ACLU supports religious liberty

[SpidermanTuba]

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

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

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

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

December 22, 2004: ACLU of New Jersey successfully defends right of religious expression by jurors.

December 14, 2004: ACLU joins Pennsylvania parents in filing first-ever challenge to "Intelligent Design" instruction in public schools.

November 20, 2004: ACLU of Nevada supports free speech rights of evangelists to preach on the sidewalks of the strip in Las Vegas.

November 12, 2004: ACLU of Georgia files a lawsuit on behalf of parents challenging evolution disclaimers in science textbooks.

November 9, 2004: ACLU of Nevada defends a Mormon student who was suspended after wearing a T-shirt with a religious message to school.

August 11, 2004: ACLU of Nebraska defends church facing eviction by the city of Lincoln.

July 10, 2004: Indiana Civil Liberties Union defends the rights of a Baptist minister to preach his message on public streets.

June 9, 2004: ACLU of Nebraska files a lawsuit on behalf of a Muslim woman barred from a public pool because she refused to wear a swimsuit.

June 3, 2004: Under pressure from the ACLU of Virginia, officials agree not to prohibit baptisms on public property in Falmouth Waterside Park in Stafford County.

May 11, 2004: After ACLU of Michigan intervened on behalf of a Christian Valedictorian, a public high school agrees to stop censoring religious yearbook entries.

March 25, 2004: ACLU of Washington defends an Evangelical minister's right to preach on sidewalks.

February 21, 2003: ACLU of Massachusetts defends students punished for distributing candy canes with religious messages.

October 28, 2002: ACLU of Pennsylvania files discrimination lawsuit over denial of zoning permit for African American Baptist church.

July 11, 2002: ACLU supports right of Iowa students to distribute Christian literature at school.

April 17, 2002: In a victory for the Rev. Jerry Falwell and the ACLU of Virginia, a federal judge strikes down a provision of the Virginia Constitution that bans religious organizations from incorporating.

January 18, 2002: ACLU defends Christian church's right to run "anti-Santa" ads in Boston subways.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I don't buy those cases as necessarily supporting religion per se. Other factors may be entering the picture in terms of the ACLU's goals. They probably are weighing free speech on the public streets more heavily than the religious expression of one guy. For example, the ACLU may support free speech on the public streets (your list has 3 cases of that) and this must necessarily include religious speech too since the law can't really discriminate on what topic one is speaking about.

However, if the ACLU supports free religious expression on the public sidewalks, why don't they support free religious expression on the front yard of a public library close to that same sidewalk in the form of a nativity scene? What's the difference between the two....a few feet? :spank3:

"For decades now, the ACLU has worked to undercut the impact and influence of religious faith in American life.

Although they declare themselves defenders of tolerance - and cloak themselves in the Constitution, whose Bill of Rights forbids any law prohibiting the free exercise of religion - the ACLU, in fact, actively promotes intolerance when it comes to religion.

Among the "free exercises" the group opposes and would outlaw if they could:

The public singing of "Silent Night" and other Christmas carols.

Displays of nativity scenes, crosses, and other Christian symbols on public property.

The posting of the Ten Commandments in classrooms or courtrooms.

The words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance and "In God We Trust" on U.S. coins.

Chaplains in prisons and the military.

Prayer in classrooms, locker rooms, sports arenas, legislative assemblies, and at graduation exercises.

Census questions regarding an individual's religious affiliation.

Accreditation for science departments at Bible-believing Christian universities.

Voucher programs and tuition tax credits.

Public funding for Christian schools.

"Blue law" statutes.

Voluntary Bible reading in public schools ... even during free time or after classes.

Tax-exempt status for churches (though the ACLU favors this status for certain occult groups - and themselves)."

http://www.reclaimamerica.org/Pages/ACLU/war.htmlhttp://www.reclaimamerica.org/Pages/ACLU/war.html

 

[SpidermanTuba]

I don't buy those cases as necessarily supporting religion per se.

Of course not. They are neither for nor against religion - they are for protecting the 1st amendment.

 

[Gunny]

Of course not. They are neither for nor against religion - they are for protecting the 1st amendment.

According to their skewed version of ....

