Author Topic: Those far-left nuts at the ACLU  (Read 13803 times)

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63977
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Those far-left nuts at the ACLU
« Reply #100 on: May 30, 2007, 05:29:41 PM »
Haha... we're all idiots.

You're right... if your kid wants to pray... by himself... good for him.

What do I care?

Do I think the ACLU goes too far... sure sometimes, but it also does a lot of good to protect your right to freedom of religion.

The ACLU is here to protect the constitution... Do people not like the constitution all of a sudden?

I would disagree as that when you read Article 1:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


It makes NO LAW respecting it OR prohibiting it.

That seems pretty plain... Religion is not to be in government... If you go to government funded schools... Then guess what, that's in the government.

I don't see why people have a sticking point on this when the Constitution says it so plainly.


Tu you're overstating the Establishment Clause.  It doesn't say "religion is not to be in government."  Not only does the Constitution not say this, but that kind of interpretation is inconsistent with how we have operated as a society for hundreds of years.  For example, look at our Thanksgiving holiday, our National Day of Prayer, the hiring of a pastor/priest in the Senate, the beginning of our legislative sessions with prayer, at the city, state, and federal levels, etc.   

tu_holmes

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 15922
  • Robot
Re: Those far-left nuts at the ACLU
« Reply #101 on: May 30, 2007, 06:01:55 PM »
Tu you're overstating the Establishment Clause.  It doesn't say "religion is not to be in government."  Not only does the Constitution not say this, but that kind of interpretation is inconsistent with how we have operated as a society for hundreds of years.  For example, look at our Thanksgiving holiday, our National Day of Prayer, the hiring of a pastor/priest in the Senate, the beginning of our legislative sessions with prayer, at the city, state, and federal levels, etc.   

I don't think I'm overstating it... First off, the prayer, well, even during the first continental congress there was a disagreement about the prayer (I believe Benjamin Franklin's letters state as such) where some didn't think it was appropriate, but majority ruled.

As far as a priest in the Senate, well, being a Priest isn't his job anymore, so his religious beliefs SHOULD take a backseat to his role in the government.


Thanksgiving is not religious at all... it's giving thanks that people freaking survived... That's all.

When was the National Day of prayer instituted?

For that matter, when was "In God We Trust" put on Money? When was Christmas considered a holiday?

NONE of those things were done when the country was founded and as such, I find them to be directly opposite of what this country was intended to do.

Let me ask you all this question...

When a non christian religion becomes the majority in this country, and those religions beliefs change the way things are done in this country, how will you feel about religion in the government then?

headhuntersix

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 17271
  • Our forefathers would be shooting by now
Re: Those far-left nuts at the ACLU
« Reply #102 on: May 30, 2007, 06:09:49 PM »
It will never happen....never. There is only one religion that would be a problem anyway.
L

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63977
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Those far-left nuts at the ACLU
« Reply #103 on: May 31, 2007, 12:21:21 AM »
I don't think I'm overstating it... First off, the prayer, well, even during the first continental congress there was a disagreement about the prayer (I believe Benjamin Franklin's letters state as such) where some didn't think it was appropriate, but majority ruled.

As far as a priest in the Senate, well, being a Priest isn't his job anymore, so his religious beliefs SHOULD take a backseat to his role in the government.


Thanksgiving is not religious at all... it's giving thanks that people freaking survived... That's all.

When was the National Day of prayer instituted?

For that matter, when was "In God We Trust" put on Money? When was Christmas considered a holiday?

NONE of those things were done when the country was founded and as such, I find them to be directly opposite of what this country was intended to do.

Let me ask you all this question...

When a non christian religion becomes the majority in this country, and those religions beliefs change the way things are done in this country, how will you feel about religion in the government then?

Check out Lincoln's Thanksgiving Day proclamation from 1863:   http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/thanks.htm

I agree with Headhunter that we'll never have a non-Christian religion as the majority in this country.

