• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Religion

Naughty Nurse

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 5, 2005
Messages
1,972
Reaction score
12
Location
The UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Meanwhile, since God is nothing but a figment of your imagination, and of the imaginations of those people that wrote a very flawed book, why should that book be relied upon as a moral guide?

Excellent question. There is no valid response, but I bet they'll try!!
 
T

The Real McCoy

Strawman Akhbar said:
No problem at all. Spend the rest of your life turning over rocks. Don't stop until you caught god. Then come back and we'll talk again.

If you can't prove there's a god, clearly you can't argue against those who claim that it's a figment of your imagination.

Remember, you're the one making the assertion that something exists without evidence. The burden of proof is on you, not me.

Nice try. You're the one who asserted there is no God. I made no claims. I merely challenged your "fact" (which you still have failed to provide supporting evidence for.)


So you agree, then that the bible is no guide for morality. Very good.

Meanwhile, since God is nothing but a figment of your imagination, and of the imaginations of those people that wrote a very flawed book, why should that book be relied upon as a moral guide?

I think you misunderstand me. I'm well aware of the myriad fallacies of that book. I'm also aware of the truths and real world wisdom that exist in it as well.
 

doughgirl

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 30, 2005
Messages
1,619
Reaction score
60
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
"Why should that book be relied upon as a moral guide?'

Then I ask you these questions.....??????

What should be used as a moral guide? Should there be moral guides at all?
And if there should be guides, whose definition of moral do we use?

Because moral truths vary from place to place in the world they always have, even about murder. Example...The once acceptable Indian practice of "suttee"-widows being burned alive on the funeral pyres of their dead husbands.
From our perspective that would be murder and wrong, totally immoral. But in their culture it was totally acceptable and right.

A few years ago I remember being on a campus and there were female students protesting abortions based on sex selection in countries like India and China, where girls were aborted in favor of boys. I found it highly ironic that these students were protesting this....when abortion is legal in our own country. Most vocal that day happened to be pro-choice. How could India and China be morally wrong and we be morally right when we are doing the same thing?

Slavery is practiced around the world......cannabalism as well?


Who are we to say anothers cultures values and morals are wrong?

If we believe this then it seems clear that there is no basis for opposing things like ethnic cleansing, slavery, terrorism, genocide, racism... etc?

Because to speak out against such atrocities implies the existence of a moral standard to which WE ALL SHOULD CONFORM.

Sure people can be moral or create moral systems without believing in god, but what do they base the system on?

Moral relativism removes any reason to live morally.

Personally I believe that without God morality is arbitrary. So if there is no God and nothing exists beyond what we can see, why should a person be moral at all?

Boy I am asking a lot of questions but I have a few more to throw out....

Where do our morals come from and what gives any of us value in the first place?
Why should we think that the moral instincts we have inherited are right? I f god does not exist then why should we sacrifice our lives for others?



It is easy for people who believe in God. God is their moral guide. He gives us our moral order. What kind of world makes the best sense out of our moral intuitions, our sense of guilt and our belief in the intrinsic value of persons-naturalism or theism?
 

tryreading

Steve
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 8, 2005
Messages
4,809
Reaction score
764
Location
Central Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
doughgirl said:
Personally I believe that without God morality is arbitrary. So if there is no God and nothing exists beyond what we can see, why should a person be moral at all?

I f god does not exist then why should we sacrifice our lives for others?


It is easy for people who believe in God. God is their moral guide. He gives us our moral order. What kind of world makes the best sense out of our moral intuitions, our sense of guilt and our belief in the intrinsic value of persons-naturalism or theism?

With God, morality is arbitrary.

We sacrifice ourselves for others because we love them.

Are you blinded by your religion, so much so that you have no understanding of people who don't believe what you believe?
 

vergiss

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
2,356
Reaction score
1
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
The Real McCoy said:
If hyperbole is your game, I'll play too.

What do you think? That Jesus is some dope smoking, sexaholic, communist long haired version of Jesse Jackson?

I fail to see how sex and pot have anything to do with helping the poor.

