Town agrees to end graduations at church - ZIONICA.com

http://profile.yahoo.com/HJ7WL76PEYKNST6BVIBQPAJ3JM r

I am so very sorry those people felt pain to enter a church. I guess the ole "sticks and stones" does not apply here.

Chris P

Yeh – maybe the pain of being raped by a Catholic priest
- Randy
  
  you're quite the self-righteous guy. Do you have any friends?
- cazie
  
  There's a story that finally made it to the news about Mulims in the U.K. gang raping 13 year old girls after drugging them…none of it is acceptable-but your Christian bashing is not fair.
Jeff Dixon

The ironic thing about sticks and stones is that is what Christians used for centuries on people who disagreed with them.

http://pulse.yahoo.com/_YRJJ7XYJIMFYUTJ5KXUFR3ZEFE Ken Kirkham

first Amendment guarantees of religious freedom is for religion and not freedom from religion. Move to another country if you don't like it. 2-3 people don't like it…tough.

Jeff Dixon

Freedom of religion includes freedom from religion. Don't like it? Too bad, the Constitution does not care what you feel about the matter.
- http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100004047180339 John Adams
  
  Freedom from religion is NOT guaranteed by the US Constitution.
  - Jeff Dixon
    
    Of course it is. If someone does not have the right to not believe, then all it takes is for someone to pass a law stating a particular religion is not really a religion and therefore, is not entitled to the same freedoms.
    - UF Gator
      
      I cannot understand why this is not clearly understood. I think it is clear and obvious, although I do not understand some things, this is straightforward.
    - http://www.facebook.com/jeffrey.dixon.509 Jeffrey Dixon
      
      They simply do not want to understand.
- UF Gator
  
  so many disagree… it is portentous … I agree absolutely…
http://twitter.com/BradNova Brad Nova

I bet if the school had been having the graduations in a Muslim church you would be on the side of the ACLU.
- http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100004047180339 John Adams
  
  If the graduation had been held in a mosque, the aclu would not have objected.
  - Chris P
    
    Rubbish
    - LouiseCA
      
      You are deceived.
  - John J Flanagan
    
    John, you are correct. If the graduation were held in a mosque, the ACLU would not object, because this communist founded organization is anti-Christian, anti-American, and anti-freedom. It is about time the public understood that the true aims of the ACLU are to move America to a more intolerant, Socialist based, secularist society.
    - LouiseCA
      
      You are absolutely correct. And worse yet, this horrid organizations receives our tax dollars to spread their hatred and poison.
  - http://www.facebook.com/jeffrey.dixon.509 Jeffrey Dixon
    
    And you base this opinion on the hundreds of graduation events being held at Mosques? Dozens? Can you cite even one?
- Taquoshi
  
  Non-Muslims are not allowed to enter into a mosque.
- plc
  
  The "church" is the people not the building…..GET REAL PEOPLE……Where do you go on Thanksgiving and Christmas for all those free baskets of food clothes and gifts for the kids? I AM SO SICK OF THE CHURCH AND STATE THINGS AND MY RIGHTS….HAVE YOU BEEN ON THE FRONT LINES LATELY??????
  - http://www.facebook.com/jeffrey.dixon.509 Jeffrey Dixon
    
    Others in this country also have rights. Your rights do not allow mine to be infringed.
- http://profile.yahoo.com/KLOHQXSNOWUIVV4VQRMED7DX7U WarDog2099
  
  the muslims worship a thing that does not exist, of course I would fight the muslims, but the thing is, they will not allow anyone that is not a muslim to enter their so called "holy church"
  - moemoe6
    
    That information is not true. I visited Israel 10 years ago, and we were welcomed into a Mosque. We had to cover our arms and heads and take off our shoes. It was time for prayers and we had to be very quite. It annoyed me that all the men were in the front of the Mosque while the women had to remain in the back of the Mosque. Some nonsense about they weren't allowed to have a man look at their backside while in the praying position. Not at all condoning Muslim religion, but if you are going to make statements such as this, then you really should know the fact. We were also allowed into a Mosque in Egypt. Same song and dance.
  - http://www.facebook.com/jeffrey.dixon.509 Jeffrey Dixon
    
    So do Christians and people of all religions.
- dntmkmecomoverther
  
  @bradnova: I bet if the graduations had benn held at a mosque, the ACLU would be too chicken to address the issue. Have you seen the ACLU attack any muslim or islamic point of view? Nope. and you probably won't.
  - http://www.facebook.com/jeffrey.dixon.509 Jeffrey Dixon
    
    The American Civil Liberties Union is suing the government-subsidized Muslim charter school in Minnesota.
    the ACLU filed a lawsuit challenging the academy’s use of taxpayer dollars to promote Islam:
    http://michellemalkin.com/2009/01/21/pigs-fly-hell-freezes-over-aclu-sues-muslims-over-publicly-funded-madrassa/
    - UF Gator
      
      Jeff: this podcast may interest you: http://coffeeandmarkets.com/2012/07/25/hunter-baker-on-political-thought-and-building-a-small-business/
      government is a necessary evil
      "state is there for restraint of evil men" ~ Martin Luther
    - Jeff Dixon
      
      That is the role of government.
    - UF Gator
      
      Yes, I understand, Jeff, thank you. I did not properly reference. The statement I made is meant as a summary of what was said in the podcast, rather than my personal analysis.What did you think of the book he wrote. He said he wrote it on a level his wife could understand and she did.. Would you recommend the book to me? : )
    - http://www.facebook.com/jeffrey.dixon.509 Jeffrey Dixon
      
      I think you would enjoy it. I agree with his assessment as to why limited government is best. I disagree that this idea comes from god.
Chris P

Why the hell should teachers be vetted by the Catholic Church at a public school? I know somebody who was a great teacher but fired from a public school after the first year because they didn't attend the Catholic Church. Your religion should have nothing to do with education system – it's all bogus.
- LouiseCA
  
  I'm afraid I doubt the veracity of your statement.
- UF Gator
  
  Why don't you try answering my questions Chris P?

delma jones

what are these people so afraid of .. spending time in church shouldn't feel threatening to them any more than spending time in a police station should be threatening to me…. it's all in what you are doing there rather than what that place is .. gosh, I'd hate to be so unsure of myself that I wanted to deprive others of their rights just so I wouldn't feel "threatened" by a God I didn't believe in anyway. What a farce.

guest

Then why didn't they just mail them their diplomas, the way they do here if they don't attend graduation ceremonies. That should have been the choice. This is where we are holding it; if you don't want to be subjected to the religious paraphenalia, then don't come or pay for another place.
You mean it was ok to violate the rights of the rest of the graduating class and cause the school extra problems to make an issue for a couple of atheist families. they do this because they can get by with it.
Some people just don't have enough to do, so they become troublemakers.

Jeff Dixon

Why not hold the ceremony at the high school? You know, the
place they are actually graduating from. The schools implement policies that
should have never been allowed to start with and then cry when people legitimately
complain about them.
- http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100004047180339 John Adams
  
  Apparently, there is a reason the school cannot accomodate the ceremony. Why else would they have been held elsewhere?
  You people would have been in sad shape back in the early days of our Christian nation when the church served as the school, town hall, etc.
  - Jeff Dixon
    
    Apparently, you are wrong. The school ended up holding the ceremony at the football field.
    - UF Gator
      
      where mine was held, perfect
    - Jeff Dixon
      
      As was mine and I suspect most are held all over the country.
- UF Gator
  
  Brilliant plan…hold graduation at the high school

http://profile.yahoo.com/HM63OD3M3DCXW4RFTETVMJBMOM Shell

This is where the problems we are experiencing today begin. First, allowing 1,2 or 3 people dictate what the masses want or need; second, to allow a group of attorneys bent on division of the people in order to control. This is the worst part of the enactment of the "Civil Rights Law" where the rights of a single person takes precedent over the majority.

