ChristiansUnite Forums

If you look closely at the picture above, you will note that all the Marines pictured are bowing their heads. That's because they're praying.  

This incident took place at a recent ceremony honoring the birthday of the corps, and it has the ACLU up in arms. "These are federal employees," says Lucius Traveler, a spokesman for the ACLU, "on federal property and on federal time. For them to pray is clearly an establishment of religion, and we must nip this in the bud immediately."

When asked about the ACLU's charges, Colonel Jack Fessender, speaking for the Commandant of the Corps said (cleaned up a bit), "Heck with the ACLU." GOD Bless Our Warriors, Send the ACLU to France.

Please send this to people you know so everyone will know how stupid the ACLU is Getting in trying to remove GOD from everything and every place in America.
May God Bless America, One Nation Under GOD!

So..What's wrong with the picture?

ABSOLUTELY NOTHING !

Sorry, DW, but this is a hoax.  Simply someone defaming the ACLU.  As much as I want to see the ACLU defamed - I want them defamed with Truth.  

However the picture itself is no hoax – and it makes me proud to see these young warriors in prayer – each and every head bowed.  Praise God for our troops and God bless them!

JudgeNot

I would not doubt that such events really torque the ACLU but as of yet they have not made a public statement against them. That bit of info was started by an overly zealous antagonist of the ACLU.

If that picture gets to them then I hape they see these also. ;D ;D

A group of Marines praying over a fallen comrade:

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v311/randers/prayingMarines.jpg)


A Marine praying for friends:

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v311/randers/prayingforfriends.jpg)

Worship service in Iraq:

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v311/randers/Lenz-Iraq.jpg)


(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v311/randers/484soldierspraying.jpg)

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v311/randers/25191859closeup_marines_praying_2.jpg)

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v311/randers/9.jpg)

(oops .... might help to use the img function instead of the quote function ..... blame it on the meds)
       ;) :D :D :D :D

Dreamweaver,

I love that picture. It makes me feel good and proud to see some of the finest and toughest people on the planet bow before God and pray. I pray that God will watch over them every second.

Bob and Roger, thanks for some beautiful pictures for my collection.

Love in Christ,
Tom

Psalms 111:7-8 NASB  The works of His hands are truth and justice; All His precepts are sure.  They are upheld forever and ever; They are performed in truth and uprightness.

Actually, as a Christian, I beg to differ. The ACLU are correct on this point. As a nation who's constitution prohibits the amalgamation of 'Church and State' (in order to prevent the religious abuses that have taken place in the 'old' (my) world when 'Church and State' have been merged into 'Christendom' (swat up on your Church history guys)) the State must not only be religiously neutral it must also be seen to be religiously neutral as well.

That means the State must not engage in either encouraging or disparaging any faith (including Christianity) but must uphold the right of every American citizen to practise their own faith in accordance with the requirements of that faith and their own conscience. Only if, in the exercise of that faith, an individual or group of individuals belonging to that faith (whichever one it may be) commit a criminal offence as a result of practising their faith (such as 'human sacrifice' for example) should the State intervene and only to prosecute those responsible for the carrying out the criminal offense.

No State employee, in their capacity as a State employee (i.e. 'whilst on duty') should ever participate in a public act of faith. Only as a private citizen (i.e. 'off duty') can that person ['employee'] publicly practise their faith or engage in any public act of faith (and the State must always uphold their right as a private citizen to do that).

In situations where representatives of the State are required to be present at public acts of faith they should be there respectfully as passive 'neutral observers', but not 'active participants' since they are there in their capcity as representatives of the State who, according to the United States' constitution, MUST at all times be religiously neutral and impartial with respect to ALL faiths.  

In the case of the military, etc. (who are 'officially' 'on duty' 24/7 when not on leave), provision should be made to allow military personnel 'space' to engage in corporate acts of faith as 'private citizens' as military operations allow [Of course, such personnel, like those of the emergency services, are exempt from strict 'Sabbath observance' whilst they are 'on duty'].

That should start quite a debate...?

Simonline.  

My question is, why would a Christian LIE about the ACLU? Someone made this picture and email, and they knew they were lying.

Secondly, why are some Christians so rabidly anti-ACLU? Sure, they protect the rights and civil liberties of people I don't agree with. They protect everyone's civil rights. They're civil rights, not special rights.

The ACLU intervened on behalf of a Baptist minister who was unconstitutionally denied a permit to conduct baptisms at a lake operated by the Department of Natural Resources. The DNU said he couldn't conduct baptisms there, and the ACLU filed suit.

http://www.gladwinmi.com/placed/story/07-17-2002aclu.html

http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=8208&c=86

The ACLU has defended an evangelical minister's right to preach on the sidewalk and Massachusetts prisoners' freedom to have religious items in their cells.
http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=17598&c=38


The American Civil Liberties Union of Florida has formed an advisory committee of faith leaders to address church-state issues. Rev. James Summers of Northwest Baptist Church said ''Ninety percent of what we're told about the ACLU isn't true, but we want to believe it because we have to have an enemy''

Recent ACLU involvement in religious liberty cases include:

December 22, 2004: ACLU of New Jersey successfully defends right of religious expression by jurors.

November 20, 2004: ACLU of Nevada supports free speech rights of evangelists to preach on the sidewalks of the strip in Las Vegas.

November 9, 2004: ACLU of Nevada defends a Mormon student who was suspended after wearing a T-shirt with a religious message to school.

August 11, 2004: ACLU of Nebraska defends church facing eviction by the city of Lincoln.

July 10, 2004: Indiana Civil Liberties Union defends the rights of a Baptist minister to preach his message on public streets.

June 9, 2004: ACLU of Nebraska files a lawsuit on behalf of a Muslim woman barred from a public pool because she refused to wear a swimsuit.

June 3, 2004: Under pressure from the ACLU of Virginia, officials agree not to prohibit baptisms on public property in Falmouth Waterside Park in Stafford County.

May 11, 2004: After ACLU of Michigan intervened on behalf of a Christian Valedictorian, a public high school agrees to stop censoring religious yearbook entries.

March 25, 2004: ACLU of Washington defends an Evangelical minister's right to preach on sidewalks.

February 21, 2003: ACLU of Massachusetts defends students punished for distributing candy canes with religious messages.

October 28, 2002: ACLU of Pennsylvania files discrimination lawsuit over denial of zoning permit for African American Baptist church.

July 11, 2002: ACLU supports right of Iowa students to distribute Christian literature at school.

April 17, 2002: In a victory for the Rev. Jerry Falwell and the ACLU of Virginia, a federal judge strikes down a provision of the Virginia Constitution that bans religious organizations from incorporating.

January 18, 2002: ACLU defends Christian church's right to run “anti-Santa” ads in Boston subways.


Good thing the ACLU defends everyone's rights, because “The Rights of All Must Be Secured or the Rights of None Will Be Secure”

Hating the ALCU because they defend the rights of those we disagree with is amazingly asinine.

I see that this is your first post here. Welcome to Christians Unite.

I can also see that you have not been in the Military to understand how such services are conducted. No one is forced or even persuaded to join into any sort of worship service. All beliefs are accepted and all individuals are given the opportunity to practice their beliefs within the confines of the law. Even those that may have the duty on the day of their worship are afforded the time to their worship service if at all possible.

Just because a person is in uniform does not mean that they have no rights to their own beliefs and worship. Although Christians are the majority I have also worked along side Jews, Buddhists, JW's, Satanists and many more. Each was afforded their own time to worship as they would or not to any worship at all if that was their choice. It has been this way for many, many years.

Sometimes there would be some prejudicial treatment in this area but it was the exception not the rule.

To change this by preventing it would then be the government controlling religious rights. Taking religious freedom away from them instead of protecting the right to religious freedom.

Whoa! A liberal invasion!   ;D

I suggest some actual research into the ACLU's history before defending the indefensible.

Pastor Roger:

Was your reply to me?

If so, thanks for the Welcome, it is much appreciated.

However, the rest of your post seems to be addressing something else other than my post - would you please clarify to whom the rest of your post was addressed?

thanks -

I am not attempting to defend the indefensible. I already said they defend the civil rights of some with whom I disagree. They defend the rights of some whom I find reprehensible, actually. That doesn't change the fact that their mission is to defend the civil rights of all. All means "all" as in, not "some", not just the "good guys" but also the "bad guys".

I don't confuse the ACLU with the people they represent.

Do you?

"You are what you eat."

Was this to me? Please explain. This sentence is not germaine at all as far as I can tell. Perhaps you had some meaning I am missing.

I'm sorry, I didn't see your post when I first posted. My post was meant for Simonline.


 While you have a right to your opinion on the ACLU I suggest that you be careful how far you go to support them.  Antagonistic statements against other people here will not be tolerated. Please keep your disagreements friendly.

The ACLU is more than an organization that defends civil rights. It is an organization that has set out to destroy the main fabric of the Constitution and wants the U.S. to be communistic.

I was just trying to make a point (purhaps not very clearly - sorry!) that a 'good' among many 'wrongs' does not make a right.  

Kind of like taking communion before robbing a bank...  ;D

God bless,
JN

Pastor Roger,

Thanks for the clarification, I was confused when I read your post!

Unfortunately, I am again confused - In what way has the ACLU shown that it wants to destroy the Constitution, or support Communism? I would appreciate any links or facts you could provide. I prefer to be corrected, always, rather than adhere to an opinion once it has been shown to be wrong.

thanks again! and especially because you are answering one of my two questions in my post. I asked "why" and have gotten kindof blasted... so getting a "why" answer is really nice!

