Liberal Killer THIRD RESPONSE
There is more to the story than your spin. :-) The Catholic church shouldn't
go against it's moral preaching. If the workers didn't like the rule, they
should have quit. Just because a corrupt, kangaroo court in California comes
up with another yet again, anti-Christian law, doesn't make it right to
change the history of religion in our country, or history of Christianity
and it's practice. Should Catholic churches allow orgies also?
Not on their property, but they should not be allowed to prevent an employee from participating in one of their own free will. That's what they were trying to do with the birth control issue, keeping birth control from non Catholic employees simply because the church is against it.
I am very proud for the Church for this stand also.
Their religious beliefs give them the right to not use birth control, but not to right to prevent others from using it.
But if you are working for the Catholic Church, you need to abide by their preaching, if not you are a hypocrite. Should the Catholic Church have an unmarried pregnant teacher teaching children morality? No. Should the Catholic Church have teachers engaging in orgies, birth control, homosexuality, or being a transvestite and numerous other offenses, and still be allowed to teach? The children won't take them serious. Who wants someone telling them the rules to something, and them not follow it themselves?
The Church is allowed to practice outside the laws, that's why they are a church, not a government. Abortion is legal now, but the Church can preach against it all day long, which it does and should, since abortion is immoral and against God's law and our Founding Fathers beliefs.It's against
their belief and practice, but if a California Kangaroo Court makes it a
law, doesn't make it right. And you forgot this tidbit regarding the case.
Justice Janice Rogers Brown dissented, writing that the Legislature's
definition of a "religious employer" is too limiting if excludes faith-based
nonprofit groups like Catholic Charities. "Here we are dealing with an
intentional, purposeful intrusion into a religious organization's expression
of it religious tenets and sense of mission," Brown wrote. "The government
is not accidentally or incidentally interfering with religious practice; it
is doing so willfully by making a judgment about what is or is not a
religion."
When you hire employees you must abide by federal law, if the Catholic Church doesn't want to abide by federal law then they should depend on volunteers from within their church to fill necessary positions, rather than hiring nonCatholics and then attempting to force them to abide by Catholic tenets.
If you don't like the rules, then quit. Should the Catholic Church hire transvestites and homosexuals next, and have them set examples for children to follow, which go against the church's foundation, and beliefs? NO! Besides, before liberalism infected our government, the Government was Church first, in it's laws.
Congress of the United States 1853 regarding the first amendment, 'They did not intend to spread over all the public authorities and the whole public action of the nation the dead and revolting spectacle of atheistic apathy'.
1952 case Zorach vs Clauson 'The first amendment does not say that in every respect there shall be a separation of Church and State. Rather, it defines the manner in which there shall be no concert or union or dependency one on the other. That is the Common sense of the matter. Otherwise, Municipalities would not be permitted to render police or fire protection to religious groups...would violate the constitution.' We are a religious people and our institutions presuppose a Supreme Being.
Supreme Court Of Massachusetts 1838 Commonwealth vs Abner Kneeland '[The First Amendment] embraces all who believe in the existence of God, as well...as Christians of every denomination...This provision does not extend to atheists, because they do not believe in God or religion; and therefore...their sentiments and professions, whatever they may be, cannont be c alled religions sentiments and professions.
How about this court case in 1831 in New York as told by witness Alexis Tocqueville, 'While I was in America, a witness, delcared that he did not believe in the existence of God or the immortality of the soul. The judge refused to admit his evidence, on the ground that the witness had sdestroyed beforehand all confidence o the court in what he was about to say. The presiding judge remarked, that he had not before been aware that theree was a man living who did not believe in God, and that he knew of no case in a Christian Country, wwhere a witness had been permeitted to testify without such belief.' Woudn't this statment be further proof of our Country being a Christian nation? I know so!
James Kent was a Chief Justice of Supreme Court of NY. In the case people v ruggles in 1811 he rendered the opinion of the court, 'the defendant wickedly and blasphemously utter and with a loud voice publish, in thep resence of hearing ofdivers good and Christian people, and concerning the Christian religion, and Jesus Christ, the falks scandalous, malicious, wicked and blashemous words -Jesus Christ was a bastard, aand his mother must be a whore. the defendant was tried and found guilty, and was sentenced by the c ourt to be imprisoned for three months, and pay a fine of 500 dollars. ridicule of Christ or the Scriptures are ofenses punishable at common law, whether uttered by words or writings because it tends to corrupt the morals of the people. The people of this state porfess the general doctrines of Christianity. We are a Christian eople and the morality of the country is deeply engrafted upon Christianity, and not upon hte doctrines of whorship of theose imposters [othe reliogions] the Constitutional declaration never meant to withdraw religion in general, and with it the best sanctions of moral and social obligation from all consideration and notice of the law. Christanity is part and parcel of the law of the land.' Why would it be against the law to bash Christianity if it weren't part of our country and government? Can't say the same thing for other REligions like Islam and the wicked beliefs of Atheism. Unless you could show me the court case please from around that time
Supreme Court of Maryland 1799- case M'Creery's Lessee Vs Allender, where and emigrant had become a naturalized citizen. The court dedicde in MCreery's favor, base on a certificate which reads 'Thomas M'Creery in order to become ....naturalized took the oath. -repaat and subscribe a delclaration of his belief in the Christian Religion, and take the oath required by the ACT of Assembly of this State, entitled -An Act for Naturalization.' You had to take the oath to be a Citizen of our Country. Why take the oath by law if Christianity was not to be a part of our law?