Jeff Dixon

The majority in the South were fine with laws allowing slavery. Based on your statements, we should have allowed them to continue to own slaves.
- cazie
  
  Yes-and they were the southern Democrats!
  - UF Gator
    
    monarchists
- avoid snap judgement
  
  Actually it was probably the majority of white landowners. On most plantations I would think the slaves outnumbered the white people in the big house. So your argument actually supports the other viewpoint. The few should not be able to force their preferences on others. We don't want anarchy but we also should not support even apparently benevalent dictatorship.
  - Jeff Dixon
    
    The slaves were not citizens and had no rights at all. You cannot violate a non-existent right.
    - UF Gator
      
      Jeff, John Adams did not see the black man as a slave. People like Thomas Jefferson did however. Adams saw them as people like himself trapped in slavery. He thought the practice of Jefferson despicable. Read about the last few years of their lives. It's in the John Adams archives in Washington. You know they both died on July 4th. These two men were linked by the burdens they must have experienced in their treacherous trips over the pond to Europe, dealing with all those stuffy people, trying to keep them from pulling all stops to the 1775-6 war as they could have. Jefferson was a great writer, but nevertheless a showman, and a monarchist.You know for him to sit and hear Pastor Leland's sermons he must have felt the presence of demons that Adams had warned him about.. because you also know as well as anyone that he was a professed atheist. In the end, therefore, Jefferson knew full well that the black man had an existent right as was pretty clear to every one except the remaining families of the monarchists who sought to protect and launder their fortunes. These were not the majority of whites in the South, by any means!!
    - Jeff Dixon
      
      Jefferson was a Deist, not an Atheist. There is no question Jefferson rejected the Bible as divine revelation and rejected the divinity of Jesus. In the Declaration of Independence Jefferson's appeal was to the God of the Deist, "Nature's God," not specifically to the God of Christianity.
    - UF Gator
      
      I stand corrected with regard to the distinction made by Jeff of Thomas Jefferson's religion.
  - UF Gator
    
    we should never support monarchists
- UF Gator
  
  No we should not have allowed the continuance of such a practice and no one really believes that. On the other hand, in the South, the U. S. had a great concentration of wealth in the old aristocratic class, otherwise known as the Monarchists, as even Thomas Jefferson, who continued to practice slavery even after the 1775 revolution. Men in the position of tyranny held their position of tyranny as long as possible. Their reign reached far beyond the holding of slaves, they also owned the police forces. Money talks. No lower "class" whites or any culture other then the culture owing to the Monarchists had a say in anything. You can't blame the dirt-poor whites in the south at the time, who were the majority of whites, for anything any more than you can blame the slaves of the time. The minority in this case are the poor whites who have shouldered the blame for the few … [whites like in the movie Deliverance]
- UF Gator
  
  Bighoss is a monarchist, so I am not surprised. He is inconsistent: some of what he says he believes does not match with other things he believes or thinks he believes. The fact that he is a monarchist fits his latter statement.
Bighoss

The rights of a single person are the rights that are specifically protected by the Bill of Rights. The majority does not determine when or if the rights of a single person may be abrogated. The Constitution prohibits the abrogation of such rights.

http://www.facebook.com/gail.drake.35 Gail Drake

My state it is disgraceful the ACLU are Nazis

David

Curiously enough, it was the ACLU that said that the First Amendment protected the American Nazi party in their desire to hold a parade and rally in very Jewish Skokie, Illinois back in the 1970s.

Crashaxe

Come judgment day, i wonder if they'll still feel the same about there Lord and Savior.
Pray for the lost, that there eyes would be open and that God would give them discernment.
Pray for the wicked leaders of this country that there evil plans would be foiled and backfire back onto the wicked causing them great confusion and chaos in the minds and hearts.
Praise the Lord! all be blessed,

Robert

Another instance of America turning to groups like ACLU and atheists to poke their finger in Gods eye. Too bad for them.

http://twitter.com/GREATTEKIAH Bill Robertson

There is the answer to what caused the Aurora killing !

jude

Huckabee said it very well…SIN. Our country will see more of this because it's moving further away from God. Anyone who knows God(Trinity)knows love and wouldn't do this kind of thing. Granted, our words, thoughts and deeds go into that category of sin, too. We are all sinners. That's why we need to pray asking God to forgive us of our sins and direct our ways.
Chris P

Easy access to guns through the auspices of the gun industry sponsored NRA.
- jimbo124816
  
  The state of Colorado has a "Right to carry concealed weapons" law. If someone with a concealed weapon had been there, the red head freak would be buried by now.
  The problem was that the theatre company had signs posted that no guns were allowed.
  The law abiding citizens left theirs at home.
  I guess the killer didn't read the signs.

joeeeeeeee

The eastern sea board is mu slum now, the south will soon be mexican, the upper west Asian,
This is all part of obummers dream act. The dream to disband America and replace it's population with another.

Chris P

And the Christians killed how many Native Americans and stole how much of their land? I'm surprised you haven't given it back and apologized for all those people you killed to get it in the first place.
- Randy
  
  what is this 'you' stuff? are you native American? ask the native americans how many of them want to go back to teepees and living without the wheel or even a horse.
  - cazie
    
    He's another that has been brainwashed by the leftie educational institutions, and like Obama, feels we are villians and should apologize and pay benefits to and for things we had no control of. Chris, many nations pillaged and raped all those of lesser power than themselves. How about doing research of the 'real' history of the world!
  - UF Gator
    
    Please Randy. Many Americans are part Indian and we don't really know who they are. Americans are mixed in oh so many ways. Look at Elizabeth Warren for example. : )
- http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark
  
  Chris P says
  "…Christians killed how many Native Americans and stole how much of their land? "
  
  It was disease that killed the vast majority of native Americans, not Christians or anyone else. In most cases, where native Americans were killed by weapons, it was only after they attacked first. Also, the native Americans never developed the land to any great extent, nor did they practice ownership of land, so how could anyone "steal" it from them? They did not possess deeds or other legal documents to indicate possession of the land, so no one could "steal" something they did not own.
  - http://www.facebook.com/jeffrey.dixon.509 Jeffrey Dixon
    
    I do not have a deed or legal document showing that my grandfather gave me a pocket watch either. My daughter received a diamond ring from my mother and has no legal documents proving this.
    Does that mean anyone can take them without being called a thief and without fear of the law?
    - http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark
      
      Apples-to-oranges.
    - http://www.facebook.com/jeffrey.dixon.509 Jeffrey Dixon
      
      Not at all. Both the Native Americans as well as my daughter and I were using the items being discussed.
    - http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark
      
      Land is real property. A pocket watch is personal property.
    - http://www.facebook.com/jeffrey.dixon.509 Jeffrey Dixon
      
      A car is personal property. I have a legal document for that. So other things besides land can have legal documents.
    - http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark
      
      So what is your point? My point was that the native Americans did not own the land, therefore, it could not have been 'stolen' from them.
    - http://www.facebook.com/jeffrey.dixon.509 Jeffrey Dixon
      
      My point is that you can own something without a deed stating you do own it.
    - http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark
      
      True, but there is normally some kind of evidence to indicate you own something, like a receipt or a cancelled check. Especially so with valuable assets like land, real estate, or, as you mentioned, a car. There is no evidence I know of indicating that the native Americans owned, or even wanted to own, the land. They may not have even understood the concept of owning land.
    - http://www.facebook.com/jeffrey.dixon.509 Jeffrey Dixon
      
      You mean like in 1636, when the Narragansett Native Americans, sold the land that became Providence to Roger Williams? They had to have known of the concept of owning the land in order to sell it.
    - http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark
      
      I said they "may" not have understood the concept. They would have most likely only learned of the concept from the white man, in this case when the sale was set up by Williams. I doubt it was the Narragansett's who suggested the sale. In general, though, the native Americans did not practice the concept of land ownership.
    - UF Gator
      
      Sorry I should have read KBShark's response … it is pretty much the same point I am making above.
    - Jeff Dixon
      
      Which is irrelevant to the point. In order to agree to make a sale, one has to understand the concept of ownership. it does not mean they had to think they actually owned the land, but it does show they understood the concept. Which is what I stated.
      The whole issue is pointless anyway. The Native Americans were under no obligation to conduct land ownership in the same way that Europeans did. They were perfectly entitled to conduct their affairs as they wanted to do so. That does not give another group of people the right to kill them or run them off the land.
      It is not going to change the reality that it occurred, but it does not make it moral and as a Christian, you are always complaining that people should act moral.
    - Jeff Dixon
      
      My reply was to Key. I am not sure why it shows as responding to UF
    - UF Gator
      
      I think the payment was made in exchange to move off their hunting grounds without causing a war. The Europeans were sophisticated in teaching natives all over the world to accept payment for such deals. The Europeans simply got their way. Besides the Indians believed the land did not belong to them but to the Great Spirit and they used land for hunting and just setting up camp during the hunting seasons, and west of that area of the new settlements were lots more hunting grounds.
    - Jeff Dixon
      
      It was rare that payments were made. Generally, they just took the land and killed anyone who objected.
    - UF Gator
      
      Oh
  - UF Gator
    
    The American Indians did not have ownership like the concept of it that was brought over by the Europeans (us)… they saw themselves more as "stewards" of land which belonged to the Great Spirit… so when "we" took over their lands it was more an issue of "desecration" of something "holy." I don't quite know the language to explain it, but you may get the point. We just pretty much painted them into a corner as we took more and more land, until they had no hunting grounds to go to, etc. …
- UF Gator
  
  Chris where are you coming from with all this. But I am surprised, I assure you, that our president didn't go to the Indian reservations in the United States to apologize and community organize for their votes.
  
  Of course you know that USA is the only country in these 230 + years to lend support (sometimes the sole support) to allies who did not have to turn over their property (the spoils of the battle) to the United States for the successful and expensive – in terms of lives – effort. Get the history at Barnes & Nobel Books or just google … I know there are many examples. I believe the most important one is WWII…. Consider: the only land we own in Europe is the land where we buried our honored dead, e.g. Normandy in France. I don't know if we "took" it or it was just granted. This latter one is the reason I call the USA an exceptional nation and I am proud of it.
  