JudgeNot,

Thanks! I "get it" now.

This has been quite an experience so far. I registered and posted with two questions, and wow, what an avalanche! I am a little overwhelmed.

So, if I understand you correctly, you're saying that the ACLU defends "good guys" and "bag guys" (to use my terminology, above) and just because they defend "good guys" that doesn't excuse them defending "bad guys" - is that basically the point?

 That means we is doin' our jobs!!  ;D

 That is a fair assessment of my right-thinking mentality.

I believe that the ACLU's ultimate goal is to undermine God, and their defense of religion in isolated instances is an attempt to veil their true intensions.  If I may again quote the founders of the ACLU:

"I seek social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and sole control of those who produced the wealth: communism is the goal." - Roger Baldwin, ACLU founder, Harvard Reunion Book, 1935

"The establishment of an American Soviet government will involve the confiscation of large landed estates in town and country, and also, the whole body to forests, mineral deposits, lakes, rivers and so on." - William Z. Foster, ACLU co-founder and former chairman, Communist Party USA.

Thanks much, JudgeNot. This is exactly the kind of detail I was looking for.

That said, please bear with me as I ask a few more questions (I may not be the brightest bulb in the box, or the sharpest stick in the quiver, but I try to be careful and thorough to help make up for it!)

I feel I must disregard your quote from William Z. Foster, unless you have a compelling reason to consider it as an ACLU statement. It seems to be that without knowing in what context he made the statement, it cannot be taken as an ACLU intent but rather as a Communist Party intent. As he was co-founder of the ACLU and former chairman of the Communist Party I cannot help but think that a quote talking about the "American Soviet government" must be part of the Communist Party platform, not the ACLU platform.

The Roger Baldwin quote is presented as a Harvard Reunion Book quote, yes? Also not ACLU platform statement.

So you have quoted the founders of the ACLU, from back in the 1930s. Further, neither quote is attributed as a platform statement of the ACLU, but rather private statements from founders. This is certainly smoke, but thin and whispy smoke. Further, both quotes revolve around communism, not undermining God - bear with me a minute here please - and communism in the 1930s was a rather amorphous social idea, not what we think of today as communism. Many Christians believed communism was the best way for a Christian to live, because all would be brothers, there would be no "rich men" who couldn't get into heaven, no oppression, etc. They thought Christ's teachings supported communism. He told people to give up their worldly possessions and to follow him in a vow of poverty. He communed. He wanted everyone to share what they had. Communism is the elimination of private property, a system in which goods are owned as common property. That's all it really is. What is became, what is now called "communism" isn't what the communists of the 1930's thought they were talking about.

"And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common." - Acts 4:32

All of which means that a Christian in the 1930's could easily be persuaded that communism was the ideal way for a Christian to live. Not saying they all thought that, just saying that some did. Well, I guess it looked good at the time. That was before the communists decided religion was Bad, and so on, and it morphed into the communistic socialism we know today.  - I understand there are still some Christian Communists out there, who reject the whole "God is wrong" philosophy of most communists, I don't know much about them.

Now, Mr. Baldwin and Mr. Foster may well have been Atheists, or Christians, or anything, but my question is not, what did the founders of the ACLU espouse, or what were their personal beliefs, or had they been saved. It is, why do you think the ACLU's ultimate goal is to undermine God? To which you offer two quotes espousing communism, which I do not believe was anti-Christian at the time the quotes were made, and what appears to be a conspiracy theory. Well, it may be so - not all conspiracy theories are false, just as they are not all true. But I will need something more substantial than those two quotes to convince me that they have a hidden agenda. The ACLU's stated mission is to defend civil rights for all. Neither of these quotes shows otherwise.

So here are my questions - is there more to these quotes? Are they part of official ACLU literature, or do you have additional reason for thinking they are? Do you have anything more recent than 1935? Anything ACLU rather than people who founded or worked for the ACLU?


thanks again - If I start to annoy you, please let me know! But I really appreciate you taking the time to help me explore this and clear up this because it has been a big question mark in my mind for years!

:)

My intent was not to "blast" you but to give some friendly advice as to "what not to say". People can have opposing views without belittling others with comments such as .....  


The ACLU supports Christians when it fits their agenda to do so. The majority of the time they go against Christians. There was an event in one school (already posted somewhere here on this forum) where the ACLU sued in support of a homosexual club and won their lawsuit. Then when a Christian group got together using the exact same rules as the other club (rules that the ACLU had set forth)  the ACLU went to court to try to overturn the decision in order to shut down the Christian club.

I don't see that as belittling anyone, perhaps it is badly phrased, but I stand by it as not an attack on anyone nor a put-down of anyone nor in any way meant to belittle anyone. If anyone feels belittled by that statement, I will endeavor to correct that misapprehension of my meaning.

If you find the ACLU case you mention where the ACLU did one thing on the homosexual case, and something else on the Christian case, please let me know! I would be very interested to see that. I've looked but haven't found it yet - maybe I just haven't looked enough yet.

Brothers and Sisters,

The reasons for my thoughts about the ACLU are all over the forum, in the news every day, and a dark portion of American history. In short, I view them as worse and more destructive than terrorists. If they've ever done anything good or decent for this country, they made a mistake, and the person responsible for it was probably fired.

Just do a search on the forum for "ACLU" and you will have a small sample. Their claim to fame is anti-Christ, anti-Christian, anti-God,  removal of religious liberty, and destruction of the principles America was founded on. Over 200 years of American history defines what the real America is. So, it really isn't a debate at all for the vast majority of Americans - the ACLU is anti-American and against just about everything this country stands for. As a result, the vast majority of Americans would contribute generously to purchase one-way tickets out of America for the ACLU and anyone who supports them. This would obviously involve a contract that they never come back.

I'm far too shy on this subject or I would have much more to say. There is only one thing that would change my opinion of the ACLU - that they cease to exist and give us some time to erase them from our memory completely.

Love In Christ,
Tom

Psalms 73:26 NASB  My flesh and my heart may fail, But God is the strength of my heart and my portion forever.

blackeyedpeas,

Thank you for taking the time to post on this, especially as it is apparant this is an upsetting topic for you.

I have searched, and read, and ... I see many charges - you make some yourself - "anti-Christ, anti-Christian, anti-God,  removal of religious liberty, and destruction of the principles America was founded on, Anti-American". Very strong charges all. The reason I am asking my questions - and again, thank you for posting at all! I am not asking for more from you - is because there are all these strong charges, with absolutely no supporting evidence that I can find anywhere. It seems to be a case of "everyone thinks this, I don't need to explain" but I am, in fact, looking for why. For the evidence. Because all I can find on the ACLU is that they support religious freedom unconditionally, they support separation of church and state, and they defend everyone's civil rights, regardless of whether the individual is exemplary or reprehensible, because they are defending his or her rights, not his or her moral values etc. I am not trying to start a debate *at all*! I am asking in all honesty, why are so many Christians so anti-ACLU? and for evidence of the charges. So far I have gotten a partial answer to "why" but not much on "why do you think that about the ACLU" (evidence to support the charges against them.) But we're making progress (thanks JudgeNot and Pastor Roger!)

thanks much - to everyone who is helping me in this search. And thanks to those who don't have the time or inclination to participate, for understanding my question.

This is a repost of a news article for TWalker,


LAW OF THE LAND
ACLU caught red-handed?
Changes view of precedent when it favors Christian group
Posted: April 23, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

The ACLU's support of a legal precedent used to gain recognition of a student homosexual group has reversed now that the ruling is being used to back the rights of a Christian club on campus, claims a public-interest law firm.

The Associated Student Body at Kentridge High School in Kent, Wash., has rejected the Truth Bible Club because it required all members to adhere to a code of Christian conduct and voting members to sign a statement of faith. Also, the name of the club was deemed "offensive" and "proselytizes."

The case is governed by the Equal Access Act, a federal statute that requires schools to treat student clubs equally, notes the Arizona-based Alliance Defense Fund, which is defending the Truth Bible Club.

In Prince v. Jacoby, ADF argues, the Ninth Circuit held that denying official sponsorship of a club violates the Equal Access Act.

ADF points out that in 2003, shortly after Prince v. Jacoby was decided, the ACLU sent an information letter to school officials in Washington state explaining the case "makes it clear that student clubs promoting tolerance for gay students are entitled to the same resources as other clubs."

But now, the ACLU has filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the Truth case that takes the opposite position.

The ACLU now wants to strike down the Prince case if it will be used to allow a Bible club on campus, the ADF's Tim Chandler told WorldNetDaily.

"This goes to show how far the ACLU will manipulate the legal system to further their radical agenda," said Chandler, a litigation specialist who is working on the case.

"They are backtracking," Chandler said. "They used these laws to get what they wanted – equal rights for the gay-straight alliance – and now that they've gotten that, they want to retriact it so the Bible club doesn't get the same benefits."

An ACLU of Washington lawyer did not respond to WND for comment by press time.

The ACLU argues that the Equal Access Act only requires schools to allow clubs to meet on campus but does not require them to have equal access to all other benefits, such as funding and yearbook recognition.

The ACLU insists Prince should be overruled to avoid giving Truth any benefits beyond the right to meet on campus.

