They can kiss my ass

[ScreamingEagle]

Gotta love them southerners...

ACLU wants parish to forget cross

Sunday, August 06, 2006
By Karen Turni Bazile

Alarmed by newspaper reports that a hurricane memorial in St. Bernard Parish will feature a cross bearing a likeness of the face of Jesus, the American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana is reminding parish officials of the Constitution's separation of church and state.

Never one to back down, Parish President Henry "Junior" Rodriguez has a simple reply: "They can kiss my ass."

In a July 28 letter to Rodriguez and other officials, Louisiana ACLU Executive Director Joe Cook said that the government promotion of a patently religious symbol on a public waterway is a violation of the Constitution's First Amendment, which prohibits government from advancing a religion.


Rodriguez did not say whether he has responded to Cook's letter, but in an interview, he said he sees nothing improper about the memorial, which will be mounted near the shoreline of the Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet at Shell Beach. The cross and accompanying monument listing the names of the 129 parish residents who died in Hurricane Katrina are earmarked for what the parish says is private land and are being financed with donations, Rodriguez said.

Nonetheless, Cook asked the parish to erect a religiously neutral symbol and also voiced concern that the Parish Council was sanctioning a religious monument.

Returning Rodriguez's volley, Cook added, "It would be better if he would kiss the Constitution and honor it and honor the First Amendment."

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.

The cross is being designed and fabricated by Vincent LaBruzzo, a welder and fabricator from Arabi. The stainless-steel cross will be 13 feet tall and 7 feet wide and will be lighted, according to a note on the parish's Web site, www.sbpg.net

LaBruzzo worked for the parish before recently taking a job with Unified Recovery Group, the company clearing the parish's storm debris. Rodriguez said he helped LaBruzzo get the job with URG. LaBruzzo did not return phone messages seeking comment.

Rodriguez and others like the idea of putting the monument along the banks of the MRGO, because that waterway, dug by the federal government as a shipping shortcut in the 1960s, is widely blamed in the parish for accelerating the deadly flooding that accompanied Katrina. Over the years erosion has widened the outlet, so the bank on which the cross will be erected is on privately owned land, Rodriguez said. He added that the parish is researching who owns the land on which the stone monument bearing the names of the victims will sit, but he thinks that it is also privately owned.

Parish Councilman Tony "Ricky" Melerine and Charlie Reppel, Rodriguez's chief of staff, said they are co-chairing the memorial committee on their private time.

"The memorial is being coordinated by a group of volunteers on their own time, and no public money is going to the project that will be on private land," Reppel said. "The committee members are all volunteers, including me. We are putting in a lot of unpaid overtime."

Other committee members include St. Bernard Sheriff's Office Chief Deputy Anthony Fernandez Jr.; St. Bernard Tourism Director Elizabeth "Gidget" McDougall; former Parish President Charles Ponstein, who is working with a state agency on local business retention; Lorrie Allen, Reppel's assistant; and LaBruzzo.

As for the parish's statements that the memorial is being done outside government's auspices, Cook seems unconvinced.

While the ACLU thinks a memorial to the storm and its victims is "clearly appropriate," Cook said, St. Bernard's is "still all very questionable. I think there is official government involvement with the endorsement and advancement of this clearly religious symbol."

http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/metro/index.ssf?/base/news-16/1154844074102520.xml&coll=1

 

[Truthmatters]

"The memorial is being coordinated by a group of volunteers on their own time, and no public money is going to the project that will be on private land," Reppel said. "The committee members are all volunteers, including me. We are putting in a lot of unpaid overtime."


Then they should have no problem and will errecting what they want.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

"The memorial is being coordinated by a group of volunteers on their own time, and no public money is going to the project that will be on private land," Reppel said. "The committee members are all volunteers, including me. We are putting in a lot of unpaid overtime."

Then they should have no problem and will errecting what they want.

Yet the ACLU representative still has his big fat friggin nose in it...who the hell named him supervisor?

As for the parish's statements that the memorial is being done outside government's auspices, Cook seems unconvinced.

While the ACLU thinks a memorial to the storm and its victims is "clearly appropriate," Cook said, St. Bernard's is "still all very questionable. I think there is official government involvement with the endorsement and advancement of this clearly religious symbol."

 

[DeadCanDance]

Another rant from you about the alleged anti-christian bias of ACLU?


Here are just some of the cases ACLU took on, to defend the religious freedoms of christians. They even teamed up with JERRY FALWELL on one case. The ACLU defends everyone's constitutional rights and freedom of religion, regardless of what Sean Hannity instructed you to think:

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

DES MOINES--The Iowa Civil Liberties Union today announced that it is publicly supporting the Christian students who recently filed a lawsuit against the Davenport Schools asserting the right to distribute religious literature during non-instructional time.

