The ACLU Is Anything But American

[mudwhistle]

actually, it doesn't bother me at all

take it up with scotus

Then try to be more tolerant and it won't appear so.

your perception of my tolerance is your problem, ace, not mine.

I can only go by what you write. I can't read your mind.

If you feel that seeing a cross or the Ten Commandments in a public place is "Forcing religion down our throats" what else am I supposed to think?

I am not so easily offended as you are it seems.

 

[manifold]

I could use your own link.

Would that work for you?

I'm not the dip-shit that keeps claiming that Separation of Church and state is in the establishment clause.



Meaning that the line you claim is in the constitution is not there. It is only in the letter.

Also, Thomas Jefferson did not mention anything about state laws on religion...only national laws.

Not my link.

uber fail

And you're a liar.

But what else is new.

Still not my link. Pretty sure it was Bodie's.

So that makes you the liar you fucking twatsicle.

 

[bodecea]

thats because they are called the FUCKING NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION....not the Rifle and free speech association....as compared to the other guys who call themselves the CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION.....which i would assume by the name......MEANS ALL FUCKING CIVIL LIBERTIES....not just free speech.........and i do notice you not taking TM to task for what she said.....any reason why?......she wont bite....

You are getting a little testy....wouldn't you want the best experts on a 2nd amendment case? I sure would.

I wouldn't go to a car repair shop for dishwasher....nor would I go to an appliance repair shop for my car. How is this hard to understand?

As to the ACLU and the 2nd Amendment:

Second Amendment | American Civil Liberties Union

Please read that while they disagree with the recent court ruling in D.C. vs Heller...they did not become involved in that court case at all and have no plans to get involved with 2nd amendment cases since they interpret the 2nd amendment as a collective right as opposed to an individual right which is what they SPECIALIZE in.
I would imagine the NRA doesn't get involved in 1st amendment rights because they SPECIALIZE in 2nd amendment cases.

nice dance Bo.....i guess thats why they have defended groups in the past.......i notice you still dont want to say anything to TM as to what she said....which is that they defend ANY case involving the Constitution.....according to you and me they dont.....but yet.....she said they do.....i questioned what she said.....and you questioned me,which is fine.....but yet you ignored her,when her statement said WE are both wrong.....interesting....

Any case that involves individual rights. I've posted their mission statement at least once already. Why you choose to ignore it....well, I don't know why.

 

[bodecea]

The right shouldn’t be directing its anger at the ACLU, conservatives have only themselves to blame.

The ACLU is a private entity – it passes no laws nor makes any judgments. It exercises its First Amendment right to ‘petition the Government for a redress of grievances’ in Federal court as authorized by the Constitution.

The issues the ACLU brings to the courts receive full review and evaluation. The merits of their cases are examined by judges and justices in the context of Constitutional case law and precedent – the rulings are based on facts of the law.

That conservative plaintiffs or defendants fail to prevail in these proceedings isn’t the ‘fault’ of the ACLU, it’s the weakness of the cases conservatives litigate.

In Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), for example, the ACLU won a victory for all Americans as the Supreme Court compelled the state of Florida to afford an indigent defendant legal counsel when accused of a felony. Today the ‘right to an attorney’ is an established, accepted component of our fundamental rights and freedoms, just as stated in the Constitution, per the Framers’ original intent.

Hence, the notion that the ACLU is ‘un-American’ is pure idiocy.

The ACLU is an anti-American group that uses our laws to wreck havoc on our institutions and our private citizens.

The founder of the ACLU was a communist anti-war demonstrator that changed it's name calling it all of the sudden the AMERICAN Civil Liberties Union to provide cover for libs that want to feel a little bit patriotic when they support the group.

They do just enough good to placate liberals and Progressives and keep them from turning against it.

They're only popular because they're firmly intrenched in our legal system and because they raise hell with the right people and make their lives miserable....which is what makes a Lib feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

Often liars on this board have said that the ACLU protects everyone's rights, but then they have admitted that some groups are beneath their concern blowing their claims all over the place.

To the left they are a godsend because their primary target seems to be conservatives and particularly Christians, so what's not to love about the ACLU.

So....full....of.....irony.....

 

[bodecea]

Would like to ask mudwhistle which of the three known versions of the Ten Commandments he would want posted?

