They can kiss my ass

[ScreamingEagle]

Well, after the ACLU was called "anti-christian", and after I provided numerous documented cases of ACLU in fact, defending the religious freedoms of christians, these are the only responses wingnutters could muster:

-"Who died and made the ACLU the God Squad?"

-"Communists are two-faced liars."

My work is done here, if this is the best wingnutters can respond with, after I debunked the allegation of ACLU not defending christians.

BTW: word to the wise: Just because you heard on the Rush Limbaugh show that ACLU doesn't defend christians, doesn't mean what Rush is telling you is true

The truth is ACLU has a long history of defending EVERYONE'S civil liberties and religious freedoms. They've teamed up with Jerry Falwell and Rush Limbaugh, to defend those Cons in legal cases.

If you go to the Libertarian Party websites, you'll see that Libertarians (hardly commies or liberals) support about 80% of what ACLU does, and they have very kind words for

I see you're another drinker of the ACLU KoolAid. Read and learn:

The Top Ten Myths of the ACLU:

10. MYTH: The ACLU is non-partisan:

The Truth: Not only were they founded on Communism, they are about as liberal an organization in existence. The public saw first hand in 1988 how the ACLU was involved in politics. The portrayal of the ACLU as a radical liberal lobby reached its climax in the 1988 presidential campaign when George Bush used ACLU membership as a black mark against his opponent Michael Dukakis. The perception had taken root that the ACLU of 1988 has about as much to do with civil liberties as the AT&T of 1988 has to do with telegraphs.

Social reform, in a liberal direction, is the sine qua non of the ACLU. Its record, far from showing a momentary wavering from impartiality, is replete with attempts to reform American society according to the wisdom of liberalism. The truth of the matter is that the ACLU has always been a highly politicized organization.

They may take a token case here and there for the other side to bolster its non-partisan claims, but those cases are far outweighed by their numerous other cases that are clearly intended to further its partisan agenda. They even keep scorecards on Congressmen and Representatives. Their claim of non-partisanship is what gives them their tax-exempt status, and nothing is further from the truth. They have split their organization into two in order to lobby their causes to the legislative branch.

9. MYTH: The ACLU Cares About Your Privacy Rights:

The Truth: Despite all the rhetoric over the current NSA program, where the ACLU opposes the U.S. listening to traitor’s having conversations with terrorists, the ACLU has no room to talk when it comes to violating privacy.

The American Civil Liberties Union is using sophisticated technology to collect a wide variety of information about its members and donors in a fund-raising effort that has ignited a bitter debate over its leaders.

Some board members say the extensive data collection makes a mockery of the organization's frequent criticism of banks, corporations and government agencies for their practice of accumulating data on people for marketing and other purposes.

Daniel S. Lowman, vice president for analytical services at Grenzebach Glier & Associates, the data firm hired by the A.C.L.U., said the software the organization is using, Prospect Explorer, combs a broad range of publicly available data to compile a file with information like an individual's wealth, holdings in public corporations, other assets and philanthropic interests.

The issue has attracted the attention of the New York attorney general, who is looking into whether the group violated its promises to protect the privacy of its donors and members.

8. MYTH: It is a patriotic thing to support the ACLU.

The Truth: If you think the ACLU represents the average American values, then you are sadly misguided. Their absolutist views of liberty go far beyond what most people could ever support. They support the legalization of child porn distribution , and un-regulated prostitution. They are far from the traditional thoughts of patriotism, constantly defending Americas enemies, and fighting efforts of military recruiters.

7. MYTH: The ACLU Defends The Bill of Rights.

The Truth: The ACLU defends the parts of the Bill of Rights that are in line with its agenda. What about the second, ninth, and tenth amendment?

ACLU POLICY: "The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment [as set forth in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller] that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms." --Policy #47
http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/14523res20020304.html

And they certainly don’t believe in States rights, constantly attempting to override the will of the people via the judicial branch.