"The school's policy against the distribution of religious literature outside of class is clearly wrong," said Ben Stone, Executive Director of the ICLU. "Not only does the policy violate the students' right to freely exercise their religious beliefs, but it also infringes on their free speech rights," he said.
.
"The First Amendment says the government can't restrict the right of people to practice their personal religious beliefs, while at the same time it forbids the government from endorsing religious beliefs, especially in a school setting," said Stone.

http://www.aclu.org/studentsrights/r...s20020711.html

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

DETROIT - The American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan today announced an out-of-court settlement between the Utica Community School District and a local student over the censorship of her 2001 yearbook entry. The student's entry had been deleted from the yearbook because it contained a passage from the Bible.

"While it is true that the Constitution forbids public schools to promote religion, schools must be careful not to suppress the private religious expression of students," said ACLU of Michigan Legal Director Michael J. Steinberg, who represented the student. "In this case, a high school purported to create an open forum for student expression, yet censored a student's speech because it was religious in nature.

http://www.aclu.org/studentsrights/e...s20040511.html

The ACLU of Virginia (2002) joined the Rev. Jerry Falwell in winning a lawsuit arguing the Virginia Constitution's provision that bans religious organizations from incorporating is unconstitutional.

www.aclu.org/religion/frb/16040prs20020417.html

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

The ACLU of Massachusetts (2002) filed a brief supporting the right of the Church of the Good News to run ads criticizing the secularization of Christmas and promoting Christianity as the "one true religion" after the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority refused to allow the paid advertisements to be posted and to sell additional advertising space to the church.

www.aclu.org/freespeech/gen/10925prs20020108.html

The ACLU of Michigan (beginning in 2001) represented Abby Moler, a student at Sterling Heights Stevenson High School, whose yearbook entry was deleted because of its religious content

. www.freep.com/cgi-bin/forms/printerfriendly.pl; www.aclu.org/studentsrights/expression/12845prs20040511.html

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

The ACLU of Virginia (1997-1999) represented Rita Warren and her mission to erect a crèche on Fairfax County government space that had been set aside as a public forum. The ACLU argued restricting the use of the public forum to county residents only was an unreasonable restriction. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the ACLU.

www.providence.edu/polisci/cammarano/article-Masters.htm; www.catholicherald.com/eddesk/97ed/ed971211.htm

Iowa affiliate of the ACLU (1995) represented and vindicated the free speech and religious expression of a conservative Christian activist, Elaine Jaquith of Waterloo, who had been denied access to broadcast her message on public television. www.aclu.org/studentsrights/expression/12852prs20050429.html

The ACLU of Vermont (1994-95) represented evangelical Christians Freda and Perry Hollyer, who were denied Medicaid and food stamp benefits because they refused to obtain social security numbers for their children. The Hollyers believed that obtaining social security numbers for their children ran contrary to their understanding of the Book of Revelations. The ACLU appealed the denial to the state's Human Services Board. The Board ruled in favor of the Hollyers holding that the state's legitimate interests in preventing fraud could be achieved without use of a social security number. The Board's ruling is on file with the ACLU's Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief.

The ACLU of Utah (1990s) represented an evangelical Christian ministry that had been evicted and denied future access as a vendor at a state fair because fair-goers objected to the religious content of the message. www.acluutah.org/01report.htm

The ACLU of Oregon (2004-05) filed suit on behalf of high school basketball players from an Adventist school against the Oregon School Activities Association, which administers competitive athletic and artistic competitions in Oregon high schools. The ACLU argued that the Adventist basketball players who have made it to the state tournament should not be required to play tournament games on Saturday, their Sabbath. The case, argued in Oregon courts, is Nakashima v. Board Of Education.
www.aclu-or.org/litigation/portlandadventacademy/PAA.html

RHODE ISLAND ACLU FILES APPEAL ON BEHALF OF INMATE BARRED FROM PREACHING AT CHRISTIAN SERVICES

The Rhode Island ACLU has filed an appeal in federal court on behalf of an ACI inmate who has been barred from preaching during Christian religious services at the state prison. The plaintiff, Wesley Spratt, had been preaching at ACI services for seven years before he was unilaterally stopped from doing so based on vague and generalized “security” concerns. The appeal, filed by ACLU volunteer attorney Carly Beauvais Iafrate, argues that the preaching ban violates a federal law designed to protect the religious freedom of institutionalized persons.