Pray tell, raven - what's wrong with Europe? :neutral:
 
H

hipsterdufus

ravens24 said:
It seems to me that people are believing in God less and less. Soon enough, America will become like Europe. If there is no God, then nothing is wrong. I see this as a Liberal squawking point. Liberals..those who think anything to do with God is bad and that nothing is wrong and everything should be legalized. Why isnt mureder legalized? I mean..theres no God, so there was no commandment ever saying not to kill somebody. I mean..what if it was you're religion. Oh wait thats right..they alread stand up for terrorists rights. Silly me. How bout that ACLU, the people in charge there would be delighted to find out theres a God when they die, and that the morals and values that are taught in the Bible were really true!

Oh here we go. :roll: You are so uninformed it doesn't warrant a response.

There have been countless threads here on this topic.

Liberals are in favor of the freedom to worship or not worship.

Certainly one can have morals and values without believing in the bible, and vice-versa.

The ACLU has defended workers who want to wear a cross at work, the have defended a Catholic man who was being coerced to convert to the Pentecostal faith. These are just two quick examples.

Do your homework.
 

tryreading

Steve
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 8, 2005
Messages
4,809
Reaction score
764
Location
Central Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
hipsterdufus said:
Oh here we go. :roll: You are so uninformed it doesn't warrant a response.

There have been countless threads here on this topic.

Liberals are in favor of the freedom to worship or not worship.

Certainly one can have morals and values without believing in the bible, and vice-versa.

The ACLU has defended workers who want to wear a cross at work, the have defended a Catholic man who was being coerced to convert to the Pentecostal faith. These are just two quick examples.

Do your homework.

Right. Straightforward common sense. And also, some polls I've seen show belief in God at 89% or so in this country, so how has belief become less and less? Is she saying that sometime in the past belief was closer to 100%? Common sense says it is as high now as ever, or maybe higher.
 

doughgirl

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 30, 2005
Messages
1,619
Reaction score
60
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
“The ACLU has defended workers who want to wear a cross at work, the have defended a Catholic man who was being coerced to convert to the Pentecostal faith. These are just two quick examples.”

Oh please….don't even get me started ont he ACLU and how they do such great humanitarian work.

They work very hard all over the country to ban the Bible because they claim its hate language….then they turn around and protect NAMBLA literature.(North America Man Boy Love Association) They defend pedophile organizations.

Every hear of Jeff Curley?

The ACLU defended the two men who actively sought a boy with whom to copulate. They lured 10-year-old Jeffrey Curley of Cambridge, Massachusetts into their car as he played outside his home in October 1997. When Curley resisted their sexual advances, they choked him to death with a gasoline-soaked rag. Then they took the boy's body across state lines to their apartment in Manchester, New Hampshire. They molested the cadaver and stuffed it into a cement-filled Rubbermaid container. Finally, they crossed state lines again into Maine, where they tossed Jeffrey Curley's remains into the Great Works River, from which it was recovered within days.

Both men were convicted of the crimes and are serving life sentences. NAMBLA DEFENDED THE MEN PRO-BONO. They defended them because when they investigated the two mens apartments they found NAMBLA literature and manuals, "Rape and Escape" that graphically details pedophiles and how to make friends and lure their prey, rape, avoid detection and prosecuation.
The ACLU defended them (free speech) then asked the judge to impose a gag order on the case. So facts about NAMBLA wouldnt get out to the public. How ironic that the ACLU who claim to be defenders of free speech wanted a gag order.

After the 9-11 terrorist attacks the ACLU PRINTED AND DISTRIBUTED a pamphlet in seven languages telling men how to legally avoid answering police who were conducting investigations into individuals who just might be in this country to disperse nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.

Whose side are they on?


It is an interesting fact that the ACLU has been closely affiliated with the communist movement in the United States and was probed in the early 30’s by the United States House of Representatives special committee to investigate communist activities in the United States. On January 17, 1931, the committee report stated.


“The ACLU is closely affiliated with the communist movement in the U.S. and fully 90% of its efforts are on behalf of communists who have come into conflict with the law. It claims to stand for free speech, and free assembly but it is quite apparent that the main function of the ACLU is to attempt to protect the communists in their advocacy of force and violence to overthrow the Government, replacing the American flag by a red flag and erecting a Soviet Government in place of the republican form of government guaranteed to each State by the Federal Constitution.” (Claire chambers, The SIECUS Circle (Belmont, Mass.: Western Islands, 1977), 62.)


In 1969, David Gumaer a police undercover agent, revealed that “206 past leading members of the ACLU had a combined record of 1,754 officially cited Communist front affiliations. “ (Documentation about Gumaer was taken from William Donahue, The Politics of the American Civil Liberties Union (Piscataway, N.J.: Transaction Books, 1985).