I don't give a fuck.

I'm not a Bible Banger.

I think that we should be able to post whatever we want as long as it's not obscene. I just don't want the GOVERNMENT telling us we can't.

You can post the 10 Commandments all YOU want. The government, however, cannot in a government building.

 

[bodecea]

Just because you say it is doesn't mean it is so.

Shoving religion down one's throat is making laws that force you to pray before every meal, or forcing you to pray before school events, not simply displaying religious symbols in public.

You act like the cross or any mention of God causes you to go shrieking out of the room.

"If thy eye offendeth thee pluck it out."

actually, it doesn't bother me at all

take it up with scotus

Then try to be more tolerant and it won't appear so.

Why should WE be tolerant when YOU put religious stuff of a particular religion on PUBLIC, GOVERNMENTAL property?

 

[George Costanza]

The ACLU uses this phony argument of the establishment clause to stifle religious expression. They act like posting the Ten Commandments in a courthouse is the same as shoving religion down someone's throat.

that would be because it is.

Just because you say it is doesn't mean it is so.

Shoving religion down one's throat is making laws that force you to pray before every meal, or forcing you to pray before school events, not simply displaying religious symbols in public.

You act like the cross or any mention of God causes you to go shrieking out of the room.

"If thy eye offendeth thee pluck it out."

"Thlippery Thlope," as Elmer Fudd once said.

 

[bodecea]

Simple rule of thumb for Government/Public Property. If a cross or the 10 Commandments is acceptable in your eyes *...so is the torah or the Star of David....so is quotes from the Koran or the Muslim Moon symbol...so are quotes from Buddha or a Buddhist statue...so is a pentagram...so is a Thor's Hammer...and so on and so forth.

If everything past the * is UNacceptable to you, so is the cross or 10 commandments.

 

[manifold]

Simple rule of thumb for Government/Public Property. If a cross or the 10 Commandments is acceptable in your eyes *...so is the torah or the Star of David....so is quotes from the Koran or the Muslim Moon symbol...so are quotes from Buddha or a Buddhist statue...so is a pentagram...so is a Thor's Hammer...and so on and so forth.

If everything past the * is UNacceptable to you, so is the cross or 10 commandments.

but but but...

we're a Christian nation, remember?

 

[Harry Dresden]

You are getting a little testy....wouldn't you want the best experts on a 2nd amendment case? I sure would.

I wouldn't go to a car repair shop for dishwasher....nor would I go to an appliance repair shop for my car. How is this hard to understand?

As to the ACLU and the 2nd Amendment:

Second Amendment | American Civil Liberties Union

Please read that while they disagree with the recent court ruling in D.C. vs Heller...they did not become involved in that court case at all and have no plans to get involved with 2nd amendment cases since they interpret the 2nd amendment as a collective right as opposed to an individual right which is what they SPECIALIZE in.
I would imagine the NRA doesn't get involved in 1st amendment rights because they SPECIALIZE in 2nd amendment cases.

nice dance Bo.....i guess thats why they have defended groups in the past.......i notice you still dont want to say anything to TM as to what she said....which is that they defend ANY case involving the Constitution.....according to you and me they dont.....but yet.....she said they do.....i questioned what she said.....and you questioned me,which is fine.....but yet you ignored her,when her statement said WE are both wrong.....interesting....

Any case that involves individual rights. I've posted their mission statement at least once already. Why you choose to ignore it....well, I don't know why.

any case?...........now you are saying the same thing TM did......which is it?.....any case or are they selective?............are not my Gun Rights an individual Liberty?

 

[Harry Dresden]

What's funny is, all these so-called conservatives and RWers would go absolutely bananas if and when any public display or monument of Muslim origin were placed around them. Many of these liars pretend to not have a problem with it only for the sake of argument, however their response to the Mosque in downtown Manhattan and Mufeebro (sp), TN proves exactly how much they have a problem with it.

How about if Korans and/or Muslim religious leaders statues were placed in public places?

How would that work out for you righteez?

Marc you know godamed well that a hell of a lot of Democrats would freak out too....its funny how guys like you and Dean just cant grasp that....its all Republicans in your world.....

I don't know what you were reading....but I notice that Marc expressly DID NOT say Republicans.

oh ok.....im sorry.....im sure he did not mean them.....

