Liberals against Christianity???

[Ralph 123]

Re: Liberals against Christianity???

You've got it completely backwards Winner. The ACLU did however support the University of North Carolina’s adoption of "Approaching the Qur’an" as required reading... interesting isn't it?<br /><br />

Over the years, the <br />American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) (and other related groups) have opposed the display of religious monuments and symbols on state-owned or state-maintained property. Some recent examples of these objects of contention include an 8-foot iron cross in California's Mojave National Preserve, a monument to the Ten Commandments in Alabama's state judicial building, an illuminated cross in a southern California city park, and a steel-beam cross proposed for inclusion in a World Trade Center memorial.

The ACLU, along with the Americans United for Separation of Church and State and the Southern Poverty Law Center, filed suit on behalf of three Alabama lawyers who argued the monument offends them and causes them to feel like "outsiders."

http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/cemetery.asp <br /><br /> http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article1040.html <br /><br /> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34303 <br /><br />

WINDER — Barrow County commissioners have agreed to pay $150,000 to the American Civil Liberties Union as part of a court agreement over a Ten Commandments display that has been removed from the courthouse.<br /><br />Commissioners voted Tuesday night to pay the money.<br /><br />Barrow County and the ACLU agreed to settle a federal lawsuit last month and remove the Ten Commandments display hanging in a breezeway of the courthouse. As a part of the settlement, U.S. District Judge William O'Kelley ordered Barrow County to pay "John Doe" — an anonymous Barrow County resident who sued the county — $1 in damages. The $150,000 is for legal fees.<br /><br />Commissioner Bill Brown hung the display in the courthouse in 2002, though it was a year before the ACLU filed the lawsuit.<br /><br />The county has spent more than $264,000 defending the lawsuit, not including the $150,000 the government must pay to settle the lawsuit. The county has recovered more than $212,000 from private donations.<br />

 

[Ralph 123]

Re: Liberals against Christianity???

Jason,<br /><br />Did you have the same problem when Christians led the civil rights efforts in the 60s? After all, that all came right from the pulpit and lead by clergy.<br /><br />Did you have the same problem when Christians led the abolitionist movement? After all, the anti-slavery movement was lead by Christian churches who saw the institution as an affront to God.<br /><br />Were you afraid of a theocracy or even offended when Bill Clinton held events and fund raisers in mostly black churches or when Al Gore did the same in Buddhist temples?<br /><br />I don't think you fully appreciate the role Christianity has played in the founding of the nation, it's laws, its institutions or its leaders. Trying to escape something so intertwined in the nations history is difficult to do. Better to learn how to be tolerant of it and appreciated its role even if you disagree with its beliefs. That's what I do. Yup, I am not very religious! That's right. I maybe attend church once a year and usually that's for a specific reason (like a memorial mass, wedding, etc,). I do however understand how important religion has been and is to this nation and like George Washington, think anybody who tries to subvert it can't claim to be a Patriot.

 

[Ralph 123]

Re: Liberals against Christianity???

People are smart enough, or should be, to decide for themselves how they do or don't believe, and don't need the government's help.

So then, why do these modest symbols, like the 10 commandments or a cross in a town's seal scare you so much? After all, that's all we are talking about. That's the things being attacked by the ACLU. Are you afraid you'll become a Christian or Jew if you see the Ten Commandments in a Courthouse?<br /><br />What I sincerely don't understand is why people who pride themselves on being tolerant are so intolerant of anything they personally disagree with. It seems their tolerance is limited to those who agree with their positions.<br /><br />The problem is, this crusade to purge society of religion is causing a major backlash - the more the majority gets attacked the greater the likelihood they will fight back tooth and nail and we'll wind up with more of it rather than less.

 

[Ralph 123]

Re: Liberals against Christianity???

