The ACLU's anti-Religious Hypocrisy

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Stephanie, Apr 11, 2006.

  1. Stephanie
    Offline

    Stephanie Diamond Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2004
    Messages:
    70,236
    Thanks Received:
    10,817
    Trophy Points:
    2,040
    Ratings:
    +27,359
    April 10th, 2006



    For nearly a hundred years the crèche sat in front of the Balch Elementary School in South Norwood, Massachusetts. Then in 2004, Sarah Wunsch, attorney for the Massachusetts branch of the American Civil Liberties Union contended that the display depicting the birth of Jesus in a Bethlehem manger, violated separation of church and state. and its presence on the grounds of a public school sent a message that the schools endorse Christianity. ‘’Kids being driven to school or being dropped off see it and think it’s part of school,” she said.

    Eventually, the ACLU prevailed, the crèche was removed and relocated nearby to private land.

    In scores of similar cases, the ACLU and its 50 state affiliates relentlessly scan the horizon for perceived violations of the Establishment Clause of the Constitution. Supreme Court decisions on religious constitutional issues began in earnest in the late 1940’s, culminating in the landmark decision in the 1962 Engle v. Vitale decision in which the Court ruled that New York’s practice of beginning the school day with a prayer violated the first amendment.

    Recently, the ACLU has trumpeted its victories in “The Silver Ring Thing” case in which The Department of Health and Human Services was held in violation of the clause by providing “inherently religious activities” in its promotion of an “abstinence before marriage” program.

    Nor is the ACLU shy about broadcasting its role in eliminating “intelligent design” courses in Pennsylvania public schools. In hundreds of cases, the ACLU neither slumbers nor sleeps when it comes to pursuing miscreants who would subvert our Constitution. Thanks to their efforts, perhaps next year our currency will bear the inscription, “In Litigation We Trust.”

    Now imagine my surprise when I couldn’t find anyone – either at the Massachusetts ACLU or at its big brother in Washington – who had brought legal action, or who would even render an opinion, on the construction of a $22,000,000 religious structure on land virtually given away by the City of Boston and attendant religious instruction courses forced on a nearby state-funded college. How could such a monumental religious undertaking involving the obvious endorsement by government officials at every level escape the withering gaze of the watchdogs of the ACLU?

    It took only a few phone calls to find the answer. The religious structure and institution was neither a church nor a synagogue. It was a mosque. And not just another mosque. The Islamic Society of Boston’s mosque project will be the largest on the East Coast of the United States and will be funded primarily through Middle Eastern money.

    Not content with support pledged by Wahhabist Saudi Arabia, the ISB sought to purchase the city-owned land at a bargain basement price. And did they ever succeed. The City of Boston obliged the group by selling its 1.9 acre site valued at $2,000,000 for $175,000. Boldly compounding the scam, the City agreed to receive further in-kind payment from the ISB in the form of an Islamic Library and courses in Islamic instruction at a state facility, Roxbury Community College; not a $200 crèche or a menorah made of scrap tubing, but a multi-million dollar enterprise based on defrauding taxpayers and establishing ongoing indoctrination courses on the glories of Islam.

    Not only did this enterprise represent “inherent religious activity”, but it went far beyond the ACLU’s floor for triggering action by involving explicit and manifold religious activity.

    If, as de Rochefoucault had it, “Hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue”, the ACLU has to be first in line at that altar. Carol Rose, Director of the Massachusetts ACLU, told me in 2004, in response to a private lawsuit brought by an individual based on violation of the Establishment Clause, that her organization favored the ISB’s position insofar as the lawsuit “violated that organization’s right of free speech.”

    After I put my dropped jaw back into place, I suggested that a $22,000,000 mosque built on giveaway city land along with taxpayer funded Islamic indoctrination amounted to a textbook case of Establishment Clause transgression and made the crèche case look like a minor infraction. At that point she terminated the conversation.

    Fast forward to March of this year. Major news stories, local and national, are now breaking revealing even more skullduggery at the Boston Redevelopment Authority and the Islamic Society of Boston. It seems that the Deputy Director of the BRA, a Mr. Muhammed Ali-Salaam, a former official at Louis Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam and member of the ISB, traveled to the Middle East in search of more money for the mosque project. Shortly thereafter, the ISB coincidentally presented a check for $10,000 to Roxbury Community College. The story appeared on the front page of the Boston Globe on March 4th.

    In the meantime the ISB has fired off a defamation lawsuit at the hounds nipping at its feet, naming The David Project, a Boston based group that seeks to promote a fair and honest discussion of the Arab-Israeli conflict, The Boston Herald, which first broke the story back in 2003, Steven Emerson, the intrepid Director of The Investigative Project, Fox News, Citizens for Peace and Tolerance and a number of individuals having the temerity to question the secret goings-on at the ISB.

    Oh yes, add to the plot the fact that one of the founders of the ISB, Abdul Rachman Alamoudi is doing a stretch in a federal prison for receiving cash from the Libyan mission to the United Nations, failing to disclose numerous trips to Libya and conspiring in a political assassination. He has also expressed his support for Hamas, along with Hezbollah and other terrorist organizations.