 

[bodecea]

Simple rule of thumb for Government/Public Property. If a cross or the 10 Commandments is acceptable in your eyes *...so is the torah or the Star of David....so is quotes from the Koran or the Muslim Moon symbol...so are quotes from Buddha or a Buddhist statue...so is a pentagram...so is a Thor's Hammer...and so on and so forth.

If everything past the * is UNacceptable to you, so is the cross or 10 commandments.

but but but...

we're a Christian nation, remember?

We are not. We are a nation with a majority of Christians in it.

 

[bodecea]

Marc you know godamed well that a hell of a lot of Democrats would freak out too....its funny how guys like you and Dean just cant grasp that....its all Republicans in your world.....

I don't know what you were reading....but I notice that Marc expressly DID NOT say Republicans.

oh ok.....im sorry.....im sure he did not mean them.....

With the eye rolling thing, are you saying that Conservatives and RWrs are synonymous with Republicans?

 

[bodecea]

nice dance Bo.....i guess thats why they have defended groups in the past.......i notice you still dont want to say anything to TM as to what she said....which is that they defend ANY case involving the Constitution.....according to you and me they dont.....but yet.....she said they do.....i questioned what she said.....and you questioned me,which is fine.....but yet you ignored her,when her statement said WE are both wrong.....interesting....

Any case that involves individual rights. I've posted their mission statement at least once already. Why you choose to ignore it....well, I don't know why.

any case?...........now you are saying the same thing TM did......which is it?.....any case or are they selective?............are not my Gun Rights an individual Liberty?

The ACLU interprets it as a Collective Right. You may not agree with them, but they do not step up and try to STOP gun ownership. They defer to the NRA which is much better prepared to deal with 2nd amendment issues.

Or, are you whining that your appliance repairman won't fix your car too?

 

[manifold]

Simple rule of thumb for Government/Public Property. If a cross or the 10 Commandments is acceptable in your eyes *...so is the torah or the Star of David....so is quotes from the Koran or the Muslim Moon symbol...so are quotes from Buddha or a Buddhist statue...so is a pentagram...so is a Thor's Hammer...and so on and so forth.

If everything past the * is UNacceptable to you, so is the cross or 10 commandments.

but but but...

we're a Christian nation, remember?

We are not. We are a nation with a majority of Christians in it.

It's been stated at least a million times on the internet that we are a Christian nation. It must be true.

game set match!

 

[WorldWatcher]

>


Just a few facts about the Mt. Soledad Cross from court documetns:

• The first cross was erected in 1913, prior to WWI, WWII, or the Korean War.

• The cross was replaced multiple times between 1913 and 1954

• The Mt. Soledad Association itself said the purpose of the 1954 cross was to replace the previous crosses (The crosses were to commemorate wars that hadn’t occurred yet?)

• The Mt. Soledad Association itself in it’s dedication bulletin noted that the cross was dedicated to ““Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” not to war veterans.

• Only one news article between April 17, 1954 and the 1989 lawsuit described the cross as a war memorial. No other references to it as a war memorial were found.

• There is no evidence that the City planed the cross as a war memorial prior to its construction

• Construction and dedication were planned and did occur to allow the dedication to be conducted on Easter Sunday, 1954. Not Memorial Day, not Veterans Day, or any other day to honor veterans.

• Every year between 1954 and 1989, when the lawsuit was filed, the Mt. Soledad Association sponsored religious Easter sunrise services.

• Not once between 1954 and 1989, when the lawsuit was filed, did the Mt. Soledad Assc. or any other organization sponsor ceremony's to honor war dead on Memorial Day.

• Not once between 1954 and 1989, when the lawsuit was filed, did the Mt. Soledad Assc. or any other organization sponsor ceremony's to honor war dead on Veterans Day.

• No plaque or sign was ever in existence at the cross between 1954 and 1989, when the lawsuit was filed, indicating that the cross was a memorial to war dead.

• Regarding the Mt. Soledad Assc. – “Its own bylaws describe its purpose as the promotion of “community interest in the development of the public facilities of the Mt. Soledad park area.” The bylaws make no reference to the commemoration of war dead.”

• No one plague, not one sign, not one brick in the present "war memorial" wall now surrounding the cross was placed until after the City lost the suit.