  Are you aware of any of this? I only ask b/c it doesn't seem like sometimes you have any appreciation.
- UF Gator
  
  CHRIS P is British
http://www.facebook.com/jeffrey.dixon.509 Jeffrey Dixon

Really, the entire Eastern seaboard is now Muslim? That must have really taken Florida by surprise.
- UF Gator
  
  Southeastern Florida is Cuban, Southwestern Florida is Yankee, and Northern Florida is Gator, Seminole country : )
  - Jeff Dixon
    
    Pretty sure there are a few Jewish people there as well.
    - UF Gator
      
      Oh yes, South Miami Beach is the new Kiev Russia when in late 1970s and early 1980s Jews from the Kiev region were allowed to leave Russia and came to either Miami or Denver. Thanks for the reminder Jeff. Several classmates in the early 1990s in the Florida university were Russian Jews from that mirgration! Very hard working family-oriented people.

http://profile.yahoo.com/RQSXJIXIII53M6WBYPBPI5I5HI A

The membes of the ACLU all feel threatened by the mere mention of God – so long as it is the God of Judeo-Christian belief. Any ofher god is OK by them.

Chris P

So many lies by Liars for Jesus about the ACLU.
http://www.facebook.com/jeffrey.dixon.509 Jeffrey Dixon

The ACLU fights just as hard for INDIVIDUAL free exercise of religion as the ACLU fights against GOVERNMENT endorsement, sponsorship, or establishment of religion. Despite this fact, many people spread misinformation about the ACLU around the internet, innocently and maliciously, falsely claiming the ACLU is anti-religion or anti-Christian.

This list of FACTS counteracts that misinformation. These links represent just a few of the many examples of the ACLU defending the free speech and free exercise rights of Christians (for purposes of this list, the word “Christian” means a person who self-identifies as “Christian”).

In every example, the ACLU is defending the right of a Christian to speak as a Christian or to practice Christianity.

Here is the current version of this EVER GROWING list:

ACLU of Colorado Supports Students Wearing Christian Symbols in the Colorado Springs School District

ACLU-NJ Defends Christian Student's Anti-Abortion Speech

ACLU of Tennessee Defends Christian Students' Right to Preach in Public Park

ACLU of Virginia Defends Christian Students' Right to Protest Against ACLU at Public School

ACLU Defends Christian Students Wearing Anti-Islam Shirts to Florida Public School

ACLU Fights For Christian Inmate's Right to Preach

ACLU of Northern California Fights Law that Got Quakers Fired Over Loyalty Oath

ACLU Defends Christian Librarian Disciplined for Refusing to Promote Harry Potter

ACLU Defends Right of Individual Christian to Display Nativity Scene on Public Property

ACLU Defends Christians Protesting Gay Rights in Florida

ACLU Champions Religious Freedom Of Mormon College Student

ACLU Fights for Christian Church's Mission to Feed the Poor

ACLU Fights for Christmas Tree

ACLU Files Suit to Protect Free Speech Rights of Christian Protesting Wal-Mart's Policy on Gays

ACLU of Georgia and Baptist Church File Religious Discrimination Lawsuit

ACLU of Rhode Island Files Appeal on Behalf of Christian Prisoner Barred from Preaching at Religious Services

ACLU of Michigan Defends Catholic Man Coerced to Convert to Pentecostal Faith in Drug Rehab Program

ACLU of New Jersey Joins Lawsuit Supporting Second-Grader's Right to Sing "Awesome God" at Talent Show

After ACLU Intervention on Behalf of Christian Valedictorian, Michigan High School Agrees to Stop Censoring Religious Yearbook Entries

ACLU Helps Free New Mexico Street Preacher From Prison

ACLU of WA Wins Right of Christian Minister to Preach in Spokane Plaza

ACLU Fights for Baptist Preacher in Illinois

ACLU Defends Rights of Christian Group to Make Religious Protest at Funerals

ACLU Backs Christian Abortion Protester in Ohio

ACLU of Oregon Defends Religious Liberty Of Adventist School Boys Basketball Players

ACLU Backs Missouri Nurse Penalized for Wearing Cross-Shaped Lapel Pin

ACLU Defends Christian Street Preacher in Las Vegas

ACLU Argues for Legal Recognition of Small Christian Church

ACLU of MA Defends Students Punished for Distributing Candy Canes with Religious Messages

ACLU of Nebraska Defends Church Facing Eviction by the City of Lincoln

ACLU Defends Church's Right to Run "Anti-Santa" Ads in Boston Subways

ACLU Defends Inmate's Access to Material from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints

Following Threat of ACLU of Virginia Lawsuit, Officials to Agree Not to Ban Baptisms in Public Parks

ACLU Defends Families Fighting Removal Of Religious Symbols from Florida Cemetery

ACLU Supports Right of Iowa Students to Distribute Christian Literature at School

ACLU Argument In Support of the Display of a Christian Cross in a Public Forum

ACLU Defends Christian Worker Required to Remove Bible from Desk at Government Job

ACLU Defends Free Speech Rights of Christians And Others On Main Street Plaza

ACLU Defends Prisoner's Rosary Beads

ACLU Defends Christian Group's Anti-Abortion Ads On Phoenix Buses

ACLU Pledges to Back Church in a Zoning Battle

ACLU of PA Files Discrimination Lawsuit Over Denial of Zoning Permit for African American Baptist Church

ACLU Offers To Represent Private Prayer on Public Property and

ACLU Joins Falwell To Fight For Church Incorporation Rights
- Bighoss
  
  I have often posted the same information, but the Christian nationist theocrats never seem able to acknowledge it. It just bounces off their dense-as-depleted-uranium mindsets.
- UF Gator
  
  Jeff, please give your sources. "Trust but Verify" ~ Ronald Reagan, 40
  I do trust Jeffrey.
  - Jeff Dixon
    
    For some reason this new service that Zionica is using is not allowing me to post a message that includes a website address. Very annoying.
    But I have a post on my blog with the source.
    - UF Gator
      
      Hi Jeff: I just copy/paste the link…. Is that what you mean… here is one
      http://www.moneynews.com/StreetTalk/Trump-Obama-Stupid-Country/2012/06/15/id/442491?PROMO_CODE=F354-1
  - http://www.facebook.com/jeffrey.dixon.509 Jeffrey Dixon
    
    http://www.aclufightsforchristians.com/
    
    When I created a Disqus account, it now allows me to post websites.
    - UF Gator
      
      Just as I knew you would have the refs! Why don't you post them on a regular basis?
- http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark
  
  The ACLU is not stupid. They know that if they opposed Christians on every single case, it would too easily expose their anti-Christian bias. So they pick a few token cases to defend Christians (which oftentimes are not actually Christians, but members of quasi-Christian organizations such as the RCC or Jehovah's Witnesses) so that they can claim they are not biased. But when you look at the total number of cases they handle, vs. how many in which they take the side of the 'Christian', the percentages are very low.
  - http://www.facebook.com/jeffrey.dixon.509 Jeffrey Dixon
    
    A more reasonable perspective is that the ACLU is not the anti-Christian group you want to believe they are. When Christians do not violate the Constitution, the ACLU has no issue with them.
    - http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark
      
      Problem is, the ACLU tries to paint any display of Christian faith anywhere near government property as some kind of violation of the Constitution. That is certainly not the intent of the First Amendment. The First Amendment is supposed to protect the rights of the citizens against the government, not the other way around.

paxcat

Just having words that someone disagrees within sight doesn't even fall into this category. What the ACLU is basically stating is that they want censorship. That the words, God, Jesus, etc. are offensive and therefore should be censored. Well, an atheist is someone who simply chooses NOT to believe in what the words GOD and Jesus symbolize which means they actually need the words present in order to be against them. If everyone who has ever seen or read something he/she didn't like brought a law suit, the courts would have no time to try any other kind of case! If someone doesn't want to set a foot inside a church, then don't do it, but what business is it of theirs to prohibit everyone else from stepping inside? This is totally absurd, and I am sure the districts settled because litigation costs money in attorney fees without really getting anywhere for a long time in some cases.

Chris P

Are you really that dumb? School sponsored events should not force a particular religion down people's throats. You wouldn't want your graduation in a mosque – I don't want mine in a church. I don't wish to set foot in a Mormon Temple OR a Catholic Church.
- Taquoshi
  
  Neither Mosques nor Mormon temples allow non Muslims or non-Mormons in. Get over it.
  - UF Gator
    
    The Mormon church is in fact a gym surrounded by meeting rooms and a huge kitchen for food preparation and parties.There would be no problem having a fine graduation ceremony there and we could play basketball, volleyball and soccer games afterward or simply have a celebratory party but with no alcohol, tobacco, no foul language, and only modest dress requested.
    
