The ACLU, NAMBLA, God, and The O'Reilly Factor.

First, let me say, that I have a lot of fun on this site. Discussing my beliefs, others beliefs, and so on. Long have I looked for a place where I could voice my opinion without fear of Net Reprisal. As with WiccanWade, I have had some very bad experiences online with people who had nothing better to do then to attack me based on my religous beliefs. Most who attacked me though, were Wiccan. Now I do not claim to know a lot about witchcraft, but I do know some things about it. And the one thing that stands out to me is "Do as you will, and harm none." That saying sure doesn't look like it goes very well with a lot of Wiccans. Now, Bill I know who is a Wiccan has been nothing but kind to me, and for that, I thank you. No one here has attacked me in any way for my opinions, and for that, I thank all of you as humbly as I possibly can. (Which most who know me, would say, there ain't no humility about it!)​

How many of you guys watch the Fox news Channel? How many of you watch Bill O'Reilly? I watch it daily as I like the way he asks the hard questions. But the one question that seems to be on the mind of Christians Nationwide is, "Is God being chased out of America's public forum?" And, "When will the ACLU succeed in killing God in Private life?"​

The answer to both of these questions: First--Yes. The bible says that eventually, it will be illegal to believe in Christ, or to be a Christian. We can see this coming even now. Now, I am not one to say "break-the-law," but I will say that Christians have the right to worship just as the wiccans, the buddhists, the taoists, and so on, do. But somewhere down the line, that will vanish. We will be called Terrorists. We will be jailed, and even killed for our belief. This is not something I want to see. I pray to God that he'll call me home before then.​

This is what I see as far as the subject of this post. First, In Colorado, the ACLU wants the Pledge of Allegiance gone. Because of the word God in it. They think that it violates a person's civil rights. They say that it forces people to a line of thinking that they do not necessarily need to go on. This is not true. At least, not that I have seen, both in life, and in watching the news. Whats next for the USA? Have "in God We Trust" removed from coins and bills? Eventually, the word "God" will disappear. The Secularists of this world want nothing more than to kill the belief of God. Now this does not point to other beliefs/religions. As far as I can tell, it only points at the Christian God. ​

Plus, you have whats going on in Alabama. The Ten Commandments being removed from the Chief Justice Moore's Courthouse. He broke the law to stall it from happening. Now I think he is right, but he went about it the wrong way. For the past forty to fifty years, the Secularists have been chasing God out of public life. When they succeed, and they will, they will then eventually target the belief in God in our private lives. Although, I doubt that will happen anytime soon. But it will happen.​

Now as far as NAMBLA goes. The National Association of the Man/Boy Love Affair/association.(Not sure of the last letter in the anachronysm)​

Now I have no problems with people of the Homosexual persuasion. But I DO have a problem with those of that persuasion who abuse children. Whether male or female. NAMBLA is a website that promotes this kind of evil behaviour. Guess who is representing them? The ACLU. Now for me, anyone who would defend a person's "right" to abuse children, or show others "how to abuse children" deserves what they get. I have three kids through marriage, and I love my step-kids as if they were my own. And I would probably end up in jail or worse, if they were abused by someone like the ones that website promotes. ​

God is faithful to his believers, just as I am faithful in Him for his ability during my troubles. He is the one who fights my battles for me. When I rely on him. Unfortuantely, I am not where I should be in respect to my relationship with God. But I know beyond any kind of a shadow of a doubt, that this situation is going to get worse. ​

Think about it for a minute as I present to you the evidence I have seen on the news, and in "Real life" (if life can be referred to as "real.")​

First, the seperation of Church and State. Do I agree with this? The answer is yes, I do. Why? Because it is inappropriate. That does not mean that a public official cannot be a Christian. It just means the we give to Caeser, what belongs to Caeser. What we give to God, belongs to God. Thus far, there is no law saying we cannot be Christian. At least not yet anyway. Truthfully, I am afraid for me, and my fellow Christians, for the things that are yet, still to come. The Church has for the most part, become so back-slidden, they wouldn't know God if he showed up on their doorstep. Man has gotten to involved with it. God's work has become tainted by Man's interferance. The best example of this is the Crusades. I hear all the time that people are not Christian because of them. This "excuse" is preposterous. Why you ask? Because God had nothing to do with them. Man did. It had nothing to do with God, and it had everything to do with Control, Greed, and money, and power. Man thirsts for these things. God does not. God just wants us to love him, as he loved, and loves us.​