Supreme Court of MASS in 1838 in the case Commonwealth vs Abner Kneeland, who claimed the right to 'Freedom of press' as a defense of r publishing libelous and defamatory remarks about Christianity and God. the stature,'That if any person blaspheme the name of God, by denying, cursing, his creation, government, or final judging of the world mayb be described as consisting in speaking evil of the Deity. It is purposely using words concerning God....to impair and destroy and reverence, respect, and confidence due him....that this statured itself is repugnant to the Constitution....[This law] was passed very soon after the Constitution, and no doubt, many members of convention which framed the Constitution, werer members of legislature which passed this law. New Hamshire has a similar declaration...denial of the being and existence of God is prohibited by stature, and declared blasphemy. In vermont..similar declaration of rights 1797 ....the being and existence of God...deemed....and an ofender against the good morals of society. The state of Maine...adopted the same constitution provision. The first amendment embraces all who believe in the existence of God, as Christians of every denomination. This provision does not extend to Athiests, because they do not believe in God or religion; and therefore...their sentiments and professions, whatever they may be, cannot be called religious sentiments and professions.
Supreme Court of South Carolina in 1846 case of City of Charelston vs S.A. Benjamin, the prosecuting attorney explained, "Chrisitainity is part of the common law of the land. It has always been so recognized. The US Constutution allows it as part of the common law. The President is allowed ten days [to sign a bill] with the exception of SUnday. The sabbath is still to be supported...Christiianty ...is the foundation of those morals and manners upon which our society is formed." The Suprem Court Agreed with the prosecuting attorney and stated,"IN the courts over which we preside, we daily acknowlege Chrisitianity as the most solemn part of our administration. In the case Updegraph vs The commonwealth-Christianity is and always has been a part of common law." Please prove to me this man was lying....good luck!
why have prayer in congress and government if the Constitution separated Christianity from government.
The government would only be interfering in the Catholic churches religious tenets if it tried to force Catholics to take birth control.
Nesta
Actually, the government is always interfering with Christianity nowadays, at the backing of ACLU and other liberals groups, and liberals themselves.
Actually our country and schools had prayer instituted as a study method.
Our Public school system wasn't in place until almost 1900, with the first state having mandatory elementary school attendance in 1852, and it taking until 1918 before the public elementary school system was fully in place. With mandatory attendance came the issue of religious education in public schools. Once public schools became funded by federal dollars it became unconstitutional to combine mandatory attendance with religious education in the classroom.
And a shame it was because that is not what our founding fathers intended; they were Christian, like the school system. Major Universities were founded upon Christianity. Just another example of the left rewriting history and twisting our Founding Documents.
The first case was brought in 1948, only 30 years after public elementary schools with mandatory attendance became nation wide. So, yes , technically speaking, there was prayer and bible study in the nations first schools, however it was quickly recognized as unconstitutional when combined with mandatory attendance.
Again, quickly recognized by liberals. How come it wasn't recognized sooner? Was everybody incompetent previously to 1948? Or was it because we were a Christian nation in our school up until that point? It's the latter. As for schools, I can name major universities such as Harvard which was founded upon Christian principles, with christianity taught first and foremost. Should we shut down Harvard now, like other major universities since they are not following the establishing guidelines?
God and Christianity were deeply rooted in our country's founding, and
government, and school systems. If we pass a law today where it's ok to rape
women on Wednesdays, that doesn't make it right, or what our founding
fathers intended.
Exactly right, and when some states attempted to pass laws requiring school children to pray in a certain way and attend classes that taught them religion in a certain way, it was still wrong.
It was wrong to Atheists. It wasn't wrong to our founding fathers, our nation back then, our citizens back then, or to most of America today, which is 85 percent Christian. Adding up the people from our nations founding and population since, you're looking at a high ninety percentage of Christians in our Country since it's founding. If they decided that it wasn't wrong, how is it wrong, because the one percenters said it was, which go against our laws and heritage? How come it has taken 200 years for people to understand what people meant 200 years previously? Didn't the people who made the rules and laws know better than Liberals 200 years later? It's important that you or any Liberal not confuse eisegesis (imposing one's view upon a passage or writing) with exegesis (Drawing out the meaning of the passage from it's context) I find it impossible that people 250 years ago didn't know what they really meant, and that it took people 200 years later to tell us and them what they meant.And there is more to the story, in addition, to the demand
for jail time, the ACLU cites a prayer it says was recently given at Amite
High School, over a loudspeaker, at an awards banquet. The prayer ended with
the words "In Jesus' name we pray," violating the ban; the principal of the
school sat silently by. Sounds pretty anti-Christian to me.
That's not anti-Christian, it's pro first amendment. The first amendment protects your right to have whatever religion you choose, it never gave you the right to subject other people's children to it.
If this were true, how come Christianity was subjected to children and the citizens in our country, not diminished at all until liberals Constitution twisters arrived 200 years later to tell everyone what the new definition of the first amendment truly meant. That's laughable.
Allow me to quote someone who would know more about the first amendment that you or I. Someone nearer to the time it was established.
Joseph Story, Justice to Supreme Court in his work 'A Familair Exposition of the Constitution of the US' in 1840 states, "We are not to attribute this prohibition o a national religious establishment {in the First Amendment] to an indifference to religion in general, and especially to Christianity which none could hold in more reverence than the framers of the Constitution)...at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and of the Amendment to it now under consideration, the general, if not the universal, sentiment in America was, the Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the State so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience and freedom or religious worship." In his commentary of the First amendments meaning,"The real object of the First Amendment was not to countenance, much less to advance Mohammedanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity, but to exclude all rivalry among Christian Sects and to prevent any national ecclesiastical patronage of national government."Freedom of
religion, not freedom from religion.
You cannot have freedom of religion without freedom from religion. IOW, if I choose to raise my children Catholic I must be free FROM the requirement to have them be Baptist, correct? And if I am raising them Catholic then it goes against our first amendment rights to have them taught Christianity by Baptist standards in their schools.
