"Since the ACLU took charge of America and God was removed from our educational facilities just look at how peaceful we are."
yeah, those bastards at the ACLU are just awful. why look at some of the cases those godless heathens are working on;
The ACLU of Florida (2007) argued in favor of the right of Christians to protest against a gay pride event held in the City of St. Petersburg. The City had proposed limiting opposition speech, including speech motivated by religious beliefs, to restricted "free speech zones." After receiving the ACLU's letter, the City revised its proposed ordinance.
The ACLU of Oregon (2007) defended the right of students at a private religious school not to be pressured to violate their Sabbath day by playing in a state basketball tournament. The Oregon School Activities Association scheduled state tournament games on Saturdays, the recognized Sabbath of students and faculty of the Portland Adventist Academy. The ACLU argued that the school's team, having successfully made it to the tournament, should not be required to violate their religious beliefs in order to participate.
The ACLU of West Virginia (2007) sued on behalf of a Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon) university student who won a prestigious scholarship to West Virginia University. Although the state scholarship board provided leaves of absence for military, medical, and family reasons, it denied the ACLU's client a leave of absence to serve on a 2-year mission for his church. The ACLU filed a religious freedom claim in federal court.
The ACLU of Eastern Missouri (2007) represents Shirley L. Phelps-Roper, a member of the Westboro Baptist Church, whose religious beliefs lead her to condemn homosexuality as a sin and insist that God is punishing the United States. The protests in which she has been involved have been confrontational and have involved funerals of soldiers killed in Iraq. While the ACLU does not endorse her message, it does believe that she has both religious and free-speech rights to express her viewpoint criticizing homosexuality.
The ACLU of Wisconsin (2007) filed a friend-of-the-court brief arguing that individual pharmacists should be able to refuse to fill prescriptions that violate their religious scruples, provided that patients can obtain prescriptions from willing providers in a safe and timely manner.
The ACLU of New Jersey (2007) defended the right of an elementary school student who was prohibited from singing "Awesome God" in a voluntary, after-school talent show for which students selected their own material. The ACLU submitted a friend-of-the-Court brief. After a favorable settlement was reached for the student, the federal lawsuit was dismissed.
The ACLU and the ACLU of Pennsylvania (2007) prevailed in their case on behalf of an Egyptian Coptic Christian who had been detained and who claimed he had been tortured by the Egyptian government because he refused to convert to Islam. After permitting Sameh Khouzam to stay in the United States for nine years based on evidence that he would probably be tortured if he returned to Egypt, the U.S. government changed its position in 2007 and sought to deport Mr. Khouzam based on diplomatic assurances from the Egyptian government that Mr. Khouzam would not be tortured upon return. As a result of the ACLU's advocacy, a federal court granted Mr. Khouzam an indefinite stay of deportation to Egypt.
The ACLU of North Carolina (2007) wrote a letter to the Dismas Charities Community Correction Center on behalf of a former resident who was not allowed to consume wine during communion services while staying at the Center. After the ACLU advised the Center of its obligations under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, the Center revised its policy to comply with federal law.
The ACLU of Delaware (2007) prevailed in a lawsuit brought on behalf of Christians, pagans, and Wiccans, alleging that a department store violated a Delaware public accommodations law by canceling community courses after individuals complained about the religious beliefs that were being taught in the centers.
(This case is also listed in Part II.)
The ACLU of Rhode Island (2007) prevailed in its arguments on behalf of a Christian inmate, Wesley Spratt, who had been preaching in prison for over seven years before administrators told him to stop based on vague and unsubstantiated security concerns. After the ACLU prevailed in the First Circuit, the parties reached a settlement under which Mr. Spratt is free to preach again.
The ACLU of the National Capital Area (2007) brought suit on behalf of Christian, Muslim, and Jewish firefighters and paramedics who wear beards as a matter of religious observance. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia agreed with the ACLU that the District of Columbia's policy prohibiting these individuals from wearing beards violated their religious freedom rights.
(This case is also listed in Part II.)
The ACLU of Louisiana (2006) reached a favorable settlement after filing a federal suit against the Department of Corrections on behalf of an inmate who was a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon). The inmate, Norman Sanders, was denied access to religious services and religious texts including The Book of Mormon.
The ACLU of Texas (2006) filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of a Christian pastor and his faith-based rehabilitation facility in Sinton, Texas. The ACLU of Texas urged the court to reverse a decision that prohibited the pastor from operating his rehabilitation program near his church and also sharply limited the reach of the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).
The ACLU of Louisiana (2006) filed a lawsuit defending the right of a Christian who wished to exercise both religious and speech rights by protesting against homosexuality in front of a Wal-Mart store with a sign that read: "Christians: Wal-Mart Supports Gay Marriage and Gay Lifestyles. Don't Shop There."
-there is plenty more, obviously its all leftist lies anyway, im sure.
as for religion in schools as it relates to how peaceful we are-you do realize that it was george bush (a fundamentalist christian) who both created the war in iraq at the same time as his faith-based initiative plan, right? And you also realize that seperation of church and state was put in place founding fathers, not some leftist hollywood liberals, right?
The constitution itself states, from 1787 mind you, "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States". article 3 of the Bill of Rights states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances". even the mention of the word "god" in any early articles dont say "the Lord Jesus Christ" or anything even remotely christian specific, as was often preferred by Europeans of the time.
But hey, if you want religion in schools, homeschool or send your kids to a private theological school. Favoring religious ideas or doctrines was not what the US Government was set up for. Doesn't mean you don't have the right to worship (or in this case, educate) as you see fit on your own.