Interesting and scary thought that Ruth Ginsberg, one of our Supreme Court Justices today, used to be an active and vocal ACLU member.




Personally I think the ACLU goes over the top protecting claiming that it speaks for the First Amendment. They are an evil organization. They have current policies advocating the legalization of child porn distribution and possession.
 

vergiss

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
2,356
Reaction score
1
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Doughgirl, are you familiar with the meaning of the phrase "show us a source"?
 
T

The Real McCoy

vergiss said:
I fail to see how sex and pot have anything to do with helping the poor.

Pray tell, raven - what's wrong with Europe? :neutral:

What? :confused:

I was responding to SouthernDemocrats absurd stereotype about conservatives and I responded in kind.

SouthernDemocrat said:
What do you think? That Jesus is some greedy, hate mongering, materialistic, self righteous long haired version of Jerry Falwell?
 

tryreading

Steve
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 8, 2005
Messages
4,809
Reaction score
764
Location
Central Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
doughgirl said:
Oh please….don't even get me started ont he ACLU and how they do such great humanitarian work.

They work very hard all over the country to ban the Bible because they claim its hate language….then they turn around and protect NAMBLA literature.(North America Man Boy Love Association) They defend pedophile organizations.

Every hear of Jeff Curley?

The ACLU defended the two men who actively sought a boy with whom to copulate. They lured 10-year-old Jeffrey Curley of Cambridge, Massachusetts into their car as he played outside his home in October 1997. When Curley resisted their sexual advances, they choked him to death with a gasoline-soaked rag. Then they took the boy's body across state lines to their apartment in Manchester, New Hampshire. They molested the cadaver and stuffed it into a cement-filled Rubbermaid container. Finally, they crossed state lines again into Maine, where they tossed Jeffrey Curley's remains into the Great Works River, from which it was recovered within days.

Both men were convicted of the crimes and are serving life sentences. NAMBLA DEFENDED THE MEN PRO-BONO. They defended them because when they investigated the two mens apartments they found NAMBLA literature and manuals, "Rape and Escape" that graphically details pedophiles and how to make friends and lure their prey, rape, avoid detection and prosecuation.
The ACLU defended them (free speech) then asked the judge to impose a gag order on the case. So facts about NAMBLA wouldnt get out to the public. How ironic that the ACLU who claim to be defenders of free speech wanted a gag order.

After the 9-11 terrorist attacks the ACLU PRINTED AND DISTRIBUTED a pamphlet in seven languages telling men how to legally avoid answering police who were conducting investigations into individuals who just might be in this country to disperse nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.

Whose side are they on?


It is an interesting fact that the ACLU has been closely affiliated with the communist movement in the United States and was probed in the early 30’s by the United States House of Representatives special committee to investigate communist activities in the United States. On January 17, 1931, the committee report stated.


“The ACLU is closely affiliated with the communist movement in the U.S. and fully 90% of its efforts are on behalf of communists who have come into conflict with the law. It claims to stand for free speech, and free assembly but it is quite apparent that the main function of the ACLU is to attempt to protect the communists in their advocacy of force and violence to overthrow the Government, replacing the American flag by a red flag and erecting a Soviet Government in place of the republican form of government guaranteed to each State by the Federal Constitution.” (Claire chambers, The SIECUS Circle (Belmont, Mass.: Western Islands, 1977), 62.)


In 1969, David Gumaer a police undercover agent, revealed that “206 past leading members of the ACLU had a combined record of 1,754 officially cited Communist front affiliations. “ (Documentation about Gumaer was taken from William Donahue, The Politics of the American Civil Liberties Union (Piscataway, N.J.: Transaction Books, 1985).


Interesting and scary thought that Ruth Ginsberg, one of our Supreme Court Justices today, used to be an active and vocal ACLU member.




Personally I think the ACLU goes over the top protecting claiming that it speaks for the First Amendment. They are an evil organization. They have current policies advocating the legalization of child porn distribution and possession.

Can't find information anywhere that the ACLU defended the two pedophiles, not even at the National Review. Do you have a link?

http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock200402270920.asp
 

doughgirl

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 30, 2005
Messages
1,619
Reaction score
60
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
Everyone knows that Ruthie was a member of the ACLU.




