What's new
By:
Filters

The ACLU is going after Christmas as usual! (1 Viewer)

rocketman

rocketman

Nitro Member
Well it's Christmas and the rotten bastards at the ACLU are at it again. This anti-christ organization is after children's plays now.

There sheme is to go around to schools and bully them by threatening a lawsuit unless they stop the play. The school who has little money to fight them drops the play in fear...

In Case #3-06-0924, Doe v. Wilson County School System, the ACLU has sued the Wilson County School District, Lakeview Elementary School, the school principal, and two teachers for what they have deemed ''illegal acts.''

The ACLU claims that the plaintiffs ''have been harmed ... injured ... and suffered irreparable damage'' through the ''Christmas program with Christian themes and songs.'' The ACLU is asking that those actions be declared ''unconstitutional and illegal.''

I'm going to call the ACLU office on Christmas to see if they are taking the day off. I feel sorry for these social progressives as they must not have any joy in their lives. Boy, for their sake they better be right that there is no God.
 
Last edited:
Uh Martin...it was a Christmas Play that these anti-christs are going after. This is nothing new Martin.

Also, the new leader of the ACLU is a hard core activist. A lot of the activist types of this movement really hate christians and religion in general. They want no one group in society standing in way of there lifestyle, although they are basicly free to do what ever they want now. So it's personal with this guy and he's working along side George Soras, Peter Lewis, etc with the same goal and that's remove religion from all aspects of public life. That's why Elton John came out and said that he wants religion banned.
 
The company I work for now calls our Christmas Party the "End of Year Celebration" and we are specifically instructed not to refer to it as a Christmas Party.
 
Registered member said:
Uh Martin...it was a Christmas Play that these anti-christs are going after. This is nothing new Martin.

Also, the new leader of the ACLU is a hard core activist. A lot of the activist types of this movement really hate christians and religion in general. They want no one group in society standing in way of there lifestyle, although they are basicly free to do what ever they want now. So it's personal with this guy and he's working along side George Soras, Peter Lewis, etc with the same goal and that's remove religion from all aspects of public life. That's why Elton John came out and said that he wants religion banned.
Click to expand...


So I see you are AGAINST the separation of Church and State part of the Constitution...hmmm. I guess you guys are more in the know of how to run the place than the foundation of our government.. :rolleyes:

I don't understand why folks from your side of the fence constantly use scare tactics to prop up your arguements. The founding fathers- very religious men in their own day- knew that to create a TRULY free country, the division of Church and State affairs was critical in maintaining a republic that was to be equal for everyone (well, except for blacks, women and indians...). Their premise was that, although built Under God, it should never become where Religion could run the joint, and make it difficult, if not impossible, for someone to force their method of a very PERSONAL opinion upon the masses as LAW. The links above give the story a pretty clear picture of this particular case (and I STILL don't see any mention of a Christmas play..).
 
Registered member said:
Sorry.. Bill of Rights.

Separation of church and state in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Actually the phrase "separation of Church and State" is not mentioned in the Bill Of Rights either. From the link you provided:

The phrase separation of church and state is a common interpretation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . ." The phrase was popularized by Thomas Jefferson in an 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists. The phrase itself does not appear in any founding American document, but it has been quoted in opinions by the United States Supreme Court. (The first such mention was in Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 in 1878.)
Click to expand...

I really don't mean to grind you down over this but I'm tired of seeing the "separation of Church and State" phrase mis-characterized and misused. I'm sure that if you had been aware of the facts you would never have presented it in the manner that you chose. What's actually upsetting to me is that the ACLU and other like-minded groups and individuals will go to every conceivable length to split hairs over the perceived intention of the above phrase from the 1st Amendment regardless of what the majority of the local community members preferences may be.

I'm more from the school of live and let live and wish more people would adhere to that motto.
 
Martin,

You need to understand that many conservatives deny the doctrine of separation of church and state, stating openly that it is not a part of our Constitution or Bill of Rights. Of course what they fail to mention is that for the first 150 years of our nations' history Christian conservatives took the exact opposite stance by denouncing the Constitution as "godless" and fighting pitched legal battles with the government over that very issue. It wasn't until the Twentieth Century that Christian conservatives changed tactics by embracing the Constitution and then denounced "liberals", "progressives", and "secularists" for supposedly imposing a false church/state separation doctrine on the Constitution.
 
Registered member said:
Actually the phrase "separation of Church and State" is not mentioned in the Bill Of Rights either.
Click to expand...

I would not disagree with you on this. However, I would maintain that it is still a false argument that doesn't hold water. For instance, many of the religious conservatives who make this argument are evangelical Christians who hold to orthodox Christian doctrines, including the doctrine of a Triune God. Can one likewise make the argument that this basic Christian belief is wrong because the word "trinity" does not appear in the Bible? I don't think so. And the reason why I don't think so is that when taken as a whole one can reasonably deduce from the Bible itself that it does indeed validate a Trinity doctrine. Likewise, one can study the Constitution and reasonably conclude separation of church and state is a part of that document even though the words themselves do not appear there.
 
