City must pay atheists group for violating Constitution

Status
Not open for further replies.

crazyfingers

Well-Known Member
May 17, 2002
8,733
329
Massachusetts
Visit site
✟18,923.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Strange. To "Post Quote" of post #98 reveals more to the post than is actually posted above. There appears to be a database problem.

Does this show up if anyone else attempts to "Post Quote" that post?

It doesn't matter if they disagree about a foundational fact. They are wrong. So what about their error? They are free to be wrong. But we are free to define our country as we wish. We did.

As for fundraisers, you are mistaken. There is none of that at the prayer meetings. But there is very much a whole lot of praying going on! Atheists don't like it? So what? They didn't start this country. We did.

A common set of values doesn't need to be 100% unanimous. The vast majority of our nation has always believed in God (from 1620 and ever since). That is why we are free to define the system this way.

Maybe you would like to tackle this question:

What does the ACLU have to do to prove the MYTH of SEPARATION of Chruch and State exists as TRUTH? All it has to do is appeal the lawsuit the ACLU LOST in federal court over the state motto of Ohio which declares, "With God all things are possible." The ACLU invoked the MYTH and lost, because the federal judge told the ACLU that their understanding of the separation of church and state was "frivilous and utterly without legal foundation." I agree.

So why doesn't the ACLU take that to the US Supreme Court? I'll tell you why. They know they haven't got a legal leg to stand on... only a MYTH.
 
Upvote 0

Donkeytron

Veteran
Oct 24, 2005
1,443
139
43
✟9,874.00
Faith
Non-Denom
It doesn't matter if they disagree about a foundational fact. They are wrong. So what about their error? They are free to be wrong. But we are free to define our country as we wish. We did.

As for fundraisers, you are mistaken. There is none of that at the prayer meetings. But there is very much a whole lot of praying going on! Atheists don't like it? So what? They didn't start this country. We did.

A common set of values doesn't need to be 100% unanimous. The vast majority of our nation has always believed in God (from 1620 and ever since). That is why we are free to define the system this way.

Maybe you would like to tackle this question:

What does the ACLU have to do to prove the MYTH of SEPARATION of Chruch and State exists as TRUTH? All it has to do is appeal the lawsuit the ACLU LOST in federal court over the state motto of Ohio which declares, "With God all things are possible." The ACLU invoked the MYTH and lost, because the federal judge told the ACLU that their understanding of the separation of church and state was "frivilous and utterly without legal foundation." I agree.

So why doesn't the ACLU take that to the US Supreme Court? I'll tell you why. They know they haven't got a legal leg to stand on... only a MYTH.
No, LT, this country was foudned mostly by deists, unitarians, and the odd catholic and calvinist. And as for "god being a foundational fact"...if you could give me a hand finding the word god even once in the constitution, I would appreciate it. Thanks.
 
Upvote 0

DhaliClone

Well-Known Member
Oct 28, 2004
1,204
158
✟17,207.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
There is no more Bible Belt.
The Bible Belt is very much alive and well, whether or not you say so. The attitude, conservative ideals and policies, and even the mingling of public schools and religion (abstinence-only education and the like) is evidence of this. I like to believe you're not lying on purpose, but I'm not so sure anymore.


The above is untrue. Studies show the opposite. The recidivism rate is about 13%...
Have any (3rd party) sources for this? I gave some showing they weren't successful, now it's your turn.


LovesTruth said:
I hadn't planned to discuss it, but since you opened the topic of the MYTH of SEPARATION of Church and State, I will correct your mistakes. It is a myth... The phrase was used only once in 1947 and was never used again by the Supreme Court and was never defined.
There you go again, LYING. I've shown you this MANY TIMES BEFORE, and you keep ignoring it. Now there is no question in my mind that you are lying on purpose. The phrase "Separation of Church and State" comes from our very own Founding Fathers, not just once in 1947.

