Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The ACLU doesn't have it's name on this particular lawsuit but, has suggested supporting it and is known for supporting other AU lawsuits. These are quotes from Jay Sekulow and if you look through his website you will see were he suggest the ACLU supports the AU in taking Jesus out of military prayer. Also, if you look this lawsuit also included the right for other religions to use what they wish but, the ACLJ had to defend the right to use Jesus no other faith was banned from using Mohammad, Mother Mary etc.The AU didn't want the word JESUS used at the end of prayer.This seems to offend some people.
Yes, it would offend some people, since we don't all believe in Jesus... I am fairly religious & attend services or "pray" often, but I don't worship Jesus. This is why they included the right to religious freedom, as a way to protect those who believe in different faiths, or none at all. If you have a problem with this, you'll have to take it up with our government (and have the Constitution changed). As for using Mohammed or Mary, how often are these heard in public prayer? I don't think that needs to be banned, since it just doesn't happen - at least not in this country. But I guarantee that if military chaplains began leading prayers to Mohammed, the Christians would be knocking on the ACLU's door (or whoever they thought could defend their rights). Christians are the overwhelming majority in this country, so you aren't the ones who typically need to be protected... get it? I really wish you could be a Jew or Muslim for a few days, and then you'd understand what it feels like to be a non-Christian in the U.S.
Quote:
The ACLJ is a Christian support group and has many attorneys just like the ACLU so, of course they would defend Christian rights.
Every other group has it's support but, if the ACLJ defends Christain rights they are one sided and biased against other religions. I don't see these other groups supporting Christains and the ACLU is real hard for a Christain too support when most of what they stand for is what Christains are againist.
The ACLU supports many causes, whereas the ACLJ only deals with Christian-related cases... nothing wrong with that, but you can't call them unbiased when they won't defend anyone of different faiths. The ACLU has defended Jews, Christians, Muslims, Blacks, Latinos, and basically anyone who feels their civil rights have been violated. If you asked them for help with discrimination towards Christians, they'd help if it was determined you had a case. I'd like to see what the ACLJ would do, if I came to them with an anti-Semitism issue...
You know as they say you never know until you try it. It is known that people have seen things related to God or the Bible and have not committed crimes due too seeing these things. So, yes I do believe by seeing what we shouldn't due could prevent a crime.
People act like the 10 commandments are some offensive hard too follow advice. If we were all to follow these rules are world would not be screwed up.
I liked to ask is there one line in the 10 Commandments that anyone finds so, hard to follow and why?
Most well say because I don't like it. These are all moral valves to follow that will be better for you and your fellow man or woman.
There's nothing wrong with believing in the Ten Commandments, and I think most of us try to follow it's basic message... whether or not we're aware. But to display it in public buildings is a clear violation of the separation of church & state, PERIOD. If we start ignoring laws & constitutional rights, what will happen next? I'm sorry, but these are the things America really stands for, and I believe in defending them. Btw, if posting a sign could help decrease crime, we'd have figured that out long ago! We have "Drug-Free Zone" signs in my neighborhood, but that hasn't stopped the dealers from selling here... and how many people obey speed-limits every time they see one?
Do you have any evidence to support this statement - "It is known that people have seen things related to God or the Bible and have not committed crimes due too seeing these things." - or is it just more speculation? Not saying it couldn't be true, but I doubt it's a common occurrence, and these people were probably waiting for something to stop them (if you know what I mean). Bottom line, people are going to do what they want, no matter how much you try to force a set of morals/rules on them. And I don't feel it's worth violating our Bill of Rights, because that will just be the beginning of the end, so to speak.
Do you think if a judge just put "Thou shall not covet thy neighbors wife" on the wall behind the bench the ACLU would complain ? No mention of God there....
The ACLU is great if you're not an American citizen. It's taken up the case of several illegals in legal matters against American citizens. Let's face it, they don't have constitutional rights if they aren't citizens. Human rights, yes, but constitutional rights, no. I'm an independent voter, but the ACLU is definitely on the far, far left of 99% of the issues. America needed them about 50 years ago, but they've lost so much respect over the years that they're not taken very seriously by most people these days anyway.