I have a question for you:  when in our country's history has our society, including our government, ever been free from all religious influences?   

tu_holmes

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 15922
  • Robot
Re: Those far-left nuts at the ACLU
« Reply #104 on: May 31, 2007, 12:30:41 AM »
It will never happen....never. There is only one religion that would be a problem anyway.
Check out Lincoln's Thanksgiving Day proclamation from 1863:   http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/thanks.htm

I agree with Headhunter that we'll never have a non-Christian religion as the majority in this country.

I have a question for you:  when in our country's history has our society, including our government, ever been free from all religious influences?  

The Japanese would never bomb Pearl Harbor.
The Titanic would never sink.
Two planes would never fly into skyscrapers on purpose.


Beach... I'm not saying it ever has been completely free of those religious influences, but it should be.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63977
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Those far-left nuts at the ACLU
« Reply #105 on: May 31, 2007, 08:54:35 AM »
The Japanese would never bomb Pearl Harbor.
The Titanic would never sink.
Two planes would never fly into skyscrapers on purpose.


Beach... I'm not saying it ever has been completely free of those religious influences, but it should be.


lol.  O.K.  Almost anything is possible.  Let's just say it's highly unlikely.   :)

 

militarymuscle69

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2655
  • You can't be a citizen unless you serve
Re: Those far-left nuts at the ACLU
« Reply #106 on: June 01, 2007, 05:44:46 AM »
The Japanese would never bomb Pearl Harbor.
The Titanic would never sink.
Two planes would never fly into skyscrapers on purpose.


Beach... I'm not saying it ever has been completely free of those religious influences, but it should be.


well mr smarty pants, two planes never did hit the towers...ask 240
gotta love life

loco

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19158
  • loco like a fox
Re: Those far-left nuts at the ACLU
« Reply #107 on: June 01, 2007, 07:23:28 AM »
Thanks, Hedge.

John Adams and Thomas Jefferson mades as many quotes against faith as they did for it.

No, they made many quotes for faith.

They made many quotes against theocracies.

Thou shall not confuse the two.     ;D

And like I said, this nation was founded on the philosophy of men like Locke, Smith, Hume and was also influenced by ancient Greece and Rome.

Camel Jockey,
I am not saying that this isn't true, but will you please post some references to your claim?  Thank you!

loco

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19158
  • loco like a fox
Re: Those far-left nuts at the ACLU
« Reply #108 on: June 01, 2007, 07:56:07 AM »
Food for thought then: Did they intend for women and blacks to have civil rights?

-Hedge

The Founders Believed Slavery Was Fundamentally Wrong.
The overwhelming majority of early Americans and most of America's leaders did not own slaves. Some did own slaves, which were often inherited (like George Washington at age eleven), but many of these people set them free after independence. Most Founders believed that slavery was wrong and that it should be abolished. William Livingston, signer of the Constitution and Governor of New Jersey, wrote to an anti-slavery society in New York (John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court and President of the Continental Congress, was President of this society):

I would most ardently wish to become a member of it [the anti-slavery society] and . . . I can safely promise them that neither my tongue, nor my pen, nor purse shall be wanting to promote the abolition of what to me appears so inconsistent with humanity and Christianity. . . . May the great and the equal Father of the human race, who has expressly declared His abhorrence of oppression, and that He is no respecter of persons, succeed a design so laudably calculated to undo the heavy burdens, to let the oppressed go free, and to break every yoke. 11

John Quincy Adams, who worked tirelessly for years to end slavery, spoke of the anti-slavery views of the southern Founders, including Jefferson who owned slaves:

The inconsistency of the institution of domestic slavery with the principles of the Declaration of Independence was seen and lamented by all the southern patriots of the Revolution; by no one with deeper and more unalterable conviction than by the author of the Declaration himself. No charge of insincerity or hypocrisy can be fairly laid to their charge. Never from their lips was heard one syllable of attempt to justify the institution of slavery. They universally considered it as a reproach fastened upon them by the unnatural step-mother country and they saw that before the principles of the Declaration of Independence, slavery, in common with every other mode of oppression, was destined sooner or later to be banished from the earth. Such was the undoubting conviction of Jefferson to his dying day. In the Memoir of His Life, written at the age of seventy-seven, he gave to his countrymen the solemn and emphatic warning that the day was not distant when they must hear and adopt the general emancipation of their slaves. “Nothing is more certainly written,” said he, “in the book of fate, than that these people are to be free.” 12

The Founding Fathers believed that blacks had the same God-given inalienable rights as any other peoples. James Otis of Massachusetts said in 1764 that “The colonists are by the law of nature freeborn, as indeed all men are, white or black.” 13

There had always been free blacks in America who owned property, voted, and had the same rights as other citizens. 14 Most of the men who gave us the Declaration and the Constitution wanted to see slavery abolished. For example, George Washington wrote in a letter to Robert Morris:

I can only say that there is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it [slavery]. 15

Charles Carroll, Signer of Declaration from Maryland, wrote:

Why keep alive the question of slavery? It is admitted by all to be a great evil. 16

Benjamin Rush, Signer from Pennsylvania, stated:

Domestic slavery is repugnant to the principles of Christianity. . . . It is rebellion against the authority of a common Father. It is a practical denial of the extent and efficacy of the death of a common Savior. It is an usurpation of the prerogative of the great Sovereign of the universe who has solemnly claimed an exclusive property in the souls of men. 17

Father of American education, and contributor to the ideas in the Constitution, Noah Webster wrote:

Justice and humanity require it [the end of slavery] — Christianity commands it. Let every benevolent . . . pray for the glorious period when the last slave who fights for freedom shall be restored to the possession of that inestimable right. 18

Quotes from John Adams reveal his strong anti-slavery views:

Every measure of prudence, therefore, ought to be assumed for the eventual total extirpation of slavery from the United States. . . . I have, through my whole life, held the practice of slavery in . . . abhorrence. 19
My opinion against it [slavery] has always been known. . . . [N]ever in my life did I own a slave. 20

When Benjamin Franklin served as President of the Pennsylvania Society of Promoting the Abolition of Slavery he declared: “Slavery is . . . an atrocious debasement of human nature.” 21

Thomas Jefferson's original draft of the Declaration included a strong denunciation of slavery, declaring the king's perpetuation of the slave trade and his vetoing of colonial anti-slavery measures as one reason the colonists were declaring their independence:

He [King George III] has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere. . . . Determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought and sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or restrain this execrable commerce. 22

Prior to independence, anti-slavery measures by the colonists were thwarted by the British government. Franklin wrote in 1773:

A disposition to abolish slavery prevails in North America, that many of Pennsylvanians have set their slaves at liberty, and that even the Virginia Assembly have petitioned the King for permission to make a law for preventing the importation of more into that colony. This request, however, will probably not be granted as their former laws of that kind have always been repealed.. 23

The Founders took action against slavery.
The founders did not just believe slavery was an evil that needed to be abolished, and they did not just speak against it, but they acted on their beliefs. During the Revolutionary War black slaves who fought won their freedom in every state except South Carolina and Georgia. 24

Many of the founders started and served in anti-slavery societies. Franklin and Rush founded the first such society in America in 1774. John Jay was president of a similar society in New York. Other Founding Fathers serving in anti-slavery societies included: William Livingston (Constitution signer), James Madison, Richard Bassett, James Monroe, Bushrod Washington, Charles Carroll, William Few, John Marshall, Richard Stockton, Zephaniah Swift, and many more. 25

As the Founders worked to free themselves from enslavement to Britain, based upon laws of God and nature, they also spoke against slavery and took steps to stop it. Abolition grew as principled resistance to the tyranny of England grew, since both were based upon the same ideas. This worked itself out on a personal as well as policy level, as seen in the following incident in the life of William Whipple, signer of the Declaration of Independence from New Hampshire. Dwight writes:

When General Whipple set out to join the army, he took with him for his waiting servant, a colored man named Prince, one whom he had imported from Africa many years before. He was a slave whom his master highly valued. As he advanced on his journey, he said to Prince, “If we should be called into an engagement with the enemy, I expect you will behave like a man of courage, and fight like a brave soldier for your country.” Prince feelingly replied, “Sir, I have no inducement to fight, I have no country while I am a slave. If I had my freedom, I would endeavor to defend it to the last drop of my blood.” This reply of Prince produced the effect on his master's heart which Prince desired. The general declared him free on the spot. 26

The Founders opposed slavery based upon the principle of the equality of all men. Throughout history many slaves have revolted but it was believed (even by those enslaved) that some people had the right to enslave others. The American slave protests were the first in history based on principles of God-endowed liberty for all. It was not the secularists who spoke out against slavery but the ministers and Christian statesmen.

Before independence, some states had tried to restrict slavery in different ways (e.g. Virginia had voted to end the slave trade in 1773), but the English government had not allowed it. Following independence and victory in the war, the rule of the mother country was removed, leaving freedom for each state to deal with the slavery problem. Within about 20 years of the 1783 Treaty of Peace with Britain, the northern states abolished slavery: Pennsylvania and Massachusetts in 1780; Connecticut and Rhode Island in 1784; New Hampshire in 1792; Vermont in 1793; New York in 1799; and New Jersey in 1804.

The Northwest Ordinance (1787, 1789), which governed the admission of new states into the union from the then northwest territories, forbid slavery. Thus, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Iowa all prohibited slavery. This first federal act dealing with slavery was authored by Rufus King (signer of the Constitution) and signed into law by President George Washington.

Although no Southern state abolished slavery, there was much anti-slavery sentiment. Many anti-slavery societies were started, especially in the upper South. Many Southern states considered proposals abolishing slavery, for example, the Virginia legislature in 1778 and 1796. When none passed, many, like Washington, set their slaves free, making provision for their well being. Following independence, “Virginia changed her laws to make it easier for individuals to emancipate slaves,” 27 though over time the laws became more restrictive in Virginia.

While most states were moving toward freedom for slaves, the deep South (Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina) was largely pro-slavery. Yet, even so, the Southern courts before around 1840 generally took the position that slavery violated the natural rights of blacks. For example, the Mississippi Supreme Court ruled in 1818:

Slavery is condemned by reason and the laws of nature. It exists and can only exist, through municipal regulations, and in matters of doubt,...courts must lean in favorem vitae et libertatis [in favor of life and liberty]. 28

The same court ruled in 1820 that the slave “is still a human being, and possesses all those rights, of which he is not deprived by the positive provisions of the law.” 29

Free blacks were citizens and voted in most Northern states and Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina. In Baltimore prior to 1800, more blacks voted than whites; but in 1801 and 1809, Maryland began to restrict black voting and in 1835 North Carolina prohibited it. Other states made similar restrictions, but a number of Northern states allowed blacks to vote and hold office. In Massachusetts this right was given nearly a decade before the American Revolution and was never taken away, either before or after the Civil War.

References:

