An open invitation:
I am planning to write up an entry about the ACLU and its purported anti-Christmas, anti-Christian activities. I welcome contributions from anybody who has cases, action items, and specific references detailing ACLU efforts to violate the rights of Christians or Christmas-celebrators.
UPDATE: Just a clarification...I can Google "ACLU hates Christians" for myself, so I would prefer if reader submissions on this thread include at least a hint of why YOU feel the case in question shows the ACLU's anti-Christian or anti-Christmas actions. I'm not asking this to be a pain, but rather to make sure that I correctly represent the "con" position on this topic.
ANOTHER UPDATE: This is going to be a fairly large undertaking (as blog entries go), and I have a comprehensive Neuroanatomy exam on Wednesday, so don't nobody get your knickers in a twist if it takes me a while to get this thing done. It may even end up coming in installments, since it's already looking to be one seriously huge biatch of an entry.
AND THERE SHALL BE NO END OF UPDATES: If anybody wants to email me directly, rather than mucking about in the comments with submissions for this topic, you can drop a line to noniffer@hotmail.com.
23 Comments:
ACLU vs. a tiny symbolic cross:
http://www.kron4.com/Global/story.asp?S=1913044&nav=5D7lNbS4
It's hard to find articles that present facts and aren't one-sided, so I'll leave it to you to find the arguments of the case.
CF
Here is something for you:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1532929/posts
This post has little technical merit about what the ACLU is really doing, but does describe the "merry christmas aclu" campaign a little. The interesting bits for me are all the user comments. Here is one:
To: Caleb1411
Merry Christmas to the entire staff of the ACLU.May the blessings of Our Lord and Savior be plentiful in your lives and those of all your family members.
A Christmas card like this would cause more than a few heart attacks for those at ACLU Headquarters.
(end quote)
These people honestly think that sending the ACLU christmas cards will be offending to them. Maybe even cause a heart attack. I sincerly hope that comment was made in jest, otherwise its a very un-christinan-like comment to make (which too often seems to be very-christian-like). Oddly enough, the ACLU has worked in the past to protect your right to send the christmas card to them. It was a year or two ago that the ACLU protected students rights to distribute candy canes with bible messages on them in school (the administration tried to stop them).
Sure, there are some cities that ban all religous material from state-funded programs (school, gov't, city works, etc). These instances have nothing to do with the ACLU. The ACLU is only intrested in protecting *your* rights to celebrate whatever it is you want to celebrate. So yes, they will have a problem if a mayor someplace required his/her staff to put up christmas insignia in their offices. But the ACLU shouldnt (and dosnt, as far as I know) have any problem with you putting it up yourself. That boundry gets fuzzy when people in power display their religion. If a mayor does something that represents the city, that action needs to not endorse a specific religion as that not the place for government.
To CF (and anybody else posting in this section): Please explain why you think the case in question violates the rights of Christians, or violates the rights of those who wish to celebrate Christmas. If you can cite the constitutional foundation for your reasoning that would be a bonus, but it's okay if you cannot.
Slush,
For a mayor to give favor to a contractor or a perspective job applicant because of their religion would be wrong. If a mayor prohibits the display of a religious symbol by one of his or her employees while allowing a different religions display (such as prohibiting the nativity but allowing the mennorah) that would be wrong. If the mayor is a Jew and chooses to display a star of David, that is not wrong. He has freedom of religion and free speech rights, too. He is not imposing said religion on anyone, he is simply stating his position. Provided that he allows all others who desire to display their religious symbols, there is no constitutional issue.
CF
CF,
I agree with your last statements fully. The article you posted initially, however, contradict that. The religous symbol on the county seal is not an individual stating their relious preference. The county should have no religous preference, and thus the symbol should be removed from its seal.
ZDK (and Slush),
The question is whether this is an example of how the ACLU is anti-Christian, not whether the ACLU infringed on any rights. The ACLU did not oppose religious symbols in county seals, they opposed Christian religious symbols in county seals. Further, the cross on the seal did not indicate an endorsement of Christianity, only an acknowledgement of the role of Christianity and in the development of the county. That Christian symbol held no more religious conotation than the statue of Pomona, which is the prominent figure in the seal, and the presence of that statue was not challenged.
