It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Anti-Christian conspiracy

page: 69
16
<< 66  67  68    70  71  72 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 23 2005 @ 10:04 AM
link   
It sounds like there's a proposal that the ACLU is another example of an Anti-Christian conspiracy, so I think this is on par with the topic. I don't know much about the ACLU other than the buzz I catch here.


Originally posted by Al Davison
BTW - if anybody ever legitimately attempts to suppress your lawful expression of your religious beliefs, the ACLU will be your best friends.


Glad to have some members of the organization online here and hope to take advantage of the opportunity to learn more. Question if I may Al, how does the ACLU protect my lawful expression of my religious belief? Also, what does the ACLU define as my lawful expression?




posted on Dec, 23 2005 @ 10:12 AM
link   
I really hate to spoil the hard work the ACLU has done over the years, as I am not talking specifically about them, but let me remind you that freedom of religious expression (so far as I know) is a right under the Constitution of the United States of America. The amendment clearly states;

Congress shall make no law regaurding an establishment of religion, nor "prohibit" the free exercise thereof.

When the ACLU takes a case to stop a Christmas display on public land (owned by all of us) what is it they are trying to do? Are they trying to stop the government from enforcing a law stating the Christianity is the state religion, or are they attempting to "prohibit" the free expression of Christians in a public forum? Which is it. And isn't it funny how you "must" threaten me by "reporting" etc. as if that is to make me stop "expressing" my viewpoint on this subject. This is intolerance is it not. Also, by the way, I also work in the law field and I know how to speak. If I give witness tesimony to the facts as I best know them, and say so, this is not falsehood. If I say you are an intolerant evil Chrsitian hater, that would be a falsehood as I do not know you, nor are there any facts to back up my statements. I have told you twice so far that what I know comes from news reports on conflicts between the ACLU (representing clients) and Christians et.al. I watch the news. I got eyes. Oh, by the way, I will never "report" "threaten", get others to "threaten" etc you at any time as I have nothing to fear from your rightful free expression. You should think before you write because last I heard we were discussing intolerance, right?

Sincerely,
Fromabove



posted on Dec, 23 2005 @ 10:17 AM
link   
OK, let me clear something up here:

I am NOT a lawyer! I don't know how that idea got started but let's nip that in the bud right this minute!

Secondly, the ACLU doesn't have it's own set of laws so, it works by acting as legal counsel to petition the courts for any redress of any violations of the laws pertinent to local, state, and federal jurisdiction - depending upon the nature of the grievance.

Any person may have any opinion they choose about the work of the ACLU but, I am simply pointing out that some of the statements made by "FromAbove" are not couched as opinions - that poster seems to be attempting to present as "fact" statements that are: A) False; B) Knowingly posted as false statements (rather than as opinions); in blatant violation of ATS participation rules and, seemingly in violation of one of those very Ten Commandments for which this member seems to be so very concerned with protecting.

In fact, maybe I will change my opinon on the posting of the Ten Commandments, I've always thought it was just silly to keep posting a list of only 10 things since it seems to me that most anybody can remember 10 things - especially if they are so "near and dear" to them. But, perhaps these posts from this person are a good example that I may be wrong. Maybe some people do need constant reminders.



posted on Dec, 23 2005 @ 10:27 AM
link   
Al, forgive me for saying you were a lawyer. I apoligize. However what is it that I have said that is false? I need to know.

1. Does the ACLU represent cases made by individuals or groups against the display of Christian themes and activities ?

2. Does the ACLU fight on behalf of those who dislike the display or activity of Christians in the public square?

3. Is the term "intolerance" the unreasinable rejection and resistance to, another's belief or free expression?


Please state to me to the point where I have stated a "falsehood". This is your chance to correct me and perhaps embarrass me as well.