6. MYTH: The ACLU Defends Religious Liberty

The Truth: The ACLU claims to be the great defender of liberty, but the truth is that their definition of liberty is limited to what aligns within their agenda. As a matter of fact, the ACLU is the foremost religious censor in America. Despite the fact that this nation was founded upon the ideals of religious freedom, the ACLU has succeeded in manipulating the very founding principles through the corrupted judicial branch to repress the religious expression of America, and continues to work daily at erasing our National religious heritage from the pages of history.
details: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46454

A partial list of threats that all Christians face due to ACLU actions:

--Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth – so help you God? In many courtrooms, this is no longer permissible.
--One Nation, Under God phrase already been taken out of our nation’s Pledge of Allegiance.
--In God We Trust may possibly be taken off of our coins and bills.
--The ACLU believes Moments of Silence are offensive and should be stopped.
--School prayer in public schools will come to a halt.
--The ACLU has taken the history of Christianity and such monuments as the Ten Commandments down from our most historic buildings in our great cities.
--Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas? Christmas will soon be nothing more to this country than a day off of work for all Americans. No more Christmas parties, no more Christmas Joy, no more Christmas spirit.
--Santa Claus (Saint Nic) will be taken out of the Christmas season all together.
--Nativity scenes and plays may vanish from all public celebrations and festivities.
--Many Universities will no longer display Christmas Trees around campus because of actions the ACLU

5. MYTH: The ACLU’s Slogan of “Keep America Safe and Free”:

The Truth: What a joke! When 9-11 occurred what measures did the ACLU take to ensure our safety? None, zip, nada. This organization has done nothing to ensure our safety, in fact it has chosen to sue our government on behalf of terrorists outside of their legal jurisdiction while they were located in prisons on foreign soil.

They have since then demanded that the government release and make public top secret security information regarding not only the activities of our military, but also that of our intelligence forces. They have also initiated one lawsuit after another against the government to stop the searching of individuals for security purposes in mass transit situations, to stop what they call profiling (we will never see a Protestant white middle-aged woman as a terrorist working with an extremist Islamic organization) by race, sex and religion, and to stop the government from detaining and questioning or interrogating individuals who have ties or contact with known terrorist individuals and organizations.

They say they are for a safe and free America. Yet their actions speak very loudly the opposite of the lip service they give in this banner for a safe America.

4. MYTH: They Defend the Oppressed and Helpless:

The Truth: If you count terrorists, child molesters, and murderers as oppressed and helpless, then you may think this one is true. The truly defenseless are the very children being harmed by these perverts the ACLU defend. The ACLU doesn’t believe children have any rights, unless it is to murder their own children without their parents ever knowing.

3. MYTH: The word “American” in their name truly reflects what they are:

They are constantly stepping outside the bounds of America, reaching out to help the very enemy. They fight every effort by our government to protect us, and sue them every chance we get. For the ACLU, the mighty checkbook takes precedence over America’s security, and many think they are rooting for the enemy. It isn’t hard to believe when they try to get admitted terrorists off the hook.

2. MYTH: The ACLU Was Founded On Noble Intentions:

The Truth: One of the great myths of the 20th - and now 21st - century is the belief that the American Civil Liberties Union was an organization that had a noble beginning, but somehow strayed off course.

That myth is untrue. The ACLU set a course to destroy America – her freedom and her values - right from the start.

From its very beginning, the ACLU had strong socialist and communist ties. As early as 1931, the U.S. Congress was alarmed by the ACLU’s devotion to communism. A report by the Special House Committee to Investigate Communist Activities stated:

The American Civil Liberties Union is closely affiliated with the communist movement in the United States, and fully 90 percent of its efforts are on behalf of communists who have come into conflict with the law. It claims to stand for free speech, free press and free assembly, but it is quite apparent that the main function of the ACLU is an attempt to protect the communists.

Roger Baldwin and Crystal Eastman founded the ACLU in 1920 along with three other organizations dedicated to the most leftist of causes. The histories of these two individuals belie their claims of patriotism and respect for the Constitution.

Baldwin openly sought the utter destruction of American society. Fifteen years after the founding of the ACLU, Baldwin wrote:

I am for Socialism, disarmament and ultimately, for the abolishing of the State itself … I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal.

1. MYTH: The ACLU Does Not Collect Taxpayer’s Funds:

The Truth: The Civil Rights Act, intended to help poor people who could not afford to defend their rights, grants judges the right to award attorney’s fees in civil rights cases. The ACLU have turned this on its head, often using it to threaten small schools and local governments that can not afford to defend themselves from the ACLU.

Take it from a former ACLU Lawyer, Reese Llyod:

Stated Lloyd: “The ACLU has perverted, distorted and exploited the Civil Rights Act … to turn it into a lawyer-enrichment act.”

Lloyd says the American people are “oblivious” to how many millions of dollars in taxpayer funds are going to the ACLU each year.