Spratt, who considers his preaching a “calling” from God, had been preaching at religious services on a weekly basis under the supervision, and with the support, of clergy at the ACI. The DOC provided no evidence of security problems during, or as the result of, his supervised preaching during the seven years he had been doing so. Nonetheless, when a new warden took over the maximum security facility in 2003, Spratt was ordered to stop preaching.....snip

ACLU attorney Iafrate said today: “RLUIPA is an important federal law that was designed to protect the religious freedom of people like Wesley Spratt. That law is undermined if courts give uncritical deference to prison officials in denying inmates the right to practice their religion.”

http://www.riaclu.org/20060111.html

ACLU of Louisiana Files Lawsuit to Protect Free Speech Rights of Christian Protestor

NATCHITOCHES, LA -- Today the American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana filed a lawsuit on behalf of a lone protestor who was denied his free expression rights by the city of Natchitoches. Edwin Crayton, a devout Christian, sought to stand in front of Wal-Mart in Natchitoches with a sign protesting the corporation’s alleged position on gay marriage.

http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/protest/27266prs20061027.html

The ACLU of Nevada (2005) defended the free exercise rights and free speech rights of evangelical Christians to preach on the sidewalks of the Strip in Las Vegas.

www.kvbc.com/Global/story.asp?S=3379553&nav=15MVaB2T

The ACLU of New Jersey (2005) filed a a motion to submit a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of Olivia Turton, a second-grade student who was forbidden from singing "Awesome God" in a voluntary, after-school talent show.

The only restriction on the student's selection for the talent show was that it be "G-rated." The case, filed in federal court, is Turton, et al. v. Frenchtown Elementary School, et al.

www.aclu.org/religion/schools/20174prs20050920.html

The ACLU of Louisiana (2005) filed suit against the Department of Corrections on behalf of a Mormon inmate, Norman Sanders, who was denied the right to practice his religion by being denied access to religious texts, including The Book of Mormon, and Mormon religious services. "Mormons should receive the same accommodation of their beliefs as do individuals of other faiths," said Joe Cook, Executive Director, ACLU of Louisiana. "Fair and equal treatment means they deserve the right to a place to meet, have a minister and discuss their beliefs like other groups."

www.laaclu.org/SandersvCain;

The ACLU of Oregon (2004-05) filed suit on behalf of high school basketball players from an Adventist school against the Oregon School Activities Association, which administers competitive athletic and artistic competitions in Oregon high schools. The ACLU argued that the Adventist basketball players who have made it to the state tournament should not be required to play tournament games on Saturday, their Sabbath. The case, argued in Oregon courts, is Nakashima v. Board Of Education.

www.aclu-or.org/litigation/portlandadventacademy/PAA.html

The ACLU of Nevada (2004) represented a Mormon high school student, Kim Jacobs, who school authorities suspended and then attempted to expel for not complying with the school dress code and wearing T-shirts with religious messages. Jacobs won a preliminary victory in court where the judge ruled the school could not expel her for not complying with the dress code. The First Amendment issue of student expression is before the Ninth Circuit.

www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/text/2004/sep/09/517482854.html; www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/sun/2004/nov/19/517853141.html

The ACLU of Washington (2004) reached a favorable settlement on behalf of Donald Ausderau, a Christian minister, who wanted to preach to the public on Plaza sidewalks.

www.aclu-wa.org/detail.cfm?id=57

The ACLU of Virginia (2004) interceded with local authorities on behalf of Baptist preachers who were refused permission to perform baptisms in the river in Falmouth Waterside Park in Stafford County.

www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A16839-2004Jun4; www.aclu.org/religion/discrim/16230prs20040603.html

The ACLU of Massachusetts (2003) intervened on behalf of a group of students at Westfield High School who were suspended for distributing candy canes and a religious message in school. The ACLU succeeded in having the suspensions revoked and filed an amicus brief in a lawsuit brought on behalf of the students against the school district. Students who were suspended include Daniel S. Souza, Stephen J. Grabowski, Sharon L. Sitler and Paul Sitler.

www.aclu.org/studentsrights/expression/12828prs20030221.html

 

[dilloduck]

Another rant from you about the alleged anti-christian bias of ACLU?


Here are just some of the cases ACLU took on, to defend the religious freedoms of christians. They even teamed up with JERRY FALWELL on one case. The ACLU defends everyone's constitutional rights and freedom of religion, regardless of what Sean Hannity instructed you to think:

Who died and made the ACLU the God Squad?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Another rant from you about the alleged anti-christian bias of ACLU?