So I challenge all of you on this Site. Watch the news for a week. Watch especially on Fox News. Watch and see for yourself what I say is coming true. God, defend me, defend my country, and defend my friends, and my loved ones, because no one else can.​

My heart and mind to all of you who have read this. And know, that the one who loved you first, still loves you. He is still calling to you now. Can you hear him from so far away? ​

I look forward to this discussion. ​

 

I'm afraid terms such as ACLU and NAMBA are a little lost on me here - we don't seem to have them over this side of the pond.

What we see in the USA, though, is a very unique situation - that of separation of Church and State, coupled with a powerful belief in various expressions of Freedom.

This in itself seems to have fostered extremes - America turned into an ideological battleground.

On the one-hand, we have the Creationists who insist that a person's education be determined not by secular practices such as "science", but instead be sidestepped with a selective reading of a Bronze Age literature.

On the other hand, I've seen for myself the quite offensive aggression of US Athiesm - which is happy to line up for battle and chew up Christians if it means preserving "Freedom".

It's quite amazing to see how this isn't the case in Britain - there is no separation of Church and State (not truly, anyhow), and there has never been a real emphasis on Freedom (we don't pretend to have Free Speech and never claim to have "Freedom"). Yet here, in the UK, Christianity and Atheism are essentially moderate.

There is a time when belief goes too far - to expect that our own personal opinions represent a universal law or right is a dangerous moral presumption. I'm simply glad we don't get much of it over here.

Maybe it's something to do with the genes of Cromwell's darn puritans.

 

Namaste all,

ACLU is the American Civil Liberties Union.. which is none of the above, in my opinion NAMBLA is the North American Man/Boy Love Association.. essentially promoting an intimate relationship between grown men and boys.

it should be noted that God was not always part of the Pledge and that our currency didn't always have God's name on it either... these are relatively new additions to our lexicon of things American.

in any event... what is quite startling is how the constitution is being interepeted by the Supreme Court. *if you know the amercian government system, please skip this bit* there are three branches of goverment, executive, congress, judicial. none are meant to be pre-eminent, however, in practice the judical branch seems to have come out on top of the pyramid, so to speak. the Supreme Court interpets the Constitution where it's unclear. in this case, the Seperation of Chruch and State is, clearly, an ambigious reading of the actual text. what it says is that Congress shall pass no law respecting (establishing) religon nor prevent the free exercise thereof. note that this says nothing about the state governments and wouldn't prevent them from establishing a state religion of Methodist for Idaho, for instance.

America is a bit odd in the sense that the Federal Goverenment and the various State Governments do not, necessarily, need to have the same laws on the books. for instance.... in California they, the people of the state, passed a proposition for the state laws that would decriminalize medical marijuana... so, the state police, county police and so forth, would not arrest you. the Federal gov said "you can't do that" and, using federal marshalls and f.b.i. and so forth, arrest people that provide medical marijuana.

it's a real, pardon the vernacular, **** storm.

 

Huh?? NAMBLA is a paedophile promotion society???

 

Yes, NAMBLA is a society that promotes pedophilia. They are insistent that they do not promote abusive relationships, but only the idea of consentual ones.

They also specifically are against breaking the law - but want to work to change the laws.

This is where the ACLU starts getting into hot water with a lot of people - but I have strong feelings that although I disagree strongly with the NAMBLA group's ideas and beliefs (I do not believe that a young person in general has the capacity to freely and knowingly enter into a sexual relationship
with an older person - regardless of gender - the potential for coercion and damage is too high), they have a right to express them - although not to act on them, and that is where the ACLU steps in to help protect the voice of the unpopular, often (and doesn't on other occasions, but they can't fight every battle).

