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.

 

ACLU stabs America in the back

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:
Cug

posted on Dec, 1 2005 @ 11:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211

So, I guess that means you've also got a problem with how they're doing the airport searches these days. You know, where they pull aside the, cute women, grannies and people in wheelchairs for searches, while letting the people that more closely fit the description of terrorists go by - all so they can't be accused of "profiling". This is such BS.


Bad guy kidnaps little Johnny, tells G-ma "Wrap this around your waist and use this ticket and fly to NYNY." G-ma scared for the life of little Johnny complies. TSA ignores G-ma focusing on young Arab man. Plane goes boom.




posted on Dec, 2 2005 @ 12:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211
So, I guess that means you've also got a problem with how they're doing the airport searches these days. You know, where they pull aside the, cute women, grannies and people in wheelchairs for searches, while letting the people that more closely fit the description of terrorists go by - all so they can't be accused of "profiling". This is such BS. If profiling was never used to try and identify suspects, then police would be forced to randomly question people every time there was a crime, even if they were given a description of the suspect.


So I guess you have no problem with US Marines in uniform being spat on in airports because they look Arabic. After all, we all got a pretty clear description of who attacked New York...And he wasnt a white Anglo-Saxon male...



posted on Dec, 2 2005 @ 07:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Not to mention the date. Why don't you check out what date the Orthodox church holds its Christmas celebration on.

And I don't remember being told that Santa Clause was travelling with the three wise men...How does he figure into things?

The two major Christian holidays, Christmas and Easter just happen to fall on the exact dates of pagan Europe's greatest festive celebrations, one of them being the midwinter feast. How did that happen?


Are you really interested in that history or is this another attempt to "prove" Christianity is pagan?



posted on Dec, 2 2005 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God

Are you really interested in that history or is this another attempt to "prove" Christianity is pagan?


I'm pointing out that a lot of "traditional" Christian holidays are rooted in paganism. Bible Christianity is not pagan.

Some doofus way back when (Constantine) decided to merge paganism with Christianity. The real Christians didn't buy it. And I'm not buying it either.



posted on Dec, 2 2005 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cug
At the trial his defense was he was on his property and the government had no right to ask for ID... He lost. For some reason I think his name was White but I'm very iffy on that.

I know that the police, if they pull you over while driving, can require an ID to be shown, maybe it was a similar situation, the reasoning there is that you've been stopped for a particular reason, a possible violation like speeding or not signaling, etc.

I can't imagine what it'd be for just being in a location tho.


Er, the Christmas stuff must be filtering into this thread by some error, I will leave them so that the authors can move their comments if they like but please don't anyone comment on the christmas stuff.



posted on Dec, 2 2005 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amethyst
I'm pointing out that a lot of "traditional" Christian holidays are rooted in paganism. Bible Christianity is not pagan.

Some doofus way back when (Constantine) decided to merge paganism with Christianity. The real Christians didn't buy it. And I'm not buying it either.


I agree we need to separate them out again if that's the proposition. I wouldn't say the birth of Christ is rooted in paganism in any way though, nor his crucifixion, nor thanking God for a bountiful harvest. If we can agree on these points, I think we're on the same page.



posted on Dec, 2 2005 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God

I agree we need to separate them out again if that's the proposition. I wouldn't say the birth of Christ is rooted in paganism in any way though, nor his crucifixion, nor thanking God for a bountiful harvest. If we can agree on these points, I think we're on the same page.


I think we are on the same page, really.

Jesus' birth is being celebrated on the birthday of Nimrod/Baal/Tammuz. I'm in no way denying the virgin birth. God never gives His people the command to observe Jesus' birth. The early Christians never did. As far as Easter goes--yet another pagan holiday. Jesus rose three days after Passover. He was crucified on a Wednesday and rose on a Saturday-right near even. Friday to Sunday is not three days, three nights. Notice that His tomb was found empty BEFORE sunrise on Sunday. Most people don't realize that there was a high holy day on the Thursday of that week (First Day of Unleavened Bread, which immediately follows Passover). The criminals' legs were broken to hasten their death because the following day was the high holy day--not the usual Saturday sabbath.

Did you know--Jesus wasn't nailed to a cross, but rather to a tree? Look at Reformation.org and it gives more detail. He and the two thieves were on the same tree. I think how it goes is, Jesus' hands were nailed to a board, and then from there He was hung on a tree. I would say in effect it would be a kind of cross. But Constantine came up with the three-separate-crosses idea.

Here's one artist's depiction:




posted on Dec, 2 2005 @ 10:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Not to mention the date. Why don't you check out what date the Orthodox church holds its Christmas celebration on.