James Madison said:
The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State.
Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and & Gov't in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history.
To the Baptist Churches on Neal's Greek on Black Creek, North Carolina I have received, fellow-citizens, your address, approving my objection to the Bill containing a grant of public land to the Baptist Church at Salem Meeting House, Mississippi Territory. Having always regarded the practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government as essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, I could not have otherwise discharged my duty on the occasion which presented itself.
The experience of the United States is a happy disproof of the error so long rooted in the unenlightened minds of well-meaning Christians, as well as in the corrupt hearts of persecuting usurpers, that without a legal incorporation of religious and civil polity, neither could be supported. A mutual independence is found most friendly to practical Religion, to social harmony, and to political prosperity.
James Madison said:
"A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America" (1787-88)
The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses....
Unembarrassed by attachments to noble families, hereditary lines and successions, or any considerations of royal blood, even the pious mystery of holy oil had no more influence than that other of holy water: the people universally were too enlightened to be imposed on by artifice; and their leaders, or more properly followers, were men of too much honour to attempt it. Thirteen governments thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favour of the rights of mankind.

Thomas Jefferson said:
I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.


There's also the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796, which declared....
As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion....
This phrase does NOT appear in the Arabic version of the Treaty, only the American version. The President and the Senate were not telling the Musselmen that "the Government ... is not ... founded on the Christian religion," they were telling America.
 
Upvote 0

LovesTruth

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2006
1,493
81
✟2,092.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Strange. To "Post Quote" of post #98 reveals more to the post than is actually posted above. There appears to be a database problem.

Does this show up if anyone else attempts to "Post Quote" that post?
Is this another of your attempts to avoid the issue of deception by the ACLU? All anyone has to do to prove the ACLU's MTYH of sep of ch and state is to sue in court to remove gov't's statements about God!

Why hasn't the ACLU won any of these cases:

IN GOD WE TRUST on our money
UNDER GOD in our Pledge of Allegience
WITH GOD ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE (Ohio's motto)

The last example was a suit actually brought by the ACLU and was based upon its faulty view of the First Amendment... also known as the MYTH of Separation of Church and State.

Anyone have a clue why the ACLU decided NOT to appeal this case to the federal appellate courts or US Supreme Court? I know why!
Maybe you would like to tackle this question:

Here is my quote from a previous post. This is decidedly NOT a repost or spam. Consider a friendly reminder to the ACLU!

What does the ACLU have to do to prove the MYTH of SEPARATION of Chruch and State exists as TRUTH? All it has to do is appeal the lawsuit the ACLU LOST in federal court over the state motto of Ohio which declares, "With God all things are possible." The ACLU invoked the MYTH and lost, because the federal judge told the ACLU that their understanding of the separation of church and state was "frivilous and utterly without legal foundation." I agree.

So why doesn't the ACLU take that to the US Supreme Court? I'll tell you why. They know they haven't got a legal leg to stand on... only a MYTH.



So far nobody has been able to explain why the ACLU would not persue a slamdunk winning case to vindicate once and for their view of the First Amendment. I know why. It is because they don't really believe in it themselves and they know they'd lose at the Supreme Court. After all, look at their losing track record.
 
Upvote 0

DhaliClone

Well-Known Member
Oct 28, 2004
1,204
158
✟17,207.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
What does the ACLU have to do to prove the MYTH of SEPARATION of Chruch and State exists as TRUTH? All it has to do is appeal the lawsuit the ACLU LOST in federal court over the state motto of Ohio which declares, "With God all things are possible." The ACLU invoked the MYTH and lost, because the federal judge told the ACLU that their understanding of the separation of church and state was "frivilous and utterly without legal foundation." I agree.

So why doesn't the ACLU take that to the US Supreme Court? I'll tell you why. They know they haven't got a legal leg to stand on... only a MYTH.

First of all, the "frivilous and utterly without legal foundation" quote doesn't come from the Ohio state motto case, it comes from a previous case about "In God We Trust." So, please, stop using it as a defense for the Ohio state motto case, that's misleading (aka lying).

Second of all, the Court said explicitly that it does not violate the separation of Church and State. So, they still know that separation of Church and State is not a "myth," but they felt this didn't violate it. You're making it seem like they don't believe in the separation of Church and State, when they undoubtedly do.

And please don't ignore my post above yours again.
 
