Have the chickens come home to roost?

Chattanooga Fishing Forum

Help Support Chattanooga Fishing Forum:

SpurHunter

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 27, 2007
Messages
15,863
Location
Cleveland TN
<font size="3">Guess who's coming to dinner at the White house - </font></p>

<font size="2">Tomorrow the Muslim Brotherhood-associated Coordinating Council of Muslim Organizations and25-30 Muslim leaders of 20 national Muslim groups including the ISNA will be attendinga special workshop presented by the White House and assorted government agencies. The workshop is to find ways to provide these Muslim groups taxpayer funding, government assistance, and special access and resources. AnIslamic Society of North America (ISNA) email newslettersays the workshop willgrantthe Muslim organizations in attendance 'special access to the President'. In additionan iftar**dinner will be held after the workshop. Are the chickens indeed coming home to roost or isthe leopard simply showing his spots? </font></p>

<font size="2" /></p>

<font size="2">*ISNA is perhaps best known as one of the unindicted co-conspirators in the Holy Land Foundation prosecution. More good news: an iftar dinner will be held after the workshop</font></p>

<font size="2" /></p>

<font size="2">** Iftar (Arabic: ?????‎) dinner, refers to the evening meal when Muslims break their fast during the Islamic month of Ramadan. Iftar is one of the religious observances of Ramadan and is often done as a community, with people gathering to break their fast together. Iftar is done right after Maghrib (sunset) time. Traditionally, a date is the first thing to be consumed when the fast is broken.</font></p>
 
Freddyshark,

Why the intentional mischaracterization of the ACLU? ACLU is ONLY concerned with defending the Constitution. You may or may not agree with their view of the Constitution (particular the first amendment), but religious choice has nothing to do with it.

From the ACLU:
The ACLU vigorously defends the rights of all Americans to practice their religion. But because the ACLU is often better known for its work preventing the government from promoting and funding selected religious activities, it is sometimes wrongly assumed that the ACLU does not zealously defend the rights of all religious believers to practice their faith. The actions described below – over half of which were brought on behalf of self-identified Christians, with the remaining cases defending the rights of a wide range of minority faiths – reveal just how mistaken such assumptions are.
 
Bfish - 8/30/2010 5:40 PM
SpurHunter - 8/30/2010 5:20 PM Guess who's coming to dinner at the White house ...
11/16/01 Bush invited Muslim leaders to pray in the Whitehouse. Dinner vs Prayer, hmmm
</p>

Do you have a source for the 11/16/2001 ? This is the only meeting I can find during that time frame.</p>

In the weeks after 9/11, President Bush makes a number of public appearances with Muslim leaders in an attempt to reach out to what is perceived as the moderate Muslim community. However, some leaders invited to appear with Bush are actually radical Islamists with suspected terrorism ties. For instance, on September 14, 2001, Bush appears at a prayer service dedicated to the victims of the 9/11 attacks with Abdurahaman Alamoudi, the president of the American Muslim Council. US intelligence had suspected Alamoudi of ties with bin Laden and other terrorist leaders since 1994 (see Shortly After March 1994), and in late 2000 the Bush campaign returned a campaign contribution from Alamoudi because of his controversial ties (see July 2000). </p>

Quite a difference in praying for the victims families of 9/11 and trying to fund with taxpayers money.</p>
 
Here's an idea how about we don't give any taxpayer money to any religious entity. Wouldn't that coincide with the spirit of the Constitution.
 
Sniperchoke - 8/30/2010 8:56 PM

Here's an idea how about we don't give any taxpayer money to any religious entity.
I like it, however you might want to run it up the conservative flag pole first, as it was during Bush's term that supreme court allowed education money to go to religious education (aka vouchers, June 2002)
 
Remind me so I dont have to go back through all the threads, dont yall claim that Bush went to war in Iraq becuase he was in tight with his oil cronnies, even hosting Haliburton at the White House right?
 
Bfish - 8/30/2010 7:33 PM

Freddyshark,

Why the intentional mischaracterization of the ACLU? ACLU is ONLY concerned with defending the Constitution. You may or may not agree with their view of the Constitution (particular the first amendment), but religious choice has nothing to do with it.

From the ACLU:
The ACLU vigorously defends the rights of all Americans to practice their religion. But because the ACLU is often better known for its work preventing the government from promoting and funding selected religious activities, it is sometimes wrongly assumed that the ACLU does not zealously defend the rights of all religious believers to practice their faith. The actions described below – over half of which were brought on behalf of self-identified Christians, with the remaining cases defending the rights of a wide range of minority faiths – reveal just how mistaken such assumptions are.

This is without a doubt the largest lie you have ever told on here Bfish. The ONLY thing the ACLU has EVER been concerned with is stopping Judeo/Christian influence in our society.
I reserve this BS meter for special circumstances. This is one such time.
 

Attachments

  • bs_meter.gif
    bs_meter.gif
    2.9 KB
cheez - 8/31/2010 8:31 AM
This is without a doubt the largest lie you have ever told on here Bfish. The ONLY thing the ACLU has EVER been concerned with is stopping Judeo/Christian influence in our society.....