Nope. Our country was founded upon Christianity. The intent of the founding fathers was to not have a certain SECT dominate our Government. Besides, Baptist and Catholic are both Christian, although one protestant, one Catholic. It's the same God, and same religion, unlike mormonism, Jehovah's witness, Buddhism, or Islam, etc.
You are correct, Freedom of religion.
The founding fathers established, rather clearly, that Christianity was and
is to be a part of our government and way of life.
Where did they do this?
Where? United States of America. Constitution, Declaration of Independence, Etc. There also is the fact that in order to serve our government, you had to pledge a belief in the Christian God, and Jesus Christ. That not convincing enough?
These cases show the anti
Christian bias with the Anti-Christian Liberties Union. Regarding the
Tangipahoa case, Joe Cook , the ACLU head in Louisiana said, "The federal
court must rein in religious extremists who have taken over the Tangipahoa
Parish school system by hijacking Christianity and using it to carry out
their agenda of indoctrinating and proselytizing
Again, not anti-Christian, pro-first amendment.
It's only pro first amendment, if you TWIST the first amendment, which unfortunately, liberals have been doing for fifty years. Unless you can show me some court cases pre 1900, or pre 1850 that condemns Christianity as a part of our laws, and first amendment. Most all cases, if not all pre 1950ish are pro Christian. How come it took two hundred years for some liberals to wake up, and say 'ahah! I know the true meaning of the first amendment!' Then proceed to change what the first amendment protected and allowed? It's plainly obvious that liberals are using that just like separation of church and state to meet their needs, which is to not allow Christianity into our government and laws anymore. So I would say, it's anti first amendment, and anti Christian.
Captive and control are the key elements here. The Tangipahoa school was REQUIRING students to participate in the prayer and the bible study class. Children who did not show up were chastised. Let's put the shoe on the other foot for an example. You send your child to school and the school requires him to pray to Allah, kneeling on a rug facing East, and to attend Koran study class. When he says, but I'm not Muslim, they chastise him for not cooperating. Isn't your child free FROM participating in the Muslim religious practices, or does he only have freedom OF religion, but not freedom FROM religion?
Nesta
First off, could you show me where Islam, or any other religion excluding Christianity, was embedded in our first schools or government? It's not there. If I send my kid to a Muslim school, he better pray to allah, just as if i put him in a Catholic School, he better pray to God. It's like putting a kid on a sports team, and him not participating, and turning his back on the team, and not showing up at all. What is interesting though, I have heard a lot on the radio, and read in books, (Which of the books I will have look up because it is in one of my hundreds of books, and I really don't want to waste hours looking for the information on it) but in California, I believe, students were required to study Islam and practice Islam, do projects regarding Islam, pray like Muslims, and of course, the Religious right had to raise a red flag and bust them. Interesting how Christianity wasn't practiced at these schools, or enforced, but Islam was. Just another anti-Christian tactic of the left.
And how does this prove that the ACLU, as an organization, was founded
on communism?
Actually the founder's political views aren't damning against the ACLU itself.
Actually, they are extremely damning. Jehovah's Witness founder, Russell, said and practiced many things which still hurt the Cult today. If someone says, "Communism is the Goal" and the group, or organization has Communist tendencies, how is that not damning?
By your argument America is a Deist nation because several of our founding fathers were deists.
Actually, I never said this. Can you show me where I said our Founding Fathers were Deists?
It is generally accepted that over 250 men were instrumental in the foundation of our country, thus qualifying for the designation of "founding father" consider the following list:56 Signers of the Declaration of Independence
14 Presidents from 1774 to 1789 [President of the United States in Continental Congress]
First 4-6 Presidents of the United States beginning with George Washington
36+ prominent military leaders of the Revolutionary War
55 Men in the Constitutional Convention
38 Signers of the Constitution
13 State Governors responsible for leading the ratification of the Constitution
90 Members of the First Congress?creators of the Bill of Rights
Most of them never questioned their faith. Of these 250 men, only 2 or three were Deists, or one time Deist who became Christians. Pretty overwhelming evidence, huh.
During the period of time that the ACLU was founded many people in the world were communist supporters.
Not in our country! Being Communist made one stand out, hence the ACLU.
The concept of communism did not have the flavor of evil to it that we associate with it now, people still believed utopia was possible.
Then it wasn't evil when Stalin killed up to 25 million of his own people under Communism? What about the treatment of it's citizens in the early 1900's, a utopia, which the ACLU's founder strived for.
Most people know better now.
If that is the case, then they don't know history.
The ACLU itself was established to defend the rights of Americans, with different political views from our government, from unwarranted attacks.
Maybe under the false blanket it wrapped itself in, but it's goal was to establish communism, and rid our country of it's founding religion, Christianity.
Abortion may go against most Christian groups beliefs but I would hardly call Margaret Sanger antiChristian.
You wouldn't? I would
In 1929, the church held the Lambeth conference. It was at this meeting of the officials of the church, where a heated debate over birth control was waged. In a split vote, the traditional view of anti contraception won. It was at the same time that the church deiced to drop the fight with Sanger, and instead focus on promoting abstinence. The church was trying to be proactive, instead of reactive. Sanger fought for women’s rights and the ideal that change was good. The church tried to hold onto tradition as long as it could; tradition was the basis of it’s teachings. This is why the church was so adamantly against birth control, it took away what was normal. Sanger gave women something the church was afraid of: the power to control and the need to progress. She opened the first birth control clinic in the US in Brownsville, NY. Also sought the help of two groups that were organized to help women and the poor, the feminists and the Socialists.
Sanger's projects and research spawned such organizations as National Organization for Women (NOW) and Planned Parenthood. These 2 organizations are anti-child and anti-christian. Should I have said anti-baby instead? But you get the point.
That's true, they did, but it still does not make them a communist organization. They have made no attempts to advance the cause of communism in America,
Untrue
From 45 Goals of Communism as established by congress in 1963. The following goals of the communist party have been and are currently being implemented by the ACLU.