And, If you don't think the ACLU is out of control, consider this:<br /><br />

As you know may know, the American Civil Liberties Union is demanding the release of all Abu Ghraib photographs and videotapes and any other damning evidence of prisoner abuse by the American military. The ACLU filed suit last year and the case is now coming to a head in New York City. <br /><br />General Richard Myers, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified in front of the judge that any further public exposition of prisoner abuse could endanger the lives of U.S. and allied troops. He is livid about the ACLU's action. <br /><br />Of course, Myers is right, and the Newsweek Quran fiasco proved it. Looney Muslims rampaged in a number of countries after that magazine falsely reported the holy book had been abused at Guantanamo Bay. At least 15 people were killed, hundreds injured. <br /><br />Myers, himself, has seen the abuse images that have not been made public and says, "The release (of them) would aid the recruitment efforts and other activities of insurgent elements, weaken the new democratic governments of Iraq and Afghanistan ... and increase the likelihood of violence against the United States interests, personnel, and citizens worldwide." <br /><br />But the ACLU does not care what Myers thinks - it wants to embarrass the Bush administration, and if people die because of that, tough. <br /><br />This despicable attitude is being enabled by some interesting ACLU allies. In a "friend-of-the-court" brief, CBS, NBC, The New York Times and a few other media outfits urged the judge to reject Myers' argument and dump 87 Abu Ghraib photos and four videos into the public square. <br /><br />As an American journalist, I am simply ashamed that some of my colleagues have sided with the ACLU and would risk further endangering Americans fighting this brutal war on terror. An action of this type would have been unthinkable during World War II. But, today, the media operates outside patriotic constraints or even public safety considerations. <br /><br />What is the point of more Abu Ghraib pictures? We all know what happened there, how dismal and inexcusable it was. If the pictures advanced the story I could understand it, but this is just more of the same according to General Myers and his staff. And in a time of war, you give the benefit of any doubt to the top military commander, don't you? <br /><br />

http://www.billoreilly.com/currentarticle

 

[POINTER94]

Re: Liberals against Christianity???

What is it with the public display of the cross or a christmas tree, or buddah, or the star of david? This issue is consistant with the old, it depends on what your definition of is is. I am not offended by symbols of any religion. <br /><br />Does anyone think that if the general public had a working understanding of Islam they would be as "misunderstood" and prone to being "labeled" by self proclaimed experts?<br /><br />I have to say that I think it is in the best interest of everyone to understand the workings of most religions and the ongoing effort to eradicate all signs or symbols of religion from the landscape denies everyone insight into other points of view. As a catholic, I am baffled by some of the church's practices, but it is really an easy religion to understand. Do unto others as you would have them do to you. In addition, religions of all types have formed the constructs and history of this country. To deny this is just intellectually dishonest. To remove a one hundred year old cross is equivalent to removing a historical monument. But we are more concerned with offending the close minded than embracing what is our heritage.<br /><br />Much of the problem is that there is a hatred of christianity. A good example is the inconsistancy that was put forth when I had the privledge of paying for some hack to take a cross, the most sacred icon of my religion, and submerge it in urine, placed in a museum I pay for, and this is called art. Those who are running around ripping down the ten commandments were silent on this issue. Where was the ACLU? <br /><br />What has happened is we have made government too big. We don't have the right to not be offended. But the government feels the need to involve themselves in every aspect of our lives. This isn't what the plan was all about. Lesser government is what this country was founded upon. Majority rules is used conveniently. <br /><br />We have become a country of the offended. And we are so mentally weak all we can do is ask the government to stop others from offending us. No prayers at graduation, or in the pledge of allegience, or in legal procedings. What do we get, a country comfortable lying in court. This country benefits in countless ways by churches and temples, but because the scorecard is subjective they are dismissed. This country needs religion or the government becomes our religion. And that is a disaster.

 

[Boomyal]

Re: Liberals against Christianity???

Originally posted by CJY:<br />You believe libs are unchurched ..... [/QB]

It's not what I believe CJY. It is what survey after survey is showing.

 

[Boomyal]

Re: Liberals against Christianity???

Originally posted by PW2:<br /> Boom, I guess I am blind.<br /><br />I have no idea how socialism (an economic and political philosophy) have anything whatever to do with religion.<br /><br />

You're not blind PW. You hit the nail on the head. Socialism has nothing to do with Christianity, nor could it have. Christianity is the antithesis of socialism, which of course, cannot be sustained in it's latter phases, without coersion.<br /><br />And anywhere socialism/communism has existed for any lenght of time, it has not been accomplished without the strong arm of dictatorial authority.<br /><br />With the way the current American Liberal power structure has to lie, camouflage and prevaricate, in an attempt to regain power, one must deduce that is their endgame.