Now to the question of whether the ACLU infringed on Christian rights. I would say that they did argue that the courts should infringe upon Christian rights and, in addition, the rights of the citizens of the county (be they Christian or otherwise). It should be the right of a county to display any historically significant symbol on their seal that they see fit. The recognition of the Confederate flag in the Florida state flag is certainly controversial, and to many offensive, but the courts should not infringe upon the free speech rights of the legislative body of that state. That body feels the Confederacy is an important piece of Floridian history and that it should be recognized. Similarly, a county should be able to exihibit any symbol on a seal that they feel to be historically significant, even if that symbol is offensive to some. The fact that the ACLU asked the courts to deny the free speech rights of the county simply because the symbol represented a religion is even more reprehensible. It infringes upon our religious freedom if we selectively eliminate the historical significance of only certian religions from our lessons. If we are allowed to deny a county the right to display a cross in a seal for historical reasons, we are allowed to deny a teacher the right to mention Christianity in history class. Free speech regarding religious history and religious persecution is vital to our understanding of the value of religious freedom.
CF
It's the "n[egro] rule" scam writ small. The easiest way to rally people is to tell them that they're being treated unfairly and that you know who's to blame for their problems. And who's more advantageous to rally than the entrenched majority?
TTYSI,
He's been on this blog for a year and a half, and if you don't recall stupider sentences than that I can probably find time to quote (in context) you some masterpieces.
And I'm pretty darn sure Atheists have a sign, isn't it like the Ghostbusters' without the ghost?
Tell your girlfriend to contact Aaron D and myself about Christmas break if she's coming home.
PS. "be on them like wolves"? CF does everything like a wolf, and for very good reason!
"You talk about fair and balanced and call Fox prejudice but cite an article from Reuters that mentions every possible question in Bush's remarks and none of the questions in Kerry's remarks. I watched MSNBC and Fox News within seconds of each other after the debate and they had identical commentary. They listed the exact same misstatements by each candidate. The commentators on both stations thought Kerry won the debate. You don't care about fair or balanced. You hate fairness. You despise balance. You want one-sided articles that say "hate the other guy and love your guy." You will always be able to find those articles on both sides of the aisle, and they will all be worthless. I included the Afghani population in a post that meant to mention Afghanistan. The post said how unimportant the number was, regardless of its size. Yet you focus on it because you hate fairness and you hate balance. I’m so glad I have an open mind. I couldn't live like you. I'm not a sheep. I'm a wolf."
Citizen F | 10.11.04 - 1:27 pm
CF, you wrote:
"The question is whether this is an example of how the ACLU is anti-Christian, not whether the ACLU infringed on any rights. "
Unfortunately, no, that is not the question. I am totally uninterested in that question, and this is my blog. The question is whether or not the ACLU infringed or infringes on the rights of Christians or Christmas-celebrators.
But author! You're dragging it away from hyperbole and hysteria and into facts, and with CF you know that's just not playing fair.
In response to my comment:
"The question is whether this is an example of how the ACLU is anti-Christian, not whether the ACLU infringed on any rights. "
TTYSI said:
That's just about the stupidest sentence I've ever seen. If the ACLU was not infringing on anyone's rights, then they were doing the right thing as far as civil liberties, and the ACLU's "agenda" about religion doesn't even factor in.
Be careful what you say right after you insult someone's intelligence. If they weren't infringing on any rights they must have been doing the correct thing? I don't know what you smoked for breakfast this morning, but I think that is quite a ridiculous assumption. Can you seriously not think of a single time someone's been wrong about a civil rights issue without infringing on someone's civil rights? Many people believe the ACLU is wrong to argue in favor of assisted suicide. Whose rights would the ACLU be infringing upon? I am firmly against racial preferences for college admission and the supreme court disagrees with me. Whose rights have I infringed upon? Which one have I infringed? The right for white people to get preferential treatment verses Asians? I guess I didn't know that right existed. Still not convinced your statement was idiotic? Here's some more help: The ACLU wanted to remove the words "under God" from the pledge because they felt they were unconstitutional. I disagree with that (for several reasons we won't discuss). Even though the ACLU is wrong (in my opinion) there is absolutely no way to form a cohesive argument that the ACLU has infringed on any Christian or religious rights in this case. Certainly no religion has the "right" to have their god's name mentioned in federal documents. What "right" could this possibly infringe upon?