15. Use the technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.
16. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers associations. Put the party line in textbooks.
24. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio and TV.
25. Present homosexuality, degeneracy, and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy". (Alternative life-styles).
23. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.
26. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a "religious crutch".
27. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state".
28. Discredit the American constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a world-wide basis.
42. Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special-interest groups should rise up and use "united force" to solve economic, political or social problems.
I don't like to Copy and paste, I like doing my own typing and research, but the above list is copied and pasted.
and furthermore they expelled Elizabeth Gurley Flinn in 1940 because she was a member of the communist party. ]
1967, the board voted to effectively rescind the 1940 Resolution and welcomed communists back into the Union. They later rescinded Flynn's purge, and elevated her to "hero" status.They avoided defending communist leaders when they were charged under the Smith ACt and stayed out of the Ethel and Julius Rosenberg case altogether, citing that the case did not involve a civil liberties violation
When 30 union leaders of Trotskyist persuasion were convicted under the Smith Act, the ACLU loudly applauded. But it was passionate in its condemnation when 12 Communist Party leaders were convicted under the same act.You've stated that the ACLU was founded as an organization to promote communism as public policy in America, I'd like some examples of activites by the ACLU that do that.
Nesta
William Kunstler, as a member of the National Advisory Counsel stated, "I am a double agent, working within the system to bring down the system." Just study it's policies and case history and it is obvious they still seek Communist and socialist goals.
The ACLU has been the recipient of numerous grants from the Garland Foundation (American Fund for Public Service) which is the notorious bankroll for Communist front organizations.The ACLU has been the recipient of numerous grants from the Garland Foundation (American Fund for Public Service) which is the notorious bankroll for Communist front organizations.
On a sidenote, Jimmy Carter awarded Roger Baldwin the Medal of Freedom-the nation's highest civilian honor. Goes hand in hand with Carter's new book on morality. Now that is funny!
The ACLU, long an advocate of unlimited freedom of the press and freedom of speech, asked Secretary of Defense Charles Wilson to withdraw a pamphlet entitled "How to Spot a Communist," prepared by the 1st Army and used by the Watertown, Mass., arsenal
The ACLU protested the publishing by the League of Decency of a list of movies and books that the league considered immoral. (It has long been known that one of the primary aims of the Communist Party is to subvert the morals of the American public.)
The ACLU has been the recipient of numerous grants from the Garland Foundation (American Fund for Public Service) which is the notorious bankroll for Communist front organizations. The Garland Fund is characterized by the California Senate Fact Finding Commission, 1948 report, page 247, as "the source of revenue for Communist causes is generally referred to as the Garland Fund."
The Garland Fund has also been cited by the United States House Special Committee on Un-American Activities as follows: "The Garland Fund was a major source for the financing of Communist Party enterprises,"
Frank Wilkinson, an identified Communist and chief hatchetman for the Emergency Civil Liberties Committee and the Citizens Committee to Preserve American Freedoms in the "Operation Abolition" program, who, so far as we know, is not even a member of the ACLU, seems to be so prominent in the affairs of the ACLU.
Mr Roger Baldwin has a record of over 100 communist-front affiliations and citations
Dr. Harry Ward, first chairman of the ACLU. Dr. Harry Ward has a record of over 200 Communist front affiliations and citations listed by the House Committee on UnAmerican Activities
Dr. Albert Eason Monroe, executive director of the Southern California Chapter of the ACLU:
In 1952, Dr. Albert Eason Monroe was discharged from the U.S. Naval Reserve under conditions other than honorable.
In 1950, Dr. Monroe was fired from his position as head of the English department of San Francisco college for refusing to sign a loyalty oath. (The purpose of loyalty oaths is to protect the unsuspecting individual from lending his name to a Communist cause and from becoming a Communist dupe.
In 1952, the Reverend Heist resigned his position in the ACLU to become director of a new organization which he founded, called the Citizens' Committee to Preserve American Freedoms (CCPAF). This organization is run by its executive secretary, Mr. Frank Wilkinson, an identified Communist.
Carey McWilliams, a member of the national committee of the ACLU in 1948, who now figures prominently in the affairs of the ACLU, has been identified in sworn testimony, according to Government documents, as a member of the Communist Party. Carey McWilliams has a record of over 50 Communist-front affiliations and citations.
From 45 Goals of Communism as established by congress in 1963. The following goals of the communist party have been and are currently being implemented by the ACLU.
.
Consider these stances by the ACLU ----
Defends Nambla, the Man Boy Love Association which teaches how to rape children and get away with it.
Against prohibitions on distributing porn to children. Yeah, let's give porn to kids. That's a great thing to do!
Libraries should not restrict access to porn from children on their internet.
Public schools can't observe Christmas, despite hundreds of years of doing so.
Laws prohibiting polygamy should be abolished.
In Indiana, defended a pedophile convicted three times of molesting children.
Played a role in striking down a lay in Iowa which prohibited convicted sex offenders from living within two thousand feet from schools and daycare centers.
Their constant attack on 'The Boy Scouts', because they won't allow homosexuals to be scout leaders for the boys. Not to mention attacking the Boy Scouts belief in a supreme being.
The fact that they are against every President Bush anti-terrorism proposal, which in my mind makes them pro terrorist and anti-American. They are not making America any safer.
How about this news story just today, march 2nd, 2006. I heard it first on Sean Hannity radio show.
Jay Bennish, who teaches 10th grade world geography, is being investigated for making biased, anti-President Bush comments in class during a discussion of the State of the Union speech last month.
Teacher Jay Bennish: Who is probably the single most violent nation on planet Earth?!
Unidentified brainwashed student interjects: We are.
Bennish: The United States of America!
