Why is it that Democrat candidates get to stump in churches (usually "Black" ones), while if a Repub even thinks about doing so, they are set upon by a horde of ACLU lawyers?

Please give an example.

Republicans have more money that can be leeched off by lawyers.

Clinton, Kerry, Edwards.

Democrats are only playing to their constituents. A good number of them attend church regularly, now they are just using it to their political advantage, which the republicans have done for ages. As far as race goes, it might be because republicans rarely carry much of an African American vote. :)

Democrats are allowed to, Repubs are not.

Democrats are allowed to, Repubs are not.
I think you just made this up.

In order to retain tax-exempt status, a church cannot endorse a particular candidate, but candidates can speak at the church. Often churches will use language that indicates they support one candidate or another without being to explicit.

And if Repub candidates speak in churches, the ACLU screams "separation of chruch and state!" But when Democrats speak in churches, not a wimper.

And if Repub candidates speak in churches, the ACLU screams "separation of chruch and state!" But when Democrats speak in churches, not a wimper.That's because Democrats only speak in the Churches to convince the suckers into believing that they believe in God. Whereas, Republicans on the other hand, actually believe the tripe they vomit up.

Well, just look at what happens: A Masonic Xian gets elected president and the next thing you know he’s sacrificing good Americans lives trying to convert ME Muslims into becoming good little Xians.


So you obviously can see the ACLU is perfectly sensible in their decision,

Michael



PS: Could you provide a couple links proving your aligations. Or did you just make it all up?
Thanks!

And if Repub candidates speak in churches, the ACLU screams "separation of chruch and state!" But when Democrats speak in churches, not a wimper.

Prove it.

And if Repub candidates speak in churches, the ACLU screams "separation of chruch and state!" But when Democrats speak in churches, not a wimper.

so, how do you classify bush saying that G-d told him to invade afghanistan and iraq? does this count as "stumping"?

"God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them."
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=310788&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y

Aclu ?

Aclu ?

American Civil Liberties Union.
They fight for the rights of the people, but are essentially seen as liberal in the eyes of Americans - they fight for atheists, minorities, etc. which Christians don't enjoy.

Every campaign season, look to see who speaks in churches, and who doesn't, the Democrats are allowed to, and the Repubs are not, very strange, just watch.

Kerry went to churches, Bush didn't, the same will happen in '08. Black churches are viewed as political arms of the Dems, where Dems can campaign, but Repubs can be merely introduced in churches, but not give speeches. The fix is in, great subject for a documentary.

American Civil Liberties Union.
They fight for the rights of the people, but are essentially seen as liberal in the eyes of Americans - they fight for atheists, minorities, etc. which Christians don't enjoy.

mostly what they do is supply free legal counseling to people whose rights have been trampled on, and they will occassionally send a lawyer to defend one of those applicants, to the very end.

The ACLU sided with a school district who told a child she couldn't write about Jesus when the essay was to be about the childrens' heros.

Democrats are allowed to, Repubs are not.
Is this a new rule?

The ACLU jumps on the Repubs, but not on the Democrats, why is this?

Recent ACLU involvement in religious liberty cases include: (http://www.aclu.org/religion/tencomm/16254res20050302.html)

September 20, 2005: ACLU of New Jersey joins lawsuit supporting second-grader's right to sing "Awesome God" at a talent show.

August 4, 2005: ACLU helps free a New Mexico street preacher from prison.

May 25, 2005: ACLU sues Wisconsin prison on behalf of a Muslim woman who was forced to remove her headscarf in front of male guards and prisoners.

February 2005: ACLU of Pennsylvania successfully defends the right of an African American Evangelical church to occupy a church building purchased in a predominantly white parish.

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.

--------------

Not only has IceAge not provided a single example of a Democrat being allowed to speak in a church when a Republican has not, he is mischaracterizing the work of the ACLU, which often fights for the rights of religious people.

