ChristiansUnite Forums

Freedom of speech is one of our most cherished civil rights in the United States. It is protected by the First Amendment, but not absolutely protected. All together, there are six (6) rights guaranteed by the First Amendment -- religion, speech, press, assembly, association, and petition. As citizens, we owe it to ourselves to know exactly what Free Speech is, and is not.

Not everything anyone says is covered under the First Amendment

1) Treason and Sedition is not covered under the First Amendment. This is obvious.

2) Libel and Slander is not covered under the First Amendment, although opinion is.

When a speech or statement is in itself a crime, it is not protected by Freedom of Speech.

3) Inciting to Crime is not covered under the First Amendment. It is against the law, and like Treason it is easy to see why.

4) Plagarism is theft and is not covered under the First Amendment.

5) Property Rights Certain situations allow for restriction of speech within those situations.  Example: a radio station may limit what announcers say on the air on that radio station. This does not limit what those same people say as private citizens. This is not limitation of Free Speech under the law. Example two: This board limits topics and discussions, disallowing other religious proselytizing and vulgarities. This is not limitation of Free Speech under the law. This is the board owner/moderators exercising their rights as owners. Since no law has been passed preventing us from speaking elsewhere on these subjects, our Freedom of Speech has not been affected.

"Restrictions on the exercise of free speech are censorship and First Amendment violations only when some law or governmental action is involved. When private entities make personal decisions about what to publish and not publish, they are exercising the fundamental rights of private ownership and liberty - the types of rights whose exercise the government is supposed to protect." ¹


Given limitation 5, is it easy to see why the firing of Michael Graham recently does not come under the restriction of free speech. He is not limited to saying whatever he wants as a private citizen. He is not able to trample the property rights of the radio station by saying whatever he wants on the air. An analogy would be if someone were banned from this site for promoting something prohibited in the rules; similar to the radio station's policy statements this falls under property rights.  


------------------
(1) The Bill of Rights: Freedom of Speech, by Jacob G. Hornberger, November 1, 2004

While I agree with you on the Radio stations rights according to law it is the reason behind the radio stations decision that I have a problem with. This does not mean that I think they should be sued. They came up with this decision out of fear of being sued by the ACLU and CAIR. The radio station was fully supportive of Michael Graham until a lawsuit was mentioned. As you said that is their right.

It is also the right of the people to know about this incident and to not listen to the radio station if they so chose. I personally would not listen to a radio station that backs down to the likes of CAIR and the ACLU.

As for Libel and Slander. It is only such if it is not true. To make true and factual statements does not fall under the clause of "Libel and Slander"

Statements that CAIR has made does however fall into the category of "Treason and Sedition" and "Inciting to Crime".

Then I take it by your saying:

That you are reconsidering your earlier statement:


and correcting your position to one of disagreement with the Radio station, rather than protesting that Graham's civil rights were infringed upon?

His freedom of speech was infringed upon. Not by the radio station necessarily but by CAIR. If you will note that statement was in regards to the "vision and mission" of CAIR. Yes the radio station did assist CAIR in this action but as you said it is their legal right. CAIR does all they can to suppress anything about them even if it is the truth.

I don't think you have thought this through. His freedom of speech, by definition, can not have been infringed upon. CAIR lacks the authority. They are not the government and cannot infringe on his right to free speech.

This is a factual matter of law, not opinion.

Now, CAIR may have influenced the station. It may be terribly unfair that he lost his job. But his first amendment rights of free speech were never in any way limited, infringed upon, or curtailed.

Cair did infringe upon his freedom of speech by threatening a lawsuit. They coerced the radio station into suppressing him his speech. Whether this infringement is by the letter of the law or not is moot. They still did what they could to prevent him from his freedom of speech. Bullying tactics. I applaud Michael Graham for not cowtoeing to them and to continue to take his stand. In my personal opinion CAIR is not finished with him. I expect more from them against him.

Threatening a lawsuit might in some cases be coersion, but it is not infringement of anyone's First Amendment rights. I think perhaps you don't fully understand the First Amendment and what it is and is not. The First Amendment states:

***Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.***

So as regards Free Speech, all the First Amendment says is:

Congress cannot pass a law restricting free speech.