Bennish: I'm not saying Bush and Hitler are exactly the same, obviously they're not. OK? But there are some eerie similarities to the tones that they use. Very "ethnocentric."
Bennish-Can you imagine? What is the world's number one single cause of death by a drug? What drug is responsible for the most deaths in the world? Cigarettes! Who is the world's largest producer of cigarettes and tobacco? The United States! What part of our country grows all our tobacco? Anyone know what states in particular? Mostly what's called North Carolina. Alright. That's where all the cigarette capitals are. That's where a lot of them are located from. Now if we have the right to fly to Bolivia or Peru and drop chemical weapons on top of farmers' fields because we're afraid they might be growing coca and that could be turned into cocaine and sold to us, well then don't the Peruvians and the Iranians and the Chinese have the right to invade America and drop chemical weapons over North Carolina to destroy the tobacco plants that are killing millions and millions of people in their countries every year and causing them billions of dollars in health care costs?
Bennish-Why doesn't Mexico invade Guatemala? Maybe they're scared of being attacked. Ok. Why doesn't North Korea invade South Korea?! They might be afraid of being attacked. Or maybe Iran and North Korea and Saudi Arabia and what else did he add to the list last night - and Zimbabwe - maybe they're all gonna team up and try and invade us because they're afraid we might invade them.
Bennish referring to President Bush State of Union -He started off his speech talking about how America should be the country that dominates the world. That we have been blessed essentially by God to have the most civilized, most advanced, best system and that it is our duty as Americans to use the military to go out into the world and make the whole world like us. Sounds a lot like the things that Adolf Hitler use to say. We told--Condoleezza Rice said--that now that Hamas got elected to lead the Palestianians that they have to renounce their desire to eliminate Israel. And then Condoleezza Rice also went on to say that you can't be for peace and support armed struggle at the same time. You can't do that. Either you're for peace or war. But you can't be for both.
That is false. If we were always for peace, we'd be goosestepping down Times Square or yelling Banzai!!!!
He also said the world trade center was a legitimate target because cia had offices there...
now, this fool hires the ACLU to defend him...hmm...
You also failed to address the following in my previous email, so I assume you conceded the points as fact.
The catholic church must stay true to it's beliefs. It would make no sense for them to allow priests to have orgies on the alter. Or allow homosexual priests to preach the greatness and normalcy (I am joking about normalcy and greatness) of homosexuality. It's against the church's moral teachings and they should stick to their guns, no matter what the ACLU or a Kangaroo court says, thousands of years later.
How about this court case in 1831 in New York as told by witness Alexis Tocqueville, 'While I was in America, a witness, declared that he did not believe in the existence of God or the immortality of the soul. The judge refused to admit his evidence, on the ground that the witness had destroyed beforehand all confidence o the court in what he was about to say. The presiding judge remarked, that he had not before been aware that there was a man living who did not believe in God, and that he knew of no case in a Christian Country, where a witness had been permitted to testify without such belief.' Wouldn't this statement be further proof of our Country being a Christian nation that should have Christian laws continuing through the centuries?
James Kent was a Chief Justice of Supreme Court of NY. In the case people v ruggles in 1811 he rendered the opinion of the court, 'the defendant wickedly and blasphemously utter and with a loud voice publish, in thep resence of hearing ofdivers good and Christian people, and concerning the Christian religion, and Jesus Christ, the falks scandalous, malicious, wicked and blashemous words -Jesus Christ was a bastard, aand his mother must be a whore. the defendant was tried and found guilty, and was sentenced by the c ourt to be imprisoned for three months, and pay a fine of 500 dollars. ridicule of Christ or the Scriptures are ofenses punishable at common law, whether uttered by words or writings because it tends to corrupt the morals of the people. The people of this state porfess the general doctrines of Christianity. We are a Christian eople and the morality of the country is deeply engrafted upon Christianity, and not upon hte doctrines of worship of those imposters [other religions] the Constitutional declaration never meant to withdraw religion in general, and with it the best sanctions of moral and social obligation from all consideration and notice of the law. Christanity is part and parcel of the law of the land.'
Supreme Court of Maryland 1799- case M'Creery's Lessee Vs Allender, where and emigrant had become a naturalized citizen. The court decided in MCreery's favor, base on a certificate which reads 'Thomas M'Creery in order to become ....naturalized took the oath. -repeat and subscribe a declaration of his belief in the Christian Religion, and take the oath required by the ACT of Assembly of this State, entitled -An Act for Naturalization.' You had to take the oath to be a Citizen of our Country. Why take the oath by law if Christianity was not to be a part of our law? Our countries Supreme Courts were Christian, up until the sixties, give or take.
Supreme Court of MASS in 1838 in the case Commonwealth vs Abner Kneeland, who claimed the right to 'Freedom of press' as a defense of r publishing libelous and defamatory remarks about Christianity and God. the stature,'That if any person blaspheme the name of God, by denying, cursing, his creation, government, or final judging of the world mayb be described as consisting in speaking evil of the Deity. It is purposely using words concerning God....to impair and destroy and reverence, respect, and confidence due him....that this statured itself is repugnant to the Constitution....[This law] was passed very soon after the Constitution, and no doubt, many members of convention which framed the Constitution, werer members of legislature which passed this law. New Hamshire has a similar declaration...denial of the being and existence of God is prohibited by stature, and declared blasphemy. In vermont..similar declaration of rights 1797 ....the being and existence of God...deemed....and an ofender against the good morals of society. The state of Maine...adopted the same constitution provision. The first amendment embraces all who believe in the existence of God, as Christians of every denomination. This provision does not extend to Athiests, because they do not believe in God or religion; and therefore...their sentiments and professions, whatever they may be, cannot be called religious sentiments and professions.
