afterhours
Registered
an article from online..... The American Thinker....."Judeo-Christian Values" by Ronald Cherry
American Thinker: Judeo-Christian Values
not exactly an un-biased website.
an article from online..... The American Thinker....."Judeo-Christian Values" by Ronald Cherry
American Thinker: Judeo-Christian Values
I know I'm not going to change any opinions here so I'm leaving for now with this thought. Christians are being accused in this thread of being intollerant because we are standing up for our right to keep the Government from supressing our freedom of religion. Nowhere in here have I read a Christian say that a Jewish, Islamic, Muslim, Hindu, Budist, or any other religious symbol should be banned. Nor have I read that the Government should be forcing non-believers to display religious symbols. But plenty have said that Christian symbols need to be banned. Food for thought.
You are missing the point. The ACLU is saying that no religious symbol(s) should be up. As the government shouldn't sanction it cause it is unconstitutional. This particular one just happens to be christian. What are the odds of that,since Christianity is the larges of religions in America? The rest you are over reading into the topic and filling in with your own emotions.
According to the constitution(separation of church and state) the government is suppose to play a "neutral role" in religious standings. At least that is the grounds the ACLU is working on.
I know I'm not going to change any opinions here so I'm leaving for now with this thought. Christians are being accused in this thread of being intollerant because we are standing up for our right to keep the Government from supressing our freedom of religion. Nowhere in here have I read a Christian say that a Jewish, Islamic, Muslim, Hindu, Budist, or any other religious symbol should be banned. Nor have I read that the Government should be forcing non-believers to display religious symbols. But plenty have said that Christian symbols need to be banned. Food for thought.
Don't kid yourself, the ACLU is saying that the Government needs to sanction athieism as the National religion of the United States. I already covered the separation of Church and State falacy in a previous post.
not exactly an un-biased website.
by diane dew?
the famous anti abortion activist?
the well know author of christian based novels and short stories
the creator of a website called bible treasurechest?
hardly an unbiased source.
Guys - if I may offer a couple of thoughts here:
1. There is no such thing as an atheist is a firefight.
BW
Where in any post do you see anyone saying religious symbols should be banned? In fact the lawsuit is not even saying that.
How is your right to freedom of religion in any way infringed upon by either of the following:
1) The absence of all religious symbols on federal property.
2) The presence of religious symbols of all faiths represented on federal property
3) The removial of a religious symbol from federal property.
Lastly please reference one piece of credable documentation citing any support to the notion that: "the ACLU is saying that the Government needs to sanction athieism as the National religion of the United States".
by diane dew?
the famous anti abortion activist?
the well know author of christian based novels and short stories
the creator of a website called bible treasurechest?
hardly an unbiased source.
rita warren v. fairfax county - ACLU represented a christian woman
http://www.aclufl.org/pdfs/StPeteLetter.pdf aclu of florida protestc the rights of chrisitans to protest at gay rights parade.
ACLU to county: Get a Christmas tree or else - Mauinews.com | News, Sports, Jobs, Visitor's Information - The Maui News aclu fights to allow christmas tree display
Crayton Press Release ACLU protects the right of Edwin Crayton to protest agaisnt Wal-Mart and thier gay policy
ACLU of Washington ACLU protects the right of christian minister to preach in Spokane Plaza
perhaps you need to read more, because the ACLU had no problem protecting the rights of christians.
Here's the irony of it all. Every time the Government passes a law to ban anything associated with any religion from anyplace, including Government property, it is violating the 1st Amendment which it claims the law is based. We have gotten so PC in this Country that we are allowing special intrest groups to erode our rights and are aplauding them for backing the underdog as they do it.
Referencing what would be accepted as "credible" documentation to this group isn't possible on any controversial topic. Everyone is biased to one side or the other.