Rev. Erudite Redneck, B.S., B.S., M.A., M.Div.

Come on ER, you surely don't really believe that the ACLU is righteous and Focus on the Family is the devil!

The ACKU has been decidely anti Christian since their inception. Show me one case in which they defended Christianity anytime. Just one.

They are always against anything Christian or Jewish.

If the ACLU had their way Christianity would merely be a footnote in the history of the world.
 

How very odd. The purpose of the ACLU is to protect unpopular speech? Where are they on the university campuses that have put in place speech codes and where students rage against conservative speakers, even attacking them physically? Why aren't they in Salem, Mass trying to remove the witch from the city emblem? You expect us to believe the ACLU is made up of one guy who just can't be everywhere at once?
 

Oh please. I love it when anyone makes this organization out to be so much more of a threat to American liberty than is even possible, on their budget.
Focus on the Family, on the other hand, has not even the pretension of protecting free speech. No: they'd like you to believe what they believe, and that's about it. They are a very well funded organization, and rarely demonized for political gain, unlike the ACLU.
I feel right about now like I did when a bunch of fools like Jesse Helms were being taken seriously about the National Endowment for the Arts being a massive waste of government funding (considering how little of it there was) because it showed nasty pictures that asshats like him didn't like, while every day, my taxes go to true atrocities, and far more so than ever went to the arts, "degenerate" or otherwise.
It's just easy to pick on them. And it's easy for people to believe the brain-damaged twaddle coming out of the mouths of the Nice Mr. Dr. Rev. Dobson there, because people don't think, they just react.
Tell ya' what: when there's actually a liberal hegemony in this country, as opposed to the thinnest of smokescreens set up by reactionary politicians to gain more money for themselves, I'll let you know.
Because no doubt, on that day, I'll be crowned King, or some other highly unlikely scenario. Until the last human being croaks, you can always count on tribal taboo and superstition superceding thought and logic. It's just easier.
 

Rich, those last 2 grafs were golden.

--ER
 

Mark, no, I rarely think in such stark terms.

If the ACLU had its way, Christianity would be merely a footnote in the governmental history of the United States, and it should be. Religious history, cultural history, even political history, that's where Christianity belongs.

ook: I think the worst thing to happen to Christianity was Constantine's "coversion," OK? It's supposed to a private relationship with God that has a collective effect on society, not a societal "club" that tries to meddle in other peoples' private relationships.

Lone Ranger, well, I'll be. I don't think you've ever darkened my door before. Feel free to come anytime. I'll return the visits sometimes if ytou stat allowing comments.

Does a witch represent a religion? I'm just asking. I'm not sure I consider it as such.

As for speech codes and such. You're right. I don't have an answer, other than to say it seems odd for someone who dislikes the ACLU to be concerned about what it doesn't do.

--ER
 

Wow! You actually believe that Christianity, as it pertains to the USA, should be relegated to a footnote of history? I don't know what to say. I know we don't see eye-to-eye on most things politic, but I thought we agreed on Christianity. Christians have a responsibility to spread the Word of Christ - can't do that in private, it must be a public thing. Christians have a resposibilty to exhort Brothers in Christ, to rebuke them, to teach them, and to lift them up. None of these things can be done 'in private'. All of them require interaction between people.

As for the ACLU. They protect the speech that they want to protect. They will defend any religious or non-religious speech except Christianity. The second ammendment is anathema to them - if I am wrong here, please point it out. In checking out their website, I see where they are concerned with the 'assault on reproductive rights'. Baby-killin' = reproductive rights. Gotta love the spin.

Yes Focus on the Family promotes an agenda. Their agenda generally coincides with Christianity and the Bible. In my opinion, sometimes (alot of times?) they go too far in what they perceive to be wrong or in what they propose for an action. I would still cast my lot in with them before I cast in with the ACLU.
 

I think one of my favorite comedians, Dennis Miller said it best. Read his article....


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,101939,00.html
 

Nice link, Crystal.
 

Rem! I was very carefyl with what I said!

"If the ACLU had its way, Christianity would be merely a footnote in the GOVERNMENTAL history of the United States ..."

Do NOT read more into that than what is there. Reread it.