Supreme Court of South Carolina in 1846 case of City of Charelston vs S.A. Benjamin, the prosecuting attorney explained, "Chrisitainity is part of the common law of the land. It has always been so recognized. The US Constutution allows it as part of the common law. The President is allowed ten days [to sign a bill] with the exception of SUnday. The sabbath is still to be supported...Christiianty ...is the foundation of those morals and manners upon which our society is formed." The Suprem Court Agreed with the prosecuting attorney and stated,"IN the courts over which we preside, we daily acknowlege Chrisitianity as the most solemn part of our administration. In the case Updegraph vs The commonwealth-Christianity is and always has been a part of common law."
Joseph Story, Justice to Supreme Court in his work 'A Familair Exposition of the Constitution of the US' in 1840 states, "We are not to attribute this prohibition o a national religious establishment {in the First Amendment] to an indifference to religion in general, and especially to Christianity which none could hold in more reverence than the framers of the Constitution)...at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and of the Amendment to it now under consideration, the general, if not the universal, sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to recieve encouragement from the STate so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience and freedom or religious worship." In his commentary of the First amendments meaning,"THe real object of the First Amendment was not to countenance, much less to advance Mohammedanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity, but to exclude all rivalry among Christian Sects and to prevent any national ecclesiastical patronage of national government."
I think a precedent was set looooong ago. :-)
Prayer was instituted in our schools from the get go of our country. Thanks to the Anti Christian Liberties Union, there is less prayer or no prayer in schools. They are changing our law and what our country was intended to be and was.
Nat Hentoff split from the ACLU during the baby doe cases. He noticed that the Aclu repeatedly stood on the side of protecting the 'privacy' rights of parents to kill their children. He wrote 'In Baby Doe cases, after the whistle has been blown by a nurse or right-to-life-organization, not once has the ACLU affiliate spoken for the infant's right to due process and equal protection under the law. He once said' And then I herd the head of the Reporductive Freedom Rights unit of the ACLU saying..at a forum, ;I don't know what all this fuss is about. Dealing with these handicapped infants is really an extension of women's reporductive freedom rights, women'ts right to control their own bodies. Try reading 'The ACLU vs America' for much more information regarding this anti-Christian organization.
FACTS follow, so be prepared and have a teddy bear ready to clinch tightly. You have been warned. For starters, you may try listening or watching Bill O'Reilly. He's documenting and talking about the ACLU's war against Christmas.
The ACLU sued Cranston, Rhode Island, which had opened the front lawn of it's city hall on an equal basis for 'seasonal and holiday displays." Citizens were allowed to provide displays, religious or secular. The city posted a disclaimer: "The public holiday displays are strictly from private citizens or groups. They do not represent an official view of the City of Cranston, nor are the endorsed by the city." The Anti Christian Liberties Union stepped in, asserting privately funded religious displays -in this case, a Nativity scene- was a violation of the 'Separation of Church and State'.
In Kaneohe, Hawaii, the Anti Christian Liberties Union tried to get residents to change the name of the Christmas parade to 'Holiday parade'. This goes on all over today in our country.
In Colorado, the Anti Christian Liberties Union said in a letter that 'Jingle Bells' could not be sung and they sent another demand to stop a school from having a visit from Santa Claus. Nonexistent huh. Rofl. Quit drinking the Liberal Kool-Aid, and see the truth.
Religious speech is protected under the first amendment, contrary to the attacks by the ACLU. Margaret Crosby, a lawyer for the Northern California branch of ACLU "By displaying a religious message, the Breen Elementary School is dividing it's young students along religious lines." In 1984 Gregory Johnson burned teh American flag. He was arrested and the ACLU sued, claiming the first amendment protected him. The first amendment was never instituted to let this kind of pathetic action to in sue , if it was, could you show me a court case where someone burned the flag from our nations history pre 1900 where the defendant was let go and protected under the first amendment?
1.Articles of Confederation 1777 proposed by the Continental Congress prior to the writing of the Constitution, which was later signed and ratified 'Whereas the delegates of the US in the Year of our Lord'. Hmm, the Continental Congress confessing Christian beliefs? Who would have thought. Well, I would because I can read evidence and deduce facts, and it is clear as day.
Abraham Baldwin was a signer of the Consitution and was Christian.
Richard Bassett was a signer of the Consitution and was Christian who participated in the Constituion of Delaware which stated 'Every person who shall be shosed a member of eithier house, or appointed to any office or place of trust...shal..make and subscribe the following declaration, to wit:"I (-----) do profess faith in God the Father, in Jesus Christ, blessed for evermore, and I do acknoowledge the Holy scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration.
Gunning Bedford- was a signer of the Consitution and was Christian and would have complied with the requirements for office as stipulated by the above stated constitution of Delaware I listed above.
John Blair was a signer of the Consitution and was Christian
David Brearly was a signer of the Constitution and was Christian.
Jacob Broom was a signer of the Consitution and was Christian and was a Delegate from Delaware and would have subscribed to the requirements for office as law by delaware
nearly all 55 writers and signers of the Constitution were members of Christian Denominations. Perhaps you could explain to me how they were Deists instead? Good luck. The only open Deist, Dr. Franklin called for public prayer and contributed to all denominations.
Congress of the United States 1854 'at the time of the adoption of the Constitution adn the amendments, the universal sentiment was that Christianity should be encouraged, not any one sect [denomination]. The object was not to substitute Judaism or Mohammedanism, or infidelity, but to prevent rivalry among the Christian sects to the exclusion of others.