    You are probably referring to the temple which is dedicated House of the Lord for sacred ordinances, only for members of the church who qualify for a temple recommend, no parties or sports there.
- http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark
  
  How would holding a graduation in a church building "force a particular religion down people's throats"? They were only using the building, not attending a worship service or evangelistic meeting. No endorsement of the church's religion is required as a prerequisite for attending the graduation. Why are you so paranoid about entering a building used at other times for Christian worship?
  - http://www.facebook.com/jeffrey.dixon.509 Jeffrey Dixon
    
    The church had banners that read “Jesus Christ is Lord” and “I am GOD,” When the school agreed to hold the ceremony at this church and not others, it was showing that they agreed with the message that the church put out.
    Would you agree that they would not hold the event at a strip club, even if there were no dancers or employees of the club in attendance?
    - http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark
      
      Banners do not "force" anyone to do anything or believe something. I observe many banners around town and in buildings that I do not agree with, yet never feel compelled to take the action they suggest. The presence of banners does not dissuade me from conducting activities where they are located.
      
      The words “Jesus Christ is Lord” and “I am GOD” do not compel the observer to take any action if they choose not to. If the banners instead said something like "Anyone entering this building must believe that Jesus Christ is Lord" then you might have a valid point. Holding an unrelated activity in a building with banners does not indicate ascension to the message. They could also simply remove the banners during the graduation ceremony if they chose, but I do not see why they should have a problem with either statement, since they are both true.
      
      A strip club would not have sufficient seating, nor is it set up as an auditorium from which a speaker can address a crowd. It is also a rather poor comparison to a church building, because a strip club is a building constructed for the sole purpose of promoting sin, whereas a church is a building that is not constructed for the purpose of promoting sinful activity. So my answer is, no, I would not agree to hold the event at a strip club.
    - http://www.facebook.com/jeffrey.dixon.509 Jeffrey Dixon
      
      I did not say it would make them believe it. However, it does force their belief on the audience.
    - http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark
      
      It displays their beliefs, but I don't see how that is "forcing" those beliefs on anyone. "Forcing" implies a coercion to believe. If someone enters a church building, there should be a reasonable expectation that they may encounter a statement of belief, since each denomination or congregation is defined by their understanding of key doctrines. If I went into a Jehovah's Witness church I would not expect to find statements like “Jesus Christ is Lord” but would expect to find some other type of statement of their belief, yet I would still wholeheartedly believe that Jesus is indeed Lord even if the JW's statement of belief contradicted that.
    - http://www.facebook.com/jeffrey.dixon.509 Jeffrey Dixon
      
      You do not want to see it because that would require you change your opinion. However, as you agreed earlier, a strip club is for sinful activity and you would not want it associated with a school function. Others can feel a church also has negative connotations and not want their children to attend a school function there as well.
    - http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark
      
      Some might feel that a school auditorium has negative connotations. Maybe they got teased in gym class there, or had some other bad experience. That cannot be the test, or else it would not be able to be held anywhere. But a school auditorium, like a church, is not constructed for the sole function of promoting sinful, obscene behavior, whereas a strip club is.
      
      Also, a church building, like a school auditorium, is specially equipped to handle large crowds that can be addressed from a central speaking point, so the two are far more similar in function than would be a strip club. Not to mention, that voting is conducted in both schools and churches, but not strip clubs. Using a strip club for a graduation ceremony would be like trying to fit the proverbial square peg into a round hole. Not a good fit.
    - http://www.facebook.com/jeffrey.dixon.509 Jeffrey Dixon
      
      However, the school is what is holding the event. Some might hate the school, but it is the actual place they attended, not some other place that has nothing to do with the event.
      
      Keep in mind, that 90% of the graduates voted to not use the church. Sounds like they had no desire to set foot there at all.
    - http://www.facebook.com/jeffrey.dixon.509 Jeffrey Dixon
      
      Here is a story of a college that held its graduation at a strip club. Guess it was not a square peg for them.
      
      it was announced that 2005 graduation ceremonies would be held at downtown smut chapter Club Zanzibar. In fact, Ryerson grads in general were all quite happy with the selection.
      
      Ryerson President Claude Lejeunesse, who attends the ceremonies regularly, returned his RSVP in record time.
      
      In regard to the evenings agenda, Ryerson's deputy president Jim Crassweather, who was not as enthused about the selection, explained, "We're presently expecting that there will be dinner, awards, speeches, etc. You know what 'etc.' is…It's TITS. You sicken me, you pervert."
      
      The venue is most appropriate, given that the Zanzibar is more integral a part of Ryerson's history than most students are consciously aware of. Founded in 1828 by a young Egerton Ryerson, the Zanzibar was a popular hangout for employees of the Hudson's Bay Company and slave traders.
      
      Egerton later used the proceeds from his exotic dancing parlour to found the institution we know today as Ryerson University. It is fascinating to note that the university's first slogan was Gloria in Excelsis Zanzibus.
    - UF Gator
      
      Did we need this example, Mr. Dixon?
    - Jeff Dixon
      
      Key said a strip club would not be a good choice for a location. I showed him that others disagreed.
    - http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark
      
      You are comparing a college graduating class, which consists of adults, with a high school graduating class, which consists of adolescents still subject to their parent's authority. Two different situations. If adults want to behave foolishly, there is little you can do to intervene, but when minors are involved, it's the responsibility of the parents to not place them in foolish situations.
    - http://www.facebook.com/jeffrey.dixon.509 Jeffrey Dixon
      
      Oh please, many in their senior year have reached the age of 18. But even if they are only 17, they would not be called adolescents.
    - http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark
      
      But you are forgetting that virtually all high school students who are graduating are still living at home and subject to their parents authority, so whether they have barely reached 18 or not, what Mom and Dad say is the law.
      
      When I graduated high school, our graduating class was over 1000 students, and I do not know of a single one who was living on their own away from their parents. Granted, that was some years ago, and of course I did not know all 1000+, but from a purely economic standpoint, with the poor economy and very few jobs for young people nowadays, I doubt any high school senior would be able to afford to live on his own today even if his parents were lackadaisical enough to allow it
    - http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark
      
      That's fine if they take a vote and decide not to do it. That is their privelege. However, I think their reasoning may have been infected by a good dose of PC propaganda. A vote taken, say, 20 years ago would have probably had just the opposite result.
    - Jeff Dixon
      
      You have no idea what prompted their reasoning.
    - http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark
      
      Notice who it was that 'voted' to not hold the graduation ceremony in the church. The citizens? No, the school board, It was only 2 students and 3 parents who objected. School boards are usually populated by liberals since the NEA is one of the most liberal organizations in the U.S.
      
      So in other words, the decision was not a consensus of opinion of the public, but rather a forcing of the decision on the majority by the whining of a small minority, backed by the heavy hand of, you guessed it, the ACLU. So in my reply above, i should have said that it was fine if the majority agreed to it, which they probably would not have had a vote been taken. .
    - http://www.facebook.com/jeffrey.dixon.509 Jeffrey Dixon
      
      Wrong:
      
      "The decision followed three years of complaints by students at Enfield High School; last year, 90 percent of the graduating class had voted against graduation at the cathedral, according to a letter to the school board from Americans United and the ACLU.The letter also included a list of nearby facilities that could accommodate the graduating class within the school's budget for the summer commencement ceremonies."http://www.adventistreview.org…
    - http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark
      
      Your link simply goes to the home page, but if that information is indeed correct, then I would not have a problem with the decision as long as it was a free will choice by the majority. It's puzzling, however, as to why the ACLU would have to get involved and also puzzling as to why the Fox version indicated that it was only 2 students and 3 parents who complained.
      
      "The Enfield Board of Education voted Wednesday night to settle a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Connecticut and a group called Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
      
      The organizations sued the board in May 2010 for two students and three parents who objected to having graduations of Enfield and Fermi high schools at The First Cathedral in Bloomfield, about 15 miles southwest of Enfield. "
      http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/07/19/connecticut-town-agrees-to-end-graduations-at-church/#ixzz21g8OTgBd
      
      Sounds like something entirely different than "90% of the graduating class" coming to a consensus. If you could, please provide a more specific link.
    - http://www.facebook.com/jeffrey.dixon.509 Jeffrey Dixon
      
      http://www.adventistreview.org/article/3418/archives/issue-2010-1516/16rns-judge-rules-against-graduation-in-a-church
    - http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark
      
      OK, but this statement is a little suspicious: "90 percent of the graduating class had voted against graduation at the cathedral, according to a letter to the school board from Americans United and the ACLU.
      
      In other words, we are forced to take the word of two organizations who are hostile to the school's position. Why didn't the students just conduct a vote on their own and submit the results to the school board themselves? Why do we need to take the word of the ACLU and A.U.?
      
      Maybe it's legit, but I am automatically suspicious when these two groups, who are known to be heavily biased against Christians, get in the middle of a process that should be a free-will decision of the students. They may have been heavily "coached" by ACLU and AU in order to get the 'right' vote, or they may have counted undecided votes as a vote against holding the ceremony in the church, or who knows what else went on.
      