You should only speak of things you know of, not things that you have no clue about.

Below is some examples of ACLU defending Christian rights, please explain how this is "stopping" influence?

The ACLU of Tennessee (2009) came to the defense of a group of student teachers who conduct church services with the homeless in a public park. The ACLU successfully negotiated with the Metro Board of Parks and Recreation to revise a policy that had unfairly blocked religious groups' regular use of park space.
http://www.aclu.org/religion-belief/aclu-tn-successfully-advocates-behalf-student-preachers

The ACLU and the ACLU of Texas (2010) filed a brief in the U.S. Supreme Court in support of a Texas state prisoner seeking damages after prison officials denied him the opportunity to participate in Christian worship services.
http://www.aclu.org/prisoners-right...itled-seek-monetary-damages-violation-his-rel

The ACLU of Alaska (2010) advised the Alaska Department of Education to respect the religious freedom of Russian Old Believer families by arranging alternate testing dates for the High School Graduation Qualifying Exam, which conflicts with Holy Week for Russian Old Believer students. Students may now take the test on different testing dates.
http://www.akclu.org/NewsEvents/High-School-Qualifying-Exam-Testing-10-02-17.pdf

The ACLU, its national chapter in Puerto Rico, and its affiliates in New Hampshire, Maine, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island (2010) filed a friend-of-the-court brief opposing restrictive laws that effectively ban Jehovah's Witnesses from freely expressing their faith on the streets of Puerto Rico. The brief supports a challenge by the Witnesses to Puerto Rico statutes authorizing local neighborhoods to deny citizens access to public residential streets.
http://www.aclu.org/religion-belief...-jehovahs-witnesses-carry-out-public-ministry

The ACLU of Maryland (2009) successfully settled a lawsuit on behalf of a Christian ministry for the homeless in the town of Elkton, Maryland, which had purchased a site for a religious day center to help the local community through job training, food, showers, and religious services. Though the site is legally zoned for the use of churches and centers that provide those services, the zoning board had refused to recognize the religious nature of the center, placing unreasonable limitations on the ministry. The ACLU of Maryland reached a favorable settlement with the town, affirming the church's right to operate its day center for the homeless.
http://aclu-md.org/aPress/Press2009/themeetinggroundsettlement.html
http://www.aclu-md.org/legal/Legal.html#Anchor-RELIGION-48213

The ACLU and the ACLU of the National Capital Area (2009) filed suit on behalf of a young Quaker whose religious beliefs prevent him from registering for the draft without some official way to record his claim of conscientious objection in the registration process. He is a birthright Quaker and does not believe that he can offer himself as a candidate for the military.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/29/AR2009072902625.html

The ACLU and the ACLU of New Jersey (2009) filed a successful lawsuit on behalf of a New Jersey prisoner – an ordained Pentecostal minister – to restore his fundamental right to preach to other inmates. The minister had preached at weekly Christian worship services at the New Jersey State Prison in Trenton, New Jersey for more than a decade when prison officials suddenly banned that activity without any justification. As a result of the ACLU lawsuit, state officials agreed to allow the minister to resume preaching and teaching Bible study classes under the supervision of prison staff.
http://www.aclu.org/religion-belief...minister-can-preach-prison-after-aclu-lawsuit

The ACLU of Florida (2009) filed a lawsuit on behalf of two families from the Dove World Outreach Center, defending their constitutional right to express themselves in public school with t-shirts stating, “Islam is of the devil.” The suit claims that the school has been inconsistent in enforcing restrictions on free speech.
http://www.gainesville.com/article/...U-files-suit-over-Devil-shirts&tc=autorefresh

The ACLU of Michigan (2009) filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of the First Baptist Church of Ferndale after local residents cited a zoning ordinance to prevent the church from providing social services to the poor and homeless on church property. The ACLU argued that zoning boards may not burden the free exercise of religion simply because neighbors object. The Oakland County Circuit Court denied the request of the residents, allowing the church to continue providing services.
http://www.dailytribune.com/articles/2009/09/25/news/srv0000006478506.txt

The ACLU and the ACLU of Virginia (2009) argued against the censorship of religious materials being sent to detainees in the Rappahannock Regional Jail. The ACLU wrote a letter to the superintendent of the jail, asking that the jail stop removing Christian-themed materials and biblical passages from letters written to detainees. As a result of ACLU involvement, the prison agreed to change its policies and allow religious mail. http://www.aclu.org/prison/restrict/40258prs20090709.html

The ACLU of Louisiana (2009) argued for the right of Christian preachers to distribute pamphlets at the Breaux Bridge Crawfish Festival. The ACLU wrote a letter to the mayor in support of the preachers, who had been ordered to stop handing out religious material. http://content.usatoday.net/dist/custom/gci/InsidePage.aspx?cId=thetowntalk&sParam=30796437.story