I gave these two sources… (Documentation about Gumaer was taken from William Donahue, The Politics of the American Civil Liberties Union (Piscataway, N.J.: Transaction Books, 1985).

also

Claire Chambers, The SIECUS Circle (Belmont, Mass.: Western Islands, 1977), 62.)

Unholy War, by Randall Price………………..about the ACLU distributing pamplets also this website.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=25916

About NAMBLA:

http://www.operationlookout.org/lookoutmag/aclutodefendnambla.htm

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/967786/replies?c=40
 

tryreading

Steve
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 8, 2005
Messages
4,809
Reaction score
764
Location
Central Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
doughgirl said:
Everyone knows that Ruthie was a member of the ACLU.




I gave these two sources… (Documentation about Gumaer was taken from William Donahue, The Politics of the American Civil Liberties Union (Piscataway, N.J.: Transaction Books, 1985).

also

Claire Chambers, The SIECUS Circle (Belmont, Mass.: Western Islands, 1977), 62.)

Unholy War, by Randall Price………………..about the ACLU distributing pamplets also this website.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=25916

About NAMBLA:

http://www.operationlookout.org/lookoutmag/aclutodefendnambla.htm

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/967786/replies?c=40

Again, can you please show links related to what you were talking about, the Curley case. Who is Ruthie? I searched using ruthie, curley, murder, defend, and pedophile, no dice. Also, the WND article has nothing to do with the case that I could see.
 
T

The Real McCoy

tryreading said:
Again, can you please show links related to what you were talking about, the Curley case. Who is Ruthie? I searched using ruthie, curley, murder, defend, and pedophile, no dice. Also, the WND article has nothing to do with the case that I could see.

The SCOTUS justice.
 

Dogger807

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 24, 2005
Messages
1,009
Reaction score
238
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
doughgirl said:
Oh please….don't even get me started ont he ACLU and how they do such great humanitarian work.

They work very hard all over the country to ban the Bible because they claim its hate language….then they turn around and protect NAMBLA literature.(North America Man Boy Love Association) They defend pedophile organizations.

Every hear of Jeff Curley?

The ACLU defended the two men who actively sought a boy with whom to copulate. They lured 10-year-old Jeffrey Curley of Cambridge, Massachusetts into their car as he played outside his home in October 1997. When Curley resisted their sexual advances, they choked him to death with a gasoline-soaked rag. Then they took the boy's body across state lines to their apartment in Manchester, New Hampshire. They molested the cadaver and stuffed it into a cement-filled Rubbermaid container. Finally, they crossed state lines again into Maine, where they tossed Jeffrey Curley's remains into the Great Works River, from which it was recovered within days.

Both men were convicted of the crimes and are serving life sentences. NAMBLA DEFENDED THE MEN PRO-BONO. They defended them because when they investigated the two mens apartments they found NAMBLA literature and manuals, "Rape and Escape" that graphically details pedophiles and how to make friends and lure their prey, rape, avoid detection and prosecuation.
The ACLU defended them (free speech) then asked the judge to impose a gag order on the case. So facts about NAMBLA wouldnt get out to the public. How ironic that the ACLU who claim to be defenders of free speech wanted a gag order.

After the 9-11 terrorist attacks the ACLU PRINTED AND DISTRIBUTED a pamphlet in seven languages telling men how to legally avoid answering police who were conducting investigations into individuals who just might be in this country to disperse nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.

Whose side are they on?


It is an interesting fact that the ACLU has been closely affiliated with the communist movement in the United States and was probed in the early 30’s by the United States House of Representatives special committee to investigate communist activities in the United States. On January 17, 1931, the committee report stated.


“The ACLU is closely affiliated with the communist movement in the U.S. and fully 90% of its efforts are on behalf of communists who have come into conflict with the law. It claims to stand for free speech, and free assembly but it is quite apparent that the main function of the ACLU is to attempt to protect the communists in their advocacy of force and violence to overthrow the Government, replacing the American flag by a red flag and erecting a Soviet Government in place of the republican form of government guaranteed to each State by the Federal Constitution.” (Claire chambers, The SIECUS Circle (Belmont, Mass.: Western Islands, 1977), 62.)