      If you think I am being overly suspicious, I will ask you this: Would you have trusted a 90% vote in the opposite direction if the ACLJ and Rutherford Institute had represented (and possibly coached) the students and presented the voting results?
    - UF Gator
      
      What would you say if they were Buddhist, Mormon or Muslim banners KBS. I see Jeff's point.
    - http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark
      
      Not saying he doesn't have a point. But the big difference is that the Christian message is true, while the Buddhist, Mormon or Muslim message is not. The U.S. was founded and has existed on Judeo Christian principles, so a Christian message displayed at a Christian church being used for a graduation fits that character, whereas the others do not. It should not be an issue in a predominantly Christian nation. The Christian message does not threaten anyone with harm, unlike the Muslim message, for example.
      
      It also has to do with how secure one is in their beliefs. For me, seeing a banner proclaiming a false religion's message would not have the slightest effect on my Christian beliefs. However, someone who is weak in their beliefs could conceivable be influenced by a banner, but they could just as well be influenced by almost anything, such as someone talking to them or information they discover online
    - Jeff Dixon
      
      The issue is not how it
      would affect you, Key. The issue is how others would perceive it and more
      importantly, that it violates the Constitution. It is amusing that you state I
      have a point while trying to argue against my point. If the school had never made
      the incorrect decision to hold the ceremony at a church, it would be a
      non-issue.
      
      However, they made the
      wrong decision and when people legitimately complained Christians immediately
      take it as an attack on their faith. It is not an attack on their faith. They
      can worship and pray to their hearts content. But the school should have never
      made the decision to hold the event at a church in the first place.
      
      And as it has been
      pointed out, 90% of the graduates voted to not hold the event at the church. Which
      should also have put an end to the view that a minority overwhelmed a majority.
      The majority prevailed.
      
      The issue is not how it
      would affect you, Key. The issue is how others would perceive it and more
      importantly, that it violates the Constitution. It is amusing that you state I
      have a point while trying to argue against my point. If the school had never made
      the incorrect decision to hold the ceremony at a church, it would be a
      non-issue.
      
      However, they made the
      wrong decision and when people legitimately complained Christians immediately
      take it as an attack on their faith. It is not an attack on their faith. They
      can worship and pray to their hearts content. But the school should have never
      made the decision to hold the event at a church in the first place.
      
      And as it has been
      pointed out, 90% of the graduates voted to not hold the event at the church. Which
      should also have put an end to the view that a minority overwhelmed a majority.
      The majority prevailed.
    - Jeff Dixon
      
      This new system makes some strange things happen. Suddenly my post was dublicated
    - http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark
      
      First, holding a graduation ceremony in a church does not violate the Constitution. That is utter nonsense. That may be how modern liberals want to spin it, but the historical application of the Second Amendment argues otherwise. The school had apparently been holding the ceremony at the church for some time, and I would venture that throughout the history of the US many schools have also done likewise, including during the time when those who wrote the Constitution were alive. They obviously did not see any problem with it, yet modern liberals seem to think they are somehow more enlightened.
      
      Second, it was only 2 students and 3 parents who complained, so it was hardly a consensus decision by a vote taken among the citizens. And of course, the ACLU with its deep pockets was the muscle behind the whole thing, so it was probably a reaction to avoid an expensive legal process. Had it been generally agreed upon as a result of a vote of the students, I would not have a problem with the decision. I do not know where you got the 90% figure as I did not see it in the Fox News article. It said it was the "school board" who made the decision. I could believe that 90% of the school board might have approved it, but I would be surprised if 90% of the students did, unless they were brainwashed with PC propaganda first.
      
      Besides, it simply sounds like it was a practical decision to use the church building, but the paranoia of a few individuals was enough to ruin it:
      "The school board had said the church had enough space at the right price for holding the ceremonies."
      
      http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/07/19/connecticut-town-agrees-to-end-graduations-at-church/#ixzz21fy6NYiR
    - http://www.facebook.com/jeffrey.dixon.509 Jeffrey Dixon
      
      From the article:
      
      But shortly after the lawsuit was filed, a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction barring use of the church. The judge said the graduations inside a church would be an unconstitutional endorsement of religion.
      
      The high schools' 2010, 2011 and 2012 graduations were held on school grounds.
      So, a federal judge agrees it it unconstitutional, as they continually do on church/ school issues. And the last three ceremonies were at the school.
      
      And as I have pointed out several times, it was 90% of the graduates who voted not to hold it at a church.
      
      What else do you want to be wrong about?
    - http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark
      
      I was simply pointing out how twisted the meaning of the First Amendment has become thanks to liberal judges who believe the Constitution can mean whatever they say it means. I'm well aware of what modern liberal courts have pronounced. But the First Amendment language is very clear:
      
      "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…"
      
      It very clearly says what Congress may not do, not the people, or churches, or anyone else. It clearly addresses Congress. What does this have to do with a school holding a graduation ceremony in a church? You would have to stretch the meaning of the Amendment WAY beyond what its intended purpose is to conclude that the First Amendment prohibits something like this.
    - http://www.facebook.com/jeffrey.dixon.509 Jeffrey Dixon
      
      It is not just modern judges who rules this way. The Supreme Court has ruled this way for over a hundred years.
      The first case to examine this clause was Reynolds v. United States in 1878. This was a case dealing with the prosecution of a polygamist. He tried to argue protection under the Free Exercise Clause, but the court ruled against him.
    - http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark
      
      Not sure what this case has to do with the issue at hand, but again, I have to ask the question: What does the plain wording of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…" have to do with a decision at the local level of a school to hold their graduation ceremony in a church? The First Amendment very clearly addresses Congress, and all the Amendments were intended to protect the people from the power of a central government, not the other way around. And it certainly was not intended for anti-Christian intervention at the local level.
      
      If the Amendments to the Constitution can be so carelessly and loosely interpreted to mean something entirely different from what their original intent was, then the Bill of Rights will eventually become so denuded that we will no longer have any rights. I know this modern interpretation of the First Amendment appeals to you because it apparently creates the power to drive out Christianity, but you'd better be careful what you wish for. Right now, you still have the freedom to practice your atheism. but if Christianity is driven out and replaced with Islam, they'll be coming for you next.
    - http://www.facebook.com/jeffrey.dixon.509 Jeffrey Dixon
      
      When school officials use the venue of one religion over another, it is giving tacit approval of that religion over another. Schools are part of the government. That means that we have government officials showing favoritism of one religion over another. That is not permitted. It is also foolish when one is trying to maintain harmony in a community.
    - UF Gator
      
      So as I see it, if we are to claim freedom of religion in this country as the Founders intended, we must respect all the religions by law (not by compassion). I am a U. S. Constitution conservative.
    - http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark
      
      Yes, I would agree that we should respect all religions by not opposing their existence, but if a religion proposes violence against others, such as the case with Islam, then we must draw the line and oppose that.
      
      I would classify myself as a conservative, Christian libertarian who opposes any attempts to dismantle or re-interpret the right given by our Constitution. I believe in a weak central government, and free commerce determined by the actions of the free market, not the government. Government overreach is destroying the country, in my opinion.
    - UF Gator
      
      And I agree completely with your stance on constitution priority and government overreach with examples of infringement by the current administration.
      
      I find religious violence unconscionable: I posted on the issue of compassion versus law on the site of the Muslim demanding reverence during Ramadan… They evidently don't understand that we have a grasp of the semantics of their threats.The point is that we are a nation of LAW, Islam call it "mere" LAW, and they put forth their view LAW is inferior to "more worthy" compassion. This is where they intend to trap us. If what they say is so, I want to know by whose compassion then is the law measured? The old saying holds here… " when in Rome, do as the Romans do." They must respect the premise of the USA. If they do not then there is the problem.
      
      Founders like John Adams foresaw it and as Jeff has pointed out in this forum, so did Thomas Jefferson, although in the end both were personally very religious men. LAW is cold and specific, and for a country this diverse, it is the saving grace. God bless.
    - http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark
      
      Amen. Sounds like we're on the same page.
    - UF Gator
      
      always good to hear that!
http://www.facebook.com/jeffrey.dixon.509 Jeffrey Dixon

No one is prohibiting anyone from going to any church. The suit merely asks that the school observe the Constitutional requirement of separation of church and state. And yes, the Constitution does stipulate that before anyone jumps up to shout nonsense.
moemoe6

WOW, you said a mouthful! AMEN!!!

nvj4

The ACLU has to go ; NOW

http://www.facebook.com/jeffrey.dixon.509 Jeffrey Dixon

Then you will continue to be disappointed.

arich

I am an atheist and it wouldn't bother me one bit having graduation in that church or any other for that matter. Maybe it's been a tradition or maybe the board gets a good deal on seat able space. If you didn't want the ceremony in a church have your diploma mailed. As far as the ACLU is concerned they only only care about getting money and publicity. As an aside my niece recently got married and had her matrimony celebrated in the Eastern Orthodox Catholic tradition. The mass was beautiful as was the little church.

David

While I am saddened that you don't wish to believe in the Creator's sovereignty, your view does show some willingness to see the other side for the joy and peace it provides most of us.

I am reminded of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes' famous case about the First Amendment. If I recall correctly, while the rights are not unlimited (no yelling "Fire!" falsely in a crowded theater), he went on to say that let all who have an opinion "compete in the marketplace of ideas" of our society for ruling on its prescience or triviality.