 

[SpidermanTuba]

However, if the ACLU supports free religious expression on the public sidewalks, why don't they support free religious expression on the front yard of a public library close to that same sidewalk in the form of a nativity scene? What's the difference between the two....a few feet? :spank3:

Is the nativity scene paid for with public tax revenues? Which case are you referring to, anyway? Do you understand the distinction between private individuals using public property to espouse their views and public tax dollars being used to espouse a particular religious view? In the former case, someone is merely voicing their religious views at no direct expense to the taxpayer , in the latter case the government is taking my tax money that I earned and using it to espouse a particular religious belief.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Is the nativity scene paid for with public tax revenues? Which case are you referring to, anyway? Do you understand the distinction between private individuals using public property to espouse their views and public tax dollars being used to espouse a particular religious view? In the former case, someone is merely voicing their religious views at no direct expense to the taxpayer , in the latter case the government is taking my tax money that I earned and using it to espouse a particular religious belief.

Do you understand that the constiution merely says congress shall make no LAW regarding the establishment of religion, and that a decoration, regardless of how religious it is, is not a law?

 

[Abbey Normal]

Must be a slow day at the DU.

 

[KarlMarx]

Do you understand that the constiution merely says congress shall make no LAW regarding the establishment of religion, and that a decoration, regardless of how religious it is, is not a law?

Amendment I to the US Constitution

<i>"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"</i>

The ACLU has a fetish with the first part of this clause, but has totally disregarded the second.

The Founding Fathers meant that Congress should never set up a state church similar to the Church of England. They regarded the expression of religion in the public sphere as being valid.

In effect, the ACLU has helped to bring about the prohibition of the free exercise of religion in this country.

 

[Abbey Normal]

Amendment I to the US Constitution

<i>"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"</i>

The ACLU has a fetish with the first part of this clause, but has totally disregarded the second.

The Founding Fathers meant that Congress should never set up a state church similar to the Church of England. They regarded the expression of religion in the public sphere as being valid.

In effect, the ACLU has helped to bring about the prohibition of the free exercise of religion in this country.

Exactly. Why is this so hard for secularists to understand? Oh, wait, I remember now- they don't want to understand it that way. It doesn't fit in with the Christophobic agenda.

 

[KarlMarx]

Exactly. Why is this so hard for secularists to understand? Oh, wait, I remember now- they don't want to understand it that way. It doesn't fit in with the Christophobic agenda.

It doesn't fit into their Marxist agenda, either... well... same thing...

In my mind, the three great struggles that the United States fought were against ideologies that were anti-Christian and anti-Jewish.

1. Nazism - the leadership of the Nazi Party were not Christians, but deeply involved in the occult. Hitler's attitude toward Jesus was that He was the bastard son of a Jewish harlot. Two of the goals of Nazism was to eventually exterminate the Jews and overthrow the Christian Church in Germany.

2. Communism - it is pretty obvious that the Communists were not only anti-religion, but anti-Jewish and anti-Christian. They aggressively persecuted any practice of religion

3. Islamofascism - this is a struggle that has been going on for centuries. The Islamofascists want to see the Jews annihilated and Christianity overthrown in favor of Islam.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Do you understand that the constiution merely says congress shall make no LAW regarding the establishment of religion, and that a decoration, regardless of how religious it is, is not a law?

Do you understand that public funds are appropriated by law? No, by your statement, I guess you don't.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Amendment I to the US Constitution

<i>"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"</i>

The ACLU has a fetish with the first part of this clause, but has totally disregarded the second.

The Founding Fathers meant that Congress should never set up a state church similar to the Church of England. They regarded the expression of religion in the public sphere as being valid.

In effect, the ACLU has helped to bring about the prohibition of the free exercise of religion in this country.

OK. So how does supporting a second-grader's right to sing "Awesome God" at a talent show totally disregard the free exercise of religion?

How does freeing a New Mexico street preacher from prison totally disregard the free exercise of religion?

How does suing in Wisconsin prison on behalf of a Muslim woman who was forced to remove her headscarf in front of male guards and prisoners totally disregard the free exercise of religion? Do you have a problem with protecting the free exercise of religion if it is the free exercise of a non-Christian religion being protected?