That's it. There is no more to it. It does not guarantee a forum for making speeches: Graham cannot demand that the radio station allow him to say whatever he wants any more than an Atheist can come on this board and demand they say whatever they want.

"The first thing to notice here is that, contrary to popular opinion, this amendment does not give people rights to free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, or freedom of assembly, or the right to petition the government for redress of grievances. In fact, the Constitution does not give people any rights whatsoever.

Instead, it operates as a restriction on the interference with rights – rights that preexist both the government and the Constitution. In other words, the reason that the Constitution called the federal government into existence was to protect the exercise of pre-existing, fundamental rights. The purpose of the Bill of Rights was to ensure that the government didn’t use such power (the power to protect rights) to infringe or even destroy such rights.

The second principle to notice in the First Amendment is that the restriction operates on Congress, the elected representatives of the people. The reason that principle is important is that it recognizes that democratically elected officials are likely to use their powers to violate people’s fundamental rights, including freedom of speech, press, and religion." ¹
NOTE that the First Amendment restricts the government - it does not address anyone else, not CAIR, not this forum, not a newspaper.

"For example, consider a newspaper that publishes an article favoring a certain policy in the community. Imagine that opponents to that policy demand that the newspaper carry an article opposing the policy and that the newspaper refuses to do so.

Some people would undoubtedly cry, “Censorship!” and claim that the First Amendment was being violated. They would be wrong on both counts. Restrictions on the exercise of free speech are censorship and First Amendment violations only when some law or governmental action is involved. When private entities make personal decisions about what to publish and not publish, they are exercising the fundamental rights of private ownership and liberty – the types of rights whose exercise the government is supposed to protect.

Let’s consider a famous example involving the misapplication of the free-speech principle in order to better understand it. In the 1919 U.S. Supreme Court case of Schenck v. United States, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote, “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.”

But Holmes got it wrong. The reason that a man ordinarily cannot scream, “Fire!” in a theater is that the owner of the theater hasn’t permitted it. That is, when a patron enters the theater, he does so on terms established by the owner of the theater, which implicitly include a rule against disturbing the other patrons.

Let’s assume, however, that for some strange reason a theater owner decides to create a rowdy environment and openly declares that anyone who enters his theater can scream, yell, dance, and even issue false warnings of “Fire!” As the owner of the theater, that would be his right, just as it would be the right of people to refrain from patronizing that theater.

Thus, freedom of speech is ultimately grounded in private-property rights. The owner of a newspaper has the right to publish or not publish materials because the newspaper belongs to him. As the owner of the newspaper, he has the right to refuse anyone’s request to communicate through his newspaper. No one has a duty to furnish someone else the means by which he is able to communicate his views. If one person can’t persuade another to publish his views, he is free to open his own newspaper. "¹ (Emphasis added)

CAIR is not the goverment. They are not in violation of the First Amendment, they cannot by definition restrict anyone's civil rights to free speech.



(1) http://www.lewrockwell.com/hornberger/hornberger8.html

Yes, ABC has every right to fire someone for “intolerance”.  Oh – except for homosexual activists who may denounce “all republicans” as being equal to the Taliban.  Firing them or punishing them for offensive “generalizations” would be a ‘hate crime’.  

Yes, ABC has every right to fire someone for “intolerance”.  Oh – except for the OTWs (other than whites).  OTWs can safely say anything under the umbrella of ‘race’.  Firing an OTW for any reason is usually due to racism.  OTWs are incapable of ‘intolerance’; anything they say is okay.  

Yes, ABC has every right to fire someone for “intolerance”.  And I have every right not ‘tolerate’ ABC or support their advertisers.  

Michael Graham did nothing wrong.  Oh – except for being Judeo-Christian and having an opinion about certain OTWs.  His firing simply spotlights the fact that standards for ‘tolerance’ are one way, one sided affairs fueled by an extreme hate of Judeo-Christian truths.  