The attorney pointed out many attorneys in cases brought by the ACLU are volunteers, so the fees the group is awarded normally do not go to reimburse an attorney but rather directly into the organization’s coffers.

http://stoptheaclu.com/archives/200...rsary-blogburst-top-ten-myths-about-the-aclu/

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Aww gee, did DCD log off?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

If its truly a private monument on private land with private dollars, then what the heck is the St. Bernard Council doing voting on it?


Oh, I know what they are doing, they're endorsing religion.

The St. Bernard Parish Council voted several months ago to erect a monument, but at the time did not offer specific plans. The parish recently announced plans to dedicate the memorial on Aug. 29, the one-year anniversary of the devastating hurricane.

Remember, this is the Parish that tried to keep black people out by making illegal to rent a house to a non family member.






And BTW, this is an article from 2006? I guess those Christians are slow to respond sometimes.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Not one of your cites says that the 2nd Amendment only applies to Organized government run militia. It says that is a REASON for ALL able bodied men to own, possess and know how to use weapons, in other words, an INDIVIDUAL right.


Do try again any time you feel the need. And actually have facts to support your claims.

As to the ACLU, I never called them anything. I suggest you reread the posts in this thread. The ACLU is biased and partisan. It does not give one good rats ass about the US constitution, EXCEPT for ITS interpretation of it. I responded to Truthdoesntmatters claim that the ACLU defends the Constitution, they do no such thing. Theyn defend THEIR interpretation of portions of the Bill of rights. And ignore the areas they do not support nor believe in.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Not one of your cites says that the 2nd Amendment only applies to Organized government run militia. It says that is a REASON for ALL able bodied men to own, possess and know how to use weapons, in other words, an INDIVIDUAL right.


Do try again any time you feel the need. And actually have facts to support your claims.

As to the ACLU, I never called them anything. I suggest you reread the posts in this thread. The ACLU is biased and partisan. It does not give one good rats ass about the US constitution, EXCEPT for ITS interpretation of it. I responded to Truthdoesntmatters claim that the ACLU defends the Constitution, they do no such thing. Theyn defend THEIR interpretation of portions of the Bill of rights. And ignore the areas they do not support nor believe in.

 

[Annie]

Not one of your cites says that the 2nd Amendment only applies to Organized government run militia. It says that is a REASON for ALL able bodied men to own, possess and know how to use weapons, in other words, an INDIVIDUAL right.


Do try again any time you feel the need. And actually have facts to support your claims.

As to the ACLU, I never called them anything. I suggest you reread the posts in this thread. The ACLU is biased and partisan. It does not give one good rats ass about the US constitution, EXCEPT for ITS interpretation of it. I responded to Truthdoesntmatters claim that the ACLU defends the Constitution, they do no such thing. Theyn defend THEIR interpretation of portions of the Bill of rights. And ignore the areas they do not support nor believe in.

I agree with you about the 2nd amendment. Also with great sadness, the ACLU as it's been for at least the past 15 years. I paid contributions to the ACLU from the time I was a junior in high school until about the age of 33. I agreed with their take on allowing the KKK to march in Skokie, with much regrets. From that point on, they went haywire in my opinion.

 

[DeadCanDance]

Not one of your cites says that the 2nd Amendment only applies to Organized government run militia. It says that is a REASON for ALL able bodied men to own, possess and know how to use weapons, in other words, an INDIVIDUAL right.


Do try again any time you feel the need. And actually have facts to support your claims.

As to the ACLU, I never called them anything. I suggest you reread the posts in this thread. The ACLU is biased and partisan. It does not give one good rats ass about the US constitution, EXCEPT for ITS interpretation of it. I responded to Truthdoesntmatters claim that the ACLU defends the Constitution, they do no such thing. Theyn defend THEIR interpretation of portions of the Bill of rights. And ignore the areas they do not support nor believe in.

"Most United States federal courts have interpreted the Second Amendment per the modified collective right model, not an individual right model[50], with two recent exceptions:

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


So, the ACLU is consistent with the consensus position of the courts. ACLU is in fact, neutral on second amendment. They don't take gun cases typically one way or the other, unless it involves 4th amendment grounds pertaining to property or privacy.



I honestly don't give a crap if you think the ACLU should adopt the minority position of the second amendment or not.

My contention was with the boneheads who claimed ACLU was a commie, anti-chrisitian organization. When, in fact, they aren't. As demonstrated by the fact that they defend every religion, and every persons civil rights pertaining to religion, speech, privacy, and right to assembly.

