The ACLU continually sues to have crosses removed from cemeterys, nativity scenes removed from public grounds, etc...The constitution says that congress shall not establish a religion. Allowing a nativity scene on public ground is not establishing a religion. If you want to see the state establishing a religion go to Iran or Saudi Arabia.
2006-09-23 15:59:10 · 12 answers · asked by songndance1999 4 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Simple. They like many dont want there to be a right and wrong to things. If there is, then they would have to see and admit that they are often wrong by doing what they do and wrong in what they think. If you can kill off the God part, the morals part, then all you have left is the group that you agree with. You get to do what you want, when you want, how you want, with whom you want and still not have to see or accept that you are crap. Until you get God, morals, etc. out of the way, you cant do that. So you have to drive those things out first, then you can do what you want.
2006-09-23 16:12:13 · answer #1 · answered by Mr. JW 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋
The ACLU takes cases that come before it by those who go to it for help. It defends Christians and nonChristians alike. Sadly the media tends to report only the cases where the ACLU is defending nonChristians and ignores many of the times they are defending Christians. The ACLU and ACLJ have even worked together on several cases (although the two do have different agendas...the ACLU was founded to protect a person's civil liberties the ACLJ was founded to protect against religious discrimination against Christians).
Allowing a nativity scene on public grounds is not establishing a religion, you are correct. Yet, if that nativity scene is purchased with tax payer's dollars, then it is seen as the government (who collects and uses the tax money) as endorsing a particular religion. The courts ruled that it just couldn't be on public grounds (public=government owned land=property that tax money maintains). Government is religiously neutral (because all the tax money comes from different people who all have their own religious beliefs). That said, public grounds are sometimes confused as places of businesses. The courts have ruled that a business has the right to display whatever it wants because while the public may use the business, the business is privately operated and funded.
Being a Hindu I'll admit that such things don't particularly bother me. Then again it's rare that I even see religious symbols displayed in public places in my hometown. That said, I am very certain that if the courthouse lawn was decorated for Navatri (which started today) that many Christians would be very offended or feel like the government was showing favoritism to one religion. The courts rightly ruled that government should just not try to appease any of the religions. A judgment I agree with considering that if it had went the other way, just imagination how awkward and ugly our public spaces would be with all the religious symbolism and iconography all over the place.
And at the same time the courts have ruled the individuals, though, can discuss matters of religions with each other in public spaces because they are merely discussing amongst themselves in a private conversation a topic they desire. Employees cannot discuss such matters while at work, but can discuss such matters when acting as private citizens (breaks, lunch, or days off).
2006-09-24 02:13:40 · answer #2 · answered by gabriel_zachary 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I believe that the ACLU does have a valid point, but in their zeal to avoid anything even remotely like Iran or Saudi Arabia, they push some things to their extreme. I know, though, that they have no intention of pursuing the removal of crosses or other religious emblems from private graves in national cemeteries, such as Arlington. After receiving an overly excited patriotic piece of email suggesting that they intended to pursue their removal, I wrote the ACLU an email and mentioned the claim that the email had made. They clearly stated in return that private graves were just that, private, for the family to display what they wished.
I believe like you, that nativity scenes on public grounds do not represent an endorsement of a religion. I personally see them as an acknowledgment of the the role it plays in many peoples' lives plus an confirmation of one's right to express one's religion, even in public. There are many people who don't see it that way, though, but instead see it as an unwelcome endorsement. Many more others interpret it, though, as a welcome and rightful endorsement or their religion and as elevating their particular religion to a special status, like a government seal of approval.
Yeah, it's all kind of a bummer, I know, but perhaps it may be best to err on the side of caution as always and bar all such displays.
2006-09-24 00:06:25 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes it is. It is very much establishing a religion. The moment religious symbols or references touch grounds of the government the government is accepting that religion as national. And if Christianity were to calmly take all of its practices out of Government the ACLU would be fine.
Would you gbe bothered if Aztec sacrificial ceremnies were displayed every new year? Or if you had to swear upon the Quran every time you entered the courts?
2006-09-23 23:05:10 · answer #4 · answered by valkyrie hero 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
its a slippery slope to go from nativity scenes in public to saudi arabia. The ACLU is not attacking christianity or christians, just public officials who are breaking the law.
2006-09-24 00:07:50 · answer #5 · answered by abcdefghijk 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
think pol pot and cambodia, he wanted to build a marxist society by forcibly removing religion and in some cases had children (soldiers) kill their own parents in order that nothing from the past be remebered on the way to building a new society that he wanted free of religious "shackles". Fast-forward to ACLU in the USA they are doing the same. You will see that the aim is to foster rebellion and overthrow the old societal order as if that is the reason the ACLU cannot rule society, for now.
2006-09-23 23:06:33 · answer #6 · answered by defOf 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Why are you lying?
The ACLU is not "attackiing Christianity."
The ACLU defends what they believe to be the provisions of the US Constitution.
The US Constitution prohibits using government property to promote religion.
If Christians want to live in a theocracy, they should move to Vatican City.
2006-09-23 23:03:58 · answer #7 · answered by Left the building 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
I'm a card carrying member of the ACLU. They do great work in keeping religion separate from our government.
If it gives you any solace almost every American politician, most Americans and most public religious 'installments' are Christian.
I don't really see your gripe, except maybe you've been watching too much hate-media. Poor, poor persecuted Christians. ;-(
2006-09-23 23:08:29 · answer #8 · answered by Bad Buddhist 4 · 3⤊ 1⤋
I couldn't agree with you more......
The ACLU (Anarchists, Cultist, Liberals & Unitarians) is pressing ever so hard to try and suppress us as believers. The good news is: The ACLJ (American Center for Law & Justice) has been fighting back for over 10 years...and winning. Praise God for the ACLJ
2006-09-23 23:06:37 · answer #9 · answered by primoa1970 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Why are so many Christians oblivious to the fact that not everyone is a Christian?
2006-09-23 23:02:35 · answer #10 · answered by Dianna 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