God bless.
http://www.facebook.com/jeffrey.dixon.509 Jeffrey Dixon

arich, the issue is not whether it would bother you, but whether the school should have allowed the event to be held at the church in the first place. The school system is part of the government and when any part of the government shows a preference for one religion over another, it crosses a line.

jimbo124816

All you have to do is build a 600 seat auditorium to hold your graduation.
The libs would then say it costs too much and won't vote for it.
I think it was a wonderful thing for the church to offer to let them use the building for graduation.
The prohibitions they have forced on the schools against teaching the kids morality and respect for their neighbor resulted in the problems in Colorado. They have sent a message to the children of this country that it's OK to shoot your neighbor or bomb him or knock him out for fun. and it's OK to have sex and make babies with any girl, and it's OK to abort babies for your convenience.

guest

Sounds more like Islam. They have no value for life not even their own.
Chris P

Rubbish – morals are the responsibility of the parents. The schools did not say it was OK to shoot your neighbor – that's the NRA and the Right wing nuts like you that think any problem can be solved by killing people. The Right are progun.
- jimbo124816
  
  The parents teach morals, right from wrong, respect for the rights of others, then they go to public school and are force fed the opposite for 60 hours a week.
  - Bighoss
    
    Only in your imagination could that old tired mantra of the right wingers find any credibility.
Jeff Dixon

They held the 2012 ceremony at the football field. Did not have to build anything.
- Taquoshi
  
  Works well until it rains.
  - Jeff Dixon
    
    Ceremonies do not have to be held on only one day.

Evermyrtle

It is so sad, Satan has won, again. I cannot understand people bowing to the demands of the ACLU an their master, Satan.

I Peter 4:14 If you be reproached for the name of CHRIST, happy are you. for the spirit of glory and of GOD rests upon you: on their part he is evil spoken of, but on your part he is glorified.

We should realize to be attacked for loving and obeying GOD is a great honor and we should not not waste the opportunity, by bowing to the attackers..

Jeff Dixon

Yes, it is amazing that an all powerful god does not accomplish what he would like to do. It is almost as if he was non-existent.
- UF Gator
  
  Consider God does exist for a moment: If He does then He must have chosen to allow complete freedom to chose, without his intervention, with complete accountability, including allowing His children to suffer the consequences for their choices, you know, like any good parent. Is that possible?
  - Jeff Dixon
    
    Sure it is possible. However, if a god does exist, it does not mean "He must have chosen to allow complete freedom to chose, without his intervention, with complete accountability, including allowing His children to suffer the consequences for their choices, you know, like any good parent". You want it to mean that, but it does not require that it MUST be that way. An all powerful god could do it anyway he desires.
    However, the difference between a parent and a god is the aspects of being all powerful and being all knowing.
    If god is all knowing, he was fully aware that Adam and Eve would eat the forbidden fruit and start the entire chain reaction. Yet he puts the tree in the garden anyway. Then he gets upset over an event that he fully knew would occur.
    As a parent, if you were all knowing and knew that a gun in your house would be found and used by your five year old child to kill a neighborhood friend, and you put the gun in the house anyway, then the parent is really at fault.
    - UF Gator
      
      I totally agree with your statements on the topic of imperfect, human parents!
      
      Yet, the argument is NOT about imperfect, human parents, it is a hypothetical argument about whether a perfect parent exists, who is NOT a policeman.
      
      The point-of view that god does not exist is as baseless a point-of-view that he does, Jeff. Your entire argument is based on the former because you want it to mean that, just as you have explained mine. I am asking that you please for a moment just consider the hypothetical of my point of view.
      
      I contend that IF he does exist, then the reason must be… why? I don't know, I am just trying to fathom the unfathomable. Yes, I want to believe a gracious Father exists.
    - Jeff Dixon
      
      In my example, the parents are not imperfect. I stated they had all knowledge. I was attributing them the same powers as the blbical god.
      I was working from your hypothetical point of view with my responses.
    - UF Gator
      
      wait! need to check what I said : )
    - UF Gator
      
      Yes, I am confusing the issue with imperfect human parents and perfect human parents ( the latter of which is impossible at this time) I hope I did offer some clarity in my argument following that confusion for my defense when I later discussed the plans of a gracious Father who cleverly used satan to bring about His wish for the human race… simply that we become one. Of course the parents who were not there to prevent the child from having access to a gun is markedly responsible. I agree.
    - UF Gator
      
      Jeff: If he were a gracious god as the imperfectly-translated-by-humans Holy Bible certainly portrays him to be "He must have chosen to allow complete freedom to chose, without his intervention, with complete accountability, including allowing His children to suffer the consequences for their choices…" How else can you account for His restraint in avoiding his own intervention? My hypothetical God has very high standards and I am trying to think of the reasons he would have to not intervene.
      
      You know that parents, often when asked by the kids "Why?" when it comes as a command to do something. The parent will say "Because we are the parents" — isn't that so? Haven't you ever said that? In such a case the child may never understand until he/she becomes a parent. So if we take this to the infinity Jeff, you will understand why the Father does what he does, when you become a perfect parent. I have no reason to believe that the Father is deceitful. Deceit is what satan in up to, not what the Father is up to.
      
      You are attributing wrongly — again hypothetically — the limitations of a perfect Father, when really the limitations are in our choosing to follow in the wrong path, one that satan would have us follow. And if I make the choice to follow in satan's path, the Father is slighted, hurt, but not revengeful. It is our choice and not one he will interfere with, hypothetically. I don't see that scenario contradicted in the rational parts of the Holy Bible. I have considered your point-of-view more times then you know.
    - Jeff Dixon
      
      According to the bible, the biblical god does create evil.
      Isaiah 45:6-7
      
      "That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that
      there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else.
      
      I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the
      LORD do all these things."
      
      Let us assume people are
      actually following the wrong path. And they have been doing this since Adam and
      Eve first ate the forbidden fruit. Fruit that the biblical god KNEW they would
      eat and still places within easy reach of them. The fruit is what gave them the
      ability to understand the difference between good and evil. They did not know
      they were doing evil.
      
      I refer you back to my
      example of the all knowing parent who places a gun in reach of a five year
      child knowing the child will kill someone with it. The child is not to blame.
      The parent is. They did something stupid even though they knew the outcome in
      advance. It is not only stupid, it is premeditated on the part of the parent
      that his child kill someone.
    - UF Gator
      
      I recognize, as you have pointed out, the Holy Bible to be erroneous in many ways, that fact even attested to also by the most disarmingly particular scholars of the Reformed tradition who "practices" their religion by totally picking apart God's word from the original texts, and never have I seen ANY specific passage in the Holy Bible be alleged by them to be perfectly understood. They have tons of books wrtten on the subject and they are still writing them. I have one on Revelation and it is 2 inches thick (G. K. Beale) and every time the author mentions a new script he gives 50 references for his analysis, yet, which in the end, is still up in the air. Case A. That is one scenario. please consider another, addendum to Case A:
      As Eve has pointed out to Adam, knowing good and evil was for her the temptation and satan convinced her she would not surely die… and then having heard what Eve had done, Adam agreed to eat the fruit of good and evil himself so man might be. Had she not eaten of the forbidden fruit, we would not be here, is what is obviously implied. Satan is happy, I assure you, that she chose to do it. He thinks now he has control of her. But if you read the whole passage you will see that it is only a part of the Father's plan of salvation. I.e. the Father used satan to accomplish His long term goal. I refer you to that scripture in the Book of Moses that I posted. Therefore, The Father knew what Eve would do and He used satan to accomplish the goal… trust me, in the end, satan will not win.
      
      CaseB: "I refer you back to my example of the all knowing parent who places a gun in reach of a five year child knowing the child will kill someone with it. The child is not to blame. The parent is. They did something stupid even though they knew the outcome in advance. It is not only stupid, it is premeditated on the part of the parent that his child kill someone." ~ Jeff
      Of course, the parent is to blame and will be accountable to the Father in my view. The parent has not positive long term plan as the Father had for Adam and Eve, unless the parent is a criminal him/her self!
      