The Libertarian Party (hardly communists) agree with ACLU on virtually everything, except second amendment intepretation.

 

[Truthmatters]

http://people.howstuffworks.com/aclu.htm

This how stuff works article may be instructive.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

My contention was with the boneheads who claimed ACLU was a commie, anti-chrisitian organization. When, in fact, they aren't. As demonstrated by the fact that they defend every religion, and every persons civil rights pertaining to religion, speech, privacy, and right to assembly.

The Libertarian Party (hardly communists) agree with ACLU on virtually everything, except second amendment intepretation.

I've already provided ample proof that the ACLU is a commie, anti-Christian organization.

IMO Libertarians today are playing a fool's game.

 

[mattskramer]

This issue is so subjective. There is no objective quantifiable way to prove whether or not the ACLU has an anti-Christian bias. In some cases is defends Christians and in some cases it opposes Christians. Perhaps is opposes Christians more often than it supports Christians. Even that would not prove that it has an anti-Christian bias. One would have to determine the merits of the cases. It may be that when a Christian party files a claim has low merit and when someone opposes a Christian’s position, perhaps the non-Christian’s case has more merit. Anyway, it is my opinion that the ACLU is neutral on the issue of Christianity. It is not pro-Christian. It is not anti-Christian. It is pro-civil-liberties.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

This issue is so subjective. There is no objective quantifiable way to prove whether or not the ACLU has an anti-Christian bias. In some cases is defends Christians and in some cases it opposes Christians. Perhaps is opposes Christians more often than it supports Christians. Even that would not prove that it has an anti-Christian bias. One would have to determine the merits of the cases. It may be that when a Christian party files a claim has low merit and when someone opposes a Christian’s position, perhaps the non-Christian’s case has more merit. Anyway, it is my opinion that the ACLU is neutral on the issue of Christianity. It is not pro-Christian. It is not anti-Christian. It is pro-civil-liberties.

So a couple dozen pro-Christian cases proves to you that the ACLU is pro-Christian? The ACLU handles about 6,000 lawsuits per year. Even ten dozen is a teensy tiny drop in the bucket.

And let's not forget about all those lawsuit threats which never actually reach the stage of a lawsuit because communities cannot afford to go up against the deep pockets of the ACLU and so back down.

Do you think "Winter Holiday" is replacing Christmas just out of the clear blue? Do you think schools and airports and civic centers are afraid to put up Christmas trees and nativity scenes because they no longer believe in Christmas? Of course not. They don't want to get sued. The "War on Christmas" is well known. Behind it is a methodical and dedicated subversive anti-Christian movement and the ACLU is right in the middle of it.

Another example. How about our college campuses - the boiling cauldrons of liberalism where Christians and conservatives are shut down due to speech codes and political correctness policies? Where are the self-proclaimed defenders of personal liberties? Where is your "pro-civil liberties" group? The ACLU is strangely silent. Most of these cases of free speech have been taken up by other groups such as FIRE.

Report Finds Rampant Censorship at American Colleges and Universities
December 6, 2006
FIRE Press Release

The report’s findings include:

Public colleges and universities are disregarding their constitutional obligations. More than 73% of public universities surveyed maintain unconstitutional speech codes, despite numerous federal court decisions striking down similar or identical policies.
http://www.thefire.org/index.php/article/7556.html

On campus: Free speech for you but not for me?
By Mary Beth Marklein, USA TODAY 11/3/2003

Most college presidents argue that their campuses and classrooms encourage the free exchange of ideas. Where else but here, they say, can difficult issues be debated?

But as campus officials look for ways to accommodate the growing diversity of their student bodies, an increasingly vocal number of students — most of them white and predominantly conservative or Christian — say there is little room for their opinions and beliefs.

On campuses large and small, public and private, students describe a culture in which freshmen are encouraged, if not required, to attend diversity programs that portray white males as oppressors. It's a culture in which students can be punished if their choice of words offends a classmate, and campus groups must promise they won't discriminate on the basis of religion or sexual orientation — even if theirs is a Christian club that doesn't condone homosexuality.

Colleges "seek to privilege one predominantly leftist point of view," says Thor Halvorssen of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), a Philadelphia-based non-profit founded four years ago. "Universities should welcome all perspectives, no matter where on the political spectrum."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-11-02-free-speech-cover_x.htm

And where was the ACLU in one of the biggest free-speech controversies in recent years - the Muhammed cartoons? Seems the ACLU was AWOL.