--ER
 

ACLU position, generally, is that the Second Amendment refers to organized state militias. That is not an extreme position. In fact, I don't see how anyone who insists on being "originalist" when it comes to the Constitution can read it and not see that it refers to militia, not individual citizens.

But, I'm a gun owner and I holler and hoop as loud for the right to bear arms as much as the right to free speech. But, guess what? It takes a "living Constitution" approach to interpreting the thing to get from "militia" to "individual citizen."

As far as FOTF: If they actually did focus on families -- and not just their own definition of "family," that would be one thing. I do accept their assertion that a lot of what they do is supportive of the traditional family in this country. But what they really focus on is politics. They should change their name to restore their "intellectual honesty" as one of their supporters here prefers that we all do.

--ER
 

ACLU statement on a NAMBLA case (I don't know if there is another case that has people riled up, or if this case is still wending its way through the courts).

--ER

ACLU Statement on Defending Free Speech of Unpopular Organizations

August 31, 2000

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

NEW YORK--In the United States Supreme Court over the past few years, the American Civil Liberties Union has taken the side of a fundamentalist Christian church, a Santerian church, and the International Society for Krishna Consciousness. In celebrated cases, the ACLU has stood up for everyone from Oliver North to the National Socialist Party. In spite of all that, the ACLU has never advocated Christianity, ritual animal sacrifice, trading arms for hostages or genocide. In representing NAMBLA today, our Massachusetts affiliate does not advocate sexual relationships between adults and children.

What the ACLU does advocate is robust freedom of speech for everyone. The lawsuit involved here, were it to succeed, would strike at the heart of freedom of speech. The case is based on a shocking murder. But the lawsuit says the crime is the responsibility not of those who committed the murder, but of someone who posted vile material on the Internet. The principle is as simple as it is central to true freedom of speech: those who do wrong are responsible for what they do; those who speak about it are not.

It is easy to defend freedom of speech when the message is something many people find at least reasonable. But the defense of freedom of speech is most critical when the message is one most people find repulsive. That was true when the Nazis marched in Skokie. It remains true today.
 

What I don't like about FOTF is that it's a self-professed Christian organization that has its focus on the wrong thing, Christianwise. It's a bad "witness." Christ -- the center of Christianity -- didn't focus on the family.

It Focuses on the Family for purposes, as ER points out, that are purely political. Anti-abortion, anti-gay. Which is all fine and good, because that much is consistent with Christianity.

It's just too bad they don't have enough faith in GOD to do all this in His mysterious without having to form a PAC to get publicity on the way to maybe getting it done.

I don't think FOTF is all about politics so much as it is all about money. And the preaching to the choir aspect should have burned itself out by now. So something is wrong with the whole FOTF picture that it keeps itself going financially.

I don't even know if Dobson is a Rev. -- many people think he is -- but he started out the org as a family counselor. How it turned into a GOP lobby-style organization (the Arlington Group notwithstanding) is a verrrry interesting story.
 

The ACLU has always been against any religion. Since Christianity is the most visible one in the good ole USA, they attack it most often. They actively seek out cases and people to defend that attempt to undermine our great nation. They're the devil's tools on earth. They might have done good in the civil rights movement of the 60s but they have outlived their usefulness just like unions and the Democrats have.
 

The ACLU is not anti-religion or anti-Christian. The ACLU is pro-Constitution, which means they are preserving the U.S.'s basic tenant that there will NOT be a state religion. What some here consider an "Anti-Christian" stance is really a matter of recognizing where the practice of Christianity by some has infringed on the rights of others as a citizenry entitled to not be subjected to someone else's point of view.

I am a Christian. I am also a U.S. citizen and recognize that we must beware of those on either side who try to usurp our Constitutional freedoms.

Now, here's a question for you. I am far from being the only person in my demographic group.

As a single American woman who is a Christian, with no children, no parents, no siblings -- who speaks more for ME? The ACLU or Focus on the Family?

Answer: It is NOT FOTF. Just because it was established as a "Christian" organization does not mean that it speaks for all Christians. I find that branch of the fellowship to be more of a threat to my free practice of my religion than the ACLU any day.
 