      Case A of the scripture you describe does not prove that we do not have a gracious Father. We already agreed that parents in Case B are not perfect as the Father, as we can only wish they are. In the realm of Heavenly Father, His plans are more complex then we can possibly imagine.
    - http://www.facebook.com/jeffrey.dixon.509 Jeffrey Dixon
      
      The biblical god does the exact same thing by placing the forbidden fruit where Adam and Eve can get to it, even though he is fully aware they will eat beforehand. You correctly blame the parent and give your god a pass, even though the actions and events are exactly the same.
    - UF Gator
      
      Jeff, I point out the unfortunate contortions on the question, with no intent to give "[my] god a pass." I am in agreement on the nature of your dissension, in fact.
    - UF Gator
      
      Jeff, you said, "An all powerful god could do it anyway he desires." Now that I pondered this for a while I think I see your fallacy, hypothetical, of course. You are implying the God of my scenario is a combination figure of good and evil! That is a combination of the two rolled into one. From the point of view from which I wish to argue, I must tell you first that my God does not do evil. It is the second entity, satan, to whom I ascribe that characteristic, to whom this whole plan of salvation — as we wish to call it — comes from the protection of God's children to avoid evil and chose good. You must accept that premise if you would like to understand my point of view. Also, in anticipation of one argument against this view, I want to say that satan is one who has chosen perdition (def: utter destruction, ruin). It is his chosen way, which he wants us to chose. That is what a gracious father attempts to protect His children from, but he can't help us if we chose that path. This is not the same thing as a parent removing a gun from the hands of a child. It is rather, the Holy Spirit, being in the heart of a child, opposing the forces of satan, to assist to make the choice to avoid the crime and to do the right thing, hypothetically. When a child by him/herself chooses to do good isn't that a more powerful thing than when there is not even a choice to be made as in the event an intervening father?

Randy131

Just how stupid have Americans become to allow a judgement such as this? Are they ignorant to the fact that most governmental meetings during the formation of the USA took place in churches, and then as also today, nobody was forcing any religion or God on any attendee. Why is it ungodly people decry being around Godly sights is forcing them to worship what they do not want to? I believe it is more that they are afraid that others may want to, being around Godly things, and their agenda is to prevent all others from wanting to or actually worshipping GOD. This whole situation is nothing but a tiny minority imposing it's will on the vast majority, so they can make all deny GOD.

Jeanette Victoria

Pathetic how they folded

Chris P

Pathetic how grown men and women like you still believe in a crazy skygod and cannot even agree on what that god is or isn't
- Jeanette Victoria
  
  No someone like you is truly the sad one here….and your ignorance about Christianity speaks volumes. There was a time even atheists were educated not anymore
  - Jeff Dixon
    
    Not surprisingly, you are wrong.
    A new survey of American religious knowledge, released by
    the Pew Forum, which demonstrate that atheists and agnostics know
    more about religion than the religious do. The only religious groups comparable
    to atheists in general religious knowledge are Jews and Mormons. Atheists even
    know more about Christianity than American Christians.
    
    Atheists and
    agnostics, like Jews, are much more highly educated than the general American
    public, and the survey found a strong correlation between level of education and
    religious knowledge (among the religious as well as the
    nonreligious).
    
    Now, this does not mean we are right on our views.
    However, it does show that we are basing our views on researched information,
    not simply dismissing faith out of hand.

lantern burning

Why are our churches caving in? They have someone much stronger on their sides than the self centered humens who just want there own way. And we are letting their tantrums win. If people do not want to graduate in a church they can choose to have it sent to there home. Big deal. Buck up get over it Let your community celebrate how the majority wants. Know one is out to just punish you.You see we are letting the brats of this country turn the rest of us into cowards.

Sama

Then there are the classes who visit mosques. "forced into religious surroundings"????

guest

This should fall under some kind of religious taboo as well. Maybe nobody gets the ACLU involved.

dntmkmecomoverther

I suppose this is fair since school don't teach any more either…? This is purely ridiculous. 5 people pitch a bitch and change the program? How would that work in a classroom? "We don't wanna study math!" Oh, my 5 students protest and now, math is no longer studied here…but we feel GOOD about ourselves! Yeah!!!

This and other reasons is why my kids don't attend government schools.

http://www.facebook.com/earl.aldridgesr Earl Aldridge Sr

Ken K, I totally agree with your comments. But, we can't fold up our tent and go home. We must stand up for what is right. We can't just sit back and allow a few misguided organizations to dictate to the vast majority!!!

The Bob

Isn't it funny how two students and three parents can force the many other students and parents into doing what they want them to do. What happened to, of, by and for the People? If the majority accepted having graduation at the church why change it. We are now a government of, by and for the few, who control the majority. The ACLU should be disbanded, a good judge should have laughed at them and thrown the case out.

Concerned Patriot

Simply Defund The ACLU! They are funded with Tax dollars by the Frederal Government allocations! Again "We the People" are forced to fund things We disagree with and/or vote against!!! And yes I am a Holy Bible thumping Gun Toting Patriot, American by Bith but Texan by The Grace of Almighty God whose Name Is JESUS!!!

http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/QHRUML5XFH7AMSWH63TQH7F7E4 MalikTous

I'd continue to allow the highschools to 'rent the church facility during non-worship hours' for the main graduation, and provide a small secondary facility to accommodate the students who wish their graduation (same day if possible) to be at another facility due to religious objections. I know plenty of pagans and a couple Hindus who would appreciate that. The First Amendment includes the statement that government shall not pass laws favouring or disfavouring (peaceful) religions nor create a 'national faith'; there is nothing there about 'separation' of church and state!

Rev. Leonard Miller

If we can not have these at church because of religion, then NOT having them at church is SUPPORTING ANTI-RELIGION! This means that we are supporting atheism!

Bighoss

No. It means that we are supporting neutrality.

Jack

Being a CHRISTian and a follower of the constituation this is seperation of church and state. Yes I know that our founding fathers taught from the King James. If the students were being made to study a particular religion I can see a complaint. but the building in itself does not mean that anyone graduating does or does not believe in that religion, I say turn the camera if you do not want Jesus Christ or God in your pictures.

Bighoss

You are in great need of expanding your understanding of church and state matters if that is the best you can offer.

John Daniels

I can guarantee there would be no lawsuits concerning holding graduation in mosque. Stop giving in and fight! Read The Coming: A True Story Of Horror @ Amazon.com This book will wake you up!

Bighoss

You and other wingers can not help but post that kind of speculative, suppositional tripe. You offer nothing but your own bias to support your silly contention.

JPW

WHERE are THOSE to HOWL ' bout THEIR 'rights' being violated?, i.e. – NOT being able to opt for recogonition of THEIR .. 'choice! ???' I would raise hell w/Township!!!

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1433003812 Tim Eggert

A federal court ruled that atheism is a religion and that ruling still stands. The ACLU is trying to force atheism on everyone so according to their logic what they are doing is unconstitutional.

Court rules atheism a religion

WorldNetDaily ^

Posted on Sat Aug 20 02:11:11 2005 by Lexinom

A federal court of appeals ruled yesterday Wisconsin prison officials
violated an inmate's rights because they did not treat atheism as a
religion. "Atheism is [the inmate's] religion, and the group that
he wanted to start was religious in nature even though it expressly
rejects a belief in a supreme being," the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals
said.

Jeff Dixon

The Court did not rule that atheism is
a religion. Instead, the court
ruled that, for First Amendment purposes, atheism is a religion for
Kaufman (the defendant). Those are two very significant qualifiers. It
means that atheism isn’t inherently a religion. It means that atheism isn’t
inherently a religion for Kaufman — it’s only a religion for Kaufman in this
narrow context.
- http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1433003812 Tim Eggert
  
  Are you saying it all depends on what you call sex? Liberals always seem to want things both ways so they can make anything fit their agenda.
  - Jeff Dixon
    
    I did not mention anything about sex, so i have no idea what question you are asking about.
  - UF Gator
    
    I am fairly sure Jeff is a conservative, and not a liberal, Tim. Besides, he is explaining a court order.Don't shoot the messenger please!
chris P

Don't believe anything Worldnut Daily tells you – Liars for Jesus is who they are.

Mys77

Must I remind the ACLU that indeed Jesus Christ is Lord…. and He is God…. and he is everywhere… in schools, in business, on a mountainside…. and no matter how hard they try… the seperation only exists in the ACLU's demented mind. And a few students who won't amount to anything… are setting the stage for a life of misery…. I think the church should have another ceremony inviting all the graduates to come to their ceremnony and let the three outsiders have their graduation presented by the school…. after all it is optional for the kids to even go through the graduation proceedings anyway. Short ceremony for the atheist….LOL

Jeff Dixon

You can remind anyone you like. It does not make your comment factual.

Bighoss

A bit of light on this matter:
"The decision followed three years of complaints by students at Enfield High School; last year, 90 percent of the graduating class had voted against graduation at the cathedral, according to a letter to the school board from Americans United and the ACLU.

The letter also included a list of nearby facilities that could accommodate the graduating class within the school's budget for the summer commencement ceremonies."

http://www.adventistreview.org/article/3418/archives/issue-2010-1516/16rns-judge-rules-against-graduation-in-a-church

To further inflame you theocrats, be advised that the Enfield Board of Education has been ordered by the court to pay legal fees of the ACLU. This could set a useful example for other cities and towns who are less than careful about choosing graduation venues.
"The Board of Education will pay $469,610.50 in plaintiff's legal fees as part of the settlement of a lawsuit over holding high school graduation ceremonies in a church, a plaintiff said.The amount will be payed to Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said Sandra Staub, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Connecticut. The organization will then divide that amount between the national ACLU and the Connecticut ACLU based on the fees incurred, she said."
http://www.courant.com/community/enfield/hc-enfield-lawsuit-cost-20120723,0,6387035.story

Jeff Dixon

So much for the comments that 2-3 people changed the event over the objections of the majority. rotflmao
- Bighoss
  
  Note that the posted article for this topic is from Fox News. What would you expect other than "carefully edited" reporting? Unfair and unbalanced!