So, in conclusion, if mine was truly the stupidest sentence you've ever read, I compliment your ability to make so few grammar errors without proofreading. Because if you'd read your own sentence, there would be a clear winner in that contest.
XOXO,
CF
ZDK,
I apologize for the confusion, I initially thought you were interested in a discussion of whether or not the ACLU was anti-Christian. Asking whether the ACLU has infringed upon Christian rights is certainly a much more debatable issue, since we can site individual cases and discuss whether such right infringement has occured. Whether or not the ACLU is anti-Christian is unproveable, so I understand why you would prefer this discussion. All that said, it is harder to find instances where the ACLU has actually infringed upon Christian rights because they argue on behalf of individuals who feel their rights have been infringed upon. In most instances, the ACLU will be arguing to give someone the right to do something (when they don't have the right to do it) or arguing that someone has the right not to do something (that they don't have the right not to do) when I disagree with their position. The ACLU can be wrong about a mans right to dress up like a woman as he's teaching kindergardeners without infringing on any rights. Also, the ACLU doesn't typically infringe on rights, they ask other people to. They tell schools not to allow teachers free speech rights, they don't go in themselves and deny those rights. I will assume you mean to ask when the ACLU has argued in support of infringing on Christian rights, as opposed to asking when the ACLU has infringed on those rights themselves (which has occurred, I'm sure, but is much less publicized).
CF
Aleks,
You prove me wrong constantly. I said recently that you prefer to discuss what I said a year-and-a-half ago, as opposed to discussing current issues. I said you like to argue credibility because you can't present or argue facts. I was wrong. You presented something I said only 13 months ago, not 18. And it had nothing to do with my credibility, it was a random post from a discussion that is completely irrelevant. I apologize. I was way off base. Will you forgive me?
CF
==You prove me wrong constantly. I said recently that you prefer to discuss what I said a year-and-a-half ago, as opposed to discussing current issues. I said you like to argue credibility because you can't present or argue facts. I was wrong. You presented something I said only 13 months ago, not 18. And it had nothing to do with my credibility, it was a random post from a discussion that is completely irrelevant. I apologize. I was way off base. Will you forgive me?==
CF, I can't forgive you for the same reason I can't really condemn you, you don't have the intelligence or moral upbringing to be responsible for what you say in any adult sense (don't whine, ask for proof). You've accused me of insulting the troops and my uncle of molesting me (to give you your maximum due, you did phrase that one in the form of a question) and you want for the comparatively minor offense of claiming I just randomly brought up that you like to call yourself a "wolf" when TTYSI mentioned that you'd act like a wolf? You don't have the brains or English skills to see it, apparently, or you can't drag yourself out of your martyrdom long enough to see you weren't being attacked, but you should have been honored. "Wolf" is what you call yourself! And to think Author thought you were playing stupid. Don't you have any more honesty, intelligence (or even the ability to fake one or the other) than that?
Aleks,
The current discussion is about the ACLU and Christmas. If you believe that this is not the case, please provide some "shred of evidence" to prove your point. I will provide two pieces of evidence to support my position:
1. ZDK said:
"I am planning to write up an entry about the ACLU and its purported anti-Christmas, anti-Christian activities. I welcome contributions from anybody who has cases..."
2. Prior to my post in which I said your post was not relevent to the discussion, every post on this thread discussed either the ACLU or Christmas/religious holidays, most discussed both...other than yours. That is a total of 16 posts. 12 discuss the topics I argue are involved in the current discussion, 4 are yours.
What is your evidence that this is not what was being discussed prior to my comment?