How about our FIRST Constitution called the 'Fundamental Orders Constitution of Connecticut' written in 1639 and later served as the model for the US Constitution which is so famous. The committee in charge of framing orders were to make the laws 'As near the law of God as they can be'. The Connecticuttowns of HArtford, Wethersfiedl, and Windsor adopted the Constitution. The preamble stated 'Forasmuch as it has pleased the Almighty God and well knowing when a people are gathererd together the word of god requires, there should be an orderly and decent government established according to God, to meinteine and presearve teh libberty and purity of the Bospell of our Lord Jesus which we now poofesse. Which is now practised amongst us, allso in our cifill affaires to be guided and governed according to such lawes, rules, orders and decrees. Article I- That the Scriptures hold forth a perfect rule for the direction and government of all men in all duties which they ar eot perform to God and men, as well in families and commonweealths as in matters of the church. Article II- There ias in matteres which concern teh gathering and ordering of a church, so likewise in all public offices which concern ivil order, theywould all be governed by those rules which the scripture held forth to them. Aricle IV That all the free planters held themselves bound to establish such civil order as might best conduce the securing of the purity and peace of the oridnance to themsleves, and their posterity according to God.
Johnathon Dayton was a signer of the Constutition and was a Christian.
John Dickinson was a signer of the Constitution and was Christian and writer of the first draft of the ARticles of Confederation. He met with other delegates from
Pennsylvanie less than two months before the Declaration of Independence was signed to suggest requirements for the members of the Convention to subscribe to before being seated. One was 'I do profess faith in God, in Jesus, and I do acknowledge the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New testaments to be given by Diving inspiration.
Benjamin Franklin's parents raised him Christian for starters and he himself said he was educated a Presbyterian. He attended church regularly. He was a deist in his late teens, but never was totally removed from God. In his second autobiography, he stated 'I never doubted the existence of the Deity, that he made the world, and governed it by his Providence, that our souls are immortal, and crime will be punished'. He believed Christianity during this time did provide a great social value because it instilled people to live good, moral, virtuos lives. He believed deism wasn't very useful, if it were true also at this point. He was soon influenced by 2 men, one protestant and one Catholic. This changed his belief system from a partial deist, to most Christian beliefs. He wrote letters confirming his belief in the doctrine of Justification by Faith, and the Grace of God at the Great Convention, Franklin called for prayer, declaring that 'God governs in the affairs of men.' According to Deism, God doesn't intervene. He expressed some doubts to Jesus' divinity. A Deists would have no doubts; he would totally reject Jesus divinity. He referred to the Scriptures as 'Sacred writings' and quoted from the bible throughout his life. He expressed the belief that the convention had been guided by God in producing the Constitution, something a deist would never believe or say.
Alexander Hamilton was a signer of the Constitution and a Christian.He once said 'Let an association be formed to be denominated "The Christian Constitutional Society," it's object to be first: The support of the Christian religion. Second: The support of the United States.
William Samual Johnson-was a signer of the Constutition and was a Christian.
I heard Bill O'reilly just this week talking about liberals who deny our country was founded upon Christianity. He said if you don't believe that fact, you are either ignorant, or a Christian Hater. We all know he is a extremely knowledgeable person. Sean Hannity, Neal Boortz, Michael Savage, Rusty Humphries, Laura Ingraham, and Anne Coulter would probably tell you the same thing.
Rufus King was a signer of the Constitution and a Christian.
Cyrus King- signer of the Constitution of the US and in response to Thomas Jeffferson's announcing his plans to donate over 600 books to the Library of Congress moved, 'Select there from all books of an atheistical, irreligious, and immoral tendency, and send the same back to Mr. Jefferson without any expense to him.' Christian books in the Library of Congress? If the government wasn't Christian, why admit the books? That would be against their intentions!
John Langdon was a signer of the Constitution and a Christian.
William Livingston was a signer of the Constitution and was a Christian.
John Locke had a profound influence on our Flouding Fathers and he was the third most frequently quoted author of the founding fathers. His classification of the basic natural rights of man i the right to 'life, liberty, and property' not only influenced Jefferson in the writing of the Declaration of Independance, but is also reflected in the Fifth and Fourteenth amendments. He was also a Christian.
What about the First Charter of Massachusetts in 1629- which stated, 'For directing disposing of all other Matters and Things, where by our said People maie wynn and incite the Natives of the Country to the Knowledge and Obediance of the true God and Savior of Mankinde, and the Christian Faith.'
Mayflower compact in 1620, americas first great government document, was signed by the Pilgrims before they disembarked their ship, the MAYFLOWER> 'In ye name of God, Amen. We, the loyall subjects of our dread soveraigne Lor,d, Kings JAmes, having undertakent, for ye glorie of God, and advancemente of ye Crhsitian faith, a voyage to plant ye first colonie in ye Northernet parts of Virginia...doe by these presents solemnly and mutually in ye presence of God.
JAmes McHenry was one of the signers of the Constitution and was a Christian.
Gouverneur Morris, WRITER of the final draft of the Constitution of the US, writing 'Observation on Government, Applicable to the Political State of France and Notes on the Form of a Constitution for France' -Religion is the only solid basis of Good morals; therefore education should teach thep recepts of religion, and the duties of man toward God.
New England 9Synod of ) Churches 1648 defined duties of citizens, functions of civil magistrates and the nature of civil government.
I. God, Supreme Lord and King of all the world, hath ordained civil magistrates to be under him, over the people and for this own glory and the public good.
II. It is lawful for Christians to accept and execute the office of magistrate when called thereunto.
Constitution of New England Confederation 1643, as covenanted together by the colonists of New Plymouth, New Haven, MAss and Connecticut stated 'we all came to these parts of America with teh same end, to addvance teh Kingdome of our Lord JEsus Christ, and to injoy the liberties of Gospell thereof with purities adn peace, and for preserving and porpagating the truth and liberties of the gospel.
New Haven Colony Charter- 1644, adopted the rules for governming the courts of the New Haven Colony station, 'The Judicial laws of God, as they were delivered by Moses...[are to] be a rule to all the courts in this jurisdiction.'