And I don't remember being told that Santa Clause was travelling with the three wise men...How does he figure into things?

The two major Christian holidays, Christmas and Easter just happen to fall on the exact dates of pagan Europe's greatest festive celebrations, one of them being the midwinter feast. How did that happen?


Are you really interested in that history or is this another attempt to "prove" Christianity is pagan?


Are you really reading the posts, or just flying off the handle?

At no point do I say Christianity is pagan, I say it's two greatest holidays fall on pagan dates.

What do I say about Orthodox Christianity? Do you know the difference between Orthodox Christianity and Roman Catholicism/Protestantism? Who has temporal/spiritual jurisdiction over Bethlehem?

The "Christian" holidays of Christmas and Easter have been bastardised almost beyond recognition, most notably in the 20th century by American corporate interests.

FYI I am a professing Christian. However, I'll take Jesus at his (translated) word: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you", alternately "Love thy neighbour as thyself" and "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone". All of which I struggle daily to live up to.



posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
The two major Christian holidays, Christmas and Easter just happen to fall on the exact dates of pagan Europe's greatest festive celebrations, one of them being the midwinter feast. How did that happen?


To that I asked if you really wanted to know or if you were interested in bashing ("Are you really interested in that history or is this another attempt to "prove" Christianity is pagan?"). I don't know, that's why I'm asking.


Originally posted by saint4God
Are you really reading the posts, or just flying off the handle?


I'm reading them.


Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
At no point do I say Christianity is pagan, I say it's two greatest holidays fall on pagan dates.


I didn't say you did. I was just wondering if you really wanted to know how this happened.


Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
What do I say about Orthodox Christianity? Do you know the difference between Orthodox Christianity and Roman Catholicism/Protestantism?


I'd like to think I have a pretty good historical background, but am certainly interesting in learning more.


Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Who has temporal/spiritual jurisdiction over Bethlehem?


God.


Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
The "Christian" holidays of Christmas and Easter have been bastardised almost beyond recognition, most notably in the 20th century by American corporate interests.


Looks evident to me, yes.


Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
FYI I am a professing Christian. However, I'll take Jesus at his (translated) word: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you", alternately "Love thy neighbour as thyself" and "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone". All of which I struggle daily to live up to.


You and me both...though it's coming easier these days than in the past.


[edit on 5-12-2005 by saint4God]



posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 10:36 PM
link   
The Patriarch of Jerusalem has authority over Bethlehem, a Greek Orthodox Bishop, not a Roman Catholic Cardinal.

Why?

The Catholic Church tells us that it goes back in an unbroken line to Peter the Rock. Why does a different church look after the scene of the nativity?

(Jeez I hope my memory on this one is correct. Gonna look pretty stupid otherwise.)

If your historical background is pretty good then you'll know all about Constantine's meddling.

I know enough about Catholicism and its history to know that it isn't the unadulterated word of God and I know enough about the history of my church to know it exists solely so the king could get a divorce, that alone is probably enough historical background, and a heck of a lot more than many others have.



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 07:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
The Patriarch of Jerusalem has authority over Bethlehem, a Greek Orthodox Bishop, not a Roman Catholic Cardinal.


So God doesn't have jurisdiction then?


Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
I know enough about Catholicism and its history to know that it isn't the unadulterated word of God and I know enough about the history of my church to know it exists solely so the king could get a divorce, that alone is probably enough historical background, and a heck of a lot more than many others have.


"I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought. My brothers, some from Chloe's household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. What I mean is this: One of you says, "I follow Paul"; another, "I follow Apollos"; another, "I follow Cephas(Peter)"; still another, "I follow Christ."
Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul? I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, so no one can say that you were baptized into my name. (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don't remember if I baptized anyone else.) For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power." - 1 Corinthians 1:10



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 08:01 AM
link   
This is a really responsible position by the ACLU actually (in spite of what PRISON PLANET
has to say).


Contact:

Alessandra Soler Meetze at 305-576-2337 ext. 16.

ACLU Statement on Miami Shield Program

There is some confusion over the specifics of the "Miami Shield" Program. Reports differ as to whether the plan involves large squads of officers stopping everyone at a locale and then demanding people to produce identification. Although the Miami Police Department has claimed that "Miami Shield" will respect people’s right, much of its constitutionality will depend on how the program is implemented.

If police officers plan on stopping people and demanding identification without any reason to believe that there is criminal activity, that is unconstitutional.

When law enforcement stops people based on individualized suspicion of wrongdoing, that is always both more effective and consistent with constitutional principles.