ADF spokesman Greg Scott said Truth applied for ASB status three times and was rejected each time. After numerous requests and demand letters to the principal and district counsel went without response, ADF filed suit.

ASB status is required to receive funding from the school, recognition in the yearbook, and access to the public address system and other forms of on-campus advertising. Non-ASB groups are permitted to meet on campus during non-instructional time, but cannot receive any other benefits.

Scott notes that in the Prince case, the successful petitioners were part of a religious club seeking Equal Access.

"The ACLU is obviously engaged in religious bigotry – in cases concerning homosexual groups, they argue that Prince fully applies, but now, when it clearly applies, using the ACLU's own standard, to a religious club, they are seeking to overturn the Prince decision," he said.

Wispy smoke?  According to modern liberals, past “private” statements carry the weight of public proclamation.  Just ask Teddy Kennedy about he and his cohort's “litmus test” for judges.

Wispy smoke?  Modern liberals went through literally thousands of founding father documents to find one sentence written by Tom Jefferson with the words “separation of church and state”.  That one statement out of thousands is now the ACLU’s number one quote out of context to use against God fearing Americans.

Am I not allowed to use similar tactics, or are those ploys reserved for defenders of atheism only?

Not true.  Marx wrote his manifesto some 80 years earlier.  Marx’s intent was to replace God.  Anyone who understood communism knew this.

Is that your opinion?  Name one Christian who believed this, please...

Again, is that your opinion?  I don’t think you give 1930’s era Christian enough credit.  I believe they were at least as intelligent as we are today.

“Christian Communist” is an oxymoron.  In the Soviet union, practicing Christians were “allowed” to continue practicing.  However, to convert was strictly forbidden and punishable by death.  The ACLU is content to allow practicing Christians to continue practicing – even to the extent of “defending” that right.  However, they are purposely and overtly limiting our rights to pass on our values to our children through their false “separation of church and state” agenda.

See any parallels there?  Do you believe it just coincidence?  

Yea – and the “advertised” communist agenda is ultimate utopia on earth… for the common good… etc.etc.

Please see the thread I started earlier:
http://forums.christiansunite.com/index.php?board=28;action=display;threadid=8392 (http://forums.christiansunite.com/index.php?board=28;action=display;threadid=8392)
You will find quite a few links there that may answer your question as to why I think as I do.

Happy reading!  :)

God bless all,
JudgeNot

Please specify to whom your post is addressed? Thank you.

Simonline.

For the record, I am a 'strict and particular' orthodox conservative Evangelical Christian and definitely not a liberal. Furthermore, I am not defending the ACLU. I am defending the Truth.

Simonline.

JudgeNot:
You have given me a *lot* to think about and read, so it will probably take me a bit to respond - I just wanted to say I've seen the post and am giving it my attention and will be answering, so you don't think I'm being rude. Thanks for your detailed and exhaustive rebuttals/responses.

Pastor Roger:
thank you, this is exactly the kind of firm reporting I'm looking for! Upon reading the WorldNetDaily article, it seems clear there is anti-Christian bias being applied. Further research casts some doubt upon that. An article in SeattlePI, explored more thoroughly in SoundPolitics, states that there is, indeed, a difference in the Truth Bible Club and the Gay-Straight Alliance. There is discrimination in the Truth Bible Club, none in the Gay-Straight alliance, and that is the reason the ACLU states that the rule for one does not apply to the other - because the rule is for non-discriminatory groups. The Truth Bible Club allows both Christians and non-Christians to be members. But then they discriminate in requiring that all officers must be Christian, and in requiring all members to adhere to a "Christian Code of Conduct" (unspecified in any article I have found so far.)

Apparantly the school also finds the name offensive, as calling the club the "Truth Bible Club" implies there is no truth to be found outside the Bible, or that the Bible, a religious book, is the only source of Truth. This is not, however, ever the position of the ACLU in any of the articles.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/116449_bible08.shtml

http://www.soundpolitics.com/archives/004257.html

So yes, this is what I'm looking for, but this particular case does not convince nor compel - the ACLU in this case is not being "anti-Christian" they are being "anti-discrimination" which is in line with their stated purpose.  

Hello SimonLine,

It's a good thing you aren't defending the ACLU because anyone doing so would be immediately viewed as ultra-liberal and ultra-left. That's just one of the reasons why I never defend or support the ACLU on anything.

Love In Christ,
Tom

Psalms 113:4 NASB  The LORD is high above all nations; His glory is above the heavens.

I could be wrong but I think that was directed at me. I also am not "defending" the ACLU - I am however asking for evidence to convince me the ACLU, whose stated mission is to defend civil rights, including religious freedom and freedom from discrimination, is considered "anti-Christian" and reviled by so many. I prefer not to condemn on hearsay, and the kind members of this board are attempting to "make the case" so I can understand why they have formed this opinion of the ACLU. As the virulent hatred of the ACLU by so many Christians has been a puzzle to me for some time, I am very grateful to them for taking the time and effort to do so.

But isn't the whole point of the ACLU to defend the legal rights of all U.S. citizens irrespective of their personal religious or political stance? Doesn't the constitution exist to uphold the rights of all US citizens and not just those of any one particular section of American society (including Evangelical Christians)?

Surely, if the UCLA were only defending the legal rights of certain sections of U.S. society (or even worse, just one section of U.S. society) then wouldn't they be guilty of a grave dereliction of duty?

Simonline

If this is correct then the ulterior motives of the ACLU in defending peoples rights as a means to the establishment of an American Soviet State should be opposed by all those who are seeking to establish and live by the Truth that sets men free.

Simonline.

Taking this in small bites - Christian Communism in this one.

Christian Communist is ineed a bit of an oxymoron, depending upon your definition of communism. If you are referring to the communism of the Soviet Union, and the communism of Marx (more properly called "Marxism"), they indeed repressed all religion. Communism predates Marx by at least 2000 years. Marxism is a sub-set of communism, as Soviet Socialist Communism is descended from, but not identical, to Marxism. I submit the following for your perusal and consideration:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_communism

http://www.casi.org.nz/publications/capcom.html (scroll down to "Communism")

http://www.megabrands.com/carroll/philo.html

http://www.tblog.com/templates/index.php?bid=Longshot&static=409407

http://latter-rain.com/general/commu.htm

http://www.osa.ceu.hu/galeria/com2000/concept/kautsky.html

http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/lpbr/subpages/reviews/esau205.htm (4th paragraph)

http://www.hutterites.org/ (current Christian Communist group - see http://www.hutterites.org/organiz.htm under Community of Goods)

http://www.landreform.org/boff2.htm - Liberation Theology, a fairly recent Christian Socialism which actually utilizes some of Marx's ideas, and is sometimes referred to as Christian Communism (it isn't)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_theology more on Liberation Theology

Interesting post. Let us not forget however, that 'Biblical Communism' is based upon voluntary participation at every level ['God loves a cheerful giver'] and never social or political coercion, as is usually the case with Humanistic Communism (as history bears witness). Annanias and Saphira (Acts.5) were judged, not for witholding what was theirs to withold (thereby indicating that Christianity is not fundamentally against private ownership) but for witholding some of the proceeds from the sale of their property and then lying in order to deceive the Church into believing that they were contributing all of the proceeds from the sale into the communal purse.

Simonline.

I refer more to the communistic precepts in Acts, but the point is indeed valid that Biblical, or Christian, communism is very different from the communism we refer to today. My points were 1) Christians supported communism (and even Marxism, it seems!) at various points in history, so without something more on the beliefs of the two individuals quoted I cannot say this proves they are anti Christian or anti religious, and 2) Whether they were or not has no direct bearing on the question at hand - is the ACLU the supporter of everyone's civil rights, without discrimination, or are they anti-Christian ("bent on destroying God", I think someone said.) Maligning the founders, now dust, does not prove satisfactorily to me that the ACLU is anything but a defender of civil liberties for all.

TWalker,

The article I gave you was from World Net Daily and may be a bit biased but it is biased from the point of a Christian not anti-christian. I have also read many articles both pro and con on this incident.

The group set up their club in accordance with the Equal Access Act which was put in place by the ACLU lawsuit that defended a group of homosexuals. Their law, their rules and now that a Christian group uses those same laws the ACLU decides their own laws are not good enough and wants them (the laws) recinded.

Now how much more plain can it be as to what their agenda is?

Their are also lawsuits by the ACLU to remove Bibles from the schools libraries yet they are supporting the implementation of the Koran into school libraries. Schools that refuse to allow any Christian organizations from speaking in schools because of the "separation" statement are suing to allow Muslim speakers to be admitted into school functions. This information is all over the 'net so you can look it up yourself.

Another problem that I have with the ACLU is their support of and association with CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations). They have assisted this group in lawsuits that permit Muslim prayer in schools. Force the admission of the Koran into school libraries while removing the Bible from these same schools. The ACLU has sued in their behalf to have one of their speakers admitted to a public school function as a speaker but refuse to allow a Christian speaker to participate.

If you are not aware of what CAIRs objective is do a search on them. You will find that one of their speakers at a convention of theirs stated they wanted the Constitution done away with and rewritten for the Islamic community and to make Islam and the Koran the primary religion of the U.S.

Dear me, this is getting to be a huge topic...
I am sorry to have to correct you, but the Truth Bible group did not use the same rules as the Gay-Straight Alliance group. If they had, the argument would hold water. Since the Truth Bible Study group discriminated, and the Gay-Straight Alliance group did not, its only clear that the ACLU is against discrimination.