New Jersey Colony 1697 - Governor BAsse proclaimed, 'It being very necessary for...obedience to the laws of God..encouraging...the observance of the Lord's day.
Colonial Legislature of New York Colony 1665 passed this act, 'Whereas the public worship of God is much discredited for want of painful [laborious] able misisters to instruct the people in the true religion, it is ordered that a church be built in each parish...ministers of every church shall preach every sunday...Sunday is not ot be profaned by traveling, by laboreers, or visious persons...Church wardens to report twice a year all misdemeanors,such as swearing, profaneness, Sabbath-breaking, fornication, adultery, and all such sins.
William Paterson was a signer of the Constitution and was Christiain.
William Penn, Founder of Pennssylvania was a christian also, and in 1681 wrote to a friend about the land given to him, 'Make and establish such laws as shall best preserve true Christian and civil liberty, in all opposition to all unchristian..practices.' So, you can see the founder of state was Christian and intended the state to be so. in 1701 his 'Charter of Privileges granted for the province of Pennsylvania, which stated: All persons living in this province, who confess and acknowledgethe one Almighty to be the Creator....and that all persons who also profess to believe in Jesus Christ, shall be capable to serve this governement in any capacity, both legislatively or executively.'
The Charter of Pennsylvania in 1681 stated the goal of the state was, 'To reduce the savage natives by gentle and just manners to hte love of Civil soceite and Christian religion.'
Great Law of Pennsylvania in 1682, the first legislative act of the state proclaimes, 'Whereas the glory of God and the good of mankind is the reason and end of government, laws as shall best preserve true Christian and civil liberty, in opposition to all unchristian, licentious, and unjust practices, whereby God may have his due, and Caeser his due, and the people their due, from tyranny and oppression.'
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney was a singer of the Constitution and a Christian.
Charter of the Plymouth Council in 1620 declare the purpose of the c olony was, 'In the hope thereby to advance the enlargement of the Christian religion, to teh glory of God Almighty.'
John Pory in 1619, sought to plan the method of government which would be used in the future, 'Be it enacted by this assembly that for laying a surer foundation for the conversion of the Indians to Christian religion, each town, city , vorough, and particular plantation do obtain unto themselves, a certain number of the natives' children to be educated by them in true religion and fa civil course of life.'
Samuel Pufendorf was famous for wrriting 'the Law of Nature and Nations' which greatly influenced our Founding Fathers. He was a Christian. his words wwere standard in colonial colleges and highly recommended by writers of our Constitution. He stated, 'Atheists are not, strictly speaking, God's enemies..but his rebellious subjects, and c onsequently guilty of Treason against the Divine Majesty,....It is no such obscure matter, therefore to assign the particular Species of Sin, to which Atheism belongs.' Hmm. More frowning upon Atheism from more influencial people.
Edmund Randolph was a member of Continental Congress and a delegate to the Constitutional Convdntion. in 1787 he moved, 'That a sermon be preached at the request of the convention on the 4th of July. (you may want to know that prayers have opened both houses of Congress ever since, and they are not prayers of a Deists, Buddhist, Islamist, etc.)
George Read was a signer of the Constitution of the US and was a Christian. He is known as the father of Delaware. He wrote the states first laws and
Constitution, 'Delaware 1776 Article XXII. Every person who shall be chosen a member of either house, or appointed to any office or place of trust...shall...make and subscrive teh following declaration, to wit, "I ------, do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ,and I do acknowledge the holy scriptures of Old and New testaments to be given by divine inspiration.'
Charter of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations in 1663 reads, 'We submit our persons, lives, and estates unto our Lord JEsus Christ, pursueing ...godlie edifieing themselves..in the holie Christian faith and worshipp..to sincere professions and obediance of the same faith and worship..a most flourishing civil state may stand and est be maintanied...grounded upon gospell principles.'
Constitution of Rhode Island 1842- We the people and state of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, grateful to God for civil and religious liberty which he hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to him for a blessing upon our endeavers to secure and to transmit the same unimpaired to succeedign generations, do ordain and establish this constutution of Government.'
Benjamin Rush signer of the Declaration in 1798 after the adoption of the Constutution declared 'The only foundation for... a republic is to be laid in Religion.' he was a Christian also.
Roger Sherman signed all four founding documents! He was also on the commitee which decided the wording of the first amendment.
Fundamental Constitutions of the Carolinas 1663 drawn up by John Locke stated, 'No man shall be permitted to be a freemanof Carolina, or to have any estated of habitation within it that doth not acknoowledge a God, and that God is publicly and solemnly to be worshipped.
Constutution of South Carolina in 1778 Article XXXVIII -That all persons and religouis societies who acknowledgethat ther is one god and a future state of rewwards and punishemtns, shall be freely tolerated....That all denominations of Christians....shall enjoy equal religious and civil privileges.
Constitution of Tennessee 1786 stated in Article VIII Section II stated, "No person who denies the Being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state."
Jonathan Trumbull was theBritish Governor of Connecticut in theearly 1770's wrote, 'If you ask an American, who is his master? He will tell you he has none, nor any governor but Jesus Christ.'
Constutution of State of Vermont 1786 stated 'Each member of [legislature] before he taeks his seat, shall make and subscrive the folowing declaration, "I do believe in one God and ackknowledge the Scripture of the Old and New testment to be given by divine inspiration, and wown and profess the [Christian] religion.
Second Charter of Virginia in 1609 stated 'Because the principal Effect which we can expect or desire of this Action is the Conversion and reduction of the people in those parts untothe true worship of God and the Christian Religion'
Sorry it took me so long to get back to you. I was waiting for your response to there other points in the email, and I am so busy, I really don't have a lot of email debate time. But, I had to respond eventually after all the stunts the AntiAmerican Communist Liberties Union has been pulling as of late.
Nesta, overwhelmed by my argument, failed to respond.