In some western countries (it would be intolerant of me to name them) it is now illegal for Judeo-Christians to quote certain bible passages, and is punishable by stiff fines or worse.  However, ‘Imams’ (or whatever they’re called) can freely speak in public and openly advocate death to westerners – including non-combatants – because their ‘holy book’ says it.  

Please, Lord, save us from ourselves.  The world is up-side-down.  
Amen.

AMEN  :D

The point is not whether Graham or ABC or CAIR did anything wrong. That is outside the scope of this thread.

The point is that First Amendment freedom of speech protection was not, and cannot have been, involved in any way.

And there is no such thing as a "Judeo-Christian" unless you are speaking of Messianic Jews, who are by definition not Christian. I am well aware it is almost as popular a buzz-word as Neo-Nazi or Girly Man, but it is an oxymoron and has no intrinsic logical meaning.

 The Myth of a Judeo-Christian Tradition (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4803.htm)

The Judeo-Christian Oxymoron (http://www.rossde.com/editorials/edtl_oxymoron.html)

Regarding the term Judeo-Christian (http://www.osmond-riba.org/lis/essay_JC.htm)

First off I did not say that CAIR was in violation of any amendments, you are "putting words in mouth" that I did not say. I said they were in violation of their own "vision and mission". As I said whether it is the letter of the law or not is moot, they are violating other peoples rights (suppressing his speech) through coercion (harassment).

CAIR has an objective, they are willing to use any means available to them to turn this country into an Islamic state (by their own admission). What they did to Michael Graham is just one of those things.

That was the point of my post. Not whether it was legally right or not.

You seem to have come here to argue on any such points as you can in support of those that are anti-Christian.

Oh, yes – how completely stupid of me to believe that my family and ancestors have actual ‘tradition’ based on JEWISH and CHRISTIAN values, and how stupid of me to use the term “Judeo-Christian” to describe those traditions and values.

I should be sent to ‘re-education camp’ (mandatory diversity training) for believing I actually have values at all!  I’ll ask Jesse Jackson and the ‘Imam of the hour’ which camp I should report to.  

 ::)

Like those people that wrote those articles you have a lack of understanding of the term "Judeo-Christian". It means that we have our roots in the Jewish beliefs. The old testament. It is the same God whether the Jewish people believe that God came to us in the flesh as Jesus or not. Thus the example given in Romans 11.

I understand the term perfectly.

I also understand no person is a "Judeo Christian" as you state Graham is, above. He is Christian. There is no "Judeo-Christian" religion. You could say he follows the "Judeo Christian tradition", although there is considerable room for opinion there, but you cannot accurately claim he is Judeo-Christian.

I beg to differ:

I fail to see how inaccuracies in points of law are Christian. I wrote a post on the First Amendment as regards Freedom of Speech. I fail to see how the First Amendment is anti-Christian.

"Violating rights" is a legal term, not a matter of opinion. Ergo, whether it is the law or not is far from moot - it is central.

Do you call everyone with whom you have a dispute about legal terms "anti-Christian"?

Forgive me for confusing you.  

I can guarantee it will not happen again as a result of a direct reply to one of your posts.

Did I actually confuse you, or did you know all along what my meaning was, but chose to argue semantics because that’s the only thing you could find from my post to argue about? Never mind - I know what the answer is.

Again you are twisting my words to get your own meaning. You brought up my post in another thread and started disecting it with points of the law when my post was not about a violation of the law. And all this in support of organizations that are anti-Christian.

JudgeNot: Not only did you not at any time confuse me, I never even responded to your post. I responded to, and quoted, Pastor Roger's post.

The Constitution of the United States is Anti-Christian? What are you talking about? What other thread? How am I twisting your words? Are you being deliberately obtuse? I am not being sarcastic here, I am honestly asking for clarification.

You are indeed a confused person. Let me simplify it for you.

You made a comment in this thread about my post in another thread on CAIR and Michael Graham. You seemingly support the actions of CAIR (an anti-Christian organization) in this with the use of the Constitution when my post had nothing to do with whether they were breaking the law or not.

I hope that is clear enough for you?

Well, shut my mouth.

I was certain I typed
In the first post I mistakenly made in this thread.  

So you were simply using words from my post to reply to PR.