As far as the other claims, that the ACLU is trying to remove Bibles and replace them with Korans, this is again a charge with no evidence - do you have an article from a reliable source? and also this strikes me as contrary to the "anti-religion" charge which has been leveled at the ACLU. If they are pro-Islam, that is a bias, but it is not anti-religion. And I have looked, and not found. That's why I am asking. All I have found is stories about the ACLU defending civil rights, sueing to prevent discrimination, and generally upholding what they say they are for. If I could find any evidence of their targeting Christians unfairly on my own, I would already have the evidence I seek and not be asking here for help.

As far as CAIR is concerned, I may look into it later. Right now I'm as occupied as I have time for (and even more!) looking at this issue. Thanks tho, I'll keep it in mind.

Small bite two - Smoke
I don't really care what "modern liberals" think about private statements vs. public proclamation. I do not ever see the need to ask Teddy Kennedy his opnion on anything. And how the "modern liberals" use one Jefferson quote, or 20, really has no bearing. In short, I fail to see your point. If this is an argument that you have somehow proved your position on the ACLU by dragging out two old quotes from the 1930s, and your only support for this argument is Teddy Kennedy and the use of one Jefferson quote by people with whom you disagree, I respectfully submit that you don't have much of a case. And what Atheists do or do not do should, in my humble opinion, not be used as validation by a Christian. It kindof sounds like "Well, the atheists do it, so its ok for me!" if you see what I mean. I do not mean to imply that is what you meant to say, only that is how the bare words of your post come across.

I have already given you information that is quite substantial but you prefer to believe what you will about it as being unsubstantiated. I get the impression that no matter what information I take the time to look up and give to you that you are going to do the same with it. Which means that you had your mind made up before you even came to this forum.


Corporate Holdings International ......  an interesting web site.

TWalker, This is a matter of public record. So this should answer your question.
Part 1

The ACLU claims to be an unbiased, “neither conservative or liberal” organization devoted exclusively to protecting the civil liberties of all Americans. But their record proves just the opposite.

ACLU Founder Roger Baldwin admitted as much, saying for the record that; “Civil liberties, like democracy, are useful only as tools for social change.”

Although they claim to defend constitutional rights, they don’t even believe in the document as written. They say that, “The Constitution as originally conceived was deeply flawed.” They even go so far as to brag, “The ACLU was the missing ingredient that made our constitutional system finally work.”

Roger Baldwin was a student of communist Emma Goldman who tutored him in subversive ideology of Lenin, together with secular humanism. He claimed Emma as “one of the chief inspirations of his life”.

During World War 1 Baldwin worked in the Bureau of Conscientious Objectors, a division of AUAM, to help draft dodgers with resistance and provide legal and financial aid.

This resulted in controversy and Baldwin renamed the organization The Civil Liberties Bureau to avoid some of the flack. Roger refused to tone down his liberal talk and the AUAM sought a split, which resulted in the bureau renaming again; The National Civil Liberties Bureau.

One paper Baldwin wrote for the Bureau was called “unmailable” by the Post Office because of “radical and subversive views” which resulted in a FBI raid on their offices. Shortly thereafter he was drafted and upon resisting and openly spouting social reform propaganda, was imprisoned for a year.

In 1920 he moved his offices in with the Communist Party’s paper, New Masses and renamed the group a final time to the ACLU. He developed many ties with the communist movement and even wrote a book, "Liberty Under the Soviets", which bragged about the “liberty won for anti-religion”.

Baldwin admitted in his book; "I joined. I don’t regret being a part of the Communist tactic, which increased the effectiveness of a good cause. I knew what I was doing. I was not an innocent liberal. I wanted what the Communists wanted…” The ACLU was founded at a party attended by Socialist Party notable Norman Thomas, future Communist Party chairman Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, and Soviet agent Agnes Smedley.

In 1920, Rev. Harry Ward, the 'Red Dean' of the Union Theological Seminary was Chairman, Baldwin was director, and Communist publisher Louis Budenz, who would later go on to testify against Communism, director of publicity.

Other Communist and radical founders included William Z. Foster, author of “Toward Soviet America,” Harold J. Laski, Morris Hilquit, A.J.Muste, Scott Nearing, Eugene V. Debs, and John Dewey.

The 1930’s membership would include such radicals and change agents as Vito Marcantonio, Haywood Broun, Corliss Lamont, and Bishop G. Bromley Oxnan.

The 1940’s roll would include George S. Counts, Norman Cousins, Melvyn Douglas, Robert M. Hutchins, and Freda Kirchwey.

Most prominent American luminaries of the left were, and are, members of the ACLU.

On January 16, 1981, President Jimmy Carter awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom to ACLU founder Roger Nash Baldwin, calling him 'a champion of human and civil rights.'

Under the guise of 'protecting American civil rights', Baldwin's ACLU has sued to;

- Halt the singing of Christmas Carols in public facilities.

- Deny tax -exempt status for Churches.

- Remove all military chaplains.

- Remove all Christian symbols from public property.

- Prohibit Bible reading in classrooms even during free time.

- Remove In God We Trust from our coins.

- Remove God from the Pledge of Allegiance

- Deny federal funding for Boy Scouts until they admit gays and atheists

The ACLU championed the gay rights movement and Roe v. Wade. In 1977, the ACLU created its "Reproductive Freedom Project" that, over the next 16 years, utilized 17 full-time employees and a budget of $2 million.

In 1986 the ACLU created its "Lesbian and Gay Rights" project.

Some other causes adopted by the ACLU include the rights of AIDS patients to keep their diseases confidential and denying freedom of worship in public places.

In 1986, 5th grade teacher Kenneth Roberts was ordered, following an ACLU suit, to remove his Bible from his classroom. (In 2001, it sued the Anahein public school system for refusing to put pro-homosexual propaganda in the district's high school libraries.)

In 1988, it barred a doctor from telling a Kansas man's former wife that her ex-husband had tested positive for AIDS. In the words of the director of the ACLU's Privacy and Technology Project, "The benefits of confidentiality outweigh the possibility that somebody may be injured."

In 1997, the ACLU convinced the Supreme Court to protect the rights of pornographers on the Internet - including the right to show their images to children.

In May 2000, Arizona Governor Jane Hull issued a proclamation celebrating the birth of Buddha. An ACLU spokesperson said, "Although we may think proclamations are inappropriate, they may not violate the Constitution."

(But two years earlier, when Governor Hull issued a proclamation declaring a "Bible Week," the ACLU sued, claiming a violation of the so-called "separation of church and state.")

Among the ACLU's pantheon of victories are cases involving the defense of Communists, anarchists, Ku Klux Klansmen, and those who sought to overthrow American government.

In order for the ACLU to tear down constitutional barriers to governmental power, they must extinguish America's fundamental belief in God, since such a belief is an essential denial of the supreme power of government.

According to the Declaration of Independence, rights come from God, not government. When God's presence in the American mindset ceases, however, people no longer look to God as the grantor of rights but to government.

Therefore, the ACLU argues that the more power the government has, the better off the people under it are. If one looks at the history of the Soviet Union and any other Communist country, one will be apt to find Communist leaders who predicated their form of government on atheism and a secular state religion.

The ACLU has been so successful that even the Declaration of Independence can be interpreted as unconstitutional, if the argument is framed properly.

A San Franscisco suburban teacher was forbidden to give out copies of the Declaration of Independence to his students by the school's principal, Patricia Vidmar, because it refers to God. Principal Vidmar has also required that Mr. Williams clear all his lessons first with her.

This has led to other materials that refer to God or Christianity being rejected, such as George Washington's journal, John Adams' diary, Samuel Adams' "The Rights of the Colonists," and William Penn's "The Frame of Government of Pennsylvania."

The Barna Research Group found in a recent poll that 40% of all Americans claimed to have read the Bible in the week preceding the poll. Fully 80% admitted to praying to God in the previous week, while 83% said that religion had 'changed their behavior'.

Two-thirds of Americans claimed they attend church at least once a month. Interestingly, more Americans believe in God than Israelis do. The National Opinion Research Center found that 62.8% of Americans believe in God, as compared with only 43% of Israelis.

Given these numbers, how can it be that the ACLU can impose such a 'through the looking-glass' worldview on the majority of Americans?

In the natural, there are plenty of reasons; the careful installation of anti-Christian activists judges, ninety years of brainwashing, the imposition of secular humanism as America's state religion, and the domination of professions like the law and teaching by secularists and homosexual activists.

Cont., in next post.

I asked a question in good faith. I received one story which was not any evidence of anything stated. My mind is not made up, but I need a heckuva lot more than one story which didn't pan out to call it "substantial".

I would appreciate it if you would not dismiss me by saying my mind was made up, basically calling me a liar. If you have anything else to offer, I am asking, as I have been from the first, for the information. If you do not have the time or the inclination to help me with this, say so. I will completely respect that - I know this takes time and effort. But don't accuse me of lying, or presume to tell me what I think or do not think.

