Aclu Strikes Back

[SirKenin]

I posted an explanation why the current pledge makes the US religiously religiously non-neutral. Can you tell me how or why I'm wrong?

I already have.

The bulk, the majority of US activity is non-religious, moreso every day. Therefore the USA is not a religious organization. Simple.

The majority of the Boy Scouts activities are non-religious. Therefore the Boy Scouts are not a religious organization.

The Supreme Court of the United States, incidentally, leans to the left, 5 - 4. If anyone would see the Boy Scouts as a religious organization and vote against them, the current Supreme Court would.

Funny thing is, they didn't. To me, that speaks volumes.

 

[Megachihuahua]

Please look at the 14th Amendment. That is how the first amendment applies to the states.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Irrelevent. Didn't the government fund a muslim summer camp? Was anyone forced to pray, or to do anything else? Even if this was a christian nation, others would be free to practice their religon. To understand what the Framers wanted, you have to walk in their shoes. Go to Sudan. Say you're a christian. I garuntee you, noone will hear from you again. The same thing was going on in Europe at the time, Everyone had to be an Aglician. So, logically, they wanted a christian nation with no denomionation, but everyone could have a religon.
But, this is interesting! It seems only REligon is protected under the first! I don't see Atheism anywhere, so, I suppose, Atheists have no constitutional protection. And, of course, you can't argue that all citizens have to be treated equally, since criminals, non-citizens, and children can't vote. Political correctness is a new thing, and we fought a politically correct war; our soldiers are getting shot every day.
And I would also make the argument that, after the Affirmitive Racism ruling, the fourteeth is obselete.
Stop taking cheap shots.

 

[Philosoft]

I already have.

The bulk, the majority of US activity is non-religious, moreso every day. Therefore the USA is not a religious organization. Simple.

The majority of the Boy Scouts activities are non-religious. Therefore the Boy Scouts are not a religious organization.

Oh, please. Take for example one of the massive Baptist churches here in the panhandle. I bet if we broke it down, a majority of the activity related to keeping that church running daily would be non-religious in nature. Religious organizations are composed of people, and even the most devout people don't engage in religious-specific activities a majority of the time.

The Supreme Court of the United States, incidentally, leans to the left, 5 - 4. If anyone would see the Boy Scouts as a religious organization and vote against them, the current Supreme Court would.

Funny thing is, they didn't. To me, that speaks volumes.

I still don't see where the majority decision speaks to the issue of religion at all.

 

[crazyfingers]

Irrelevent.

The fact is that is how the first amendment applies to the states. The supreme court ruled on this. It's not my opinion. It's an extablished fact of law that the 1st amendment applies to the states because the 14th amendment incorproated it.

To deny that would be crazy. It's like denying that Row v Wade made abortion legal.

Didn't the government fund a muslim summer camp?

I know nothing about a muslim summer camp. But states can no more support religion than can the feds.

Was anyone forced to pray, or to do anything else? Even if this was a christian nation, others would be free to practice their religon. To understand what the Framers wanted, you have to walk in their shoes. Go to Sudan. Say you're a christian. I garuntee you, noone will hear from you again. The same thing was going on in Europe at the time, Everyone had to be an Aglician. So, logically, they wanted a christian nation with no denomionation, but everyone could have a religon.

??

But, this is interesting! It seems only REligon is protected under the first! I don't see Atheism anywhere, so, I suppose, Atheists have no constitutional protection.

Again, the fact of constitutional law is that atheists/atheism are protected as strongly as is religion/religionists. The SC has also ruled on that. To deny would also be crazyness.

And, of course, you can't argue that all citizens have to be treated equally, since criminals, non-citizens, and children can't vote.

You need to read up on equal protection.

Political correctness is a new thing, and we fought a politically correct war; our soldiers are getting shot every day.
And I would also make the argument that, after the Affirmitive Racism ruling, the fourteeth is obselete.

Irrelevent to the discussion.

Stop taking cheap shots.

What cheep shots? You posted that the 1st amendment only applies to congress. I corrected you with a very basic fact of constitutional law.