• Prior to the lawsuit travel guides, maps, phone directories, and even government publications referred to the cross as the “Soledad Easter Cross”.​

If you would like to read the History of the Cross of the case decision, it can be found the following court documents: Paulson V. San Diego, Civ. No. 89-020 GT, Murphy v. Bilbray, US District Court, CIV NO 90-0134, Philip K. Paulson v. City of San Diego, 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 00-55406, Jewish War Veterans v. Rumsfeld, US District Court Complaint Dtd 8/24/2006, Paulson v. Abdulnour, Superior Court of California, Dtd 10/7/2005



>>>>

 

[bodecea]

>


Just a few facts about the Mt. Soledad Cross from court documetns:

• The first cross was erected in 1913, prior to WWI, WWII, or the Korean War.

• The cross was replaced multiple times between 1913 and 1954

• The Mt. Soledad Association itself said the purpose of the 1954 cross was to replace the previous crosses (The crosses were to commemorate wars that hadn’t occurred yet?)

• The Mt. Soledad Association itself in it’s dedication bulletin noted that the cross was dedicated to ““Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” not to war veterans.

• Only one news article between April 17, 1954 and the 1989 lawsuit described the cross as a war memorial. No other references to it as a war memorial were found.

• There is no evidence that the City planed the cross as a war memorial prior to its construction

• Construction and dedication were planned and did occur to allow the dedication to be conducted on Easter Sunday, 1954. Not Memorial Day, not Veterans Day, or any other day to honor veterans.

• Every year between 1954 and 1989, when the lawsuit was filed, the Mt. Soledad Association sponsored religious Easter sunrise services.

• Not once between 1954 and 1989, when the lawsuit was filed, did the Mt. Soledad Assc. or any other organization sponsor ceremony's to honor war dead on Memorial Day.

• Not once between 1954 and 1989, when the lawsuit was filed, did the Mt. Soledad Assc. or any other organization sponsor ceremony's to honor war dead on Veterans Day.

• No plaque or sign was ever in existence at the cross between 1954 and 1989, when the lawsuit was filed, indicating that the cross was a memorial to war dead.

• Regarding the Mt. Soledad Assc. – “Its own bylaws describe its purpose as the promotion of “community interest in the development of the public facilities of the Mt. Soledad park area.” The bylaws make no reference to the commemoration of war dead.”

• No one plague, not one sign, not one brick in the present "war memorial" wall now surrounding the cross was placed until after the City lost the suit.

• Prior to the lawsuit travel guides, maps, phone directories, and even government publications referred to the cross as the “Soledad Easter Cross”.​

If you would like to read the History of the Cross of the case decision, it can be found the following court documents: Paulson V. San Diego, Civ. No. 89-020 GT, Murphy v. Bilbray, US District Court, CIV NO 90-0134, Philip K. Paulson v. City of San Diego, 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 00-55406, Jewish War Veterans v. Rumsfeld, US District Court Complaint Dtd 8/24/2006, Paulson v. Abdulnour, Superior Court of California, Dtd 10/7/2005



>>>>

Do you think Veterans like being used?

 

[mudwhistle]

Not my link.

uber fail

And you're a liar.

But what else is new.

Still not my link. Pretty sure it was Bodie's.

So that makes you the liar you fucking twatsicle.

Are saying now that Thomas Jefferson's letter on separation of church and state has no bearing on you beliefs on the subject?

Quite the backtrack, don't you think?

 

[mudwhistle]

>


Just a few facts about the Mt. Soledad Cross from court documetns:

• The first cross was erected in 1913, prior to WWI, WWII, or the Korean War.

• The cross was replaced multiple times between 1913 and 1954

• The Mt. Soledad Association itself said the purpose of the 1954 cross was to replace the previous crosses (The crosses were to commemorate wars that hadn’t occurred yet?)

• The Mt. Soledad Association itself in it’s dedication bulletin noted that the cross was dedicated to ““Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” not to war veterans.

• Only one news article between April 17, 1954 and the 1989 lawsuit described the cross as a war memorial. No other references to it as a war memorial were found.

• There is no evidence that the City planed the cross as a war memorial prior to its construction

• Construction and dedication were planned and did occur to allow the dedication to be conducted on Easter Sunday, 1954. Not Memorial Day, not Veterans Day, or any other day to honor veterans.