Amendment Two: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

The people have the right to keep and bear arms. Not the state, not the militias themselves, but the people. I consider myself an 'originalist', as you put it (baiting me, perhaps?). If just the militias or the states could possess these weapons, then I think it would have said that the states have the right to keep and bear arms. It doesn't say states - it says people.

I re-read what you wrote. I think I know what you mean, but I disagree still. The Bible states that all who are in power are in power because God allows it - good and evil. Look at the history of Isreal to see what happens when a nation puts God as a footnote. I don't know how you can possibly separate a nation-state from the government which represents and rules it - at least not in any historical context.
 

Read about Calvin and Geneva. It should scare the dickens out of anyone but the most fundamentalist righties. Government. Must. Be. Kept. Separate. From. Religion.

To protect Christianity, not the government.

Patriot, you might pick up the pace a little bit here.

--ER
 

Yes the ACLU goes too far at times and I don't agree with some of the causes they support or attack.

However I would never attack an organization that is only looking out for my rights. Even when they are wrong about some things, who is going to fight these fights if not for them?

Lone Ranger:

Check your facts

Florida has passed a bill that would allow poor sensitive ID believing Christians to sue "liberal professors" who teach controversial subjects such as evolution and the Holocaust.

So easy with the poor, defeated conservatives approach.
 

Oh and Focus on the Family are right wing nut jobs who don't care about families at all. They care about making sure no on lives as they please and that everyone converts to their demented view of Christianity.
 

ER, I am familiar with Calvin and the society he formed in Geneva. What Calvin did was indeed contrary to the Constitution of the United States of America. There is a huge difference between government sponsored religion and in acknowledging the fact that there is a God and that He is supreme. The first ammendment to the Constitution starts off, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. This does not say that government and religion shall be separate and the twain shall never meet. That's more 'living constitution' stuff. Religion, specificly Christianity, is central to the founding of this great nation. To say that the US government cannot acknowledge God is contrary to the belief of the vast majority of those who fought for the independence of this country and to those who penned our great document.
 

Toad, get your facts straight - that bill died.
 

This -- the very wording of the First Amendment, even more than the wording of the Second -- is a case where people can look at the exact same words and draw totally polar conclusions.

Even if that part about it being a majority of Christians who fought the Revolution. SO WHAT? Does that mean that if one of the states becomes a majority of Muslims that they can plaster their own icons all over the courthouse walls? No.

Take 'em all down. All of 'em.

--ER
 

Has NO ONE noticed anything notable about the headline on this post?

--ER
 

In God we trust. Not Allah.
The history.

Doesn't sound too much like previous generations had a hard time accepting the fact that we are a nation that needs to acknowledge The Allmighty.
 

Fine history. Note that it begins during the Civil War, when the Founders were all dead and gone, and when Union Christians and Rebel Christians were killing each other. Rather ignominious beginnings for such a grand phrase.

Also, I'd be careful about asserting that "Allah" is anything other than another name -- and an admittedly twisted perception of -- "God." The world's three major religions all stem from Abraham's loins, I do believe.

--ER
 

Allah does not equal another name for God. Allah was the name of a pagan moon god. Thus, the crescent moon is the symbol of Islam. If you feel this website to be biased, just do a Google search of your own. Today, it is taught that Allah is another name for God, but that is false.

Yes, Abraham is the father of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

You are also correct that the Founders were dead by the time our national motto was established. I still maintain that they would not have objected, but would have rallied around it.
 

Rephrase - Abraham's offspring went on to establish the 3 major religions. To call Abraham the Father of Islam feels wrong. Maybe, technically correct, but wrong just the same.
 

Pastor Tim, I believe that ER is using Calvin and Geneva as an example of the merger of church and state taken to the extreme. It allows no lee-way for those not of Calvin's particular doctrine. It is the ultimate in state-sponsored religion.

ER, if I have misunderstood you, please set me straight.
 

Rem, you are correct, Sir.

--ER
 

Hey, I found something on-line once that purported to draw a linguistic and cultural connections between the Five Civilized Tribes (Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek and Seminole) and them A-rabs.

Pointed out the turban-wearing Sequoyah, among other anecdotes.

Pointed out the name of the tribe that is now the name of a state: Alabama.

Allah. Bamya. Or something like that.

Not that I bought any of it.

--ER