 

[Truthmatters]

The ACLU does nto defend a case for the defendants connections they defend the case for the constitutional implications.

They defend cases they believe will erode our civil freedoms if lost.

They defend You even though you hate them ,they dont care.

 

[DeadCanDance]

And where was the ACLU in one of the biggest free-speech controversies in recent years - the Muhammed cartoons? Seems the ACLU was AWOL.

Hey Dummy, that happened in Denmark. ACLU doesn't travel to Denmark to defend Danish civil liberties.

 

[DeadCanDance]

So a couple dozen pro-Christian cases proves to you that the ACLU is pro-Christian? The ACLU handles about 6,000 lawsuits per year. Even ten dozen is a teensy tiny drop in the bucket.

And let's not forget about all those lawsuit threats which never actually reach the stage of a lawsuit because communities cannot afford to go up against the deep pockets of the ACLU and so back down.

Do you think "Winter Holiday" is replacing Christmas just out of the clear blue? Do you think schools and airports and civic centers are afraid to put up Christmas trees and nativity scenes because they no longer believe in Christmas? Of course not. They don't want to get sued. The "War on Christmas" is well known. Behind it is a methodical and dedicated subversive anti-Christian movement and the ACLU is right in the middle of it.

Another example. How about our college campuses - the boiling cauldrons of liberalism where Christians and conservatives are shut down due to speech codes and political correctness policies? Where are the self-proclaimed defenders of personal liberties? Where is your "pro-civil liberties" group? The ACLU is strangely silent. Most of these cases of free speech have been taken up by other groups such as FIRE.





And where was the ACLU in one of the biggest free-speech controversies in recent years - the Muhammed cartoons? Seems the ACLU was AWOL.

So a couple dozen pro-Christian cases proves to you that the ACLU is pro-Christian? The ACLU handles about 6,000 lawsuits per year. Even ten dozen is a teensy tiny drop in the bucket.


In ACLU cases defending religious freeom, since the year 2000:

-There are 37 documented cases of ACLU defending christian religious freedoms.

-There are 16 cases of ACLU defending non-chrisitan religious freedoms.


In short, they've defended more than twice as many cases involving religious freedoms of christians, than for all other religions combined.

http://www.aclu.org/religion/govtfunding/26526res20060824.html


You gonna stop guzzling that Rush Limbaugh kool aid yet?

 

[hjmick]

They defend cases they believe will erode our civil freedoms if lost.

This is not all they do. The also file or threaten to file frivolous lawsuits against cities and counties and states across the country.

This statement, for whatever reason, stood out to me. Obviously this means I am going to pose a question or two. Before I ask my questions, let me preface them by reminding all participants that I am an Agnostic, with one good push I could join the ranks of Atheism. I do not believe in prayer in the classroom, among other things.

That being said, let me ask you this, how does forcing the county of Los Angeles to remove the cross from the county seal, the cross representing the role the Spanish Missions played in the founding of the area, protect our freedoms?

The beaded circle surrounding the shield in the seal of the city of Los Angeles represents a Rosary, honoring the part played by the Mission Padres in founding the city, should this also be removed?

How, exactly, does this sort of activity by the ACLU protect my freedoms?

One more question, the ACLU once defended NAMBLA, using the good old freedom of speech argument. Now, everybody here knows about NAMBLA and their abhorrent agenda, so tell me, how does defending an organization that advocates sex with young boys protect my freedoms?

Ultimately, I agree with the idea of the ACLU, but I have a hard time reconciling some of the issues they choose to take on.

 

[mattskramer]

So a couple dozen pro-Christian cases proves to you that the ACLU is pro-Christian? The ACLU handles about 6,000 lawsuits per year. Even ten dozen is a teensy tiny drop in the bucket.

Wake up, and read my post again. I said that in my opinion the ACLU is not pro-Christian or anti-Christian. It is neutral. After you realized that you put your foot in your mouth, see

http://www.aclu.org/religion/govtfunding/26526res20060824.html

It looks like it helped more than a couple dozen cases.

And let's not forget about all those lawsuit threats which never actually reach the stage of a lawsuit because communities cannot afford to go up against the deep pockets of the ACLU and so back down.