Well they gotta get it right occasionally, to look even-handed, and those cases were probably no brainers anyway.

Keep in mind that the ACLU was founded by a bunch of Marxist socialists.

Please note rule 1. C.

C. Stating Opinions
If you have an opinion, back it up with evidence, a valid argument and even links and references if possible.

Please note rule 1. C.

C. Stating Opinions
If you have an opinion, back it up with evidence, a valid argument and even links and references if possible.

And you tell this to IAC, why?

And you tell this to IAC, why?

Take a wild guess, a stab in the dark.... if you will.

Wasn't this thread locked?

Wasn't this thread locked?
No silly.

http://www.sciforums.com/images/statusicon/thread_lock.gif

In the interest of fairness, I have decided that my closing of this thread was premature. IAC is now able to present any evidence that supports his claims.

In the interest of fairness, I have decided that my closing of this thread was premature. IAC is now able to present any evidence that supports his claims.

I knew it. These mods are so indecisive...like John Kerry.

I knew it. These mods are so indecisive...like John Kerry.

He's French, you know.

Being decisive is no virtue if your decision is wrong. BTW, like Bush saying he would fire anyone connected with the Plame identity leak?

Just google: founders of aclu.

I was referring to evidence of your original claim, Democrats in Churches?

The origin of the ACLU is a red herring, and besides they lost their communist party connections in 1940.

Roger Nash Baldwin - the founding, long time, director of ACLU. Born to wealth, at the time of the founding, he was deeply involved in the communist movement. As late as 1935, he gave a speech stating that his political vision was communist. During the 1940s, Baldwin would participate in the purging of communists from ACLU, against a lot of opposition, and, in the 1950s, endorsed the work of Sen. Joseph McCarthy.

Norman Thomas - a Presbyterian minister and radical socialist who advocated the total abolition of capitalism. He was also a eugenicist who warned against the excessive reproduction of undesirables. Thomas was a six time Socialist Party presidential candidate. Also a committed pacifist, he joined Charles Lindbergh's American First Committee to keep us out of World War II. Then as now, politics made very strange bedfellows. He joined Baldwin in the 1940s purge of communists from ACLU.

John Haynes Holmes - a Unitarian minister, a pacifist, socialist and also a founder of The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

L. Hollingsworth Wood - a Quaker, pacifist and a co-founder of the Urban League.. I could find nothing that indicated his politics.

John Nevin Sayre - an ordained Episcopal minister, Sayre was a pacifist and believed that Jesus Christ was also. I could discern no other political agenda. Sayre was likely the most sincere of ACLU's founders.

The following is a random selection of others who were among the founders:

Crystal Eastman - pacifist, socialist and feminist. She had been active as a supporter of the radical International Workers of the World (I.W.W.), a radical group with very strong ties to communism. She would have been in the core group but for an illness at the time of ACLU's inception.

Helen Keller - a communist. This astonished me. Libertarians have long maintained that you can't believe what you learn from government sponsored schools and Hollywood. Never was that better illustrated than in the case of Helen Keller. 'The Miracle Worker' told us that she was a great teacher and struggled after being left blind and deaf from a childhood fever. For that, she must be admired.

But during the early 1920s, she wrote and spoke flatteringly about the two competing and emerging German variations of socialism, the national socialism of Adolf Hitler and international revolutionary socialism, or communism.

Radicalized at Radcliffe, she addressed others, as she was often addressed, as 'Comrade'. Ironically, under the eugenics of German National Socialism, Keller would likely have been judged as flawed and exterminated for having been so vulnerable to have been left damaged by her illness.

Elizabeth Flynn Gurley - a communist, she later became chairman of CPUSA.

Felix Frankfurter - a social reformer, became interested in ACLU when pacifists and socialists were being harassed by the government. Frankfurter would later be appointed to the Supreme Court by Franklin Delano Roosevelt. He was known for judicial restraint and deference to the legislative and executive branches, which may have endeared him to FDR who had already steamrollered congress into obeisance. Later, this attitude would irritate liberals who looked to the courts for the furtherance of their causes.