Fromabove



posted on Dec, 23 2005 @ 10:45 AM
link   
Statement by Al Davidson:

The ACLU battles to which you are attempting to refer have to do ONLY with attempts by Christian groups to unlawfully act in such as a way as to demonstrate a government sanctioned/sponsored preference for a Judeo-Christian belief system. There has never been any ACLU action that would suppress any private individual's free and lawful expression of their religious beliefs
________________________________________________________

This is what I was referring to when I said that the ACLU represented cases to prevent Christian activity. The ACLU types to which I refer to are people who on their own seek to prevent Christian activity in the public square etc.

Al aknowledges that I am attempting to refer to "battles" made by the ACLU. So my statement was not false, and there is a record of the battles because Al knows there were battles between the ACLU and Christians. The references I make come from news reports of the same. Al further states correctly that the ACLU has no problemd with "private" expression of religious activity. So then what is "private" to mean as defined by the ACLU? Al... ?

Fromabove



posted on Dec, 23 2005 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by spamandham
Literal Biblical inerrancy is idolatry.


Explain please.


It's the deification of a book. It's no different than deifying any other man made object.



posted on Dec, 23 2005 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham
It's the deification of a book. It's no different than deifying any other man made object.


I've never heard of anyone worshiping the Bible. In fact, the Bible itself tells us to worship God. How can an idol tell us to worship something else?



posted on Dec, 23 2005 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Fromabove
Yes Spamandham, a lot of Christians believe in evolution, but they aren't denying there is a God.


If there is a large class of people who both believe in god and accept evolution, then how is it that the acceptance of evolution if somehow driven by the desire to reject god? Evolution does not contradict the existence of deities.


Originally posted by Fromabove
Intolerant people are the ACLU types who just can't stand the word God, and scientists who have used evolution as the end all to rid the masses of God and set them free.


The ACLU has many Christians among its membership. The purpose of the ACLU is to defend civil liberties. It really is a violation of civil liberties to use the coercive arm of the state to promote a particular religion, or even religion in general.

Keeping religion out of government does not infringe on your rights to practice your religion in any way. Failure to coerce others is not coercion.



posted on Dec, 23 2005 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Fromabove
When the ACLU takes a case to stop a Christmas display on public land (owned by all of us) what is it they are trying to do? Are they trying to stop the government from enforcing a law stating the Christianity is the state religion, or are they attempting to "prohibit" the free expression of Christians in a public forum?


When your rights to free expression infringe on mine, it is no longer a right. To use public funds, land, codes, etc. to express your religion is to suppress my right not to have to participate in your religious activity.

I suspect Satanists will be thrilled to discover we all have the right to use public land for our religious expressions. Are you really prepared to have an upside down cross planted next to that 10 commandments display, or is it your position that the 1st Amendment applies only to the predominant religion?



posted on Dec, 23 2005 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by spamandham
It's the deification of a book. It's no different than deifying any other man made object.


I've never heard of anyone worshiping the Bible. In fact, the Bible itself tells us to worship God. How can an idol tell us to worship something else?


To say it is of divine origin is in fact worship. Worse yet, you diminish the role of Christ when you say the Bible is the word of god, because Christ is supposedly the living word of god according to Christian doctrine.



posted on Dec, 23 2005 @ 11:42 AM
link   
FromAbove:

Nice try but I'm not as big a sucker as you may think...

You have already seen which of your posts that I accuse of being blatant falsehoods and gross exaggerations. I'm not going to start dissecting every new list you wish to make - especially now that you've been busted.

Stick to factual statements and I'll vigorously defend your right to express your opinions. If you return to throwing out "right-wing talk radio" stuff as though it were fact, I expect you won't be around here much longer anyway. The mods here are pretty good at rounding up the folks like that.

Now, I am interested in your opinions if you'd like to start fresh and try again.



posted on Dec, 23 2005 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham
If there is a large class of people who both believe in god and accept evolution, then how is it that the acceptance of evolution if somehow driven by the desire to reject god? Evolution does not contradict the existence of deities.


