The ACLU

[Scally Cap]

The ACLU helps safeguard your religious liberty, and mine, and that guy's over there. Believing that the ACLU persecutes Christians requires some stretches of definition beyond that given by Christ. Preventing a city council from opening its meetings with a Christian prayer in no way curtails your own personal relationship with Jesus. It does nothing to prevent you from going to Church on Sunday and Wednesday. It doesn't prohibit a Bible on your desk, or a cross on your necklace, or you walking up to random people in Central Park to ask them if they're saved yet. Preventing public schools from requiring student prayer doesn't prevent you from teaching your kids Christian values, or your kids from praying silently on their own when they feel moved to do so. Preventing City Hall from erecting a nativity scene on the courthouse lawn doesn't prevent you from putting your own display in your front yard or, like a guy in my neighborhood, crafting a giant birthday cake out of a wading pool and electric candles, painting "Happy Birthday Jesus" on it, and mounting it on his roof. All universal religious liberty requires of you is to understand that the State cannot make either belief or disbelief compulsory. And, no, requiring that science classes teach science is not compulsory disbelief.

 

[Archivist]

What do you mean? Are you saying porn does not encourage lust? Is this just word play?

What do you mean exactly?

Porn is not lust. Porn may cause some people to lust, but it is not lust in and of itself.

As was pointed out in another post, there are sections of the Bible that could cause some people to lust. Some of these people have actually fought to have the Bible removed from Public Libraries. It is the ACLU that has opposed such attempts.

 

[Archivist]

The ACLU helps safeguard your religious liberty, and mine, and that guy's over there. Believing that the ACLU persecutes Christians requires some stretches of definition beyond that given by Christ. Preventing a city council from opening its meetings with a Christian prayer in no way curtails your own personal relationship with Jesus. It does nothing to prevent you from going to Church on Sunday and Wednesday. It doesn't prohibit a Bible on your desk, or a cross on your necklace, or you walking up to random people in Central Park to ask them if they're saved yet. Preventing public schools from requiring student prayer doesn't prevent you from teaching your kids Christian values, or your kids from praying silently on their own when they feel moved to do so. Preventing City Hall from erecting a nativity scene on the courthouse lawn doesn't prevent you from putting your own display in your front yard or, like a guy in my neighborhood, crafting a giant birthday cake out of a wading pool and electric candles, painting "Happy Birthday Jesus" on it, and mounting it on his roof. All universal religious liberty requires of you is to understand that the State cannot make either belief or disbelief compulsory. And, no, requiring that science classes teach science is not compulsory disbelief.

Very well said.

BTW, the ACLU would also intervene if a school or city council instituted mandatory Jewish or Buddist prayers or placed Wiccan symbols on the courthouse lawn. It is not an anti-Christian organization, it is a pro-seperation of church and state organization.

 

[charityagape]

What exactly is the purpose of porn? And if there's more than one purpose, what are they?

 

[ChristianCenturion]

Porn is not lust. Porn may cause some people to lust, but it is not lust in and of itself.

As was pointed out in another post, there are sections of the Bible that could cause some people to lust. Some of these people have actually fought to have the Bible removed from Public Libraries. It is the ACLU that has opposed such attempts.

I don't see where anyone has said ALL of the ACLU's legal battles were directly opposed to Christian belief or values.
Anyway, if I had a civil legal issue to take to court, I personally would rather have the The American Center of Law and Justice represent me; there would be less chance of conflict in interest.

 

[knightlight72]

Porn is not lust. Porn may cause some people to lust, but it is not lust in and of itself.

I think there may have been some confusion. This is what I was responding to.

Actually Jesus didn't speak against porn. Porn as we know it didn't exist at that time. He spoke about lust. The ACLU does not in any way promote lust. They simply support freedom of speech.

Hi Archivist. I agree they are basing the stance on the freedom of speech. However, the original post was why christians have issues with the ACLU. So one of the reasons is because the ACLU helps to make sure people have access to porn, something Jesus has spoken against.

You see, Iresponded about lust from porn, because you said Jesus spoke against lust, and not porn. I think everyone associatiates that porn is meant to develop lust. So the problem with porn is that it leads to lust. If you go back through our posts, I think it may be more clear where I was coming from now.

As was pointed out in another post, there are sections of the Bible that could cause some people to lust. Some of these people have actually fought to have the Bible removed from Public Libraries. It is the ACLU that has opposed such attempts.

Yes, but the question was why christians may have issue with the ACLU.

 

[Archivist]

I don't see where anyone has said ALL of the ACLU's legal battles were directly opposed to Christian belief or values.

I don't believe that I ever claimed that anyone had said this.

Anyway, if I had a civil legal issue to take to court, I personally would rather have the The American Center of Law and Justice represent me; there would be less chance of conflict in interest.

ACLJ is a highly competent organization that appears to offer excellent representation.

 

[Archivist]

You see, Iresponded about lust from porn, because you said Jesus spoke against lust, and not porn. I think everyone associatiates that porn is meant to develop lust. So the problem with porn is that it leads to lust. If you go back through our posts, I think it may be more clear where I was coming from now.

I believe that I specifically said "Porn may cause some people to lust."

 

[Scally Cap]

Yes, but the question was why christians may have issue with the ACLU.

It's difficult to read through this thread without coming away with the impression that the Christians who have an issue with the ACLU want only their own religious liberty protected. Believing that the concept of religious liberty is just and desirable requires the understanding that said liberty extends to all people regardless of their individual beliefs (or lack thereof). It may extend its protections to beliefs and practices you believe to be in error at best and soul-forfeiting at worst. But as long as you, as a private individual, are not being required by the state to participate in another faith (or to renounce your own), you have to accept that the religious liberty which permits you to practice your faith both permits nonbelievers to do and believe things your faith proscribes, and prevents the state from prohibiting those acts and beliefs solely on the basis of their conflict with your faith.