 

[SirKenin]

Oh, please. Take for example one of the massive Baptist churches here in the panhandle. I bet if we broke it down, a majority of the activity related to keeping that church running daily would be non-religious in nature. Religious organizations are composed of people, and even the most devout people don't engage in religious-specific activities a majority of the time.

I still don't see where the majority decision speaks to the issue of religion at all.

Well, it's pretty clear I'm not going to change your mind. rofl I've debated my points, so I'm going to take my leave. However, before I do, I'll address the last line here.

The majority decision spoke of the BSA as follows:

The Boy Scouts is a private, not-for-profit organization engaged in instilling its system of values in young people

There is no mention of religious organization anywhere in that statement. What I am saying is that, as they are quite specific in what they feel the BSA is, not mentioning religion has the same weight as specifying the BSA "non-religious". Know what I mean?

 

[Philosoft]

Well, it's pretty clear I'm not going to change your mind.

Sure you can. Tell me why your definition of "religious organization" has any reseblance to anything we find in reality. I'll ignore the snide implication.

There is no mention of religious organization anywhere in that statement. What I am saying is that, as they are quite specific in what they feel the BSA is, not mentioning religion has the same weight as specifying the BSA "non-religious". Know what I mean?

No. I'm not going to agree with you that their failure to specifically identify the BSA as a religious organization means the BSA is actually a non-religious organization. The reasons should be obvious. You can try to snide your way out of this, but I'm not going to ignore your special plead here to have your position as the default.

 

[euphoric]

It's not surprising to me that those on the left, or those who disagree with Barton would try to discredit him. I have looked at one of your links and I will wait for a response from his web site.

Still waiting on the response to the allegations of academic dishonesty, did you have any luck with them yet?

-brett

 

[Philosoft]

Still waiting on the response to the allegations of academic dishonesty, did you have any luck with them yet?

You really think you're on to something with Barton, eh? Okay, see what you think about this stuff:

http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/founding.htm
http://www.skepticfiles.org/misctext/sepmyth.htm

As you'll do doubt cry "bias" at the above sites, here's one that's quite religion friendly.

http://www.preciousheart.net/religious freedom/Barton_Critique_BJCPA.htm

Enjoy.

 

[Megachihuahua]

The fact is that is how the first amendment applies to the states. The supreme court ruled on this. It's not my opinion. It's an extablished fact of law that the 1st amendment applies to the states because the 14th amendment incorproated it.

To deny that would be crazy. It's like denying that Row v Wade made abortion legal.



I know nothing about a muslim summer camp. But states can no more support religion than can the feds.
??
Again, the fact of constitutional law is that atheists/atheism are protected as strongly as is religion/religionists. The SC has also ruled on that. To deny would also be crazyness.
You need to read up on equal protection.
Irrelevent to the discussion.
What cheep shots? You posted that the 1st amendment only applies to congress. I corrected you with a very basic fact of constitutional law.

Though I am quite sure the supreme court, one member of which is a member of the ACLU, is quite unbiased, The issue is the boy scouts.
Tax dollars go to PBS, which I am Sure has NO Athiestic bias
Tax dollars go to Faith-based crime-reduction organizations(very effective)

O.K., wait, it is irrelevent that people who are stupid can get in a college before a person who's smart? But an alleged religous organization can't get a park rental cheap?Did any athiests try to get the park cheap? The Gay pride parade was held in those parks.
Very literaly, atheists could have a belief in god, since the god of atheists is man.

Just addmit your side is wrong, and you just have a deep bias against religon.

 

[crazyfingers]

Though I am quite sure the supreme court, one member of which is a member of the ACLU, is quite unbiased,

The point?

The issue is the boy scouts.

The issue is whether the government can legally fund andor give preference to a group that discriminates on the basis of religion.

Tax dollars go to PBS, which I am Sure has NO Athiestic bias

They do not discriminate on the basis of religion.

Tax dollars go to Faith-based crime-reduction organizations(very effective)

Actually it's a myth that it's very effective. Have you seen the news on this recently? http://www.forward.com/issues/2003/03.08.15/news9.html

And I'd also say that Bush's faith based program is in many way unconstitutinal also.