I'm confused and need to understand the debate here.

Rich, are you saying that due to the percieved implication of the existence of separation of Church and State doctrines that Christ should be removed from Christmas as the ACLU insists?

More directly, do you want any mention of Christ's birth removed from the winter holiday we now celebrate as Christmas such as the ACLU?

Statements made by the founding fathers would conclude that it was their perception that this nation would fall if they lost their Christian beliefs as stated in Psalm 33: 12 Their Christian belief did not conclude that others would not also be allowed to believe and practice otherwise nor would they condone the imposition of one belief upon the nation as England had done.
 
Even though Christians adopted the holiday from the Romans and changed its' meaning, I am not saying that we need to do something similar by taking Christ out of Christmas. That would be historically dishonest. But what I am saying is that the way the state should recognize the holiday might be different from the way individuals or private companies may choose to celebrate Christmas. Since the First Amendment reads that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" - and not simply a particular religion - I think the state should remain neutral and let people be free to decide for themselves how the holiday should be celebrated.
 
The ACLU is not adopting a neutral stance however, their intent is to disallow Christians principals to be practiced openly. This is nothing like our founding fathers (or Heavenly Father) intended in my humble opinion. The ACLU can do what they want to me but I'll always have Christ in my Christmas practices and I fully expect my Buddhist associates to keep Buddha in theirs, and so forth throughout other beliefs.
There is no offense where none is taken!
 
It is simply not true that the intent of the ACLU is to "disallow Christians principals to be practiced openly". If that were the case then how would you explain those instances where the ACLU has gone to court over the right of an individual or congregation to practice their religion?
 
How The ACLU Didn't Steal Christmas

By Fran Quigley

When the angry phone calls and emails started arriving at the office, I knew the holiday season was upon us. A typical message shouted that we at the American Civil Liberties Union are "horrible" and "we should be ashamed of ourselves," and then concluded with an incongruous and agitated "Merry Christmas."

We get this type of correspondence a lot, mostly in reaction to a well-organized attempt by extremist groups to demonize the ACLU, crush religious diversity, and make a few bucks in the process. Sadly, this self-interested effort is being promoted in the guise of defending Christmas.

For example, the Alliance Defense Fund celebrates the season with an "It's OK to say Merry Christmas" campaign, implying that the ACLU has challenged such holiday greetings. (As part of the effort, you can get a pamphlet and two Christmas pins for $29.)

The website WorldNetDaily touts a book claiming "a thorough and virulent anti-Christmas campaign is being waged today by liberal activists and ACLU fanatics." The site's magazine has suggested there will be ACLU efforts to remove "In God We Trust" from U.S. currency, fire military chaplains, and expunge all references to God in America's founding documents. (Learn more for just $19.95 . . . )

Of course, there is no "Merry Christmas" lawsuit, nor is there any ACLU litigation about U.S. currency, military chaplains, etc. But the facts are not important to these groups, because their real message is this: By protecting the freedom of Muslims, Jews, and other non-Christians through preventing government entanglement with religion, the ACLU is somehow infringing on the rights of those with majority religious beliefs.

In truth, it is these website Christians who are taking the Christ out of the season. Nowhere in the Sermon on the Mount did Jesus Christ ask that we celebrate His birth with narrow-mindedness and intolerance, especially for those who are already marginalized and persecuted. Instead, the New Testament—like the Torah and the Koran and countless other sacred texts—commands us to love our neighbor, and to comfort the sick and the imprisoned.

That's what the ACLU does. We live in a country filled with people who are sick and disabled, people who are imprisoned, and people who hunger and thirst for justice. Those people come to our Indiana offices for help, at a rate of several hundred a week, usually because they have nowhere else to turn. The least of our brothers and sisters sure aren't getting any help from the Alliance Defense Fund or WorldNet Daily. So, as often as we can, ACLU secures justice for those folks who Jesus worried for the most.

As part of our justice mission, we work hard to protect the rights of free religious expression for all people, including Christians. For example, we recently defended the First Amendment rights of a Baptist minister to preach his message on public streets in southern Indiana. The ACLU intervened on behalf of a Christian valedictorian in a Michigan high school, which agreed to stop censoring religious yearbook entries, and supported the rights of Iowa students to distribute Christian literature at their school.

There are many more examples, because the ACLU is committed to preserving the constitutional guarantee of religious freedom for all. We agree with the U.S. Supreme Court's firm rulings that this freedom means that children who grow up in non-Christian homes should not be made to feel like outsiders in their own community's courthouse, legislature or public schoolhouse.

To our "Merry Christmas" correspondents and all other Hoosiers, we wish you happy holidays.

Fran Quigley is executive director of the ACLU of Indiana.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Ways To Support Nitromater

Similar threads

B
Whoever said racism was dead?
Replies
3
Views
2K
davey
D

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)

Back
Top