In 1969, David Gumaer a police undercover agent, revealed that “206 past leading members of the ACLU had a combined record of 1,754 officially cited Communist front affiliations. “ (Documentation about Gumaer was taken from William Donahue, The Politics of the American Civil Liberties Union (Piscataway, N.J.: Transaction Books, 1985).


Interesting and scary thought that Ruth Ginsberg, one of our Supreme Court Justices today, used to be an active and vocal ACLU member.




Personally I think the ACLU goes over the top protecting claiming that it speaks for the First Amendment. They are an evil organization. They have current policies advocating the legalization of child porn distribution and possession.

got to love the anti-ACLU propaganda. another example of how some people believe if you say something enough it becomes true.

One thing is true about the ACLU that even the opposition can't dispute, They always fight to uphold the constition even when it's unpopular to do so. Such was the freedom of speech deal with NAMBLA. Yes they all deserve to be hung out to dry, but the constitution guarantees the freedom of speech to all and the method that the law tried to take to incaresate these people was a direct violation. Of course narrow minded people rarely see what was being defended because they are so upset at who was benefiting from the defense. They even go so far as to attribute the values of the group in question as what the ACLU was defending. In short, do your homework and quit regurgitating propaganda.
 

justone

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 3, 2006
Messages
3,379
Reaction score
161
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
hipsterdufus said:
Certainly one can have morals and values without believing in the bible, and vice-versa.
.

Certainly I see people who do not beleive in the Bible not only can but - in my observation - DO have morals and values.
The only problem I have - I have not been able to make a list of those morals and values,
like for instance what the first 10 to be common for people who do not beleive in the Bible?
 
L

Liberal Because I Care

ravens24 said:
It seems to me that people are believing in God less and less. Soon enough, America will become like Europe. If there is no God, then nothing is wrong. I see this as a Liberal squawking point. Liberals..those who think anything to do with God is bad and that nothing is wrong and everything should be legalized.
I am a liberal Christian.

ravens24 said:
Why isnt mureder legalized?
As a liberal Christian I not only believe murder to be wrong, I believe frivilous abortion, and the death penalty to be wrong.

and I mean..theres no God, so there was no commandment ever saying not to kill somebody.
"Commandments"? So what you're really saying is that in order for there to be a ban on murder ALL must be Christian? Wow, you need to get out more. Most religions and cultures (and I'm not talking about perversions of religions: Muslim extremists, KKK, etc.) have within their "rules" that murder is wrong. In fact, secular humanists and other non-religious people will agree. You don't need a specific religion to tell you that is wrong. You're really reaching.

Silly me. How bout that ACLU, the people in charge there would be delighted to find out theres a God when they die, and that the morals and values that are taught in the Bible were really true!
Look into the ACLU a bit. I wouldn't say I'm a huge supporter of the ACLU or any legal group just like I'm not a big sports fan. It's just not my thing. But the ACLU protects rights. They have also stood up for the rights of the religious community. That is not often covered in the news. The ACLU typically comes in when a less powerful group is being stomped on by a more powerful group. On the side of the little guy, you might say.

And again you brought up the Bible. Although I am a Christian, I am not diluted enough to believe that only I can be morally right. Most people, Christian or not, are good, decent people.
 

Schweddy

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
13,482
Reaction score
7,586
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Moderator's Warning:
Moved to Religion & Philosophy - just realized there was no poll associated with this.
 
L

Liberal Because I Care

Navy Pride said:
I believe a lot of Liberals wish there was no God........After all they want him out of everything...It seems like every day they are complaining about something with God in it be it the Pledge of Allegiance or in the schools......

Again, as a liberal Christian, I believe you've got it backwards. It's about taking the public school out of my religion. It's about not putting God's name on our dirty, government issued money. It's about not making pledges (ie oaths - yes there's something about this in the Bible ;) ) to a government when my pledge is to the Almighty alone!

Navy Pride said:
The Mantra of the sixties by the left was "If it feels good do it."
And the conservatives seem to love that old saying. A murderer? Let's fry 'em!! What, they have weapons (albiet less than ours)? Let's bomb 'em!! Such knee-jerk reactions from this bunch. If we're going at this on a religious level, especially a Christian level - as the original poster suggested, then I would like to have all turn to the Book of Matthew. An eye for an eye hasn't been valid in Christianity for oh about 2000-ish years.
 
