was it probably the intent of the chain's original author.
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Over the years, that provision has been interpreted to say that government must consider all religions or none at all in its policies. To include one faith's beliefs, icons or traditions in government-sponsored activities or facilities, to the exclusion of others, has been ruled in many high court cases to violate the first amendment, hence the court's requirement of a "separation of church and state."
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) frequently draws criticism from Christian interests and others because it advocates for absolutely no government-sanctioned religion. It is the ACLU that backed lawsuits regarding the phrase "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance and the propriety of the Ten Commandments in an Alabama Courthouse. What rankles most is the ACLU's insistence that the First Amendment guarantee of free religion includes the choice to follow no religion, thus any tolerance by the government of any one religion is seen as a violation.
In its original form, the letter above was a patriotically charged and good-hearted jab at the ACLU. As it has circulated, the irony it originally played up has slid away as many forwarders take the message literally and assume the ACLU really is going after crosses in military cemeteries. In a statement, the ACLU denies such actions:
"The ACLU is not pursuing, nor has it ever pursued, the removal of religious symbols from personal gravestones. Personal gravestones are the choice of the family members, not the choice of the government. The ACLU celebrates this freedom to choose the religious symbol of your choice."
Some versions have identified the cemetery in the picture as Arlington National Cemetery and went as far as to assert that the ACLU was, indeed, going after that revered institution. It is not. In fact, the picture depicts a cemetery in Europe. Break this Chain.
Yep.Originally Posted by jk the sooner fan
I've been there twice. I took a trip over there to visit my great-uncle's gravestone who was killed on July 4th, '44.
As an American, it was one of the most moving experiance of my life. I've never been to a National Cemetary quite as moving as that one. Even Arlington can't compare to it. The staff there is also fantastic. You tell them your family member's name and they wheel out a golf cart and take you over to it and even provide you with pics of the headstone and a packet.
Anyone who goes to Normandy can't come back until they've visited that place.
OH MY NON-SPECIFIC DEITY WHICH MAY OR MAY NOT EXIST!!!!
Relax, skippy. The ACLU recognizes that a cross on a gravesite at a national cemetery is that person's endorsement of faith, not the government's and has no problem with it so long as Jewish people can have Stars of David, Muslims can have Crescents, or whatever.
"The choices we discern as having been made in the Constitutional Convention impose burdens on governmental proceses that often seem clumsy, inefficient, even unworkable, but those hard choices were consciously made by men who had lived under a form of government that permitted arbitrary governmental acts to go unchecked." INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983) (Burger, C.J.)
Everytime I'm on federal property, I'm always looking for a cross or some other sign of Christianity. Then I know that I'm working with good decent, God-fearing people.
Do it for the Polar bears.
Let me be honest for a moment...
I am not a religous person. I haven't been to church in years and haven't attended one regularly since I was about 8.
I don't really like to go to church. And Christian fundamentalists make me nervous; I also partially blame them for the decreasing emphasis on limited government within the conservative movement.
All of that having been said...
I get very uncomfortable at anyone or any organization that attemps to strip any sort of religous reference out of government. I'm sure I'll be scoffed at and possibly even negged for what I'm about to say, but it's very very important for our government to acknowledge God or some sort of higher authority than themselves.
Our rights, are based in part, on the belief that government is only securing and protecting those rights which God has mandated that man is entitled to have. The Government should not and can not deny a person of a right which God himself has bestowed upon them.
Why is this relavent to a modern seperation argument? If government ceases to acknowledge that there is a higher power than itself then the rights that higher power has bestowed upon us has to come from somewhere and that somewhere is government. If the government takes a neutral position on the existence of a higher being then it logically follows that any rights we enjoy are granted to us not by a higher power which Government won't acknowledge but that government itself.
Now, I am totally against the government declaring anykind of religion including christianity to be "official", but I do believe the government should acknowledge a higher power. If people want to interpret that as a Judeo/Christian or Muslim God then fine. It can be Vishnu for all I care.
Why do rights have to derive from some outside source? Why can't these rights be self-evident and derive logically from that which is necessary for man's operation in society?
"The choices we discern as having been made in the Constitutional Convention impose burdens on governmental proceses that often seem clumsy, inefficient, even unworkable, but those hard choices were consciously made by men who had lived under a form of government that permitted arbitrary governmental acts to go unchecked." INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983) (Burger, C.J.)
The problem is that using a cross seems to take it from "some sort of higher authority" to "Jesus" which seems to be very close to the government declaring Christianity as "official." A lot of what you said makes sense, but it confuses me on how you feel about the issue being discussed in this thread.
Well, that's a good point but the problem is that I don't think you could reach any kind of concensus on what is a "self-evident right derived logically from man's contemporary needs in society." You couldn't form a concensus to agree the sky is blue.
Also, of course, what is necessary for man's operation in society would change as society changes therefore the reality of the situation would be that no fundamental rights to anything truly exist. You'd instead have temporary privileges decided by society dictating what rights you need in order to function at that specific moment. That's a scary proposition for me.
It was mostly in reference to Soonrboy's coments.
I think that's an unneccesarily nihilistic view of man and society. The rights contained in our Bill of Rights could be argued very easily from a logical standpoint as necessary for the functioning of a non-totalitarian society.Also, of course, what is necessary for man's operation in society would change as society changes therefore the reality of the situation would be that no fundamental rights to anything truly exist. You'd instead have temporary privileges decided by society dictating what rights you need in order to function at that specific moment. That's a scary proposition for me.
"The choices we discern as having been made in the Constitutional Convention impose burdens on governmental proceses that often seem clumsy, inefficient, even unworkable, but those hard choices were consciously made by men who had lived under a form of government that permitted arbitrary governmental acts to go unchecked." INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983) (Burger, C.J.)
ok then they're not crosses, they're merely lower case t's
ACLU, they people are maniacs.
I figured that they are just plain EVIL after I read the story of them taking up the defense of NAMBLA
What rights did God bestow on us? I don't remember the bill of rights in the bible. God did make us responsible for our neighbors and gave us the charge of being guardians of the Earth.
Do it for the Polar bears.
ACLU wants parish to forget cross
Katrina memorial bears Jesus' face
Sunday, August 06, 2006
By Karen Turni Bazile
Alarmed by newspaper reports that a hurricane memorial in St. Bernard Parish will feature a cross bearing a likeness of the face of Jesus, the American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana is reminding parish officials of the Constitution's separation of church and state.
Never one to back down, Parish President Henry "Junior" Rodriguez has a simple reply: "They can kiss my a$$."
http://www.nola.com/search/index.ssf...?NZNPMT&coll=1
NAMBLA has the same right to publish materials that are ****ed up and wrong as any of us do. The ACLU in no way endorses anything NAMBLA stands for, they were standing up for everyone's right to hold whatever ****ed-up view they want and argue that view in the marketplace of ideas.
"The choices we discern as having been made in the Constitutional Convention impose burdens on governmental proceses that often seem clumsy, inefficient, even unworkable, but those hard choices were consciously made by men who had lived under a form of government that permitted arbitrary governmental acts to go unchecked." INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983) (Burger, C.J.)
Good. Maybe I should increase my monthly donations.
We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics. FDR.
It is still wrong.
Posting Permissions