Other post 9-11 law enforcement tactics such as randomly searching subway users in New York City or conducting mass pat-down searches of everyone entering the Raymond James Football Stadium in Tampa violate constitutional principles and are a waste of law enforcement resources.


It's a wait and see attitude. When they do something wrong, they'll sue. What's the problem?



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 08:06 AM
link   
Seems to me like they're backpedalling there.

Demanding someone's ID when they're not suspected of a crime or haven't done anything wrong is a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Period.

The ACLU is a pretty hypocritical bunch anyway. They're the first to scream FIRST AMENDMENT! but want to take away Christians' First Amendment rights.

They have their uses (which I can count on one hand and have fingers left over) but other than that, they're really a bunch of far-left, commie pinkos.



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Amethyst
...commie...


Hey now, no need for name calling. They haven't done anything to suggest they're commie. Or did I miss something?



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amethyst
Seems to me like they're backpedalling there.

Demanding someone's ID when they're not suspected of a crime or haven't done anything wrong is a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Period.


Sounds like you're quoting the ACLU. That's not THEM backpeddaling.


If police officers plan on stopping people and demanding identification without any reason to believe that there is criminal activity, that is unconstitutional.


They continue (with the suspected of a crime part you mention):


When law enforcement stops people based on individualized suspicion of wrongdoing, that is always both more effective and consistent with constitutional principles.


Again, what's the problem?

Is this really it?


The ACLU is a pretty hypocritical bunch anyway. They're the first to scream FIRST AMENDMENT! but want to take away Christians' First Amendment rights.


Ridiculous. Since they ONLY sue governmental agencies how can they POSSIBLY take away Christians' First Amendment rights? Is the government Christian now? That IS unconstitutional.


They have their uses (which I can count on one hand and have fingers left over) but other than that, they're really a bunch of far-left, commie pinkos.


You're usually much better about not buying the authoritarian line for their war on civil liberties. How did you fall for this one Amethyst?



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 09:12 PM
link   
Nice post, RANT.

I think there are two things happening here:

1) People have strong opinions about the ACLU and this precludes their judgement about the actual work that the ACLU does.

2) People are misunderstanding the Constitution and local laws.

I'm not going to touch #1 right now, but I'll talk a little bit about #2.

First of all, for all the people talking about driving violations, here's the deal: you need a valid driver's license to drive a car. I think that's all that needs to be said about that. You cannot be pulled over for absolutely no reason, but there are 2 easy ways to get around this - (1) reasonable suspicion (which can be invented - i.e., "from my angle, it appeared that the suspect had a marijuana pipe in his hand") and (2) little known DMV laws that you may have broken, such as (just as an example) the old standby "operating a motor vehicle without license plate lamps," those little lights that light up your license plates.

I had typed out a whole bunch of stuff about beat cops and off-duty cops and whatnot and what their responsibilities to the public are, but I think the whole thing can be expressed much more easily by stating this simple sentence --

It is only illegal (or a violation of your Consitutional rights) for local law enforcement officers to actually arrest you for not showing them your ID card.

They can ask for it, sure. They can even deny your entrance to the bank, if those are the wishes of the bank managers. They just can't arrest you if you don't produce an ID - at most they could ask you to leave the facility. Refusing this could potentially lead to a trespassing charge.

As for the post stating that most state laws require people to carry IDs after the age of 18, I must say that I also believed this to be true, until I looked into it a few weeks ago. I can't remember where I read it, but I distinctly remember reading that none of the 50 states in the union actually have laws requiring a person to have an ID card under normal circumstances, so that may have just been misinformation or an urban legend or something. Of course, what I read could have been wrong, also. I could look into it again if necessary.

Zip



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 09:15 PM
link   
Oh yeah, there's also this to think about: it is unlawful to lie to a federal employee (although many conditions must be met for successful prosecution of this code - this is what Martha Stewart got hemmed up for):

EDIT: To add, of course, these are local law enforcement agents, but they are within the "jurisdiction of the United States..." I dunno.



Title 18 of the U.S. Code Section 1001, which states that: “(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any judicial matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully (1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact; (2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or (3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or entry shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years or both.”[17]

Under this statute it is a crime to knowingly and willfully make any materially false statement concerning any matter within the jurisdiction of the United States. The falsehood must be material; but this requirement is met if the statement has the “natural tendency to influence or [is] capable of influencing the decision of the decision making body” which receives the false statement.[18] This statute has an extraordinarily wide scope. Unlike perjury, the false statement need not be given under oath. Any statement, whether made orally or in writing, can violate this law.


Zip

[edit on 12/6/2005 by Zipdot]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join