 

[rolmops]

Re: Liberals against Christianity???

Boom,What do you call the Western European social democratic governments that often are lead by Christian parties? I must presume that you think of these as dictatorial regimes, Under the leadership of Christian parties no less..

 

[Boomyal]

Re: Liberals against Christianity???

Originally posted by rolmops:<br /> Boom,What do you call the Western European social democratic governments that often are lead by Christian parties? I must presume that you think of these as dictatorial regimes, Under the leadership of Christian parties no less..

rolmops, notice I said 'later' stages. I should have said 'more complete' stages. I am well aware of the European 'social democracies'. They are but at a point along a continuum toward total socialism. I might also add that Western European Social Democracies are made up of people who are considerably more secular than Americans.<br /><br />Be that as it may, the European state has been colored by events and circumstances that have not affected Americans. I doubt that their Social parties had to lie, camouflage and prevaricate to obtain power like their American counterparts.<br /><br />I might also add that the Western European Social Democracies are so weak in character that they have acquiesced to the EU.

 

[CJY]

Re: Liberals against Christianity???

Boom,<br /><br />

It's not what I believe CJY. It is what survey after survey is showing

Survey after survey? Not only have I not seen one of them, they mean nothing. Who did the survey? Where was it taken? Did you learn of it at Sunday mass? How was the sample of people taken? Any survey can be done, but the difficult thing is to take one with no bias. Your survey would turn out much differently if you took it on a college campus as opposed to a white collar neighborhood, a poor district as opposed to rich, a white as opposed to black. We both know that if we want to get results from a survey to defend our positions, we can. They are worthless.<br />However, if you still choose to believe all surveys, then I can post some to put into your system of beliefs. Or do you only believe the ones that you support?

 

[QC]

Re: Liberals against Christianity???

Originally posted by JasonJ:<br /> Now, MORALITY, which has nothing to do with religion,

I am surprised Boomer missed this quote. It is at the root of this issue completely. I used to subscribe to the belief that morality was just the obviously right thing to do, but I now know that there is no defintion of right and wrong without religion. I have intentionally not said Chritianity or Judaism or Islam etc. I said religion, and mean it generally. Without some religious influence there is no morality.<br /><br />I also know that saying this will label me as a religious zealot. The fact is that when I first heard what I wrote above, I denied it like it was irrational and ridiculous. Now I know differently. Not because I have converted or been saved or anything religious at all. It is because it is entirely rational and irrefutable.<br /><br />Please, those that dissagree, give me one example where a moral concept had it's roots in anything other than religion. You can't do it. Unless you believe that some man or some natural phenomenon defines morality, then again I submit the root of all morality is religion.<br /><br />Ponder the opposite . . . some guy who is just as incapable of perfection as the rest of us defined morality? Please identify him and why I should believe that his version is correct? If some individual's version is what we should be following what stops some other guy from showing up and claiming that his version is correct and then we should all follow that? I know that Moses, Mohammed and Jesus are considered by some as just "some guy", but remember they were helping to define existing religious principles.<br /><br />I am dead serious. Right and wrong come from a higher source or it is just what we think that day, minute, etc. Many of you will answer that right and wrong are just obvious. Well I submit that they are obvious to you because you were raised in a country (US, UK, OZ etc.) that has its culture based on religious principles, so they of course seem logical. Even cavemen had higher authorities that they believed in. Without a higher authority, murder, rape, incest, whatever, are all just examples of behavior. Nothing better, nothing worse than charity, compassion, marriage, hard work. All people (evil or decent), all things and all ideas equal.

 

[rolmops]

Re: Liberals against Christianity???