With respect to Vajrahara's note on the constitution, the first clause of the 14th amendment specifically made state law subject to the US Constitution, so the first amendment regarding exercise of religion is certainly applicable. (At least according to more than a century of jurisprudence...)

Most of the references to "God" in the federal arena (currency & pledge) were reactions to the "godless communists" in the early part of this century, added to preserve the difference between "us" and "them".

The problem comes in the interface between public & private - as one wag goes, as long as there's tests, there will be prayers in schools. The other interface issue is when does freedom of merge into freedom from and then slide to prevention of?

That's why there's such a mess - why teachers can't lead prayers at graduation, but students can, and all the other muddles we see. (Creation Science, for example - a way not to deny religious beliefs of the students, but not phrasing them in religious terms [yea, right]).

Personally, I grew up without that protection (being from Canada), and religion was much less intrusive there - although there's still silliness from the government (e.g. mandating starting the day with the Lords Prayer in public schools - a friend of my parents is a teacher, and her school was 80% Hindu/Moslem mix, and the remaining 20% was mostly Buddhist and Jewish... usually the only one reciting it was whoever got tagged for announcement duty that day), there's much more private tolerance in my experience - and more tendency to have everyone just get along.

 

that sounds so gross. You seriously having me on?We don't have anything like that here. They'd get lynched.

 

____________

First, I did a bit of editing, to help me pull out your main points.

hmmm. I have two different trains of thought, bear with me...


Hard to see how it would ever be illegal in USA to be a Christian.

Seriously, there is no believable projection of current trends that would ever lead to such a result.

The ACLU is an organization composed of lawyers who think the freedoms guaranteed in the US constitution are a good idea, and are working to make sure non-lawyers understand how they work. And that every ideal comes at a cost.

"I don't agree with what you're saying, but I will defend your right to say it."

That's a tough rule to follow. It means you get slandered, when you defend the rights of Neo-Nazis parties and boy-man love groups... not for their principles, but for your principles, that a bad idea will be exposed as a bad idea if we talk about it, and a government has no right deciding which ideas can be talked about by citizens. A government can prohibit actions, like marches, but not belief or talking about ideas.


[ADMIN EDIT - post edited by "I, Brian". E-mail sent]

 

____________________

The question here is, what constitutes a personal attack?

I am a member of the ACLU. Joined up when I was still in Law School at the University of Michigan.

I don't believe the ACLU has an agenda of "killing God in private life." The concern of the ACLU is with the power of government, not with the private lives of citizens.

I know for a fact this statement about the ACLU in Colorado is wrong. They might have filed a lawsuit to remove the words "under God" but there is nothing in the complaint about removing the pledge altogether.

IMO, this goes beyond a mere comment on the facts and is a personal attack on the ACLU as an organization and it's members. Including me.​

 

____________

Brian,

I would consider this a personal attack on Atheists.

the term "chew up Christians" is offensive to me.

 

_______________


Comment: I can't think of a clearer example of a personal attack.

The Secularists are going to target the belief... but it hasn't happened yet, there' s no proof it will happen.... it's just speculation about what might happen... and it's offensive. It's a personal attack on someone who has a different religious belief than yours.

 

________________

This kind of personal attack ... violates the rules of this forum as I understand them.

The ACLU is not defending a person's right to abuse children.

On the other hand, re: a slightly different issue, every American who is arrested and put on trial for a crime has a right to be defended by an attorney who understands the law.

It's called Due Process.

Attorneys must be able to defend the accused without being labeled as being involved in the criminal act. Or the system can't work.

 

Now, now, Skeptic44 - let's not be silly, please.

 

________________

Absolutely not.

There are times when an argument crosses a line and becomes a personal attack, and those should be avoided. However, when you're caught up in making a point, sometimes you don't realize how your comments may be interpreted.