How does defending the right of religious expression by jurors totally disregard the free exercise of religion?


Did you even read the header post?!?!

 

[MissileMan]

Amendment I to the US Constitution

<i>"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"</i>

The ACLU has a fetish with the first part of this clause, but has totally disregarded the second.

The Founding Fathers meant that Congress should never set up a state church similar to the Church of England. They regarded the expression of religion in the public sphere as being valid.

In effect, the ACLU has helped to bring about the prohibition of the free exercise of religion in this country.

So, in your opinion, what things should be allowed under this "free exercise" that aren't allowed now? Do you think it's an absolute right, or are there restrictions on how far someone can take it?

 

[Hobbit]

Is the nativity scene paid for with public tax revenues? Which case are you referring to, anyway? Do you understand the distinction between private individuals using public property to espouse their views and public tax dollars being used to espouse a particular religious view? In the former case, someone is merely voicing their religious views at no direct expense to the taxpayer , in the latter case the government is taking my tax money that I earned and using it to espouse a particular religious belief.

I have relatives in Florida. Their church had a nativity scene out every Christmas. Eventually, they found a newer, flashier one, and donated their old one, still in good condition, to the local library, which had been petitioning the city council for additional Christmas decorations. The library put up the scene, and the local churches took turns paying for upkeep. The only thing the library had to pay for was the electricity to run the thing. In December of 2003, the ACLU sued to have it and every similar display in the entire county taken down, regardless of its origin, and they lost. However, the sherrif was a fan of the ACLU, and had his deputies go out between midnight and 4:00 a.m. and confiscate all of the displays. Last I heard, the ACLU called it a victory and nothing was ever done to discipline the sherrif.

 

[manu1959]

Of course not. They are neither for nor against religion - they are for protecting the 1st amendment.

i call bullshit

 

[SpidermanTuba]

I have relatives in Florida. Their church had a nativity scene out every Christmas. Eventually, they found a newer, flashier one, and donated their old one, still in good condition, to the local library, which had been petitioning the city council for additional Christmas decorations. The library put up the scene, and the local churches took turns paying for upkeep. The only thing the library had to pay for was the electricity to run the thing. In December of 2003, the ACLU sued to have it and every similar display in the entire county taken down, regardless of its origin, and they lost. However, the sherrif was a fan of the ACLU, and had his deputies go out between midnight and 4:00 a.m. and confiscate all of the displays. Last I heard, the ACLU called it a victory and nothing was ever done to discipline the sherrif.

The library is still paid for with public tax revenues.

I'm not Christian. I fail to see why my tax money should pay to promote Christianity.


Does this mean I can set up a Satanic display on library property provided I donate it for free?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

The library is still paid for with public tax revenues.

I'm not Christian. I fail to see why my tax money should pay to promote Christianity.


Does this mean I can set up a Satanic display on library property provided I donate it for free?

Are you not familiar with the right of the citizens of the United States to vote on various things? To decide what goes on in their community in various community/government/public locations and buildings? Such as set up a Satanic display in a public library or not? Or set up a nativity scene in the public library or not?

WE live in a DEMOCRACY and the MAJORITY rule according to the Constitution. There is nothing in the Constitution which declares the minority has the right to trample on the rights of the majority.

WE also pay TAXES which are supporting the library and anything in it. In other words, it is OUR MONEY.

The poor put-on minority will just have to put up with what the MAJORITY decides to do. That's how it works. That's the breaks.

 

[MissileMan]

So, in your opinion, what things should be allowed under this "free exercise" that aren't allowed now? Do you think it's an absolute right, or are there restrictions on how far someone can take it?

*bump*

Anyone gonna take a shot at answering this?

 

[dilloduck]

*bump*

Anyone gonna take a shot at answering this?

I could but it wouldn't make much difference. I would expect it all to be decided on a case by case basis. Public money is spent on Mexican Indepedence Day in Texas. Since I'm not Mexican, should I be pissed?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

*bump*

Anyone gonna take a shot at answering this?

"Free" exercise of religion should be the same as "free" speech. There will always be some reasonable limits placed upon these freedoms which should be determined by the public and a majority vote if needed. Take the public library for instance. You are not allowed to talk and make noise in the library.