John Dewey - radical socialist educator who believed that the function of the educational system was to train future agents for the goals of the state. His educational theories dominate our system today.

Clarence Darrow - lionized by Hollywood in 'Inherit The Wind' and the Left for defending teacher John Scopes for teaching evolution. I could find nothing about his politics other than that he was a social reformer. He was an agnostic.

Jane Addams - social activist, feminist, and pacifist. She was also a founder of the NAACP.

Upton Sinclair - socialist and author of many novels. He began his career by writing ethnic jokes and mini-novels. 'The Jungle' , a full novel, was an expose of disgusting conditions in the Chicago meat packing industry. It led to the Pure Food and Drug Act which established the FDA. Not even his supporters maintain that he produced anything of literary value. His stories were long on sensationalism and short on character and plot.

A. J. Muste - at the time, a communist who was committed to revolutionary politics. He later later became a Christian pacifist after a trip to the Soviet Union and a meeting with Leon Trotsky. Many associates maintained though that he never completely abandoned his attachment to Marxism.

Harry F. Ward - a lifetime communist, he authored "Soviet Democracy" and "Soviet Spirit," two pro-Communist books.

Albert DeSilver - radical socialist attorney who had worked with the I.W.W. He willed his entire fortune to ACLU.

-------------------------------------

*Two of the members were Christians, by the way.

Being decisive is no virtue if your decision is wrong. BTW, like Bush saying he would fire anyone connected with the Plame identity leak?
I definitely wasn't suggestin Bush is a good president. I do thiink that either Obama or Giulliani would make likeable presidents. The last presidential election was a lose-lose IMO.
Just google: founders of aclu.

Why can't you do that?

Just look at the news every election fall, the Dems are chortling away in various urban churches, and Repubs are never to be seen in churches, it is what it is.

The Second Baptist Church here in Houston was advocating issues, not candidates, during an election season, but they had to stop doing even that.

The Second Baptist Church here in Houston was advocating issues, not candidates, during an election season, but they had to stop doing even that.

Can you cite a local newspaper?

Houston Chronicle, maybe the Houston Post, back in the day.

Where's it say that? (http://www.chron.com)

It was about 10 years ago, relax.

From the Observer, November 2, 2003: "President George W. Bush stood before a cheering crowd at a Dallas Christian youth center last week, and told them about being 'born again' as a Christian. Behind Bush were two banners. 'King of Kings', proclaimed one. 'Lord of Lords', said the other. The symbolism of how fervent Christianity has become deeply entwined with the most powerful man on the planet could not have been stronger."

http://www.theocracywatch.org/bush_halo3.jpg

I think where IAC is confused is that some (conservative) churches have lost their tax-exempt status after endorsing a particular candidate. This is understandable, since Republicans generally don't believe in a church-state separation. Bush didn't need to go to a church, he brings the churches into the white house.

The Second Baptist Church here in Houston was advocating issues, not candidates, during an election season, but they had to stop doing even that.

Are you talking about this architectural monstrosity of a megachurch? With 40,000 members and 10,000 sq. ft. of faceted glass? How much could they have helped the poor with that kind of cash? How much does it cost just to heat and cool the place?

http://www.willethauser.com/portfolio/ecclesiastical/graphics/2nd_baptist/sanctuary.jpg

----------------------------

In 1996, Second Baptist Church (http://www.livingston.net/wilkyjr/link9.htm) of Lake Jackson, Texas, stunned the state by sending out letters to Texas churches saying a person who voted for the Democratic Presidential candidate committed a sin before God.

The Lake Jackson Second Baptist Church is little bitty, bad try.

Clinton, Kerry, and Gore, paraded around urban churches like conqueroring heros, you don't see that by Repubs, they would, but outfits like the ACLU threaten them out of it.