In his original post, Daniel said:

"But I DO have a problem with those of that persuasion who abuse children. Whether male or female. NAMBLA is a website that promotes this kind of evil behaviour. Guess who is representing them? The ACLU. Now for me, anyone who would defend a person's "right" to abuse children, or show others "how to abuse children" deserves what they
get."

Daniel makes the leap in logic that (a) if the ACLU is defending NAMBLA in court, then (b) the ACLU is defending a person's right to abuse children.

Not true at all.

Let's look at the facts behind this case.

No attorney wants to be "branded" or "smeared" with the charge that they defended a person's right to abuse children.

However, NAMBLA has a right to Due Process and to be have legal counsel file motions on their behalf.

If NAMBLA can't find an attorney who wants to represent them, the court will appoint a lawyer from a list of lawyers that practice before that court. Some of the lawyers on that list work for the Public Defender's office, and have a huge case load. No matter who is appointed, they run the risk of this kind of slander, and it could damage their ability to earn a living.

So, the ACLU steps into the argument and says, "We will defend them." Why? Because the case could be a landmark ruling in the area of civil rights, and because they have a staff of lawyers who feel the protections of the Bill of Rights are more important than any individual case.

But it is also very important, when these attempts to "smear" or "brand" the ACLU with the crimes of their clients, that lawyers stand up and say, "No, that's not right." In the O.J. Simpson case, or in any murder case, is it right to smear the defense attorneys by saying they're defending a man's right to murder his ex-wife? That would be recognized as nonsense immediately.

Let's take your comment.

"On the one-hand, we have the Creationists who insist that a person's education be determined not by secular practices such as "science", but instead be sidestepped with a selective reading of a Bronze Age literature. On the other hand, I've seen for myself the quite offensive aggression of US Athiesm - which is happy to line up for battle and chew up Christians if it means preserving "Freedom".
_____________________

I think quite a few Atheists would find this last comment offensive. Seems to be a personal attack. Seems to say they have some motive that is less than... but it also says you don't know much about their motives, their ideals, or why they're doing it. You admit as much:
________________________

Brian: "It's quite amazing to see how this isn't the case in Britain - there is no separation of Church and State (not truly, anyhow), and there has never been a real emphasis on Freedom (we don't pretend to have Free Speech and never claim to have "Freedom").
_________________

Here in the United States, we do have Free Speech, and some of us work very hard to protect it.
________________________

Brian: Yet here, in the UK, Christianity and Atheism are essentially moderate. There is a time when belief goes too far - to expect that our own personal opinions represent a universal law or right is a dangerous moral presumption."
________________

I see your point. But that doesn't mean that Daniel's attacks on the Secularists are valid, or don't violate the rules you quoted to me in your e-mail.

 

I just found an e-mail in my box, saying someone has subscribed me to a newsletter for the works of "Unlimited Love."

My e-mail address is supposed to remain private, based on the terms of registering for this forum.

Brian or Daniel? Who registered me? Or someone else? Anyone here have want to take responsibility?

 

Hi Skeptic44 -

You have your e-mail address opted as hidden, so it would be impossible for any members here - or e-mail harvester - to actually acquire your e-mail address from this board.

Only myself can actually locate your e-mail address on this board - and I can absolutely assure you that I have never signed anyone's e-mail address up for anything anywhere for any reason.

However, spam is endemic on the internet and I receive literally dozens of e-mail each day promising to enlarge my penis, improve my breast size, or sell me generic viagra, easy loans, low-rate mortgages, etc. Many will claim that my e-mail address is used only in conjunction with lists I've signed up for, which is certainly not true - it's a marketing ploy.

Now, as to my own comments you picked out - this is simply my reflection of personal experience of Atheism online, in various online communities – including some I managed on MSN.

Too many Atheists I encountered were usually far more interested in flaming and making quite overt attacks on other people – namely anyone calling themselves "Christian" or "Muslim".

The overwhelming impression I've been left with is that US Atheism has become little better than a form of aggressive Secular Fundamentalism.

Perhaps that's understandable in the US, where Christian Fundamentalism is in itself aggressive, challenging even basic secular ideals – even rights – and generally being a pain in any moderate's butt.