O.K., wait, it is irrelevent that people who are stupid can get in a college before a person who's smart? But an alleged religous organization can't get a park rental cheap?Did any athiests try to get the park cheap? The Gay pride parade was held in those parks.
Very literaly, atheists could have a belief in god, since the god of atheists is man.

Just addmit your side is wrong, and you just have a deep bias against religon.

You call that an argument?

 

[euphoric]

You really think you're on to something with Barton, eh? Okay, see what you think about this stuff:

http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/founding.htm
http://www.skepticfiles.org/misctext/sepmyth.htm

As you'll do doubt cry "bias" at the above sites, here's one that's quite religion friendly.

http://www.preciousheart.net/religious freedom/Barton_Critique_BJCPA.htm

Enjoy.

I think the person who originally posted the links debunking Barton is on to something. I see this guy everywhere in Christian media (still a post-deconversion guilty pleasure). I found the argument for his dishonesty quite compelling and I was curious if there was a rebuttal. That and the fact that Totally Transformed seemed so confident that it was all lies.

Great links, and I agree with the point of view of the first two, so I'm unlikely to cry bias.

-brett

 

[JEREMY O'ROURKE]

Seperation of Church and State should be against the law. It is an infringement on the rights of Christians. All seperation of Chuch and State does is devalue the Christians and tries to silence our voice. Shame on you if you are a Christian and support this trash called Seperation of Church and State. It is a tragedy this is actually a law.

 

[crazyfingers]

Seperation of Church and State should be against the law. It is an infringement on the rights of Christians. All seperation of Chuch and State does is devalue the Christians and tries to silence our voice. Shame on you if you are a Christian and support this trash called Seperation of Church and State. It is a tragedy this is actually a law.

So you think that christians should have the right to impose their religion onto others. That's pure evil.

 

[Edge]

JEREMY: No. I'm a Christian and fully support the seperation between secular state and private religion. Demanding preferential treatment is neither honest nor Christian.

 

[Philosoft]

Great links, and I agree with the point of view of the first two, so I'm unlikely to cry bias.

Gotcha. Apologies - I misinterpreted your comment as confrontational.

 

[Philosoft]

Seperation of Church and State should be against the law. It is an infringement on the rights of Christians. All seperation of Chuch and State does is devalue the Christians and tries to silence our voice. Shame on you if you are a Christian and support this trash called Seperation of Church and State. It is a tragedy this is actually a law.

The implications of this viewpoint are completely lost on you. Should Christianity be implemented as the national religion, it will unquestionably be a form of Christianity that contains some elements you don't agree with. How do I know this? Because they won't ask you for your input when they formulate "American Christianity."

You're in the same lifeboat as the rest of us, bubba. Why you're trying to get back aboard a sinking ship is a mystery.

 

[JEREMY O'ROURKE]

Crazyfingers, I am not saying that Christians should impose there religion on any one. The problem is that Seperation of Church & State is simply trying to silence thse with a faith in God. Jesus is the only true way. All truth is in him.

 

[crazyfingers]

Crazyfingers, I am not saying that Christians should impose there religion on any one. The problem is that Seperation of Church & State is simply trying to silence thse with a faith in God. Jesus is the only true way. All truth is in him.

No. All it does is prevent anyone from using the government as their mouthpiece.

 

[JEREMY O'ROURKE]

Philosoft, I said nothing about making Christianity the official religion. I know there would be things that you and others would disagree with. That would be total chaos. If you think about it. Would you pick a certain Christian denominations and leave others out. Like say the Baptists are picked over the Pentecostals and on and on you could go with this. The fact is that this was founded as a Christian country. The American Criminal Liberties Union has attacked Christianity in many ways taking prayer out of schools. They seem hostile to any expression of religion whatsoever. Things have become politically correct to the point you almost have no religious freedom at all any more.

 

[Rae]

this was founded as a Christian country.
--No, it was founded as a secular country by Deists and Christians who were tired of the Christian dictatorships in other countries.