It depends if the church endorses a particular candidate. It has nothing to do with biased prosecution on behalf of the ACLU.

Most people consider that a church which allows candidates to give stump speeches endorses those candidates, and Repubs don't stump in churches, clear double standard.

An event last night at Living Word Christian Center, a large suburban chuch in Brooklyn Park, Minnesota, featuring Republican Congressional Candidate Michele Bachmann could cost the church its nonprofit tax status as the event appeared to endorse Bachmann for office. A personal endorsement from the pastor of the church, as well as Bachmann's own statements in her speech, appear to have violated regulations pertaining to partisan politicking by churches. Bachmann is in a tight race with Patty Wetterling, a race that's at the top of most election analysts lists in terms of importance and competitiveness.
http://www.minnesotamonitor.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=524

That's my point, Dems don't get in trouble for such.

Bayside Christian Fellowship (http://www.commondreams.org/pressreleases/Dec98/121098d.htm), Green Bay, Wisc.: Church officials allowed Republican congressional candidate Mark Green to speak from the pulpit Nov. 1 and offered prayers on his behalf.

Again, that's my point, Repubs get in trouble for that stuff, Dems don't.

Did Mark Green get in trouble?

A watchdog group that advocates church-state separation has asked the IRS to investigate a Miami church that hosted a Democratic rally in late August...
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_20_121/ai_n8702422


Did Mark Green get in trouble?

The only thing that can happen is the church loses it's tax-exempt status with the IRS.

That's my point, Dems don't get in trouble for such.

They wouldn't. Only the church itself might suffer the burden of paying taxes.


Bush started the Office of Faith Based Initiatives. He has gotten away with the biggest erosion of church-state separation ever, so don't even start on the Democrats. Sorry, buddy. I know being martyrs and stuff is your thing, but we don't feed you guys to lions anymore. Stop playing the victimblican.

Where is "church-state separaton" supposedly in the Constitution? (It was in the old Soviet constitution, you must be thinking of that.)

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

All the Constitution says about the Feds' relationship to Religion is that Congress shall make no law establishing religion, nor shall prohibit the free exercise thereof.

Right, same thing.

"Same thing," nooooooo, that's in the old Soviet Constitution, the U.S. Congress cannot establish a religion by law, and cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion, you know, if a child in school wants to write about Jesus being her hero, then she's allowed to do so, they couldn't do that in the old Soviet Union.

Do you really want a government like the old Soviet Union?

Way to change the subject.

"Same thing," nooooooo, that's in the old Soviet Constitution, the U.S. Congress cannot establish a religion by law, and cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion, you know, if a child in school wants to write about Jesus being her hero, then she's allowed to do so, they couldn't do that in the old Soviet Union.

Do you really want a government like the old Soviet Union?

Does that have anything to do with seperation of church and state?

"Congress shall make no law establishing religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

This was not in the Soviet Constitution, "separation of church and state" was, your kind o' government apparently.

However, it is in the American seperation of church and state. Idiot.

What is "the American separation of church and state," idiot?

lol http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause_of_the_First_Amendment

What is "the American separation of church and state," idiot?
A government that is not ruled by a certain faith. Unlike Iran, Saudi Arabia and Israel. We won't let you Christian jihadists take our government.

"Congress shall make no law establishing religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

But your state could become officially Baptist, Genji, then whatcha gonna do?

But your state could become officially Baptist, Genji, then whatcha gonna do?Be more homosexual!

Why are you always bringing your homosexuality into the discussions?

In separationist interpretation, the clause, as historically understood, prohibits Congress from aiding religion in any way even if such aid is made without regard to denomination.

So, rather than referring to the USSR, why don't you just say that your interpretation of the establishment clause is different?

Why are you always bringing your homosexuality into the discussions?To be as offensive as possible to Christian Taliban types in this case. Humor for other cases, and because I feel like it in others.

"Christian Taliban," you are zany.

"Christian Taliban," you are zany.AND GAY!