 

[Scally Cap]

What exactly is the purpose of porn? And if there's more than one purpose, what are they?

Perhaps the same purpose as a Szechuan cookbook in a kitchen that turns out Hamburger Helper every night?

 

[knightlight72]

I believe that I specifically said "Porn may cause some people to lust."

Sorry, I thought the response was disagreeing about Jesus spoke against.

 

[knightlight72]

It's difficult to read through this thread without coming away with the impression that the Christians who have an issue with the ACLU want only their own religious liberty protected. Believing that the concept of religious liberty is just and desirable requires the understanding that said liberty extends to all people regardless of their individual beliefs (or lack thereof). It may extend its protections to beliefs and practices you believe to be in error at best and soul-forfeiting at worst. But as long as you, as a private individual, are not being required by the state to participate in another faith (or to renounce your own), you have to accept that the religious liberty which permits you to practice your faith both permits nonbelievers to do and believe things your faith proscribes, and prevents the state from prohibiting those acts and beliefs solely on the basis of their conflict with your faith.

I think that is a very unfair statement. The original post was why christians have an issue against the ACLU.

If the question was why the political conservatives have an issue against the ACLU, then the responses would have seemed that the conservatives wanted on;ly their liberty protected.

The original question was why christians might have issue with the ACLU. Ultimately, the answer is that it's because the groups have differing views. That doesn't mean christians don't want other people to have the right to eat, speak, or think as they please.

 

[Scally Cap]

I think that is a very unfair statement. The original post was why christians have an issue against the ACLU.

I guess I have an issue with folks who squabble with an organization that exists to protect their civil liberties--just because that organization has the temerity to also protect the civil liberties of groups said folks disagree with.

 

[knightlight72]

You're certainly allowed to disagree with any person or group. I assume that's the same right that gives christians the right to disagree with any person or group.

Ironic, no?

 

[Archivist]

You're certainly allowed to disagree with any person or group. I assume that's the same right that gives christians the right to disagree with any person or group.

And the ACLU would probably be the first organization to step forward to defend that right were it to be challenged.

 

[Aimee30]

Your mad at the ACLU because they want scientists to deside what should be taught in science class rooms rather than school boards with religious motivations?

No, I just find it really annoying that they have decided that other ways besides evolution are false. Or at least it looks like it.
I think they should stick to stuff based on violating rights rather than learning about different beliefs and being given the ability to choose what to believe.
I'm not mad at them just doubt their motivation, but like I said they aren't all bad.

 

[Aimee30]

Limit them to what? They 'push' the rights guaranteed by the constitution. Would you rather they not do that where religious rights are concerned? Forget the establishment clause? What 'limits' do you want on what they 'push'?

I wish they would limit what they push as I just responded to the other poster. How does learning about different beliefs violate anyone's rights?
I prefer they stick to what matters like dehumanizing conditions and not dwell so much on what looks like small fry arguments that don't matter much to most people.

 

[Archivist]

No, I just find it really annoying that they have decided that other ways besides evolution are false. Or at least it looks like it.
I think they should stick to stuff based on violating rights rather than learning about different beliefs and being given the ability to choose what to believe.
I'm not mad at them just doubt their motivation, but like I said they aren't all bad.

I don't want to turn this into a Darwinism vs. ID thread, but I don't think that you can say that the ACLU has "decided that other ways besides evolution are false." I live near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, where the case involving the Dover School District is currently taking place and I have been reading about the trial daily in the Harrisburg Patriot. A number of the witnesses called by the ACLU attorney have testified that they wouldn't object if ID were taught in a philosophy class. The objection is that it is not an accepted scientific theory so it does not belong in science class.

 

[Electric Sceptic]

No, I just find it really annoying that they have decided that other ways besides evolution are false. Or at least it looks like it.

They haven't decided anything of the kind - nor are they equipped to. They're not fighting for that view, either. They are fighting (as far as the evolution/creationism debate is concerned) to keep religious instruction out of science classes. And it's the scientific community (and the Supreme Court) who has determined that creationism is religion, not science.

I think they should stick to stuff based on violating rights rather than learning about different beliefs and being given the ability to choose what to believe.

They ARE sticking to stuff based on violating rights. It's a violation of the constitution to push a religious belief in a government-sponsored school. It's not a question of learning about different beliefs - the ACLU would no doubt be the first to fight for someone's right to learn - and teach - different beliefs. It's a question of learning about PARTICULAR beliefs in a PARTICULAR environment. The ACLU is fighting to keep religious instruction (ie., of a particular religion) out of science classes.

I'm not mad at them just doubt their motivation, but like I said they aren't all bad.

Their motivation is to defend the constitution, and everyone's constitutional rights. What's to doubt about that?

I wish they would limit what they push as I just responded to the other poster. How does learning about different beliefs violate anyone's rights?

It doesn't. Learning religious beliefs in a science class does.

I prefer they stick to what matters like dehumanizing conditions and not dwell so much on what looks like small fry arguments that don't matter much to most people.

It doesn't matter much to most people because most people are (a) painfully ignorant of science and (b) christian. But what if the issue was about (for example) pushing flat-earthism as science, or pushing holocaust denial as history? Would you still think that was a 'small fry argument', or something worthwhile fighting against?

 

[Aimee30]

I said, "or at least it looks like it." I just want them to focus on issues that effect major issues more.