I understand.  You're not confused.

Yes, I made a comment in this thread and included a brief quote from a post you made in another thread. You said "You brought up my post in another thread " when apparantly you  meant "You brought up my post from another thread " so thanks for clarifying that.

You're misunderstanding or imagining things if you think that anything I have said anywhere supports CAIR in any way whatsoever. Re-read my posts. What I am supporting is the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, and that's what I started this thread about. How you mis-read any of my posts so incredibly badly that you somehow got out of them that I support CAIR is something only you can explain.

Oh sorry I was thinking that was from Pastor Roger!
In that case, allow me to correct myself:
No, you didn't confuse me (although I missed who the author was, apologies!)

There is no such religion as "Judeo-Christian" ergo there is no such thing as being Judeo-Christian.

You are referring to the concept of a "Judeo-Christian tradition" whereas if you read the post carefully you will see that JudgeNot (not Pastor Roger as I erroneously stated earlier, apologies to both!) referred to being Judeo-Christian. I responded saying that there is no such thing as a "Judeo-Christian". We are talking about a person, not a concept or tradition. One can say I am a Christian, or I am a Baptist, or I am a woman, but one cannot say I am a Judeo-Christian because its not a religion.

Hello Phil121,

I think that you are correct. However, I would remove the term "legal". It's an argument in semantics in my opinion, especially when dealing with the completely valid term of "Judeo-Christian".

Judeo-Christian most commonly refers to a belief system or foundational principles with the Holy Bible as the source. So, there are no myths or inaccuracies associated with this term. As an example, the foundation of America is Judeo-Christian because it was heavily influenced by the Holy Bible.

Love In Christ,
Tom

Colossians 2:9-10 NASB  For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority;

legal no, hair-splitting I'll grant you - but I'd prefer to be precise and accurate rather than have misunderstandings. They are too common as it is.

Anti-semetic? Definately not!

Merriam-Webster online dictionary:


Hmmm .....  sounds like that description fits me and the Holy Bible.

Its grammatical hair-splitting, and the whole point of it was to try to prevent this kind of misunderstanding.

I did not say Christianity isn't part of a  "Judeo-Christian" tradition.

I did not deny the Christain religion has its roots in Judiaism.

I said a person, singular, cannot be a "Judeo-Christian"

TWalker,

As an individual, which term below best describes your personal belief system, morals, and values?

a.  Atheist or Agnostic
b.  Satanist
c.  Wiccan
d.  Islamic
e.  Buddhist
f.  Judeo-Christian

Well, since you left out "Christian" I guess I'll have to say none of the above.

I almost didn't reply to this. Since you called me and my husband stooges and recruiters for the ACLU, and since your own rules state that "You agree, through your use of this forum, that you will not post any material which is false, defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing..." and you have never said in any way that you are willing to make peace, I was waiting patiently for you to realize your hypocrisy and offer the olive branch.


Luke 5:
   22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

   23 Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee;

   24 Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.

TWalker,

There are many that say they are Christians who are not. Who do you say that Jesus Christ is?

I have met a lot of Christians who feel only their Christianity is the "true" Christianity. This sounds like that kind of catechism question, and I think ithat kind of thing serves only to sow dissent among Christians, which I don't think is a good idea. However, in answer to your question, I am a Lutheran (ELCA, not Missouri Synod) in good standing, and we believe:

in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
  the only Son of God,
  eternally begotten of the Father,
  God from God, Light from Light,
  true God from true God,
  begotten, not made,
  of one Being with the Father.
  Through him all things were made.
  For us and for our salvation
    he came down from heaven:
  by the power of the Holy Spirit
    he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
    and was made man.
  For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
    he suffered death and was buried.
    On the third day he rose again
      in accordance with the Scriptures;
    he ascended into heaven
      and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
  He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
    and his kingdom will have no end.

This makes me a Christian according to most standards, but I cannot take communion in a Catholic Church because they don't recognize my baptism, and my husband (who was a member for some time) tells me my baptism is no good in the Baptist Bible Fellowship International Church, either. I am sure a lot of churches wouldn't recognize me as a "true" Christian, which is a pity, isn't it? Which is why the name "ChristiansUnite" so attracted me, because it sounded like a group who were above such in-fighting and dogmatic absolutes.