Boom,after your last answer,I can comprehend more what you mean by socialism.Please correct me if I am wrong.You mean socialism as a stepping stone towards communism as described in "Das Kapital" by Karl Marx.<br />In that case to accuse liberals and democrats of trying to promote that ideology is ridiculous at best and insulting at worst.<br />The only party in the USA that supports this idea is the American Socialist Party where you will find disciples of Herbert Marcuse like Angela Davis and other very intelligent crackpots.<br />Please stop wasting precious time saving America from a theory that has been debunked in the eighties and which, apart from North Korea, has gone into the dumpster of history.

 

[QC]

Re: Liberals against Christianity???

Originally posted by rolmops:<br /> Please stop wasting precious time saving America from a theory that has been debunked in the eighties and which, apart from North Korea, has gone into the dumpster of history.

Are you suggesting that these ideas cannot return? I think that is, frankly, just naive and you seem like a smarter guy than that . . .

 

[Boomyal]

Re: Liberals against Christianity???

Well done Quietcat. I may have missed Jasons statement but I have addressed this issue many times, apparently to unhearing ears.<br /><br />The Progessives ie PW and rolmops, et al, believe that a moral society can be accomplished and maintained, soley by the Progressive, 'critical thinking' of the mind of man. It is sheer nonsense. Now I don't accuse the PW's and rolmops of any ill intent but it has fairly well been established that 'morality' left to the mind of man will eventually morph into whatever those in power/control want it to be.<br /><br />Whether the afformentioned parties want to believe it or not, the moral compass of this country has been formed by Christianity and it became the MO de rigueur that has been the basis of how our country conducted it's affairs, both legally and socially, both for the Believers, agnostics and athiests.<br /><br />Now, with the current movement to rid this society of any and all ties to Christianity, the stage is being set to put 'the mind of man' back in the drivers seat. And I hope you all know where that can lead. Admit it or not.

 

[jtexas]

Re: Liberals against Christianity???

Originally posted by JasonJ:<br /> See, for me, if I am wrong and there is in fact God, I'll be just fine. For those who believe and there is no God, they are screwed.

If you are right, I will have wasted a lifetime. If you are wrong, you will have wasted eternity.

 

[Ralph 123]

Re: Liberals against Christianity???

Boom,What do you call the Western European social democratic governments that often are lead by Christian parties?

They may call themselves Christian parties but the data shows Europe is now very secular (except their large Muslim populations)- the church going rates are FAR below the US. That's why the new Pope chose his name and mission - to return Europe to it's Christian roots.

 

[Ralph 123]

Re: Liberals against Christianity???

QC wrote:<br /><br />

I used to subscribe to the belief that morality was just the obviously right thing to do, but I now know that there is no defintion of right and wrong without religion

George Washington agreed with you QC: <br /><br />

<br />And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. <br /><br />Washington's Farewell Address 1796<br /><br />

 

[Boomyal]

Re: Liberals against Christianity???

Ralph, that is why the Left has already demonized George Washington as a hypocrital, slave owning, greedy white European male chauvinist. In addition they would tell you that those statements were made a long time ago and are no longer relevent to the modern progressive mind. We've evolved beyond all that as a society. We are smarter than needing a crutch as they did in those dark ages.<br /><br />They also attempt to discredit the man in order to render his wisdom null and void. IMHO, if the left could erase all images and references to the likes of George Washington, as Stalin did with ideological adversaries, in many a documented photograph, they would jump at the opportunity. <br /><br />The dots are there and they are all neatly lined up. It doesn't take a genius to connect the dots. Maybe it just takes someone whose progressive 'critical thinking skills' don't blind them.

 

[QC]

Re: Liberals against Christianity???

Originally posted by Ralph:<br /> George Washington agreed with you QC:

Well, I think it would be more appropriate to say that I agreed with HIM, but hey, I'll take it!!!

 

[ErikDC]

Re: Liberals against Christianity???

This is for the folks here that scoff at religion. I used to be a real piece of garbage. I was a liar and generally a scumbag. I lied and stole from my own family and friends. I lost many friends over that but my family has stuck with me. I've served time in jail for what I did. I cannot tell you all how much I regret what I did. Nowadays, I work hard and I give as much as I can to charity. Bottom line, it pisses me off to no end that Liberal weenies just choose to give hand outs for anyone that want it. I learned my lesson the hard way, why shouldn't they?