    Enter a former trustee of the ISB, Dr. Walid Fitaihi, proud author of an article in an Arabic language newspaper that labeled Jews “murderers of prophets” and claimed that Jews “would be punished for their oppression, murder and rape of the worshippers of Allah.” Incidentally, Fitaihi was one of the co-signers of the alleged fraudulent land conveyance between the ISB and the Boston Redevelopment Authority.

    With all this sunlight bursting through the shutters at the Mayor’s office and at the ISB, mirabile dictu – the ISB decided to suspend its lawsuit (but not to drop it). You’d think by now the ACLU would have registered something on its screen. But as far as their gaze extended, darkness was plainly visible.

    How has Ms. Rose and the ACLU reacted to all this inconvenient news? Asked about it recently, she replied, “I don’t know about the issue and no one in this office is going to investigate it.” Jaw drop #2…Pressed further she added, “This is not on our radar screen.” Raising her voice, Ms. Rose was clearly annoyed at any question dealing with the case and again terminated the conversation.

    Jeremy Gunn, ACLU’s National Director of the stealthily named, “Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief”, was not aware of the ISB issue, but promised to “put it on his radar screen.” Don’t hold your electrons.

    Remember the old saw about who’s a conservative? A liberal who’s been mugged. The ACLU could be the first case of a self-inflicted mugging.

    And all the while, the mosque rises ever higher against the Boston skyline.
    http://www.americanthinker.com/articles_print.php?article_id=5401

    Look below at who is involved with the ISB
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. LOki
    Offline

    LOki The Yaweh of Mischief

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2006
    Messages:
    4,020
    Thanks Received:
    350
    Trophy Points:
    85
    Ratings:
    +585
    Government sponsorship of patently Christian (or other religious) imagery is placing that Christianity (or other religion) a firm basis with a favorable position to gain full recognition, or acceptance, of that Christianity (or other religion) as the government's implicitly endorsed religion. Since governemnt spending is established by law, laws that provide for the promotion of Christianity (or other religion) via the sponsorship of Christian (or other religious) imagery in public buildings is unconstitutional.

    Yet the religious republican right so often insists this is not the case to the point where other religion must be granted equal time in the public eye to satisfy non-establishment. It's clear to me that this railing against the ACLU's non-start on the ISB business is also hypocracy.

    Intelligent design is obviously religion and certainly not science, thus has no business in science classes, and being religion, has no place in public schools.

    None of this, of course meant to refute the assertion that the ACLU is constitutionally hypocritical--you need not the convoluted 1st Amendment rationalizations the article describes to see the ACLU's hypocracy when you check their position on the 2nd Amendment.
     
  3. Bullypulpit
    Offline

    Bullypulpit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2004
    Messages:
    5,849
    Thanks Received:
    378
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    Ratings:
    +379
    <center><a href=http://www.aclu.org/religion/govtfunding/22354prs20051206.html>ACLU of Michigan Defends Catholic Man Coerced to Convert to Pentecostal Faith in Drug Rehab Program</a></center>

    <center><a href=http://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/20174prs20050920.html>ACLU of New Jersey Joins Lawsuit Supporting Second-Grader's Right to Sing "Awesome God" at Talent Show</a></center>

    <center><a href=http://www.aclu.org/religion/gen/16374prs20041222.html>ACLU of New Jersey Successfully Defends Right of Religious Expression by Jurors </a></center>

    <center><a href=http://www.aclu.org/religion/frb/16347prs20040811.html>ACLU of Nebraska Defends Church Facing Eviction by the City of Lincoln</a></center>

    If it weren't for the ACLU, freedom of religion would be a pipe dream in this country.
     
  4. Hobbit
    Offline

    Hobbit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    5,099
    Thanks Received:
    420
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Near Atlanta, GA
    Ratings:
    +421
    Bullshit. The ACLU has done more to squelch freedom of religion in favor of freedom from religion than any other organization. They just take up one case a year that they know doesn't matter in order to appear even-handed. That's what, four cases of them defending a religious entity in a decidedly onesided case compared to the hundreds of frivilous lawsuits that do nothing but quash attempts to *gasp* show their religion publicly?
     
  5. Bonnie
    Offline

    Bonnie Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2004
    Messages:
    9,476
    Thanks Received:
    668
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Wherever
    Ratings:
    +669
    Actually I think Christians and other religions would be doing quite well in this country without the hinderance... I mean "help" of the ACLU :laugh:
     
  6. Abbey Normal
    Offline

    Abbey Normal Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2005
    Messages:
    4,825
    Thanks Received:
    391
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Mid-Atlantic region
    Ratings:
    +391
    The ACLU's selective wielding of the First Amendment as an anti-Christian weapon cannot help but be revealed as hypocritical. As Hobbit noted, bringing a few inconsequential lawsuits that appear to give a pro-Christian balance, isn't fooling anyone.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  7. CrimsonWhite
    Offline