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100004047180339 John Adams

This is ridiculous. The aclu is quite possibly the most evil organization currently operating in the US. I hope the only other place in town available is McDonalds. It should serve them right.

http://www.facebook.com/people/Berenice-Bauer/100000969003176 Berenice Bauer

The minority has managed to subject the majority and we wonder why this country is changing for the worse. We have let them remove God from schools, courtrooms and the public square and wonder why this country is going to hell in hand cart. Societies with no moral compass ultimately collapse.

http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/VBBCYNZUJPMNVGYK45HXRD7ZJ4 A Real American

The problem for the church, if it is a 501(c)3 IRS code not-for-profit organization, is that the code and likely local city ordanance prevents the church from any activities other than for "church religious services". This is a good reason why churches should NOT have their hands tied by their co-dependent relationship with the government.

Bighoss

The very structure of this "Cathedral" is loaded with religious symbolism. From the "Cathedral's" Wikipedia entry:

Overall Structure
The First Cathedral edifice is built in the shape of a dove, a reference to the Baptism of Jesus which is recorded in every canonizedGospel.
[edit]External Symbolism
The Foundation The Doves' Feet are represented by the foundation of the Cathedral. The foundation of the Cathedral, being quite large and being located on former swampland, is a network of grade beams that equally disburse the weight of the building.
The Structure
The structure of The Cathedral is divided into 3 levels: • The First Level is the two commercial floors, the primary representing earth, the second representing Heaven
• The Second Level is located within the second of the commercial floors, The Two Balconies representing Heaven.
• The Third Level is Represented in the Cupola, 8 sided, ordained with stained glass windows, symbolic of the throne room of Heaven where God is
Exterior Walls
The immediate external wall of the Cathedral are covers with Dryvit, the dryvit wall installed in stages reminiscent of the extensive project, undertaken by Nehemiah, in the rebuilding of the city walls of Israel. Additionally the Sandstone Color of the building is a reminder of the Wilderness Experience of the Ancient Israelites before reaching their promised land.
[edit]Interior Elements
Within the Dove shaped edifice, are three major components, The Grand Lobby, The Grand Concourse and The Sanctuary, modeled after Solomon's Temple.
[edit]The Grand Lobby
The Grand Lobby is the 'facade' of The First Cathedral; the lobby contains several symbolic elements:
•The Entrance way is a set of double doors, creating an energy saving lock. The double set of double doors are reminiscent of the main entry way into an ancient city, the doors were part of the cities defense system.
•Stained Glass Mosaic-depicts people of all races and every ethnicity from all directions with their hands lifted in praise.
•Fountain'- the fountain is in the shape of a tomb, the water shooting out of the fount comes in the form of cross representing life out of death.

This is not some religiously neutral setting by any means. This is a megachurch whose very architecture is suffused with religious symbolism.

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

Here is a rockin' video featuring the "Archbishop" of this church:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gFUPkJs0JQ

Scott E

Another attack on Christianity. Another attack on our freedom. The ACLU is behind a lot of those attacks. It should change its name to ASLU. The American Socialist Liberals United.

Jeff Dixon

Requiring that Christians observe the law of the land is not an attack against them or Christianity.

Jack

It seems again the ACLU butts in where it has no business, the amendment was given to keep the state out of the church and not godly conduct out of the state.
How quickly history is forgotten and what made us the greatest nation on planet earth.

darrelljr

The Church needs to say we will hold a ceremony for those who wish to attend as a alternative but not fold to these pagan people.

http://www.facebook.com/jeffrey.dixon.509 Jeffrey Dixon

They are more than welcome to do so. However, since 90% of the graduates stated they did not want the ceremony at the church, it is doubtful they would get much of a turnout.

"The decision followed three years of complaints by students at Enfield High School; last year, 90 percent of the graduating class had voted against graduation at the cathedral, according to a letter to the school board from Americans United and the ACLU.The letter also included a list of nearby facilities that could accommodate the graduating class within the school's budget for the summer commencement ceremonies."http://www.adventistreview.org..

daveveselenak

The march to communism is just about complete. 1776…1776…1776…

LouiseCA

Surely there must be some communist country that would love to have the ACLU members move over to. They'd fit in perfectly there and would be so much happier where they could exist in a godless vacuum and live in a socialist paradise, being told what to do, what to say, what to think, what to eat, what to wear, never to mention God..oh, wait..that's what they're making America into..there's no need for them to move to a communist country..we'll have one here, soon..compliments of the ACLU and other atheist crazies.

Thunderbob

This is exactly how the ACLU gets away with acts like this! There distortion of the 1st Amendment is way off base. Not to mention they thing people are stupid , gulible and easily persuaded! If reading a few banner convert you to that religion you were ready to be swayed. if it doesn't then it's no big deal. No one is making you sign, pledge or swear to the religion so you can us it. There is NO church and state here. But if its a Muslim deal you had better have the foot washers, prayer rugs and everything else to appease the religion. The ACLU is afraid to make the tables even! The Muslim's win with the ACLU

Dennis

Well by all means let us put 2 students and 3 parents wishes and thoughts before the rest of the town aye.How progressive of you oh and moronic.Funny how we are told we live in a democracy which uis mob rule.51% tell 49% how its gonna be and yet thats bull.We live in a society where a few tell the many how its gonna be.

http://www.facebook.com/jeffrey.dixon.509 Jeffrey Dixon

Bighoss already posted the information that shows your comment is nonsense.
Bighoss • 9 hours ago
−
A bit of light on this matter:
"The decision followed three years of complaints by students at Enfield High School; last year, 90 percent of the graduating class had voted against graduation at the cathedral, according to a letter to the school board from Americans United and the ACLU.The letter also included a list of nearby facilities that could accommodate the graduating class within the school's budget for the summer commencement ceremonies."http://www.adventistreview.org…To further inflame you theocrats, be advised that the Enfield Board of Education has been ordered by the court to pay legal fees of the ACLU. This could set a useful example for other cities and towns who are less than careful about choosing graduation venues.
"The Board of Education will pay $469,610.50 in plaintiff's legal fees as part of the settlement of a lawsuit over holding high school graduation ceremonies in a church, a plaintiff said.The amount will be payed to Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said Sandra Staub, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Connecticut. The organization will then divide that amount between the national ACLU and the Connecticut ACLU based on the fees incurred, she said."
http://www.courant.com/communi…

http://profile.yahoo.com/KLOHQXSNOWUIVV4VQRMED7DX7U WarDog2099

Sad And Pathetic.

DougIndeap

Why some would direct their ire at those who seek to uphold the Constitution, rather than those flouting it is not apparent. It is important to distinguish between "individual" and "government" speech about religion. The First Amendment's "free exercise" clause assures that each individual is free to exercise and express his or her religious views–publicly as well as privately. The Amendment constrains only the government not to promote or otherwise take steps toward establishment of religion. As government can only act through the individuals comprising its ranks, when those individuals are performing their official duties (e.g., public school teachers instructing students in class and principals arranging graduation in churches), they effectively are the government and thus should conduct themselves in accordance with the First Amendment's constraints on government. When acting in their individual capacities, they are free to exercise their religions as they please. If their right to free exercise of religion extended even to their discharge of their official responsibilities, however, the First Amendment constraints on government establishment of religion would be eviscerated. While figuring out whether someone is speaking for the government in any particular circumstance may sometimes be difficult, making the distinction is critical.

A word should be added about the common canard that this is all about people easily offended. We’re not talking about the freedom of individuals to say or do something others find offensive; each of us has that freedom. We’re talking about the government weighing in to promote religion. Under our Constitution, our government has no business doing that–REGARDLESS of whether anyone is offended. While this is primarily a constitutional point, it is one that conservatives–small government conservatives–should appreciate from a political standpoint as well. While the First Amendment thus constrains government from promoting (or opposing) religion without regard to whether anyone is offended, a court may address the issue only in a suit by someone with "standing" (sufficient personal stake in a matter) to bring suit; in order to show such standing, a litigant may allege he is offended or otherwise harmed by the government's failure to follow the law; the question whether someone has standing to sue is entirely separate from the question whether the government has violated the Constitution.

Patricia Ward

When I was in third grade our school burned down and so our grades were divided and sent to all the churches in our town. If the churches had not allowed this, we would have missed a year of school. Believe it or not, none of the churches pastors preached to us nor tried to prosletize anyone.

James

GOD must vbe sooooooo pissed at us right now! He is punishing us with Obama and his henchmen, for our agregious behavior and tolerance of these ACLU fools!

tarheels1

Sad but true that 2 – 3 people can force a local school board to stop having graduations in a church. News alert to these people, Jesus is Lord, no matter what you think or believe doesn't change this. Kings and emperor's have tried to stamp out Jesus name yet still it stands…You know friend, there is something about His name………..

linda

Amazing what five people can do,huh? Disgusting..