Bear in mind: we must test all things (1Thessalonians 5:21)
One witness does not make an accusation true (Deuteronomy 19:15)
A thorough investigation is called for (Deuteronomy 19:18)
We should not listen to everything that is said (Ecclesiastes 7:21)
But investigate and seek out wisdom (Ecclesiastes 7:25)
and knowledge (Proverbs 18:15) or we are a fool (Proverbs 15:14)

I have not even expressed disagreement with the basic argument put forth: that the ACLU is anti-Christian. I have asked for help in understanding how you came to that conclusion. I have expressed my desire to learn. I have confessed my ignorance. I do ask for clear evidence, not scorn and ridcule, of the ACLU's alleged anti-Christian bias.

Part 2

But the Bible says that it is more than that.

Romans 1:28 says, "And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient."

2nd Timothy 3:5,8,13 say that, "Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof", "evil men and seducers will wax worse and worse" eventually resulting in their becoming "men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith."

Note that Paul begins this passage by warning, "This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come." (2nd Timothy 3:1)

The word 'reprobate' means 'without moral scruples' and carries with it the sense of being morally blinded to the degree that one is unable to think clearly, even when it is in one's own best interests.

Clearly, espousing the idea that the Declaration of Independence is unconstitutional because it mentions God, particularly in the context of PROTECTING religious liberties, cannot logically be squared with the concept that religious liberty is guaranteed by God.

Webster's 1913 Dictionary defines 'reprobate' theologically as "Abandoned to punishment; hence, morally abandoned and lost; given up to vice; depraved."

Romans 1:28 says God 'gave them over' to a reprobate mind.

2nd Thessalonians says that the antichrist (that 'Wicked' v.2:8) would be revealed after the restraining influence of the Holy Spirit is 'taken out of the way' (v.7) after which, Paul writes, "God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie," with the ultimate result that, "they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness." (v. 12)

The ACLU exists, openly and it all its glory, for the express purpose of propagating the lie that God does not exist, and therefore the worship of God is a crime, even though, apart from God, there is no guarantor of the civil liberties the ACLU claims to protect.

Do you follow? The 'reprobate mind' suffering from the 'strong delusion'.

It is here, it is now and it is in your face. And it will continue to get worse.

Until He comes.

"But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth . . . Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle." (2nd Thessalonians 2:13,15)

How is it that so many Americans can be deceived into allowing themselves to by tyrannized by the minority? A reprobate mind.

Why hasn't it affected the True Church?

"For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a SOUND MIND." (2nd Timothy 1:7)

Which is why the Red States earned the nickname, "JesusLand."
America's Communist Lawyers' Union (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1293149/posts)
_____________________________________________________
Roger Nash Baldwin was the founder of the American Civil Liberties Union and a notable American Communist.

"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."—Harvard Class Book of 1935, spotlighting Baldwin's class of 1905 on its thirtieth anniversary

"Do steer away from making it look like a Socialist enterprise...We want also to look like patriots in everything we do. We want to get a good lot of flags, talk a good deal about the Constitution and what our forefathers wanted to make of this country, and to show that we are really the folks that really stand for the spirit of our institutions."—Baldwin's advice in 1917 to Louis Lochner of the socialist People's Council in Minnesota

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Nash_Baldwin)
_____________________________________________________

Tough Questions about ACLU Positions
1. Why do you defend Nazis and the Klan?
The ACLU’s client is the Bill of Rights, not any particular person or group. We defend its principles – basic rights of citizens –
whenever these are threatened. We do not believe that you can pick and chose when to uphold rights. If a right can be taken
away from one person, it can be taken away from anyone. When you deny a right to someone with whom you disagree, you
pave the way for that right to be denied to yourself or someone whom you strongly support. For example, the principle by
which the Ku Klux Klan has the right to march is the same one that allows civil rights activists to march against racism.
2. You’re all a bunch of liberals, aren’t you?
The ACLU is a nonpartisan group. We have defended and worked with people all across the political spectrum, from Rev. Jerry
Falwell and Oliver North to radio host Rush Limbaugh and former Republican member of Congress Bob Barr. The ACLU
strongly supports women’s right to choose abortion, yet we have also assisted anti-abortion activists when police used excessive
force in arresting them. The ACLU has won support from women’s groups for our stand on women’s rights, but has angered
some feminists for our First Amendment stand on pornography.
3. Why does the ACLU support cross burning?
The ACLU condemns all forms of racism. However, the ACLU does believe that in some specific cases, the First Amendment
protects the burning of a cross. People have the right to be bigots and to make extreme, symbolic statements of their bigotry.
Burning a cross on one’s own lawn in the middle of the day without making specific threats against anybody is an example of
this. That’s why the ACLU opposes laws that say any and all instances of cross burning are illegal. Such laws are too broad and
vague and have the result of preventing people from exercising their rights to free speech. As an answer to racist speech, the
ACLU advocates more speech directed against racism, not the suppression of speech.
4. Why does the ACLU support pornography? Why are you in favor of child porn?
The ACLU does not support pornography. But we do oppose virtually all forms of censorship. Possessing books or films
should not make one a criminal. Once society starts censoring “bad” ideas, it becomes very difficult to draw the line. Your idea
of what is offensive may be a lot different from your neighbor’s. In fact, the ACLU does take a very purist approach in
opposing censorship. Our policy is that possessing even pornographic material about children should not itself be a crime. The
way to deal with this issue is to prosecute the makers of child pornography for exploiting minors.
5. Why doesn’t the ACLU support gun ownership/gun control?
The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control. We believe the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited
right upon individuals to own guns or other weapons, nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation of gun ownership, such as
licensing and registration. This, like all ACLU policies, is set by the board of directors, a group of ACLU members.
6. Why does the ACLU support the rights of criminals but not victims of crime?
The ACLU supports everybody’s rights. Citizens are outraged by crime and understandably want criminals caught and
prosecuted. The ACLU simply believes that the rights to fair treatment and due process must be respected for people accused of crimes. Respecting these rights does not cause crime, nor does it hinder police from pursuing criminals. It should, and does in
fact, cause police to avoid sloppy procedures.
7. Why is the ACLU against God/Christianity/the Bible?
The ACLU strongly supports our country’s guarantee that all people have the right to practice their own religion, as well as the right not to practice any religion. The best way to ensure religious freedom for all is to keep the government out of the business of pushing religion on anybody. The ACLU strongly supports the separation of church and state. In practice, this means that people may practice their religion – just not with government funding or sponsorship. This simple principle in no way banishes or weakens religion. It only means that no one should have somebody else’s religion forced on him or her, even if most other people in a community support that religion.

Cont next post

JudgeNot:

I have never in my life been on this forum before. If I remind you of someone, I can understand you suspecting I *might* be that person, but all I can do is assure you I am not. This is the second time today I have been accused of falsehood, on no evidence whatsoever. I am beginning to think this is not a very friendly place.

As far as whose civil rights the ACLU defends, I've already said several times I think some of their cases are defending the rights of the truly reprehensible. That has no bearing on whether they are anti-Christian.

and I confess confusion as to your question "TW - Just what IS IS?" what are you talking about?

and my only agenda is the truth. I'd like to know it. I'd like some help. I'm getting flamed and false accusations hurled at me.

TWalker is my real name, btw. I am Tracy Walker, and whatever my many faults, I do not lie.

EDITED to say this is in response to a post which seems to have disappeared - was it a hack? If so, my apologies. If not, what happened to it?

DreamWeaver:

Many thanks for your exhaustive post. And many apologies - I am getting tired and don't have the energy to fully read your posts and give them the attention they deserve. I will do so at the earliest opportunity.

Tough Questions about ACLU Positions (http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:-z7vPPI-rmYJ:www.aclufl.org/take_action/download_resources/15ToughACLUQuestionsFINAL.pdf+ACLU+against+Constitution,+or+support+Communism&hl=en&client=firefox-a)
_______________________________________________________

Part 3

The ACLU is at it again. Most people know the ACLU as the American Civil Liberties Union. I believe the appropriate identifier is the American Communist Lawyers Union and they're at it again on their anti-God crusade. There can be no mistake: the ACLUs philosophy is in complete harmony with the Constitution of the United Soviet Socialist Republic (1922-1991), which stated, "Article 124: In order to ensure to citizens freedom of conscience, the church in the U.S.S.R. is separated from the State and the school from the church." The same position was adopted by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1947 in their famous 'separation of Church and State' ruling.
Think about those three words: freedom of conscience (freedom from conscience) and what it represents to a civilized, moral society. Turn the people into zombies with no conscience or appreciation for their own actions. Take a look out there at America, at the moral behavior being displayed and the tragic consequences. You are looking at the slow, spasmodic death of a great nation committing national suicide.
______________________________________________________

At the local level, the ACLU often involves itself in cases involving the separation of church and state. Therefore, one of the most consistent critics of the ACLU is the conservative Christian community in the United States. Many in this community contend that the ACLU is part of an effort to remove all references to religion from American government.

In 2004, for example, the ACLU of Southern California threatened to sue the city of Redlands, California if it did not remove a picture of a cross from the city's seal. The ACLU argued that having a cross on the seal amounted to a government-sponsored endorsement of Christianity and violated separation of church and state. The city complied with the ACLU and removed the cross from all city vehicles, business cards, and police badges. Then the ACLU threatened Los Angeles County, California if it also did not remove an image of a cross from its seal. As in the Redlands case, the county board complied with the demands and voted to remove the cross from its seal as well.

