Oklahoma and Satan

[Kev3188]

I know quoting oneself isn't cool, but maybe this bears repeating:
 

A little more "live and let live" all around would do this nation well.

Just a thought.

Happy Festivus, gang.

 

[delldude]

Stupid is as stupid does. The "liberal" ACLU has defended gun rights, Christians, tea party, etcetera.

ACLU SUPPORTS STUDENTS' RIGHT OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: October 7, 2010
CONTACT: C. Ray Drew, Colorado ACLU Executive Director, 303-777-5482 x105
Mark Silverstein, Colorado ACLU Legal Director, 303-777-5482 x114

COLORADO SPRINGS The Colorado Springs Gazette has reported that a local middle school has announced a policy forbidding students from wearing certain Christian symbols to school, unless they are worn underneath clothing.

The ACLU strongly opposes the decision of Colorado Springs School District 11 on the basis of religious liberty.

Mark Silverstein, Legal Director of the ACLU said, The First Amendment protects the right of students to express their faith by wearing crosses, rosaries, or other religious symbols without interference from school officials. Our Constitution protects the right to individual religious liberty and the ACLU is here to support everyone who chooses to exercise that right.

For over 90 years the ACLU has always defended the religious liberty of all Americans. It is one of the most fundamental of our nations freedoms, said ACLU Executive Director Ray Drew.

According to the Gazette, Monsignor Bob Jaeger of the Catholic Diocese of Colorado Springs has stated that the church is OK with the schools position and Colorado Springs School District 11spokesperson Elaine Naleski states that this policy is necessary to prevent the use of crosses and rosaries as gang symbols.

http://aclu-co.org/news/aclu-supports-students-right-of-religious-freedom

http://www.aclufightsforchristians.com

 

The ACLU’s Communist, Atheist Roots

In the interest of faith and charity, I’d like to add my own ecumenical offering—a history lesson. It concerns some fascinating material I recently published on the ACLU’s early founders, especially three core figures: Roger Baldwin, Harry Ward, and Corliss Lamont. I can only provide a snapshot here, but you’ll get the picture.
First, Roger Baldwin: Baldwin was the founder of the ACLU, so far to the Left that he was hounded by the Justice Department of the progressive’s progressive, Woodrow Wilson. Perhaps it was a faith thing. Wilson was a progressive, but he was also a devout Christian, and Roger Baldwin was anything but that.
 
Baldwin was an atheist. He was also a onetime Communist, who, among other ignoble gestures, wrote a horrible 1928 book called Liberty Under the Soviets. Notably, he was smart enough not to join Communist Party USA (CPUSA). Other early officials of the ACLU, which was founded almost exactly the same time as the American Communist Party, included major party members like William Z. Foster, Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, and Louis Budenz (who later broke with the party). Communists used the ACLU to deflect questions from the U.S. government over whether they were loyal to the USSR, were serving Joe Stalin in some capacity, and were committed to the overthrow of the American system.

Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com/the-aclus-communist-atheist-roots/#eLTFc6BAP9Hss36Z.99

 

[delldude]

I know quoting oneself isn't cool, but maybe this bears repeating:
 

Just a thought.

Happy Festivus, gang.

 
Kudos....and a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.

 

[Kev3188]

Thanks! You too. 🙂

 

[Glenn Quagmire]

They also defended NAMBLA. 
 
Your post changes nothing. The ACLU is a leftist bottom feeder parasite.

It may change nothing in your mind. That is just fine with me because there are people out there willing to defend your right to be singular minded.

"FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

NEW YORK--In the United States Supreme Court over the past few years, the American Civil Liberties Union has taken the side of a fundamentalist Christian church, a Santerian church, and the International Society for Krishna Consciousness. In celebrated cases, the ACLU has stood up for everyone from Oliver North to the National Socialist Party. In spite of all that, the ACLU has never advocated Christianity, ritual animal sacrifice, trading arms for hostages or genocide. In representing NAMBLA today, our Massachusetts affiliate does not advocate sexual relationships between adults and children.

What the ACLU does advocate is robust freedom of speech for everyone. The lawsuit involved here, were it to succeed, would strike at the heart of freedom of speech. The case is based on a shocking murder. But the lawsuit says the crime is the responsibility not of those who committed the murder, but of someone who posted vile material on the Internet. The principle is as simple as it is central to true freedom of speech: those who do wrong are responsible for what they do; those who speak about it are not.

It is easy to defend freedom of speech when the message is something many people find at least reasonable. But the defense of freedom of speech is most critical when the message is one most people find repulsive. That was true when the Nazis marched in Skokie. It remains true today."

https://www.aclu.org/free-speech/aclu-statement-defending-free-speech-unpopular-organizations

You do realize that you are in a minority today in your beliefs on most things you post about here?

You should hope there are people out there that are willing to defend your right to be in the minority in your belief system. I am one of them who does not agree with you at all, but would actually fight for you to have the right to do just that.

Happy Festivus!

This statement is worth repeating:

"those who do wrong are responsible for what they do; those who speak about it are not. It is easy to defend freedom of speech when the message is something many people find at least reasonable. But the defense of freedom of speech is most critical when the message is one most people find repulsive. That was true when the Nazis marched in Skokie. It remains true today."

 

[delldude]

 

You do realize that you are in a minority today in your beliefs on most things you post about here?

You should hope there are people out there that are willing to defend your right to be in the minority in your belief system. I am one of them who does not agree with you at all, but would actually fight for you to have the right to do just that.

 

 
How are his beliefs in the minority?

 

[Glenn Quagmire]

The right wing voting block is what I was referencing. That, and his stance on immigration reform that he has posted about.

I should have been more clear dude.

 

[delldude]

The right wing voting block is what I was referencing. That, and his stance on immigration reform that he has posted about.

I should have been more clear dude.

 
RW voting block would refer to most conservatives plus some others within that party.
Or are you referring to extreme  RW?

 

[Ms Tree]

They also defended NAMBLA. 
 
Your post changes nothing. The ACLU is a leftist bottom feeder parasite.

Do you have an autorized list of who deserves constitutional protectikn and who does not?

 

[Ms Tree]

OK first things first, what's a narscists? Are you inventing words again?
 
What's to get? You are playing "victim" so you can feel special and get attention. It is the leftist way. It is the narcissistic way. If you want to see a narcissist find a picture of Obama (or a mirror). I am sure with the left leaning media that will be a trivial pursuit or, if not, I am sure he would be happy to send you a selfie.

Nah. A narcissist is someone like you does not relIze or care that there are others around who are difcerent from them.

 

[Glenn Quagmire]

How are his beliefs in the minority?

"Those who do wrong are responsible for what they do; those who speak about it are not. It is easy to defend freedom of speech when the message is something many people find at least reasonable. But the defense of freedom of speech is most critical when the message is one most people find repulsive".

 

[delldude]

"Those who do wrong are responsible for what they do; those who speak about it are not. It is easy to defend freedom of speech when the message is something many people find at least reasonable. But the defense of freedom of speech is most critical when the message is one most people find repulsive".

 
ie: pornography

 

[Ms Tree]

Or to put it another way


First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out--Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me.

 

[delldude]

"Those who do wrong are responsible for what they do; those who speak about it are not. It is easy to defend freedom of speech when the message is something many people find at least reasonable. But the defense of freedom of speech is most critical when the message is one most people find repulsive".

 
I got your point .....the same as putting a Satanical symbol on public property....being a student of the Constitution, i'd say have at it.

 

[Glenn Quagmire]

On this, and the right to be loud and heard through the case of Vance vs. Hines, we agree. 😉