The ACLU of Louisiana (2009 ) filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of Donald Leger, a devout Catholic and prisoner on death row at Angola State Prison. The lawsuit challenged a prison policy mandating that all televisions on death row be tuned to predominately Baptist programming on Sunday mornings. Under the terms of a settlement in the case, Mr. Leger was able to view Catholic Mass regularly and was permitted private confessional visits with a priest. http://www.laaclu.org/newsArchive.php?id=342#n342

The ACLU of Texas (2009) filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of a Christian pastor and his faith-based rehabilitation facility in Sinton, Texas. The ACLU urged the court to reverse a decision that had prohibited the pastor from operating his rehabilitation program near his church and also had sharply limited the reach of the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act. In June 2009, the Texas Supreme Court agreed and ruled in favor of the pastor. http://aclutx.org/article.php?aid=726

The ACLU of Maryland (2009) filed discrimination charges with the E.E.O.C. on behalf of three Orthodox medics who were told that they could not ride on calls with the Pikesville Volunteer Fire Company (PVFC) unless they shaved their religiously required beards. The PVFC claimed that the beards might prevent the medics from wearing specialized safety masks that the PVFC hopes to purchase in the future.
http://www.aclu-md.org/aPress/Press2009/111009_PVFD.html

The ACLU of Delaware (2009) represented the Episcopal Diocese of Delaware in a threatened eviction action against a congregation that was meeting in an elementary school on Sunday mornings. Because the school district permitted a wide variety of other groups to use its facilities, the ACLU wrote to the school district explaining that, as a general rule, public buildings must be made available to religious groups on the same terms that they are made available to the general public. In January 2009, the parties reached an amicable resolution permitting the church to continue using the facilities.

The ACLU of Pennsylvania (2009) filed a lawsuit on behalf of the Shenkel United Church of Christ, objecting to North Coventry Township's refusal to allow the church to house homeless people for one month out of the year. The case is similar to several earlier actions brought by the ACLU on behalf of churches in the Pennsylvania towns of Brookville and Munhall.
http://www.aclupa.org/pressroom/acludefendschurchprevented.htm
http://www.aclupa.org/pressroom/courtshowdownavertedastown.htm

Should I continue into 2008 and further back?
 
Bfish - 8/31/2010 11:55 AM

cheez - 8/31/2010 10:35 AM

Try this
I see you found a website that spews the same neo-con drivel as you. Which it is based on nothing but fear and hate. emoVomit

NOPE! It is based in truth. Of which you refuse to see.
 
I'm confused emoConfused </p>

Looks like this article,supported by many others on the same topic,pretty well sums up what the ACLU isabout lately. </p>

Is it not true either ?</p>

http://old.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock200402270920.asp</p>

Gotta love the way they managed to stick almost a million in their pockets.</p>

Seems like their 'freedom of speech' defenses have done no more than destroy the moral fabric of our nation.</p>
 
outcaster - 8/31/2010 1:02 PM

It's funny..... Everybody hates the ACLU....... till they need them.

Especially the grown men that love to have sex with little boys.

emoEnforce emoEnforce emoEnforce

I guess you and Bfish think it is ok for the ACLU to defend NAMBLA too.
 
cheez - 8/31/2010 2:12 PM

outcaster - 8/31/2010 1:02 PM

It's funny..... Everybody hates the ACLU....... till they need them.

Especially the grown men that love to have sex with little boys.

emoEnforce emoEnforce emoEnforce

I guess you and Bfish think it is ok for the ACLU to defend NAMBLA too.

I can't speak for Bfish, but no I don't agree with every cause and case they take on, but you gotta admit the ACLU has a pretty big set of grapefruits. I do however believe in the "RIGHT" to "FREE SPEECH" outside of false witness and threats. I will defend anyone's Right to free speech no matter how wrong or disgusting I may think it is. If someone right can be taken away, then yours can be too! Sometimes the fruits of Liberty and Freedom are not pretty. Just because I stand up for someone's right to say something doesn't mean I agree or condone what they are saying. While I find NAMBLA and its views on sexual relationships revolting, I am relieved that we have good laws in place to prevent what they are advocating from becoming legal. They still have the "Right" to say it. I am just as disgusted with Church groups protesting at dead soldiers funerals, men who freely gave their life defending those RELIGIOUS NUT'S very right too stand there and hold those disgusting signs. But it's their right to do so. The ACLU also defended them. That's the difference between you and me cheez. I stand up for the rights of those which I despise, you won't. But it's always us Liberals that use the Constitution to wipe the crap off our butts.
 
ANY GROWN MAN THAT WOULD HAVE SEX WITH A LITTLE BOY OR EVEN WANT TO HAS NO RIGHTS!!!!!!!!!!!!

THEY FORFEIT THEIR RIGHTS WHEN THEY COMMIT THEIR HEINOUS ACTS!!!!!!!!

IF ANYONE THINKS THEY DO THEN THEY ARE JUST AS SICK AS THE PERVERT!!!!!

I wonder if you would feel all warm and fuzzy about the rights of one of these worthless bastards if they preyed upon one of those great boys of yours.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top