However, I am simply not interested in allowing expression of opinion on this forum that may be seen as aggressive.

With regards to Daniel's post – I took it as a personal expression of exasperation at society at large, rather than any particular attack on any person here, or their religious belief.

After all, if he had posted that he was exasperated with Christian Fundamentalism, would you therefore have admonished him, upholding that complaints about Christian Fundamentalism therefore attacked the rights of Free Speech for Christian Fundamentalists?

My personal religious position is primarily one of neutrality. I may have opinions on various aspects of faith, but they are merely personal opinions that I am happy to be disagreed with, when expressed.

But as the administrator here I have one over-riding concern – to ensure that all dialogue on this board remains respectful. I have made a purposeful issue, in the public posted Code of Conduct, of pointing out that maintaining Free Speech in this part of the internet is not my main concern.

Instead main my concern is and continues to be the ensuring of a respectful environment for inter-faith dialogue and discussion. It is not for me to judge the substance of a member's beliefs, merely the manner in which they are delivered.

Maybe that's not the American Way – but it's certainly the British Way.

 

Hmmm.... the first step, IMO, would be to raise your opinion of Atheism over here the Colonies... Oh, that's right, we won that war and we have our own country now. A country with different rules... and one of them Is Free Speech. And Due Process. And separation of Church and State. A whole menu of ideals we loosely term "the American Way."

Let's start with Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

www.au.org

Barry Lynn, their Executive Director, was on the O'Reilly factor. He presented some arguments that made so much sense, O'Reilly cut to a commercial and when the program returned, Lynn wasn't on camera any more.


Barry Lynn's a minister, so technically he's not an Atheist, and his organization works to preserve the American ideal of separation of Church and State (something unfamiliar to Brits), but he is my #1 choice as a role model of what an atheist needs to be. (Next to Carl Sagan and Michael Crichton.)

Let me pull up some info to show you:

http://gaytoday.badpuppy.com/garchive/interview/060198in.htm

_________________
Q: You've got a good sense of humor and I've always considered you an effective executive spokesperson. What are some of the tactics you'd recommend to anyone who is fighting the takeover of local, state, and national government by religious zealots, Judging by your own behavior, I'd say an easy-going smile--to contrast with the zealots usual pious self-righteousness-- smiles help. What else?

Barry Lynn: A sense of humor certainly helps when you spend as much time fighting with the Religious Right as I do (as does a massage therapist and Advil).

Anyone involved in this battle needs to (a) have all their facts straight, (b) know the arguments of the other side, (c) be aggressive without being obnoxious, (d) communicate that they have as much passionate commitment to their side as the other side does, and (e) be willing to step forward as soon as an issue arises. Do not spend time searching for “common ground” if it becomes clear that the other side is not willing to do anything short of finding “common grave” to bury you in.

Barry Lynn: There will always be the need for an organization such as Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, won't there? Until and unless the idea of religious freedom for everyone including an end to religiously-motivated repression by some groups- seeps— further into the American psyche, there will be a need for Americans United for Separation of Church and State. One of the reasons we have such a commitment to media outreach is to get across the idea that the United States will be a better place when this kind of genuine religious liberty flourishes.

....The sobering truth is that the result of a loss of church/state separation here is what is happening in Afghanistan or Northern Ireland. One of our most controversial ad campaigns simply said in block letters:

MAYBE WE SHOULD JUST LET RELIGIOUS FUNDAMENTALISTS TAKE OVER THE UNITED STATES (AFTER ALL, IT’S WORKED SO WELL IN IRAN.)

Needless to say, many places wouldn’t even publish it!
_____________

Ooops. Maybe it wasn't fair of me to include Lynn's reference to the troubles in Northern Ireland... but it might be a CLUE that the British method is not always successful.
_____________

Here's an example of the behavior attacked by Lynn's organization. You can see that it attacks phrasing like "rampant secularism"...

http://www.au.org/press/pr030715.htm

Not long after the terrorist attacks of 9/11, Robertson and fellow TV preacher Jerry Falwell asserted that the federal courts and supporters of church-state separation had angered God, thereby prompting the tragedies of 9/11.