    CrimsonWhite *****istrator Emeritus Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2006
    Messages:
    7,978
    Thanks Received:
    1,755
    Trophy Points:
    123
    Location:
    Guntucky
    Ratings:
    +1,757
    ACLU needs to change name to ASCLU. American Selective Civil Liberties Union. Religion is a civil liberty, yet the ACLU does little to protect it. The right to bear arms is a civil liberty, yet when was the last time you saw the ACLU sue to protect this right. If the ACLU is going to be selective, then th efederal government should be more selective about how money is allocated to them.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  8. LOki
    Offline

    LOki The Yaweh of Mischief

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2006
    Messages:
    4,020
    Thanks Received:
    350
    Trophy Points:
    85
    Ratings:
    +585
    Probably true. We'd likely be well over-run by the militant "this is a Christian Nation, created by Christians, for Christians, on Christian principles" crowd if not for their efforts.

    Nonsense. The ACLU has made not one effort at squelching anyone's practice of religion, except for those who would practice and force their religion upon others via government instruments.

    Oh? "...hundreds of frivilous lawsuits...", eh? Sounds like bullshit. There are no doubt, hundreds of lawsuits filed against the religiously zealous, but I'll bet you'd be hard pressed to demonstrate they are all frivilous--feel free to do so though, because there's nothing I like better than bashing in the ACLU's teeth on legitimate grounds.

    Oh, I think not. I think other religions would fare just as well as other religions fare in Muslim countries. Christians are not particularly tolerant of other religions if the crusades, witch-hunts, and the inquisition are any indication.

    As if the ACLU needs to be pro-Christian to protect religious freedom--it need only be pro-freedom, and I think one can argue that it's not.

    Truth.

    Not truth. Despite the assertion of Hobbit, freedom of religion includes freedom from religion--the religion(s) of others--and protecting that freedom is protecting freedom of religion.
     
  9. Hobbit
    Offline

    Hobbit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    5,099
    Thanks Received:
    420
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Near Atlanta, GA
    Ratings:
    +421
    Bullshit. Freedom from religion is just a cute way of saying government endorsement of secularism and atheism. Despite what people may think, religion isn't just some outfit that I can put on and take off whenever it's convenient. It can't just be confined to the church because it's a way of life. However, we are repeatedly told we MUST accept the gay lifestyle and allow them to parade on whatever public area they want, while the Christian lifestyle must be confined to private property that can't be seen from public property and to churches. Freedom from religion is tyranny. All the first ammendment has to say is that congress cannot endorse a religion nor prohibit the free exercise thereof. Isn't allowing Ramadam, Hannakuh, and Kwanzaa displays, but not Christmas displays inhibiting the free practice of religion? Isn't forbidding religious text or clothing from being seen in schools inhibiting the free practice of religion? And is having a nativity scene on display at a public library at the behest of the voters in a prodominantly Christian town the equivalent of Congress endorsing a religion?

    Think about what you're saying here. It's nuts! In fact, when the Constitution was written, it was, first off, recorded as being written in the year of our Lord 1787 and second off did...NOT...end the practice of individual states having a state enforced religion.
     
  10. LOki
    Offline

    LOki The Yaweh of Mischief

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2006
    Messages:
    4,020
    Thanks Received:
    350
    Trophy Points:
    85
    Ratings:
    +585
    Bullshit. Protecting Christians, pagans, jews, and atheists from the Muslim religion is what freedom from religion means. Protecting pagans, jews, atheists and muslims from Christians is what freedom from religion means. It does not mean government endorsement of secularism, it mean governmental secularism, which is what the 1st amendment asserts, and was the clear intent if those who ratified it.

    Which is prescisely why the government is prohibited from endorsing or promoting or placing on firm basis with a favorable position to gain full recognition, or acceptance, any religion--including (and most importantly) that very religion held by the majority of the electorate.

    Bullshit. This is not about gays, as "gay" is not a religion. Nor do you have to accept the gay lifestyle--no-one is holding a gun to your head making you date George Michael.

    And no-one, and I mean no-one, is preventing you from praying in public or reading scripture in public, or having your church league softball championship game on public property. All that is being prevented is the government creating policy regarding a religion, or on the basis of a religion.

    Yet, based upon the bullshit Christian principles (the ones that peaked during the inquisition) alone, the Christians in this country would have the government adopt these principles in abrogating the rights of persons not being Christian--and then claim that preventing them from crushing the religion of others is abrogation of their right to freedom of religion.

    Bullshit. Freedom from religion is freedom. Governmental endorsement of Christianity (or other religion) is tyranny.

    Yes. I'm not endorsing the notion that Ramadam, Hannakuh, and Kwanzaa displays should be sponsored by the governemnt either. The only reason you see them is becuase the Christians refuse to pull their crap out of the government sponsorship business, so those other religions then must get equal time in government sponsorship to avoid accusations of establishment.

    Not neccessarily--but it could be.

    Yes. That religion would be Christianity, BTW.

    Exactly what is it I said in the previous post that was "nuts"? Specific example please. Demonstrate "nuts".

    Irrelevant.

    Mostly because the statement "year of our Lord" is irrelevant to the issue.
     

Share This Page