Let's face it, they don't have constitutional rights if they aren't citizens.
Actually, they do. The Constitution refers to "persons", not "citizens."
Okay, well that is true, I know the Bill of Rights applies, but I guess I was just saying what I wished to be true . Here's a long quote that I found interesting on the topic of noncitizens and terrorists.
Do Noncitizens Have Constitutional Rights?
Chris Suellentrop
Posted Thursday, Sept. 27, 2001, at 5:47 PM ET
Attorney General John ******** wants the power to lock up immigrants suspected of terrorism and hold them indefinitely. Wouldn't this violate the Constitution?
Not necessarily. True, the Bill of Rights applies to everyone, even illegal immigrants. So an immigrant, legal or illegal, prosecuted under the criminal code has the right to due process, a speedy and public trial, and other rights protected by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. This fact sheet from the National Lawyers Guild outlines a host of rights afforded to immigrants and citizens alike. (There are a few rights reserved for citizens. Among them are the right to vote, the right to hold most federal jobs, and the right to run for political office.)
But immigration proceedings are matters of administrative law, not criminal law. (As a result, the consequence of violating your immigration status is not jail but deportation.) And Congress has nearly full authority to regulate immigration without interference from the courts. Because immigration is considered a matter of national security and foreign policy, the Supreme Court has long held that immigration law is largely immune from judicial review. Congress can make rules for immigrants that would be unacceptable if applied to citizens.
In 1952's Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, the Supreme Court upheld the right of Congress to expel noncitizens who were former Communists. "In recognizing this power and this responsibility of Congress, one does not in the remotest degree align oneself with fears unworthy of the American spirit or with hostility to the bracing air of the free spirit," Justice Felix Frankfurter wrote in his concurrence. "One merely recognizes that the place to resist unwise or cruel legislation touching aliens is the Congress, not this Court."
Still, immigrants facing deportation do have some rights. Most are entitled to a hearing before an immigration judge, representation by a lawyer (but not one that's paid for by the government), and interpretation for non-English-speakers. The government must provide "clear and convincing" evidence to deport someone (a lower standard than "beyond a reasonable doubt").
On the other hand, some immigrants who are suspected terrorists may not be allowed to confront the evidence against them. In 1996, Congress established the Alien Terrorist Removal Court, a secret tribunal that can examine classified evidence. (Interestingly, Congress mandated in the same law that an immigrant tried by the terrorist court would have the right to counsel at government expense.) But the Alien Terrorist Removal Court has never been used, and a Department of Justice spokesman said he isn't aware of any plans to use the terrorist court any time soon.
The ACLU supports NAMBLA, and does its evil best to destroy the once-strong institutions of America, family, church, Boy Scouts, etc. That is all I need to know about them.
The ACLU supports NAMBLA, and does its evil best to destroy the once-strong institutions of America, family, church, Boy Scouts, etc. That is all I need to know about them.
lilypad
I know you said that that's "all you need to know," but just in case:
We talked about this NAMBLA stuff as well as Planned Parenthood in another thread, the Bad Bad Organizations thread. I believe the Boy Scouts issue is discussed right here in this thread. As for the church, the ACLU has *defended* several church issues.
All y'all who dismiss the ACLU out of hand, all I can say is, I hope you never need them. Institutions (such as the Constitution) have had, in recent months, a funny way of being messed with.
The ACLU supports NAMBLA, and does its evil best to destroy the once-strong institutions of America, family, church, Boy Scouts, etc. That is all I need to know about them.
Precisely. Well said.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As for using Mohammed or Mary, how often are these heard in public prayer? I don't think that needs to be banned, since it just doesn't happen - at least not in this country. But I guarantee that if military chaplains began leading prayers to Mohammed, the Christians would be knocking on the ACLU's door (or whoever they thought could defend their rights). Christians are the overwhelming majority in this country, so you aren't the ones who typically need to be protected... get it? I really wish you could be a Jew or Muslim for a few days, and then you'd understand what it feels like to be a non-Christian in the U.S. 