Also on the subject of baptisms, I think the best thing I ever heard on the subject was Mark Lowry, who said "Whether you got sprinkled or you got dunked, if you weren't baptised in the Holy Spirit, you just got wet!"

TWalker,

I won't apologize for something I didn't do. I asked if you were recruiters for the ACLU and compared the dialog to a 3 Stooges episode. Go back and read it again for comprehension. In case you don't know, the 3 Stooges was a very old show on television and they made many episodes. You should expect comments like that when you come onto a Christian forum with a barrage of nothing but posts about the ACLU. What I said, I would say again. Typically, someone who starts like that is looking for trouble. I think that all but one of your posts fits into that same category - looking for trouble.

Moderator

TWalker,

Nobody here mentioned any dogmatic absolutes except you in this post. You now have 2 or 3 posts out of over 50 that are at least on Christian topics. We don't pay any attention here to denominations, so it isn't an issue unless the person makes it one. Our fellowship here is based on the love of JESUS, not what church someone goes to.

Love In Christ,
Tom

Isaiah 48:17 NASB  Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel, "I am the LORD your God, who teaches you to profit, Who leads you in the way you should go.

The only thing my question causes is a separation between Christian and non-Christian. I did not ask your denomination or any dogmatic absolutes. I know many Christians that go to many various different churches of various denominations.



 

Silly me, I thought I was on the Politics and Political Issues forum. I asked a political question (Why do so many Christians have such animosity to the ACLU?) which is Political and a Christian concern both. If the ACLU is anti-Christian, then I want to know about it. But I'm wanting to know why people say they are.

I know, which is why I answered your question. I'm sorry if I gave the impression of anything else - my bad communication if I did. My commentary before answering the question was just that it sounded like a catechism type question, and that type of question can sow discord.

Dear me, I don't know whether to laugh or to cry or to ask your definition of "looking for trouble" or ask which one post wasn't in that category.

Since you seem to have the most problems with my asking questions about the ACLU, it sounds like anyone who confesses ignorance and seeks truth is "looking for trouble."

Hello TWalker,

 ;D   ;D  Surely you jest. The ACLU being anti-Christian is a well-known fact for anyone living in America. It's all over the news and just about every media known to man. Try a Google search on of the following and see how many thousand hits you get:

"anti-Christian ACLU"

It's not any secret or mystery, it's said because they ARE and have over a 50 year track record to prove it. Any Christian would be aware of these facts, not "if's". You might also try television, newspapers, radio, books, etc., etc., etc. - more than 50 years of them. If you look at several thousand cases and arrive at a different opinion, we can agree to disagree.  :D

Love In Christ,
Tom

Psalms 62:6 NASB  He only is my rock and my salvation, My stronghold; I shall not be shaken.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45959 (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45959)

Thanks much, I had actually seen that when I went looking for the whole Baldwin-communist connection. From what I've found so far, some of this is taken out of context and it doesn't tell the whole story - Baldwin apparently became disillusioned with the American Communist Party in the 1930's, left the party, and removed all communists from membership in the ACLU in 1940. I'm still looking for any details on that - how much is truth, what is documented, whether he did this out of fear of the HUAC, etc. This is a really complex bit, and most of what I've found is highly divergent - completely opposing views being presented as absolutes. Since there are a lot of quotes which make it clear at one point Baldwin was a communist and strongly opposed to capitolism, that's not a question or an issue - right now I'm trying to put together a timeline, get information on Baldwin post-1940, and find out whether he changed his position. Anyone can hold one idea and then change his mind, but did Baldwin, or not? All of which is really just a footnote to the ACLU as an organization, really.

http://www.harvardsquarelibrary.org/unitarians/baldwin.html

there was another article about Baldwin leaving the communist party but I cannot find the link right now.

There was a bit on a blog I ran across:
"The founder of the ACLU, Roger Baldwin, was indeed a Communist in his early years: he stated "I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control by those who produce wealth. Communism is, of course, the goal.