That's a good question, and I think the answer is pride. "Haha! I'm smart enought to explain away everything, I don't need God, I am a god". There's a story in Genesis that fits that thinking well.



posted on Dec, 23 2005 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham
When your rights to free expression infringe on mine, it is no longer a right. To use public funds, land, codes, etc. to express your religion is to suppress my right not to have to participate in your religious activity.


HOw does it infringe on your rights? How does it supress your right to not have to participate?


Originally posted by spamandham
I suspect Satanists will be thrilled to discover we all have the right to use public land for our religious expressions.


I don't see anything that says otherwise, unless it violates one of the country's laws.


Originally posted by spamandham
Are you really prepared to have an upside down cross planted next to that 10 commandments display, or is it your position that the 1st Amendment applies only to the predominant religion?


*shrugs* Ain't no thang.



posted on Dec, 23 2005 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham
To say it is of divine origin is in fact worship.


Why? Did God make an idol by carving out the 10 commandments?


Originally posted by spamandham
Worse yet, you diminish the role of Christ when you say the Bible is the word of god, because Christ is supposedly the living word of god according to Christian doctrine.


Christ is indeed the living word. Which is why the printed word is not prayed to, worshiped, etc. It still have practical application and tells us a lot about our living word and God. The Teacher still wants us to do our homework, not just sit in class staring at the walls expecting to be given everything.



posted on Dec, 23 2005 @ 02:46 PM
link   
I find it truly amazing the amount of misinformation on the ACLU out there. It goes back to the "mantra" thing.

Saint, you asked how would the ACLU protect your rights? If someone drove down the street and was offended by your manger scene in your yard, and wanted it taken down by the subdivision "committee" and the "committee" agreed with them only because they didn't like GOD the ACLU would be right behind you. You have the right to that manger scene. By the way, there was a case quite like this recently.

It amazes me that so many knock the ACLU and apparently don't know a hill of beans about it except for what the "talkers" say.

The ACLU is there to protect individual rights proclaimed by the Constitution. EVERYONE SHOULD be a member.



posted on Dec, 23 2005 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by spamandham
If there is a large class of people who both believe in god and accept evolution, then how is it that the acceptance of evolution if somehow driven by the desire to reject god? Evolution does not contradict the existence of deities.


That's a good question, and I think the answer is pride. "Haha! I'm smart enought to explain away everything, I don't need God, I am a god". There's a story in Genesis that fits that thinking well.


You don't need evolution to reject the Christian god, nor does acceptance of evolution imply disbelief in god. The two are intertwined only in the minds of Biblical literalists.



posted on Dec, 23 2005 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
HOw does it infringe on your rights? How does it supress your right to not have to participate?


Because my tax dollars are supporting the land on which such monuments reside, and such monuments imply a religious affiliation of the state. Read my current signature to understand why this is a problem.



posted on Dec, 23 2005 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
Why? Did God make an idol by carving out the 10 commandments?


Apparently so. People are trying to erect that idol in public squares across the nation.


Originally posted by saint4God
Christ is indeed the living word. Which is why the printed word is not prayed to, worshiped, etc.


Those who call the Bible the inerrant word of god have replaced Jesus with the Bible.


Originally posted by saint4God
The Teacher still wants us to do our homework, not just sit in class staring at the walls expecting to be given everything.


It's one thing to discuss value in the teachings of the Bible, it's something quite different to claim the Bible is inerrant.



posted on Dec, 23 2005 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by madmanacrosswater
Saint, you asked how would the ACLU protect your rights? If someone drove down the street and was offended by your manger scene in your yard, and wanted it taken down by the subdivision "committee" and the "committee" agreed with them only because they didn't like GOD the ACLU would be right behind you. You have the right to that manger scene. By the way, there was a case quite like this recently.


Hm, this is a good idea. I'd like to put a manger scene in my yard.



posted on Dec, 23 2005 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham
You don't need evolution to reject the Christian god, nor does acceptance of evolution imply disbelief in god. The two are intertwined only in the minds of Biblical literalists.


But but, those who say evolution disproves God, are they Biblical literalists too?



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 66  67  68    70  71  72 >>

log in

join