Speaking on his “700 Club” program Sept. 13, 2001, Robertson blasted "rampant pornography on the internet," "rampant secularism," abortion rights and church-state separation.

"We have a court that has essentially stuck its finger in God's eye and said we're going to legislate you out of the schools,” thundered Robertson. “We're going to take your commandments from off the courthouse steps in various states. We're not going to let little children read the commandments of God. We're not going to let the Bible be read, no prayer in our schools. We have insulted God at the highest levels of our government. And then we say, 'Why does this happen?'

"Well, why it's happening," Robertson concluded, "is that God Almighty is lifting his protection from us. "

 

I went over to the site at

www.celebatheists.com

Found a few interesting ones. I may put up Chris Reeve, but here's a comment by Dick Cavett:

"This is my religious problem: it would be wonderful to believe in the most fundamental way. It would make life easier, it would explain everything, it would give meaning where none is apparent, it would make tragedies bearable. If I went to a revival meeting, I have no doubt I could be one of the first to go down on his knees. It seems as if the only religion worth having is the simplest possible religion. But something about the fact that all it takes to make it so is deciding it IS so puts me off. Knowing it could instantly make me much happier makes it somehow unworthy of having."

Cavett also contrasted himself with his grandfather, a fundamentalist Baptist minister. Cavett said, "...I hope there is a God for Grandpa Richards's sake, but don't much care if there is one for mine." Source: Cavett by Dick Cavett and Christopher Porterfield (New York: Bantam Books, 1974), pp. 56-7.

 

I would be very interested indeed as to what Barry Lynn's facts are on the loss of separation of Church and State in Northern Ireland. As you made a point of quoting that remark, I presume you can explain the meaning of Barry Lynn's statement?

I'm not actually sure what the point of your last two posts is, either. Can you explain why Christopher Reeve apparently benig an atheist is relevant? As for Dick Cavett - I don't really remember him being referenced on this side of the pond.

 

_____________________

It was a reply to your comment, that your experience with atheists in America was largely limited to ( ) directing insults at Muslims and Christians.

thought it would be instructive to show you a list of real people, both american and atheist, who don't do what you said. To give you an appreciation of the depth and complexity of thought that goes into an American reaching the decision, "I'm not a Christian." Our country is 85% Christian, and for decades, public schools started the morning with Bible readings. Then we had a court case (Ms. O'Hair, RIP) and now we're engaged in a great struggle, on the order of the slavery issue pre-civil war.

A large bloc of Americans consider christianity to be part of our national identity, the same way a similar large bloc considered slavery to be essential to harvesting cotton and the plantation system depicted in Gone With The Wind.

They get furious if any suggests that Darwin's theory of evolution has provided a reasonable alternative to the bible theory of creation... which had led to numerous court cases over teaching a parallel science of creationism, so far rejected in every case.

But the point is... Atheists are Good People, too. check out the names at

www.celebatheists.com

and read their reasons for not being Christians. Get a sense of who they are. it's a much better description of atheism in america than the one you got from angry malcontents taking out their frustrations on a message board somewhere.

In his autobiographical movie, Stardust Memories, Woody Allen's character is called an atheist. He responds "To you, I'm an atheist. To God, I'm the loyal opposition."

Some more quotes: "Not only is God dead, but just try to find a plumber on weekends."

"If only God would give me some clear sign! Like making a large deposit in my name at a Swiss Bank." ["Selections from the Woody Allen Notebooks," in New Yorker (5 Nov. 1973)]



I can't even begin to explain what Lynn meant about the separation of church in Northern Ireland... want me to ask him?

 

Probably best not - but thanks for your comments on US atheism. Although, as I hope I said, every group has its range of people. I know through organisations such as Infidels.org that there can be a very studious side to non-belief - I'm sure I've quoted matieral from their site here.

I guess it's simply the case that certain types of online communities can attract certain types of people.