Upvote 0

crazyfingers

Well-Known Member
May 17, 2002
8,733
329
Massachusetts
Visit site
✟18,923.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Is this another of your attempts to avoid the issue of deception by the ACLU?


Um. No. It's an attempt to point out that there is a database problem with your post at #98. I suggest that you try quoting post #98.

As to the rest of your post, you don't get it. That's sad.
 
Upvote 0

FireQuest

Regular Member
Aug 17, 2006
388
48
In Jesus, My Strong Tower!
✟8,266.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
People who want to use government to promote their religious ideas need to better understand the golden rule.

It's wrong to use government, which everyone has to support, to push a religious point of view that not everyone shares. To do that is to force those who disagree to support religious ideas that they do not accept. Thomas Jefferson was very clear about that.
And yet, the taxes Christians pay go to support causes and programs we disagree with (the homosexual agenda, abortion, etc.). That's hitting high on the hypocrisy scale, buddy. The Golden Rule works both ways! ;) :p
 
  • Like
Reactions: Voegelin
Upvote 0

FireQuest

Regular Member
Aug 17, 2006
388
48
In Jesus, My Strong Tower!
✟8,266.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
It doesn't matter if they disagree about a foundational fact. They are wrong. So what about their error? They are free to be wrong. But we are free to define our country as we wish. We did.

As for fundraisers, you are mistaken. There is none of that at the prayer meetings. But there is very much a whole lot of praying going on! Atheists don't like it? So what? They didn't start this country. We did.

A common set of values doesn't need to be 100% unanimous. The vast majority of our nation has always believed in God (from 1620 and ever since). That is why we are free to define the system this way.

Maybe you would like to tackle this question:

What does the ACLU have to do to prove the MYTH of SEPARATION of Chruch and State exists as TRUTH? All it has to do is appeal the lawsuit the ACLU LOST in federal court over the state motto of Ohio which declares, "With God all things are possible." The ACLU invoked the MYTH and lost, because the federal judge told the ACLU that their understanding of the separation of church and state was "frivilous and utterly without legal foundation." I agree.

So why doesn't the ACLU take that to the US Supreme Court? I'll tell you why. They know they haven't got a legal leg to stand on... only a MYTH.
You're wasting your time with this lot, friend. Unless the blinders come off, they will never get it.Thanks for trying, though! ;) :thumbsup:
 
Upvote 0

night2day

Sola Scriptura~Sola Gratia~Sola Fide
Aug 18, 2004
1,873
113
54
Home
Visit site
✟2,758.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
There isn't anything wrong with having a day of faith, so long as it isn't a government endorsed/funded/whathaveyou. The city spent over $100,000 dollars on this particular event, which, while a good idea to some extent, came across as a government endorsement of religion...

Shortly after 9/11 within New York City there was an event entitled "A Prayer for America" that was sponsered for the city. The mayor at the time even went so far as to refer to it as a prayer and worship service.

Due to the nature of the service and the various religions involved, one could very well state the city and state of New York were endorsing polytheism. Wonder why the organizers of that event weren't sued?

A bit one-sided perhaps?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Voegelin
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

night2day

Sola Scriptura~Sola Gratia~Sola Fide
Aug 18, 2004
1,873
113
54
Home
Visit site
✟2,758.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
Note what lawyers and activist judges have done to the first amendment. "Establishment" has become "endorsement" and "endorsement" now means "you can't mention religion".

Atheists in America sue and theaten to sue. Athiests in other countries did more:

The Bells of Russia

The Hill of Crosses

Abuse of Religious Freedom in Tibet

Nah, religion itself of any kind is ok as long as it's not Christianity.

Just means one can't mention Jesus Christ in any way, shape, or form beyond that as a curse word outside closed doors.
 
Upvote 0

LovesTruth

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2006
1,493
81
✟2,092.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
LINK

LINK

Just a couple off the top of my head...
There is more than enough evidence of anti-faith bias and attempted censorship in America and England from so many years and so many sources.

Only those willfully ignorant refuse to see it.
 
Upvote 0

LovesTruth

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2006
1,493
81
✟2,092.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Shortly after 9/11 within New York City there was an event entitled "A Prayer for America" that was sponsered for the city. The mayor at the time even went so far as to refer to it as a prayer and worship service.