However, he became somewhat disillusioned and claimed to break ties with Communism in 1939 due to the Nazi-Soviet pact, and did become openly critical of the Soviet Union. In 1953 he wrote A New Slavery, Forced Labor and the Communist Betrayal of Human Rights, a polemnic against rights abuses in the USSR.

In 1947, Douglas MacArthur, no "red" himself, invited Baldwin to help establish a civil rights program in Japan. In 1948 Baldwin did the same in Austria and American Sector Germany.

The organization has also been active in promoting freedom to read, arguing against censorship of Ulysses, The Canturbury Tales, and even Harry Potter among others.

But the ACLU, though slightly more moderate than in its earlier days, has remained decidedly left of center. "

but I haven't had time to research the book Baldwin purportedly wrote, which would be strong evidence he broke completely with the communists. I mean, calling communism "slavery" would be strong evidence that he had changed his mind.

edited to add: the book is
Baldwin, R. N. (1953). A New Slavery, Forced Labor: The Communist Betrayal of Human Rights. New York, Oceana

and I cannot find the ISBN or anything else about it, if you do will you let me know? thanks!

My very first post here acknowledged that a lot of Christians feel that the ACLU is anti-Christian. I already know that. I want to know *why* and *what reason* and whether they are correct or mistaken, and I don't care how many people hold this opinion if there is no proof. On the other hand, if I find definitive proof, I'll post it here if you are interested, and then you can post it when someone who looks for facts not bias and opinions and questions almost everything (like me!) comes along.

As far as Google hits, that's not even remotely valid.

38,700 results for anti-Christian ACLU

15,900,000 results for God is Dead

need I say more?

On second thought, given how often I seem to be misunderstood here, maybe I'd better clarify what I meant by my post about Google: I meant that however many thousand hits you get on Google on any topic is just how many times Google finds it on the 'net. It might show how popular a subject is, or how many idiots there are in the world, or how contraversial a subject is, but it is not proof of anything except how often it appears on the web.

If you have any *specific* cases which are documented which show a religious (or anti-religious) bias I would appreciate you posting it - thanks.

TWalker,

Let's get real. You already know "why and what reason".

Are you intentionally being condescending? It is such a comfort to know that a person of your superior intellect will tell us when we are correct or mistaken in our opinions.   ::)

I was just thinking about interest in hearing pro-ACLU propaganda. I didn't really think about it very long. I would rather take a 6 week seminar from Ted Kennedy on sobriety. The task of selling the ACLU to Christians would almost be as likely as selling satanism to Christians. They are on opposite ends of the spectrum, and the interest would be zero.

Many of us on the forum have lived long enough to know exactly what the ACLU has done to America, and I'm one of them. The vast majority of Christians view the ACLU about the same way they view mosquitoes. If the ACLU started spending all of their time in undoing the damage they've done to America, my opinion of them would change. Until then, I would seriously consider becoming a card carrying anti-ACLU member and putting up an anti-ACLU web site. Hearing pro-ACLU propaganda, especially on a Christian forum, would encourage an immediate decision for the web site and other actions.

Love In Christ,
Tom

Psalms 72:4 NASB  May he vindicate the afflicted of the people, Save the children of the needy And crush the oppressor.

Ha-ha!  :D  I'm dying, here  :D  Cut it out BEP - you know I have a "condition"!!   :D

Did you know that if Horace Greely was alive today to proclaim "Go west young man!" that half the male population of California would drown?

What that has to do with Teddy or this thread - I have no idea:  Other than it humorously demonstrates how some folks who may be considered 'smart' by some are simply the lead lemming to others.

When we ask the Lord "...lead me not into temptation" it is up to us not to lead ourselves or others into temptation or sin.
I gotta say - I believe that justifying the ACLU is equal to an attempt to justify sin.

Woe to the man who leads another astray.  According to all the scripture I've read, God doesn't appreciate someone leading His children into the dark.

Does God endorse the work of the ACLU?  Would anyone on this board allow the ACLU to dictate to you that your own children can talk to you only under ACLU terms rather than the family's terms?  Hmmmmm?