There are plenty of reactionary anti-ACLU pro-Christian law firms that will take cases pro-bono if they have merit. There are law firms like the ACLJ. It provides legal services at no cost to its clients.

http://www.aclj.org/About/

Now let’s look again at the ACLU. Here is something that it says:

Unfortunately, our resources are limited. We take cases that raise significant constitutional or civil liberties issues and which impact others in the same situation. We cannot take all cases offered us. The ACLU Foundation of Texas has limited resources and must concentrate them where they are most needed. We are unable to take many cases, even those concerning real injustices. If your complaint is not pursued by our office, it does not mean it is without merit.

Now, it stands to reason that there were some people who had issues - that had merit - but that the ACLU was not able to help.

 

[DeadCanDance]

This screaming eagle dude is doing the classic backpedal away from his original assertion, that the ACLU was anti-christian

In the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, he's changed his argument to they are not sufficiently pro-christian enough.

I agree with you. The actual record in court suggests they're neutral - they represent ALL religions, in religious freedom cases. As they should. In fact, since 2000, there are more documented cases of them representing chrisitans in religious freedom cases, than non-christians.

 

[DeadCanDance]

Screaming Eagle,

You said ACLU was anti-christian.

They have, in fact worked on dozens of cases in the last few years supporting the constitutional religious freedoms of Christians.

Now, maybe you wish they had worked on hundreds of cases defending Christians, instead of mere dozens. But, the fact is, like any organization, ACLU has limited resources and lawyers. And can’t always work on hundreds or thousands of Christian rights cases.

Now, this will be a good test for your honesty and credibility on this board:

Here are just two out of the many Christian rights cases ACLU worked on. Can you honestly read these and STILL assert the ACLU is ”anti-christian”

ACLU Support Students Right to Distribute Christian Literature at School

The Iowa Civil Liberties Union (2002) publicly supported a group of Christian students who filed a lawsuit against Davenport Schools asserting their right to distribute religious literature during non-instructional time. The ICLU filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the suit on behalf of the students.

www.aclu.org/studentsrights/religion/12811prs20020711.html

ACLU Defends Right of Nurse to Wear Her Cross at Work

The ACLU of Eastern Missouri (1999) secured a favorable settlement for a nurse, Miki M. Cain, who was fired for wearing a cross-shaped lapel pin on her uniform.

legalminds.lp.findlaw.com/list/news/msg00021.html

Your honesty is on the line here. Read, and respond please. Thanks.

 

[roadhouse158]

the American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana is reminding parish officials of the Constitution's separation of church and state.

Um...This is NO WHERE in the constitution....Seperation of Church and state is actually church doctrine. The actual amendment states as follows..."Congress shall make NO LAW respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the FREE EXERCISE thereof".
The Ten Commandments outside, inside, or beside a courthouse is not congress making a law. Neither is any other government property having anything to do with Jesus, the Bible, or Christianity. In actuality, the phrase separation of church and state is from a sermon intitled "The Garden and the Wilderness" which is a very popular sermon for Baptist...Someone found a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist that mentions this...Somehow people now think this is part of the constitution. It's not...Sorry...
How in Gods name this came to be mainstream Law today I have no idea...Oh yeah....Some judge who didn't believe in God somehow thinks "SHALL MAKE NO LAW" means throwing everything out of Government that has anything to do with Christianity.....All this talk about Unconstitutionality today, and the biggest example of it is this.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Hey Dummy, that happened in Denmark. ACLU doesn't travel to Denmark to defend Danish civil liberties.

Dhimmi yourself. Two editors at the University of Illinois were suspended for their decision to run the cartoons. The ACLU could have stepped in but of course didn't. The liberal media is just fine with offending Christians but stops when it comes to offending Muslims? Why did the ACLU not step up to the plate on one of the BIGGEST opportunities ever for supporting free speech rights? I mean, like, that's their big thing, right?

http://michellemalkin.com/2006/02/14/cartoon-jihad-in-illinois/

http://brutus1964.blogspot.com/2006/02/msm-show-abu-ghraib-photos-refuse-to.html

So a couple dozen pro-Christian cases proves to you that the ACLU is pro-Christian? The ACLU handles about 6,000 lawsuits per year. Even ten dozen is a teensy tiny drop in the bucket.


In ACLU cases defending religious freeom, since the year 2000:

-There are 37 documented cases of ACLU defending christian religious freedoms.

-There are 16 cases of ACLU defending non-chrisitan religious freedoms.

In short, they've defended more than twice as many cases involving religious freedoms of christians, than for all other religions combined.

http://www.aclu.org/religion/govtfun...s20060824.html

You gonna stop guzzling that Rush Limbaugh kool aid yet?