After the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack, Jerry Falwell remarked that the ACLU, by trying to 'secularize America' had made God mad, and that is why God allowed the terrorist attacks to happen. Other critics of the ACLU do not make such strong accusations, but claim that the organization pushes the concept of separation of church and state beyond its original meaning.
_________________________________________________

America's Godly Heritage in Government

CONSTITUTION

Surely the people who wrote and signed the Constitution of the United States of America can be trusted to tell us what it means. Original letters written in their own words give us a much truer understanding of their intentions than third party commentaries written a hundred years later.

Listen to the original writers, especiallly when new historians contradict the original intent of those original authors of the law of this great land.

Those letters and speeches made by the Signers of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence are available through this network.

You can download more complete information files to your computer and read them at your leisure.

Please feel free to share them with your friends. The purpose of this is to spread the truth and give understanding of the truth, so that our children and our children's children can live by the truth.

LIFE, LIBERTY, AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS

President Abraham Lincoln reminded the nation of that great truth contained in the Declaration of Independence when he said, "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

The Supreme Court declared in 1897, the Constitution is the body and letter of which the Declaration of Independence is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence.

The Constitution itself connects itself to the Declaration of Independence by dating itself from the date of the Declaration of Independence, thereby showing clearly that it is the second great document in the government of these United States and is not to be understood without the first. How many today say the Constitution stands alone devoid of all reference to the Declaration? Let them see hear and understand what those who wrote the Constitution said about our American government. See Article VII.

The Founders believed the Declaration was the foundational document in our Constitutional form of government. The Founders dated their government acts from the year of the Declaration rather than the Constitution. The date of the Declaration of Independence was the recognized date of Sovereignty and Independence of the United States.

In the Declaration, the Founders established the foundation and the core values on which the Constitution was to operate. The Constitution was never to be interpreted apart from those values expressed in the Declaration.

Samuel Adams pointed out: Before the formation of this Constitution this Declaration of Independence was received and ratified by all the States in the Union, and has never been disannulled.

Well into the twentieth century, the Declaration and the Constitution were viewed as inseparable and interdependent. While the Court's change of standards has perhaps been a display of poor judgment, the Court's actions have actually been illegal under the standards of original intent. Furthermore they have violated the value system of "the laws of nature and of nature's God" established in the Declaration of Independence.

The First Amendment was clearly understood and explained by the man who wrote it and the man who first applied it as law. Fisher Ames wrote the First Amendment. He also wrote that the Bible should always remain the principle text book in America's classrooms. John Jay, original Chief-Justice U.S. Supreme Court, said it is the duty of all wise, free, and virtuous governments to help and encourage virtue and religion.

The Constitution of the United States of America was penned by the man who was head of the committee which created the final wording. That man, Governor Morris of Pennsylvania, was also the most active member of the Constitutional Convention. He spoke 173 times. He also advocated that "education should teach the precepts of religion and the duties of man towards God."

An early House Judiciary Committee affirmed the Founder's lack of pluralistic intent when it declared: "Christianity ...was the religion of the founders of the republic, and they expected it to remain the religion of their descendants."

Words and sentiments of other founding fathers can be given to fill a library; but these few show the whole idea to anyone to is willing to hear.

" You do well to wish to learn our arts and our ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. Congress will do everything they can to assist you in this wise intention." George Washington

" Let...statesmen and patriots unite their endeavors to renovate the age by...educating their little boys and girls...and leading them in the study and practice of the exalted virtues of the Christian system." Samuel Adams

"History will also afford frequent opportunities of showing the necessity of a public religion...and the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern." Benjamin Franklin

"Only one adequate plan has ever appeared in the world, and that is the Christian dispensation." John Jay, ORIGINAL CHIEF-JUSTICE U.S. SUPREME COURT

"The United States of America were no longer Colonies. They were an independent nation of Christians." John Qunicy Adams

A page of history is worth a volume of logic. History shows the intent and purpose of our founding fathers. Contemporary logic is wrong whenever it contradicts the clear explanations of those men who wrote the Constitution.

97% of the founding fathers were practicing Christians and exercised their faith in public office, at work, at home, and had it taught to their children in their schools. 187 of the first 200 colleges in America were Christian, Bible teaching institutions. Entrance to Harvard required strong knowledge of the Bible. The money was printed, "One Nation Under God." Noah Webster wrote the dictionary with Bible verses explained so children could understand the words of God and know the truth of Jesus Christ. Webster even wrote a translation of the Bible for the American speaking people.

cont next post

Taken at Truth's value (which rules all)!
Thanks, Tracy.
God bless!
 :)
Jim

You could hardly find a school in America that wasn't Christian based with the Bible as its main text book until the 1830's. That was when a humanist named Horace Mann worked for ten years to deceive the state of Massachusetts to produce its own state supported schools and leave the Bible out of those schools. As a result of the attack upon children learning the truths of God and Salvation, the American Sunday School League was formed during that same decade so those children who were deprived could still get Bible knowledge.

During the next hundred years humanism grew bolder in its attack against the founding fathers ideas of education and more and more schools omitted the Bible. Fewer and fewer remembered the exhortations of those men who established this nation to follow Christ and give Christian teaching in the schools, as the backbone and main course of our schools. p>

The ax has been laid to the very roots of our Constitution. The Supreme Court now makes laws. Not only does it make laws, it overthrows those which have existed for generations upon generations of Americans and calls them unconstitutional. Why? Because of the new morality that says, the end justifies the means, and if it seems good do it. And no man stood strong enough to stop that encroachment when it happened. The Founders would have denied what the Warren Court did on the grounds of Treason. Why Treason? Because the Founders believed that whosoever attacked the strength and education of Christianity attacked this great nation which was founded on the principles of Christianity. It's OK to exercise free speech on the streets if one wants to attack Christianity, but it is High Treason for a judge to throw down laws that were established to protect Christian education according to individual faith of Americans.

The Socialist minded judges took a bold stroke at our roots and they got away with it. No one impeached them for Treason. Under the power of Mass Media, the public was given opium of "it's all for the good of the nation", and they sat back in their false humility and failed to stand up for Right.
___________________________________________________

U.S.A. IDENTIFIED BY THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

The Declaration of Independence appeals to God no less than three times. Four to those who can see His Name in the phrase "protection of divine providence". Five to those who can admit the phrase "created equal" means created by God, not evolved from chaos.

Contrary to what is currently taught at most federal and state schools, Samuel Adams pointed out this strong lesson which is contradicted in courts today: "Before the formation of this Constitution...this Declaration of Independence was received and ratified by all the States in the Union and has NEVER been disannuled."

The Declaration and the Constitution were viewed as inseparable and interdependent documents. The Declaration of Independence appeals to God no less than three times. The men who wrote it declared within it their undying faith towards God for all generations to see and follow.

The Articles of Incorporation call the entity into existence and the By-laws then explain how it will be governed. Therefore the governing of the corporation under its by-laws must always be within the purposes and framework set forth in its Articles. The By-laws may neither nullify nor supersede the Articles. The Constitution neither abolished nor replaced what the Declaration had established; it only provided the specific details of how American government would operate under the principles set forth in the Declaration.

PROOF of the Declaration being attached to the Constitution is found in Article VII. The Constitution attaches itself to the Declaration by dating itself as being signed in the twelfth year of the independence of the United States of America! Now that proves the founding fathers considered themselves to have been living in the USA for twelve years under the government document of the Declaration of Independence. Not only was the Constitution dated in recognition of the Declaration of Independence, also the later government acts were dated from the Independence of the United States of America.

"The Jubilee of the Constitution" by John Quincy Adams explains the Constitution as dependent upon the virtues proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence. That's why the Ten Commandments are inscribed in stone on the Supreme Court building. Those men saw the law of God as the basis of all law for all men always, never to be changed! How can we withhold God and His truth from our educational classrooms for children today? One Nation Under God. United we stand together with Christ.

They erected a beacon to guide their children, and their children's children: for all men who would pursue life, liberty, and happiness...they pointed us to God and to His Son Jesus Christ. They desired that their posterity might look again to the Declaration of Independence and take courage to renew that battle which their fathers began, so that truth, justice, mercy, and all Christian virtue not be extinguished from the schools of this land.

If anyone has taught you doctrines conflicting with the light shining through our Declaration of Independence, come back to the truths that were written then for you to see again now.

President Abraham Lincoln reminded the nation of that great truth contained in the Declaration of Independence when he said, "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

SUPREME COURT decision of 1897: Constitution is the body and letter of which the Declaration of Independence is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence.

Our government exists to protect the Constitutional rights of the people. Those rights are protected by the Constitution and its Amendments as the law of the land. Only the people have the incontestable, unalienable, unencroachable right to change the laws which they have established. The elected and appointed officials may not change the law of the Constitution, neither can the courts change the law. Not even the Supreme Court can change any law. Courts only judge situations to which the law applies. Courts may not judge the law.

Not the courts, not the officials, not even the Supreme Court, have the incontestable, unalienable, and unremoveable right to change the law of the land. Only the people. They do it through their elected officials of the many states. But for such power to make laws to exist in the hands of a few appointed men, untouchable by the people, that is the exact thing our Founders denied. They set up the Constitution so only Congress should have the power to make laws, and Congress is elected by the people. Therefore Congress reflects the will of the people. Judges should only apply the law of the people, not make law for the people to follow. Judges are to follow the law of the people.