If you the best you can do is equate the klan's association with the SCV to Barack Obama's supporters, then there is no sense in trying to have a rational discussion about this. So I will attempt to be brief here.
Wright and Sharpton have said some very ignorant things. That is why most people dont take them seriously, and why Obama has chosen to distance himself from them. The SCV, on the other hand, is actually trying to gain membership from the Klan who, if you remember correctly, lynched thousands of blacks in the last century. I'd be willing to bet the inverse could not be said for the NAACP at any time in their history.
Oh, and you can't claim the SPLC as being biased; they list black-supremist and -separatist groups on their website as well. Just another example of trying to dismiss the organization without knowing anything about them.
The evidence about what the civil war represented is beyond question, and even the states that succeeded spelled it out perfectly clear why they chose to leave the Union, as provided by their own documentation. Claiming that it was about anything else and had nothing to do with slavery is on the same plane as Holocaust denial.
So support the flag all you want. Just stop and wonder why very few Americas choose to support you (hence why klan rallies have so few members participating these days, at least as far as the general caucasian population goes).
oh, and as for the Sons of the Confederate Veterans not being white supremicist, this is from a 2004 report;
"Mere Klan membership should not be sufficient to remove a member," white-supremacist attorney Kirk Lyons, a close associate of SCV Commander-in-Chief Ron Wilson, wrote members in a March e-mail. Rick Forlines, head of the Norfolk County Greys SCV camp, chimed in: "I'll take my allies wherever I can find them."
Paul Burr, an SCV member from Albemarle, N.C., added, "A Klan member has the RIGHT to join the SCV."
its no wonder that Marion Lambert doesnt like what the SPLC says-its beacause they have called him and his organization for what it is-racist.
Anyone that thinks that the civil war isnt about slavery, at its core, is dellusional. it could be argued that it was due to unfair taxation. but in 1857 congress passed its lowest tariffs since 1812, to 20%. the north hated it and the south praised it.
And yet in 1860, when the SC convention passed ordinance of secession, it clearly states, "We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-SLAVEholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of SLAVERY; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our SLAVES to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection." so while taxation was part of the issue, so was slavery and the south even says so. If it wasn't about slavery, why mention it at all?
Georgia says the same thing more directly in their secession in 1861; "for the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common territories of the republic".
here is what Texas said in their secession; "In all the non-slaveholding states, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color - a DOCTRINE AT WAR WITH NATURE, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States." again, pretty obvious what is going on here. not a lot of talk about taxation, mostly about....wait for it...slavery. go figure.
Judah Benjeman owned 140 black slaves. and keep in mind the civil war wasnt about anti-semitism, it was about slavery. so he was just another slave owner trying to hold onto his workers, thats all.
as for black confederate soldiers; yes, thousands of black men did fight in the civil war. but what was the incentive; promises of freedom? threats of death if they didnt fight? its never been made clear.
but then, why were blacks even being allowed to serve in the first place? after all, the vice president of the confederacy Alexander Stephens said on march 21, 1861,"(of the confederacy)its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition. this, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based on this great physical, philosophical and moral truth."
so why were blacks then suddenly allowed to serve in the military? simple-the south was losing. it wasnt until march 13, 1865 that the confederate congress voted 40 to 37 in the house and 9 to 8 in the Senate to approve a bill to allow Jefferson Davis to require a quota of black soldiers from each state. Lee surrendered on april 9th.
what i don't understand is if all of these black southerners were so loyal to the various southern states and confederacy during the war, than why did it take so long for black americans to get basic civil rights in many of these places? how did white southerners justify a system of Jim Crow in the face of such broad-based participation and devotion to the cause? sure, northern blacks faced discrimination well into the twentieth century, but the argument suggests that the balance of loyalty was in favor of the confederacy and not the union. didnt their love and devotion to their masters and the confederacy at least justify the right to vote and take part in our democratic system?
sorry, it doesnt add up. you can offer all the op-ed spin and "i dont care what the Southern Poverty Law Center says" jingoism you want. again, it doesnt replace the facts as a overwhelming majority of historians have documented.
Matt, you claiming that the history books are lies created by northerners because of jealousy is classic revisionist racist tactics. unless you got some sort of data or research to back that up, you are pulling it out of your ass. oh but wait-any numbers you provide would be true only if written by sountherners, and any arguements against those you would just dismiss as more northern lies. what a airtight defense!
let me guess-9/11 was perptrated by either the jews, the US government, or both, right? enjoy life in your bubble. some of us live in the real world. just because you choose not to accept something as truth doesnt mean its wrong because you say so.
Have you ever noticed who SUPPORTS the confederate flag? White male southerners who, believe it or not, some of them align on some philosophical level to white supremacy, whether they are actual members of racist organization or not.
If it truly were a heritage symbol as some profess it to be, why is it embraced almost entirely by one sect of our society? People of all stripes fly the US flag-whites, blacks, conservatives, liberals, gays, straights, etc. Most of us feel something to be patriotic about, regardless of idelogy. We even celebrate specific days dedicated to the entire US-the 4th of July, Memorial Day, etc.
However, the confederate flag is about one thing and one thing only-division. Whereas the american flag represent all of us, the confederate flag is positive to only a small group of people in this country. And it's about a particularly divisive part of american history as well.
I dont like things that divide us as a society or a country. I don't want to see a 300 foot tall Black Panther Party Flag flying over the highway. I also support the 1st amendment though, so as long as it meets permit standards, then let anyone display whatever they want. Just dont be surprised if others dont see your declaration of free speech the same way you do.
Maybe someone should set up a same-sized Nation of Islam flag across the street. wonder how that would go over...
Powered by Foundation