11. William Livingston, The Papers of William Livingston, Carl E. Prince, editor (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1988), Vol. V, p. 255, to the New York Manumission Society on June 26, 1786. In "The Founding Fathers and Slavery" by David Barton, unpublished paper, p. 5.
12. John Quincy Adams, An Oration Delivered Before the Inhabitants of the Town of Newburyport, at Their Request, on the Sixty-First Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, July 4th, 1837 (Newburyport: Charles Whipple, 1837), p. 50.
13. Rights of the Colonies, in Bernard Bailyn, ed., Pamphlets of the American Revolution (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1965), p. 439. In "Was the American Founding Unjust? The Case of Slavery," by Thomas G. West, Principles, a quarterly review of The Claremont Institute, Spring/Summer 1992, p. 1.
14. Hart, p. 53.
15. Letter to Robert Morris, April 12, 1786, in George Washington: A Collection, ed. W.B. Allen (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1988), p. 319.
16. Kate Mason Rowland, Life and Correspondence of Charles Carroll of Carrollton (New York & London: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1898), Vol. II, p. 321, to Robert Goodloe Harper, April 23, 1820. In Barton, p. 3.
17. Benjamin Rush, Minutes of the Proceedings of a Convention of Delegates from the Abolition Societies Established in Different Parts of the United States Assembled at Philadelphia (Philadelphia: Zachariah Poulson, 1794), p. 24.. In Barton, p. 4.
18. Noah Webster, Effect of Slavery on Morals and Industry (Hartford: Hudson and Goodwin, 1793), p. 48. In Barton, p. 4.
19. Adams to Robert J. Evans, June 8, 1819, in Adrienne Koch and William Peden, eds., Selected Writings of John and John Quincy Adams (New York: Knopf, 1946), p. 209. In West, p. 2.
20. John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, ed. (Boston: Little, Brown, and Co., 1854), Vol. IX, pp. 92-93, to George Churchman and Jacob Lindley on January 24, 1801. In Barton, p. 3.
21. "An Address to the Public from the Pennsylvania Society for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery" (1789), in Franklin, Writings (New York: Library of America, 1987), p. 1154. In West, p. 2.
22. The Life and Selected Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Adrienne Koch and William Peden, eds. (New York: Random House, 1944), p. 25.
23. Benjamin Franklin, The Works of Benjamin Franklin, Jared Sparks, ed. (Boston: Tappan, Whittemore, and Mason, 1839), Vol. VIII, p. 42, to the Rev. Dean Woodward on April 10, 1773.
24. Benjamin Quarles, The Negro and the American Revolution (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1961), chaps. 4-6. In West, p. 2.
25. Barton, p. 5.
26. N. Dwight, The Lives of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence (New York: A.S. Barnes & Burr, 1860), p. 11.
27. West, p. 4.
28. Harry v. Decker & Hopkins (1818), in West, p. 4.
29. Mississippi v. Jones (1820), in West, p. 4.

Camel Jockey

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 16711
  • Mel Gibson and Bob Sly World Domination
Re: Those far-left nuts at the ACLU
« Reply #109 on: June 01, 2007, 08:06:19 AM »
No, they made many quotes for faith.

They made many quotes against theocracies.

Thou shall not confuse the two.     ;D

Camel Jockey,
I am not saying that this isn't true, but will you please post some references to your claim?  Thank you!

No, you are weasling your way out of fact. It is very well known that Locke influenced the founding fathers.. I mean checks and balances was an idea of Locke's, as well as individual civil liberties. Keep googling nonsense about the founding fathers making references to faith.. You may think you are making your point, but ask any historian and they'll tell you where the ideals of this nation came from.

http://www.earlymoderntexts.com/f_locke.html

His works on government and human understanding.

Summary of his of his points that influence the american revolution, as well as the ideals this nation was founded on.. Notice it's in contrast to Thomas Hobbes - who himself was an advocate of monarchy and reduced civil liberties, as he thought man was not fit to govern themselves..

http://www.blupete.com/Literature/Biographies/Philosophy/Locke.htm#Social

From John Locke (1632-1704):
"The Philosopher of Freedom."

4(e). Separation of Powers:
The question of whether man would voluntarily put himself under government is but the first question: there then follows along the next, "What form of government is best." Hobbes, not surprisingly, given his view of the nature of man, preferred that there should be one supreme authority, a monarchy. While Hobbes could tolerate government by legislative assembly alone, as opposed to a monarch, he thought that power in the assembly should be absolute and not to be shared. Locke's view, more consistent with the social contract theory, was that there was no need for government to have great powers, which, in the final analysis, would only be needed to keep people down; at any rate, Locke recognized the real danger of leaving absolute power to any one individual, or group of individuals. Locke thought that government's power was best limited by dividing government up into branches, with each branch having only as much power as is needed for its proper function.14

4(h). Revolution:
If a government subverts the ends for which it was created then it might be deposed; indeed, Locke asserts, revolution in some circumstances is not only a right but an obligation. Thus, Locke came to the conclusion that the "ruling body if it offends against natural law must be deposed." This was the philosophical stuff which sanctioned the rebellions of both the American colonialists in 1775, and the French in 1789.