My site (http://www.freewebs.com/christanityrocks/index.htm)

well, thank you, I think - I still don't know what happened to your original post, and I don't know what "is is" means, but I'm too tired to even think right now so I'm going to bed.

one last post before I go to sleep - I didn't have the faintest idea what you were referring to here, but my husband recognized the name. That's a site my son, a web and flash developer, did. We're thinking you must have done an ip lookup to find that. Its also not the site the ip is supposed to resolve to, so he's fixing that.

Good night, I'll await your answers to what I posted then tomorrow!

Resting in the arms, of the Lord.
Bob

Psalm 91:4 [Then] He will cover you with His pinions, and under His wings shall you trust and find refuge; His truth and His faithfulness are a shield and a buckler.

Dreamweaver,

Brother, thanks for the effort, but you know that you didn't even scratch the surface. It would take several massive mainframes to document the anti-Christ, anti-Christian, anti-God, anti-American activities of the ACLU. The computers would probably gag and throw up.   ;)

I'm not a rocket scientist, but I think that our ACLU salesmen either came together or are the same person. What do you think? I was just laughing and thinking: trying to sell the ACLU to a bunch of Christians would be like trying to sell swimming lessons at the North Pole.  ;D

Love In Christ,
Tom

Psalms 139:4 NASB  Even before there is a word on my tongue, Behold, O LORD, You know it all.

You know whats really funny...... all of a sudden we now have 2 Walkers, D.& T. In about the amount of time it takes to open a new account, mail and forum.

This is who is on right now;
DreamWeaver, blackeyedpeas, Pastor Rogercris, DWalker, TWalker ;D

Hmmm, something is very fishy here now.
Bob

1 Chronicles 16:36 Blessed be the Lord, the God of Israel, forever and ever! And all the people said Amen! and praised the Lord.

It must be the other's spouse!  ;D

A set or multiple personalities??

good night, John Boy.



 :-X

 ;D

Goodnight Jim Bob. Oh thats right thats two separate people on this forum.  :-X :-X ;) ;)

They would have to be two separate people because they have the SAME IP.

 ;D   ???   8)  ;D

Split personalities? (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v605/DreamWeaver000/mouse2.gif)     (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v605/DreamWeaver000/mouse1.gif) (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v605/DreamWeaver000/smiley_02.gif) (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v605/DreamWeaver000/bigfootwalk.gif)

Or are they (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v605/DreamWeaver000/bored.gif)

Maybe it's a new fitness craze.  They were WALKERS, you know!

So much for that cup of coffee!

DWalker (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v605/DreamWeaver000/bigfootwalk.gif) TWalker (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v605/DreamWeaver000/bigfootwalk.gif) Twins separted at birth?

Personally, I think your quest for the truth based on factual evidence rather than unsubstantiated hearsay is admirable. Wish that all Christians would operate according to such principles.

Simonline.

I was so upset last night when I went to bed that my husband Dan registered and planned to post about your wholesale condemnation of me by accusing me of being someone else, with no evidence, no cause, no reason. I asked him not to. I said, if they already think I'm someone else under another name then they'll think you're me, anyway. It will just make things worse. Now I wish I had let him post, because he surely had something to say and I thought that by asking him to keep silent when others were falsely accusing me that I would have a better chance of actually convincing you I'm me instead of whoever it is you think I am.

I got up this morning early and logged on to read DreamWeaver's posts, and now I find that not only did you four accuse, judge, and render a verdict, all without even bothering to ask me, you also decided my husband was me, too, even though Dan didn't post. Now how much sense does that make? He didn't even post!
EDITED to add, why is it so funny to you that we have the same last name and ip? We are married, of course we have the same last name. And we live together, a radical concept these days I suppose but we're just old-fashioned that way.

I also wrote an email to my dad last night, asking him for advice and counsel. I asked, should I just "shake their dust from my feet" and look elsewhere? but now I don't know if I even need to wait for his answer. You have decided me, my husband and some innocent bystander from the UK are all the same person, and have enjoyed yourselves mightily by ridiculing us. If you're smart enough and suspicious enough to check the ip on me and my husband, then you ought to at least be smart enough to look at Simonlines's info and see that Simonline is from the UK, surely that can be done. I find it ironic that one of you is named "JudgeNot". I am so upset I don't know whether to cry, or feel contempt, or try to prove I'm me, or dismiss you as you have dismissed me. In one day you have made up your minds that I am someone else and made fun of and ridiculed me, yet you call yourselves Christians! The word "hypocrite" comes to mind. the words "Christian Fellowship" ring hollow here and the verses Matthew 7: 1-7, from which JudgeNot surely took his nick, should be a rebuke to you all.

Thanks, me too.

Hmm...  Now I realize that this may totally be a lost cause.  I went to report this post to the Moderator and, behold!, this person IS a Global Moderator!  Great.

Mocking people?  Making fun of people?  Is this Christian behavior?  Is this the fruit of the Spirit?  Is this walking in the Spirit and not in the flesh?  I do not think so.

This concerns me much more than any of these "Entertainment" topics combined, that is, that in "real life", so many Christians fall away from the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles.

Not to stray too far off topic, but I've seen this kind of thing in so many groups and Bible Study sessions where, sometimes after just reading an obvious passage straight out of the NT that relates to an issue at hand, good Christian folks will fall almost immediately back into the ways of the World and say, "Heh heh.  Did you hear about so and so?  Boy, I think they're [insert nasty comment here]!", or "But, so and so really deserves my anger!", or "Didn't you hear what so and so did?  Let me tell you, [insert slander here].", etc., etc.  

Sad, but it happens.  I understand that.  I really do.  But, PLEASE, even when you're on a portion of a site like this that is in "fun", I would ask you to ask yourself one question:  "What Would Jesus Do?"  Then post accordingly.  (WWJD - Awesome practice that, unfortunately for some, has become nothing more than a cool bumper sticker to put on their car/clothing...  nothing more...)  

Sincerely,

Dan Walker

I think now would be a good time for some humble pie and apologies guys. Even if we believe that this person is wrong in her convictions that does not give us the right to either belittle or riddicule her, does it?

Time to show what it really means to be a Christian eh?

Simonline.

I appreciate the effort Simonline, but they already think you're me, so this is probably futile, as are my husband's efforts.

You know, I've been online over 10 years and posted in a lot of forums, and I have never received this kind of hostile accusatory reception anywhere, until now on a supposedly "Christian" forum.

Pastor Roger,

I am a bit surprised that someone in your position would contradict himself so quickly and, worse yet, participate in this kind of ridicule.

I'm sorry, but since the time I accepted Jesus Christ as my personal Lord & Saviour on May 25, 1992, I have rarely seen a Pastor stray into this kind of behavior and, when they did, they were quick to correct it.  

Perhaps you were tempted/lured in by all of the other posts/suspicions, perhaps it's because it was late on a Friday evening, I understand how folks like to "wind down" or "have a little fun" when the week's work is done (M-F cultural thing, not like our work is EVER really DONE).

In any case, do you stand by your first piece of advice given to my wife OR should we instead use your later example (which I think was actually just a continuation of the down-hill slide started by others)?

Sincerely,

Dan Walker

P.S. I:  Hey, I'm actually a very easy person to get along with, and I DO understand how these kinds of things degenerate and build up walls between people.  I hope this gets cleared up so we might have better dialogues/understandings in the future.

P.S. II:  Martin Luther really knew how to party!  I really love his teachings on the Letter to the Galatians!  Yes, he also sometimes fell into doing/saying things that were probably not of the Spirit as well (some from hearsay, some from his own writings).  So, if the credited originator of the Protestant Reformation could fall into walking in the flesh (I'm not saying he did necessarily, only God really knew his heart)...

 ::)   ::)

Together again - what a mystery.

Wow! - It's beyond comprehension how the folks on a Christian forum might think it was odd and hilarious that three people at once have a one-track mind on the ACLU.

UM?? - Together now twice. Gee, I can't figure this out. Did you really think that you could gang up and maybe sign us all up as card carrying members of the ACLU?  ;D  How the 1, 2, or 3 of you might or might not be related is really a moot issue. This is one of the funniest things that's happened here in a long time, so thanks for the laughs.

I do have one question that I would sincerely appreciate an answer for:  Is this the first Christian forum you've tried to do ACLU recruiting on? This would probably make for a great sitcom.

DWalker,

You really shouldn't try to confuse this thread with a Bible study, as there is no comparison.

A fairly close comparison would be the three stooges discussing politics. Add some pie tossing and it would be perfect. After all, isn't that what you came for?

Amazing!  

A.  I, Dan Walker (DWalker), have not stated ANYTHING about the ACLU...  period.  I am not a member of the ACLU.  My only reason for signing up and posting on here to begin with was to clear up my wife's identity.  

B.  How is this a mystery that my wife and I are on at the same time?  Like many folks in regards to TV sets, we have more than one computer in our house that are able to connect to the internet at the same time.  My wife was on her laptop at the breakfast bar; I'm on my PC in my home office.  

C.  I thought by now that, after basically revealing all the information about our online identity, that the "mystery" would've been solved.  

D.  I admit, my motives have changed a bit, as I am now seriously questioning the "Christian maturity" of some of the members on this board, and I DO mean this in the same spirit as the Apostle Paul when he said:


E.  As for mysteries, perhaps your efforts would be better suited to focusing on a REAL mystery, a mystery that can have life-changing effects, rather than this psuedo-mystery that you have created in your imagination:


Sincerely,

Dan Walker

Hmm...