CF
Here's that "shred of evidence", which is more than you seem to be able to point to having provided in over a year of arguing (to give it a kind name): the time you saw it said "And CF, you know that if a majority on a legislature voted to put up Buddha and no nativity for December, you can't even pretend that you and the entire red america wouldn't be on them like wolves." When he brought up you acting like a wolf, I pointed out that you claim to be one. There you go, I would love to finally see a similar "shred of evidence" in support of your claims regarding Bush, torture, Iraq, Iran, my being a "sheep", etc. etc. etc.
You don't seem to have read or understood this, so I'll repost it and if you still don't get it I'll try to explain further why it is unintelligent and dishonest of you to throw a tantrum over my posting a relevant post of yours, unrebutted. Really, what's wrong with you that an accurate quote of yours, relevant, unrebutted, and in context is such a problem?
You don't have the brains or English skills to see it, apparently, or you can't drag yourself out of your martyrdom long enough to see you weren't being attacked, but you should have been honored. "Wolf" is what you call yourself! And to think Author thought you were playing stupid. Don't you have any more honesty, intelligence (or even the ability to fake one or the other) than that?
Aleks,
How does that "evidence" discount my claim that what was being discussed was the ACLU and Christmas?
CF
==How does that "evidence" discount my claim that what was being discussed was the ACLU and Christmas? ==
The ACLU and Christmas were indeed discussed. Am I under some obligation to "discount" that rather boring and meaningless claim? I admit I can't. Does that strike against me somehow? While my evidence does not prove, as I've admitted I cannot, that the ACLU and Christmas were not discussed, it does however disprove your obviously false (and therefore rather stupid, whatever it just so happens you tell yourself) claim that my bringing up your claim to be "a wolf" was "random" or not relevant.
You don't seem to have read or understood this, so I'll rerepost it and if you still don't get it I'll try to explain further why it is unintelligent and dishonest of you to throw a tantrum over my posting a relevant post of yours, unrebutted. Really, what's wrong with you that an accurate quote of yours, relevant, unrebutted, and in context is such a problem?
You don't have the brains or English skills to see it, apparently, or you can't drag yourself out of your martyrdom long enough to see you weren't being attacked, but you should have been honored. "Wolf" is what you call yourself! And to think Author thought you were playing stupid. Don't you have any more honesty, intelligence (or even the ability to fake one or the other) than that?
"...it does however disprove your obviously false (and therefore rather stupid, whatever it just so happens you tell yourself) claim that my bringing up your claim to be "a wolf" was "random" or not relevant."
How so? Why was your comment relevant to the current discussion? *Fact:The word "Headquarters" was used in this discussion. Would you then argue that any comment about the CIA headquarters would be relevant to the current discussion? I would argue that it is not. We weren't discussing headquarters. Do you have any evidence or facts that support a position that any comment related to any word in any discussion is relevant to that discussion?
And why do you keep posting that paragraph? I don't see what you want me to respond to. It states a fact (that I referred to myself as a wolf) and says I wasn't being attacked. So? What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? *Fact:I didn't say you attacked me. *Fact: I said your post "had nothing to do with my credibility". So...what do you want me to say to that comment? Why is that comment relevant? What point of mine are you countering with that comment? What was the comment in response to?
CF
It was a relevant response to TTYSI's characterization of your potential actions as wolflike, your lame and wordy analogy aside. As for your credibility, you tell yourself that you're honest and intelligent but you're now claiming that "You prove me wrong constantly. I said recently that you prefer to discuss what I said a year-and-a-half ago, as opposed to discussing current issues. I said you like to argue credibility because you can't present or argue facts. I was wrong. You presented something I said only 13 months ago, not 18. And it had nothing to do with my credibility, it was a random post from a discussion that is completely irrelevant. I apologize. I was way off base. Will you forgive me?" was not sarcastic?
I said year and a half, you only posted something that was 13 months old. That proves me wrong by 5 months. I said you posted things to attach my credibility. Your post didn't attack my credibility at all. It was irrelevant. I guess the word "constantly" was an exaggeration, but you definitely proved me wrong, don't you agree?
CF
As for the relevance of your comment, would it be relevant to the discussion if I said that Hank Aaron holds the career homerun record? I'm asking for your opinion. A simple yes or no would suffice, but I'd be glad to hear a justification of you opinion as well.
CF
Post a Comment
<< Home