Due to the nature of the service and the various religions involved, one could very well state the city and state of New York were endorsing polytheism. Wonder why the organizers of that event weren't sued?

A bit one-sided perhaps?

Conservative Christians commented on this and similar prayer events held nationwide. Why didn't the ACLU sue to prevent them?

The answer was that the ACLU knew it would lose... again and again. There is nothing unconstitutinal about the state and federal and local governments' calling people to pray.

(Note: Another party did in fact sue to prevent President Bush's National Day of Prayer and Humiliation after 9-11. The federal court ruled against the lawsuit, but it could have stopped the National Day of Prayer if the ACLU's myth of the separation of church and state were actually true.)
 
Upvote 0

DhaliClone

Well-Known Member
Oct 28, 2004
1,204
158
✟17,207.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
IF the ACLU's myth of the separation of church and state were actually true.)

This has been refuted (by me and many others) time and time again, OVER AND OVER, in this very thread and in every thread you've (and others) posted this in, and you continue to ignore it and continue to spread this filth. That's dishonest and rude, and I think I speak for 90% of the people here that we don't believe a single word you say because of it.

Is there any way to block someone's posts? I'd say it's like talking to a brick wall, but at least with a brick wall you can still get an echo.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Jacey

WinJace
Jan 12, 2004
3,894
337
46
Atlanta
Visit site
✟5,805.00
Faith
Atheist
Politics
US-Democrat
And yet, the taxes Christians pay go to support causes and programs we disagree with (the homosexual agenda, abortion, etc.). That's hitting high on the hypocrisy scale, buddy. The Golden Rule works both ways! ;) :p

There is no homosexual agenda. Thanks for playing.

Also, what tax dollars go to supporting abortion?
 
Upvote 0

Jacey

WinJace
Jan 12, 2004
3,894
337
46
Atlanta
Visit site
✟5,805.00
Faith
Atheist
Politics
US-Democrat
This has been refuted (by me and many others) time and time again, OVER AND OVER, in this very thread and in every thread you've (and others) posted this in, and you continue to ignore it and continue to spread this filth. That's dishonest and rude, and I think I speak for 90% of the people here that we don't believe a single word you say because of it.

Is there any way to block someone's posts? I'd say it's like talking to a brick wall, but at least with a brick wall you can still get an echo.


Right clicking on someone's name gives you an option to ignore user
 
Upvote 0

DhaliClone

Well-Known Member
Oct 28, 2004
1,204
158
✟17,207.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
Right clicking on someone's name gives you an option to ignore user

Thank you. :thumbsup: :amen:

...the homosexual agenda...

Can you please describe this agenda to me? All I see are homosexuals wanting basic rights and freedoms given to Americans. What makes this an "agenda"? I've seen it many places - conservative websites, freerepublic.com, Fox News - but nobody that I've looked at has actually said what it is.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

LovesTruth

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2006
1,493
81
✟2,092.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
This has been refuted (by me and many others) time and time again, OVER AND OVER, in this very thread and in every thread you've (and others) posted this in, and you continue to ignore it and continue to spread this filth. That's dishonest and rude, and I think I speak for 90% of the people here that we don't believe a single word you say because of it.

Is there any way to block someone's posts? I'd say it's like talking to a brick wall, but at least with a brick wall you can still get an echo.
I challenged you or anyone else to answer this question:

Conservative Christians commented on this and similar prayer events held nationwide. Why didn't the ACLU sue to prevent them?

The answer was that the ACLU knew it would lose... again and again. There is nothing unconstitutinal about the state and federal and local governments' calling people to pray.

(Note: Another party did in fact sue to prevent President Bush's National Day of Prayer and Humiliation after 9-11. The federal court ruled against the lawsuit, but it could have stopped the National Day of Prayer if the ACLU's myth of the separation of church and state were actually true.)



and all you could offer in defense of the failure of the ACLU to defend its MYTH was what??? Your only defense of MYTH was to claim you already defended it? I don't think so!

Sorry, but just your say-so doesn't make it so!


Now try again. Tell us why the ACLU LOST if the MYTH were actually true?
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.