4(b). Lockeian Pre-Social Man:

Locke maintained that the original state of nature was happy and characterized by reason and tolerance. He further maintained that all human beings, in their natural state, were equal and free to pursue life, health, liberty, and possessions; and that these were inalienable rights.11 Pre-social man as a moral being, and as an individual, contracted out "into civil society by surrendering personal power to the ruler and magistrates," and did so as "a method of securing natural morality more efficiently." To Locke, natural justice exists and this is so whether the state exists, or not, it is just that the state might better guard natural justice.



Camel Jockey

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 16711
  • Mel Gibson and Bob Sly World Domination
Re: Those far-left nuts at the ACLU
« Reply #110 on: June 01, 2007, 08:11:32 AM »
You're right loco.. Here's a quote from Jefferson regarding slavery:

Quote
Sir,--I have received the favor of your letter of August 17th, and with it the volume you were so kind to send me on the "Literature of Negroes". Be assured that no person living wishes more sincerely than I do, to see a complete refutation of the doubts I have myself entertained and expressed on the grade of understanding allotted to them by nature, and to find that in this respect they are on a par with ourselves. My doubts were the result of personal observation on the limited sphere of my own State, where the opportunity for the development of their genius were not favorable and those of exercising it still less so. I expressed them therefore with great hesitation; but whatever be their degree of talent it is no measure of their rights. Because Sir Isaac Newton was superior to others in understanding, he was not therefore lord of the person or property of others. On this subject they are gaining daily in the opinions of nations, and hopeful advances are making toward their re-establishment on an equal footing with the other colors of the human family. I pray you therefore to accept my thanks for the many instances you have enabled me to observe of respectable intelligence in that race of men, which cannot fail to have effect in hastening the day of their relief; and to be assured of the sentiments of high and just esteem and consideration which I tender to yourself with all sincerity.

^ Letter of February 25, 1809 from Thomas Jefferson to French author Monsieur Gregoire, from The Writings of Thomas Jefferson (H. A. Worthington, ed.), Volume V, p. 429. Citation and quote from Morris Kominsky, The Hoaxers, pp. 110-111.


loco

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19158
  • loco like a fox
Re: Those far-left nuts at the ACLU
« Reply #111 on: June 01, 2007, 09:16:53 AM »
No, you are weasling your way out of fact. It is very well known that Locke influenced the founding fathers..

Relax, Camel  Jockey!  Read my post again.

Camel Jockey,
I am not saying that this isn't true, but will you please post some references to your claim?  Thank you!

I was only asking you for references, and you did provide them.  So thank you!     ;D

I know that the founding fathers were influenced, not only by their faith, but also by the Romans Republic and the Greek democracies.  But it cannot be denied that they were influenced by their faith too.

If you noticed, I have said very little on the subject in my own words.  I have mostly posted quotes by the founding fathers and I have let them speak for themselves.


loco

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19158
  • loco like a fox
Re: Those far-left nuts at the ACLU
« Reply #112 on: June 01, 2007, 09:18:55 AM »
You're right loco.. Here's a quote from Jefferson regarding slavery:


Thanks for the quote, Camel  Jockey!

tu_holmes

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 15922
  • Robot
Re: Those far-left nuts at the ACLU
« Reply #113 on: June 01, 2007, 11:04:37 AM »
well mr smarty pants, two planes never did hit the towers...ask 240

No, no... I'm going with the planes on this one.