Last edited:

doughgirl

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 30, 2005
Messages
1,619
Reaction score
60
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
"Again, can you please show links related to what you were talking about, the Curley case. Who is Ruthie? I searched using ruthie, curley, murder, defend, and pedophile, no dice. Also, the WND article has nothing to do with the case that I could see."


:rofl I am so sorry....by Ruthie I meant Ruth Bader Ginsberg. Sorry. Just type in Ginsberg and ACLU and a lot will come up about her associtation with them. I am so sorry…I took for granted everyone would know who she was. Sorry.

I only made mention of the ACLU and the pamplet they put out after 9-11…to show that I think they are a destructive organization that does not have Americas best interest at heart.

Here is the website for the 9-11 story……

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=25916


Here is the NAMBLA one…

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/967786/replies?c=40


People say the ACLU fights for free speech…..yet
why did they petition to get the judge in the Curley case to issue a gag order? What happened to free speech there? The free speech of Jeff Curleys lawyer and family?


Like I have said in the past…If there was really freedom of speech you would be able to say things at anytime and anywhere and not be penalized for it. Seems to me that a teacher can’t get up and talk religion in our public schools can they?


The ACLU has offered material supporting the past to those who publically preach pedophilia AND encourage kidnapping, rape, and murder. Yet this legal group is hostile to the Boy Scouts but champions having sex with children.

Now in our country it is illegal to have sex with children, yet the ACLU defends the right to publish literature that shows how you do this. Particularly NAMBLA’s "The Survival Manual: The Man's Guide to Staying Alive in Man-Boy Sexual Relationships." Chapters explain how to build relationships with children, how to gain the confidence of children's parents, details where to go to have sex with children so as not to get caught... AND there is advice, if one gets caught, on when to leave America and how to rip off credit card companies to get cash to finance your flight.

So the ACLU is really defending NAMBLAS right to teach people to break the law.
 

talloulou

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2006
Messages
15,998
Reaction score
3,962
Location
Tiamat's better half
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
Our country was not set up to make god and religion disappear. Quite the opposite in fact. It was set up to ensure that people were free to practice whatever religion their heart desires without government interference. People often mistake the two believing the government and government representatives are supposed to be devoid of religion and god. However the intent was never to bannish God but allow all people the freedom to celebrate God however they want just as I am free to comment on the stupidity of most organized religions.
 

tryreading

Steve
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 8, 2005
Messages
4,809
Reaction score
764
Location
Central Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
doughgirl said:
:rofl I am so sorry....by Ruthie I meant Ruth Bader Ginsberg. Sorry. Just type in Ginsberg and ACLU and a lot will come up about her associtation with them. I am so sorry…I took for granted everyone would know who she was. Sorry.

I only made mention of the ACLU and the pamplet they put out after 9-11…to show that I think they are a destructive organization that does not have Americas best interest at heart.

Here is the website for the 9-11 story……

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=25916


Here is the NAMBLA one…

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/967786/replies?c=40


People say the ACLU fights for free speech…..yet
why did they petition to get the judge in the Curley case to issue a gag order? What happened to free speech there? The free speech of Jeff Curleys lawyer and family?


Like I have said in the past…If there was really freedom of speech you would be able to say things at anytime and anywhere and not be penalized for it. Seems to me that a teacher can’t get up and talk religion in our public schools can they?


The ACLU has offered material supporting the past to those who publically preach pedophilia AND encourage kidnapping, rape, and murder. Yet this legal group is hostile to the Boy Scouts but champions having sex with children.

Now in our country it is illegal to have sex with children, yet the ACLU defends the right to publish literature that shows how you do this. Particularly NAMBLA’s "The Survival Manual: The Man's Guide to Staying Alive in Man-Boy Sexual Relationships." Chapters explain how to build relationships with children, how to gain the confidence of children's parents, details where to go to have sex with children so as not to get caught... AND there is advice, if one gets caught, on when to leave America and how to rip off credit card companies to get cash to finance your flight.

So the ACLU is really defending NAMBLAS right to teach people to break the law.

'I know who Justice Ginsburg is, didn't know who you meant by Ruthie.'

The ACLU wants Arabic men to have a pamphlet called 'Know Your Rights.' Do you think Arabic men should not know their rights?

A 'gag order' is used in many cases, it is very common.

As far as NAMBLA, the vermin that they are, they still have freedom of speech. Like the KKK, skinheads, communists, pornographers, etc. Sick, but true.
 
Top Bottom