• Every year between 1954 and 1989, when the lawsuit was filed, the Mt. Soledad Association sponsored religious Easter sunrise services.

• Not once between 1954 and 1989, when the lawsuit was filed, did the Mt. Soledad Assc. or any other organization sponsor ceremony's to honor war dead on Memorial Day.

• Not once between 1954 and 1989, when the lawsuit was filed, did the Mt. Soledad Assc. or any other organization sponsor ceremony's to honor war dead on Veterans Day.

• No plaque or sign was ever in existence at the cross between 1954 and 1989, when the lawsuit was filed, indicating that the cross was a memorial to war dead.

• Regarding the Mt. Soledad Assc. – “Its own bylaws describe its purpose as the promotion of “community interest in the development of the public facilities of the Mt. Soledad park area.” The bylaws make no reference to the commemoration of war dead.”

• No one plague, not one sign, not one brick in the present "war memorial" wall now surrounding the cross was placed until after the City lost the suit.

• Prior to the lawsuit travel guides, maps, phone directories, and even government publications referred to the cross as the “Soledad Easter Cross”.​

If you would like to read the History of the Cross of the case decision, it can be found the following court documents: Paulson V. San Diego, Civ. No. 89-020 GT, Murphy v. Bilbray, US District Court, CIV NO 90-0134, Philip K. Paulson v. City of San Diego, 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 00-55406, Jewish War Veterans v. Rumsfeld, US District Court Complaint Dtd 8/24/2006, Paulson v. Abdulnour, Superior Court of California, Dtd 10/7/2005



>>>>

Do you think Veterans like being used?

In what way were they used?

 

[bodecea]

>


Just a few facts about the Mt. Soledad Cross from court documetns:

• The first cross was erected in 1913, prior to WWI, WWII, or the Korean War.

• The cross was replaced multiple times between 1913 and 1954

• The Mt. Soledad Association itself said the purpose of the 1954 cross was to replace the previous crosses (The crosses were to commemorate wars that hadn’t occurred yet?)

• The Mt. Soledad Association itself in it’s dedication bulletin noted that the cross was dedicated to ““Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” not to war veterans.

• Only one news article between April 17, 1954 and the 1989 lawsuit described the cross as a war memorial. No other references to it as a war memorial were found.

• There is no evidence that the City planed the cross as a war memorial prior to its construction

• Construction and dedication were planned and did occur to allow the dedication to be conducted on Easter Sunday, 1954. Not Memorial Day, not Veterans Day, or any other day to honor veterans.

• Every year between 1954 and 1989, when the lawsuit was filed, the Mt. Soledad Association sponsored religious Easter sunrise services.

• Not once between 1954 and 1989, when the lawsuit was filed, did the Mt. Soledad Assc. or any other organization sponsor ceremony's to honor war dead on Memorial Day.

• Not once between 1954 and 1989, when the lawsuit was filed, did the Mt. Soledad Assc. or any other organization sponsor ceremony's to honor war dead on Veterans Day.

• No plaque or sign was ever in existence at the cross between 1954 and 1989, when the lawsuit was filed, indicating that the cross was a memorial to war dead.

• Regarding the Mt. Soledad Assc. – “Its own bylaws describe its purpose as the promotion of “community interest in the development of the public facilities of the Mt. Soledad park area.” The bylaws make no reference to the commemoration of war dead.”

• No one plague, not one sign, not one brick in the present "war memorial" wall now surrounding the cross was placed until after the City lost the suit.

• Prior to the lawsuit travel guides, maps, phone directories, and even government publications referred to the cross as the “Soledad Easter Cross”.​

If you would like to read the History of the Cross of the case decision, it can be found the following court documents: Paulson V. San Diego, Civ. No. 89-020 GT, Murphy v. Bilbray, US District Court, CIV NO 90-0134, Philip K. Paulson v. City of San Diego, 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 00-55406, Jewish War Veterans v. Rumsfeld, US District Court Complaint Dtd 8/24/2006, Paulson v. Abdulnour, Superior Court of California, Dtd 10/7/2005



>>>>

Do you think Veterans like being used?

In what way were they used?

As an attempt to bypass a lawsuit for a Christian religious symbol being on Public Property.

(Glad to explain the obvious to you)