Try since the year 1994 according to your source. And all you could find in over TEN YEARS was 54 cases that you say the ACLU prosecuted in favor of religion? That's out of about 600,000 cases in the past ten years. Sheesh, that is hardly what I would call sufficient support for your ACLU "pro-religion" stance. And out of those 54 cases we can whittle that down to only a handful of cases that actually supported what I would call normal everyday Christians.

Let's take a closer look at those 54 religious cases that you found:

About 30 percent involved Muslims and Wiccans.
Almost 30 percent involved cases in prisons or "sidewalk" type cases.
Several involved the Amish/Mennonites/Jehovah Witnesses/Rastafarian
In the section cited as "Christian cases" 4 of those cases involved Muslims.
Only a tiny number of cases involved what I would call bonafide Christian concerns, i.e., not somebody in prison or preaching in the streets.

To top it off, in your list there are actually 5 cases with a definite bias against Christianity:
--the Pennsylvania case of parents who sued against Intelligent Design being taught in school
--the North Carolina case against the state which wanted to use Bible for swearings in
--the Texas case which objected to overtly Christian prayer over the school public address system before football games
--the Iowa case where two students didn't want the school choir to sing the Lords Prayer for graduation
--the Oregon case against Boy Scouts recruiting in school

You are going to have to do a whole lot better than this to prove that your precious ACLU is a "defender" of the Christian religion.

Wake up, and read my post again. I said that in my opinion the ACLU is not pro-Christian or anti-Christian. It is neutral. After you realized that you put your foot in your mouth, see

http://www.aclu.org/religion/govtfun...s20060824.html

It looks like it helped more than a couple dozen cases.

Helping normal Christians in maybe 10 cases over the past ten years while it attacks regular Christians constantly all over the country is being "neutral"? Yarn me another one.

There are plenty of reactionary anti-ACLU pro-Christian law firms that will take cases pro-bono if they have merit. There are law firms like the ACLJ. It provides legal services at no cost to its clients.

http://www.aclj.org/About/

Yes, the very fact that the ALCJ and others like FIRE came into existence supports my stance that the ACLU is anti-Christian. Obviously a serious need exists for Christians to be defended. Obviously the ACLU is certainly not handling it.

Now let’s look again at the ACLU. Here is something that it says:

Unfortunately, our resources are limited. We take cases that raise significant constitutional or civil liberties issues and which impact others in the same situation. We cannot take all cases offered us. The ACLU Foundation of Texas has limited resources and must concentrate them where they are most needed. We are unable to take many cases, even those concerning real injustices. If your complaint is not pursued by our office, it does not mean it is without merit.

Now, it stands to reason that there were some people who had issues - that had merit - but that the ACLU was not able to help.

I guess they consider defending Christians in prisons or preaching on sidewalks to be so significant in number that they must ignore the huge numbers who wish to express their faith through Christmas trees and nativity scenes, crosses on memorials, hang the Ten Commandments, or otherwise express their faith in public settings, etc. all of which, of course, the ACLU is against. /end sarcasm. I'm not going to buy your ridiculous reasoning especially since the ACLU gets paid out of our taxes by suing communities all over America.

This screaming eagle dude is doing the classic backpedal away from his original assertion, that the ACLU was anti-christian

In the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, he's changed his argument to they are not sufficiently pro-christian enough.

I agree with you. The actual record in court suggests they're neutral - they represent ALL religions, in religious freedom cases. As they should. In fact, since 2000, there are more documented cases of them representing chrisitans in religious freedom cases, than non-christians.

More like underwhelming evidence. (see previous) I am not backpedaling on my argument. I still firmly contend that the ACLU is anti-Christian.

Screaming Eagle,

You said ACLU was anti-christian.

They have, in fact worked on dozens of cases in the last few years supporting the constitutional religious freedoms of Christians.

Now, maybe you wish they had worked on hundreds of cases defending Christians, instead of mere dozens. But, the fact is, like any organization, ACLU has limited resources and lawyers. And can’t always work on hundreds or thousands of Christian rights cases.

Now, this will be a good test for your honesty and credibility on this board:

Here are just two out of the many Christian rights cases ACLU worked on. Can you honestly read these and STILL assert the ACLU is ”anti-christian”

Yes.

Do you really believe a communist/socialist-oriented organization is pro-Christian? You must be nuts.