Are you advocating that there are contexts (ie. this message thread) where a Christian does not have to behave like a Christian but can instead resort to behavior which is questionable Christian behavior and, according to this site's own policies, could resort to being banned from this site?

Also, I believe my previous post to this one has clarified my motives for coming here.

Sincerely,

Dan Walker

You shouldn't post, where you live. (http://brevardpropertyappraiser.com/asp/Show_parcel.asp?acct=&gen=T&tax=T&bld=T&oth=T&sal=)

I may disagree with you.  I will not allow you to post private information about yourself. I have changed several things in the URL you have posted.

Moderator

I was not posting anything you wouldn't already know if you'd bothered to check the ip/domain information my husband already posted. We've had those domains for several years, and our address is on the registration. And the information is public access (what I posted.)

You seem happy enough hurting innocent people by making unfounded accusations against them, but when I try to prove I'm being unfairly accused by trying to show I am a real person and not someone you had issues with on this site before, you delete my post.

You accuse me and my husband of being ACLU members - recruiters even! When he hasn't said a thing about the ACLU, just about who I am and the behavior of the people on this board attacking me, maligning me, belittling me, and generally being un-Christian. All I've done is ask some questions. Neither one of us a member of the ACLU, but even if we were, does that excuse the way you've treated us? By saying I'm someone else, you are calling me a liar. And now when I try to defend myself you use your moderator status again to delete a public access piece of information. My profile has my town where I live. You can google to find the county. And you can search county records for property owned. But I guess you are such a malicious person you'd rather spend your time hurling unjustified and unfair accusations at someone than bothering to even try to find the truth.

you called us the three stooges - I'm guessing the 3rd is that guy from the UK who I don't even know, but he's the only one here who has been reliably polite to me so no wonder you think he's me. you laughed at me. you posted silly and insulting graphics as a big joke. My husband is a good man and I try to be a good person but you are really making it hard for me to have tolerance and forgive your attitude, your hostility, your cruelty, and your rudeness.

I think you happened to come on, at the wrong moment last night. Yes we were dealing with trolls. Who were in support of the ACLU.

I never said that.

If you are sincere, as it seems you are. I do say I'm sorry. I mean that. Asw I said in my first on the subject. Last night we were dealing with trolls. Some times we do go a little over board. You just came on at the wrong time. One of the things that threw us off, was your husband changing his e-mail address. That is a sign of a troll.

Again, I never said y'all were the 3 stooges.


Edited to add;
I have never said I am perfect. I am human, and prone to mistakes.

You are now the one making a judgement without knowing the context of the statement. We have a Jim here and we have a Bob here. I was talking to Jim not Bob, not you or TWalker. The implication of two/one is in reference to a troll that has been bothering us for a very long time.

You must admit that when two people with similar viewpoints (supporting the ACLU) arrive here at the exact same time and going to the exact same thread for their very first post is quite suspicious. Especially when we have had a person doing this exact same thing, on the exact same subject, time and time again. This person also used both UK and US info, all of it fictitious.

I stand corrected, and I apologize for my judgment.  I DID indeed think you were talking about my wife and I; I had no idea you'all were dealing with trolls last night.

Sincerely,

Dan Walker

Dan, These things happen, from time to time. I myself am sorry, for what happened last night. As I said in my last post in this thread, I am not perfect. I do make mistakes. One of the things that threw us a curve, is you changing your e-mail address. That is a marker of a troll. Which is why, we were a little hard on you. For that, I do apologize.

Why, don't you and your wife, introduce yourselves Here, about you. (http://forums.christiansunite.com/index.php?board=1)

Psalm 79:9 Help us, O God of our salvation, for the glory of Your name! Deliver us, forgive us, and purge away our sins for Your name's sake.

DWalker, TWalker,

I, too, apologize for the confusion and for initially including you in as our annoying troll. I had limited information until you both provided otherwise. Please introduce yourselves in the thread that Dreamweaver linked to and perhaps you might want to give us a little in the testimonies area: http://forums.christiansunite.com/index.php?board=19

We all would like to get to know you better.

 

ACLU Compares Praying Christians to Terrorists
Tuesday, August 16, 2005

By Sam Kastensmidt

After members of the Tangipahoa Parish (La.) School Board hosted a conference to discuss religious liberties in the public school system, an ACLU spokesman compared the board members seeking to pray at meetings to "the people who flew the airplanes into the buildings in this country."

Joe Cook, executive director of the ACLU of Louisiana, was interviewed by reporters from WAFB-TV in Baton Rouge. During the interview, he was questioned about the board's desire to offer prayer prior to board meetings. He responded, "They believe that they answer to a higher power, in my opinion. Which is the kind of thinking that you had with the people who flew the airplanes into the buildings in this country, and the people who did the kind of things in London."

This is not the first time that Cook has demonstrated such hostility toward religion. Cook once referred to school board invocations as "un-American" and "immoral." He also pleaded with a judge to issue arrest warrants for any teacher caught praying.

ADF Responds to ACLU Comments

Mike Johnson, southeastern regional coordinator for the Alliance Defense Fund, was not surprised by the statement. "It shows the ACLU has become more and more extreme and marginalized," he said. "So, to that extent, I like it when he talks, because he simply reveals who they are."

Johnson added, "It's clear in a number of recent cases that the ACLU of Louisiana wants to impose a radical form of secularism that the Constitution doesn't require, and frankly, that people of this state are not willing to accept."

ACLU v. Tangipahoa Track Record

This latest battle between the ACLU and Tangipahoa Parish School District began in 2003, when the ACLU filed a federal lawsuit against the school board for offering prayer prior to meetings. Incredibly, the judge admitted that legislative prayers are constitutional, but she ruled school board prayers could not be considered as legislative prayers.

Nothing New for Extremists of the ACLU

This brand of extremism has become commonplace for the ACLU of Louisiana. Only weeks ago, the ACLU petitioned a federal judge asking him to issue arrest warrants for any teacher found praying at school. In fact, the ACLU argued that such a prayer "must result in their removal from society."

Take Action!

Help to de-fund the ACLU. Call your congressman and encourage him or her to co-sponsor the Public Expression of Religion Act of 2005 (HR 2679), which seeks to eliminate the monetary motives behind the ACLU’s campaign to remove all mention of God from the public square.

U.S. Capitol Switchboard
(202) 224-3121

Brothers and Sisters,

Hello Phil121. I see that you are new, so WELCOME!!

I agree with Phil121. I would say that I'm shocked to hear about statements like this from the ACLU, but I'm not.

This country needs tort reform badly. However, reasonable tort reform would be very difficult to get since many of our representatives are or have been lawyers. Lawyers would fight reasonable tort reform to the end. Part of reasonable tort reform should be heavy fines and penalties for filing frivolous court actions.

It's really sickening when you find out that some of the money of average tax payers winds up in the pocket of the ACLU to destroy America. It's also sick to learn about how many good organizations are almost bankrupted by the ACLU. In fact, the fear of large settlements is how the ACLU wins many of their cases without even going to court. The ACLU is well-funded, but many of their victims have limited resources (i.e. Boy Scouts, churches, etc.). It takes a lot of money to fight the ACLU, OR it takes volunteer lawyers to take the case. I give thanks that quite a few Christian lawyers do volunteer their time to fight the ACLU, but there just isn't enough of them to do much more than take the high profile cases. As a result, the ACLU is the big bully on the block and runs over most of their victims.

Love In Christ,
Tom

Romans 5:8-9 NASB  But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.  Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him.

I would like to thank DreamWeaver and Pastor Roger for their kind olive branches.

I would also like to apologise to DreamWeaver - I was replying, of course, to your message, but then did not clarify when I switched from "you" meaning "DreamWeaver" to "you" meaning "Admins/Moderators on this site." There not being a second-person plural word in the English language, although there being that useage, I should have made that distinction. I am aware it was not you (DreamWeaver) who called us "stooges" or charged us with being "recruiters" for the ACLU - it was blackeyedpeas.  

I do not have time to post more at this time - just wanted to thank you two and clarify that one point.

- Tracy

CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations)

The following statement is taken from the CAIR website claiming to be their vision and mission:

 
This statement is far from being the truth as we have witnessed in the recent firing of DC Radio host Michael Graham after he refused to retract his anti-Islam statements, make an on-air apology and conduct additional outreach efforts to the Muslim community and others offended by his words. As we can see Michael Graham did not have his civil liberties of "Freedom of Speech" protected. Where does this action "encourage dialogue? Instead it suppresses any dialogue with CAIR except on their grounds. In my oppinion it definitely enhances my understanding of Islam.

This organization was founded by Hamas supporters, started by Hamas members and has made specific statements that it wants the current U.S. Constitution done away with and replaced with one of their own.


Joe Kaufman of FrontPageMagazine.com uncovered the fact that this organization (CAIR) exploited the 9/11 attacks to raise funds for two Hamas-linked fundraising organizations, the Holy Land Foundation (HLF) and the Global Relief Foundation.

Cair has initiated a kit known as the "Ramadan Media Publicity Kit" that it is using in schools around the U.S. Yes, schools that are rejecting such information and displays by Christians are permitting this group into their schools and some have even invited them in the name of  “diversity” and “inclusion”. Where is the ACLU with their "separation" statements? They are busy supporting CAIR in their efforts.

It is evident that Christians, the U.S. and the Constitution it stands on are under attack by more than one group.



http://www.theonerepublic.com/archives/Columns/PipesD/20050802PipesFounded.html

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13175