JudgeNot

AND MAY I ADD...

Can you imagine, as a Christian, facing Jesus in your prayers and saying something like...

"I'm sorry I didn't pray to You at the school board meeting last night.  You see, there was a non-believer there, and if I had prayed to You, it might have hurt his feelings and the ACLU doesn't allow..."

Who is glorified in THAT excuse?  Certainly not Jesus!  As is the motto of the Christian Underground website:
"I will pray when I want, where I want, school, work, the street, the mall.  Persecute me at your own peril."

Supporting the ACLU denies Jesus' command to take His message to the ends of the earth.

Supporting the ACLU is not Godly.

Period.

You asked for a good reason why we, as Christians, are so against and can't support the ACLU?  If you need more reason than that, I can't help you.

Whew!
Thank You Lord for allowing me to get that out of my system!
AMEN!

God bless all,
JudgeNot

JudgeNot,

I was just thinking that the ACLU would love to have any Christian activity underground and hidden as a first step, then working to eradicate that. I can see the need for a Christian Underground web site and would love to have the link to it. If the ACLU has it's way, who knows what America will be like in 20 years. As for me, I'm determined to shout the Gospel from the rooftops for however many years I have left. If I'm arrested for sharing the GOOD NEWS, so be it. Our Lord and Saviour suffered much more than that for us.

As I was reading your posts, I was reflecting on recent mandatory training in schools about alternative lifestyles, yet God has been shoved completely out. This is just one recent ACLU achievement that illustrates the goals of the ACLU. I might add this would be over and above the objections of parents. I can't remember the location right now, but it was in a recent story posted here. So far, the vast majority of the parents have refused to send their children to this training. If I have anything to say about it, my grandchildren will never attend training like this.


Love in Christ,
Tom

2 Corinthians 1:20-22 NASB  For as many as are the promises of God, in Him they are yes; therefore also through Him is our Amen to the glory of God through us. Now He who establishes us with you in Christ and anointed us is God, who also sealed us and gave us the Spirit in our hearts as a pledge.

Georgia Officials Face ACLU Lawsuit After Praying in Christ's Name

by Allie Martin
August 26, 2005

(AgapePress) - A Georgia county is being sued by the American Civil Liberties Union over its pre-meeting prayers. The suit claims one prayer at a recent Cobb County Commissioners' meeting ended "in the name of Jesus our Savior," which phrase, according to the ACLU puts the invocation in violation of the Constitution of the United States.

However, attorney Steve Crampton of the American Family Association Center for Law and Policy, protests that the Cobb County officials' prayers are entirely legal, and the commission members have the right to open meetings with prayers acknowledging Jesus if they so choose.

But unfortunately, the pro-family lawyer notes, "This is one of those areas where our separation of church and state fanatics have really made headway over the last several years with the argument that praying in Jesus' name before, in this case, a county commission meeting constitutes the establishment of religion, prohibited under the First Amendment."

Still, Crampton, a constitutional law specialist, points out that there is historical as well as legal precedent for this kind of prayer. "Of course, the reality of the matter is that this is a practice that has been honored throughout the history of our nation, from the first days of the Continental Congress till today," he says.

And as far as the courts are concerned, the AFA attorney adds, the highest court in the land has also weighed in. "The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1983 in the Marsh v. Chambers case that legislative prayers with a historical background are perfectly constitutional -- that we are a people that has long recognized the obedience and role of our government as being under God," he says.

The ACLU's suit claims the Cobb County Commissioners' prayers are offensive to five county residents. However, a spokesman for Cobb County is arguing that the officials' prayers are legal because they take place before the meetings and are entirely voluntary.
Allie Martin, a regular contributor to AgapePress, is a reporter for American Family Radio News, which can be heard online.

http://news.christiansunite.com/Religion_News/religion03228.shtml

Additional information on ChristiansUnite.com is available on the Internet at http://www.christiansunite.com/
Copyright © 2003 ChristiansUnite.com. All rights reserved.

(My Note: Separation of Church and State is a manufactured lie by activist judges. For a tiny example, see one of my web pages:

http://www.sirinet.net/~blkidps/church.html  )