Here are just some of the cases ACLU took on, to defend the religious freedoms of christians. They even teamed up with JERRY FALWELL on one case. The ACLU defends everyone's constitutional rights and freedom of religion, regardless of what Sean Hannity instructed you to think:

Communists are two-faced liars.

 

[DeadCanDance]

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 ACLU

 

[Truthmatters]

American Civil Liberties Union

It seems defending the constitution is out of fashion with some.

It never will be with me.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

American Civil Liberties Union

It seems defending the constitution is out of fashion with some.

It never will be with me.

They do NOT defend the Constitution. They pick and chose what to defend. Name the last time they defended the 2nd amendment.

 

[DeadCanDance]

They do NOT defend the Constitution. They pick and chose what to defend. Name the last time they defended the 2nd amendment.

The Second Amendment already HAS an enormously powerful legal defender: NRA. That's all they do. They don't do anything to defend the rest of the bill of rights.

ACLU never pretended to make the second amendment their mission. They're totally upfront and honest about that. Here's their mission statement:

The mission of the ACLU is to preserve all of these protections and guarantees:

* Your First Amendment rights-freedom of speech, association and assembly. Freedom of the press, and freedom of religion supported by the strict separation of church and state.
* Your right toequal protection under the law - equal treatment regardless of race, sex, religion or national origin.
* Your right to due process - fair treatment by the government whenever the loss of your liberty or property is at stake.
* Your right to privacy - freedom from unwarranted government intrusion into your personal and private affairs.

They do freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of association and assembly, right to due process, and right to privacy.

NRA does guns.

That's fair.

I"m glad you now agree and recognize now that ACLU is totally consistent, and defends EVERYONE'S rights, when it comes to religion, freedom speech, equal protection, due process, and right to privacy.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The Second Amendment already HAS an enormously powerful legal defender: NRA. That's all they do. They don't do anything to defend the rest of the bill of rights.

ACLU never pretended to make the second amendment their mission. They're totally upfront and honest about that. Here's their mission statement:





They do freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of association and assembly, right to due process, and right to privacy.

NRA does guns.

That's fair.

I"m glad you now agree and recognize now that ACLU is totally consistent, and defends EVERYONE'S rights, when it comes to religion, freedom speech, equal protection, due process, and right to privacy.

In other words Truthmatters claim that the ACLU defends the Constitution is nothing more than his usual hot air. As I responded to.

 

[Truthmatters]

http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/14523res20020304.html

they do defend it!

 

[dilloduck]

American Civil Liberties Union

It seems defending the constitution is out of fashion with some.

It never will be with me.

It might be OK if everyone agreed on what the Constitution says about religion. The ACLU acts as if it KNOWS the exact meaning and EXACTLY how it was meant to be understood. A bunch of meddling attorneys.

 

[DeadCanDance]

It might be OK if everyone agreed on what the Constitution says about religion. The ACLU acts as if it KNOWS the exact meaning and EXACTLY how it was meant to be understood. A bunch of meddling attorneys.

I'd say if everyone from Jerry Falwell, to Mormons, to evangelical christians, the Adventists, to muslims, to jews have at one time or another joined up with the ACLU on a legal case, then the ACLU has widespread credibility with people of all different faiths to defend their constitutional right to religious freedom.

Agreed?

 

[dilloduck]

I'd say if everyone from Jerry Falwell, to Mormons, to evangelical christians, the Adventists, to muslims, to jews have at one time or another joined up with the ACLU on a legal case, then the ACLU has widespread credibility with people of all different faiths to defend their constitutional right to religious freedom.

Agreed?

no--faulty logic. How many Christians have been zapped as opposed to members of other faiths ?

 

[DeadCanDance]

In other words Truthmatters claim that the ACLU defends the Constitution is nothing more than his usual hot air. As I responded to.

The ACLU doesn't do many second amendments cases first, because the Supreme Court has long ruled that the right to arms is a collective right intended to protect the right of States to maintain militias to ensure their own freedom and security against a central government. It is not an unlimited individual right. And this is consistent with what the Supreme court long has ruled.

The ACLU does do defense of individuals right to own guns, on fourth amendment grounds - privacy and property. See quote below*

Now, will you admit that you were vastly misinformed on the ACLU: that they are tireless advocates for EVERYONE'S individual civil rights : from christians, to hindus, to muslims - from Rush Limbaugh to Jerry Falwell, to rightwing former congressman Bob Barr?


*edit:

"ACLU says Gun Ruling Erodes Rights; Prosecutors disagree"

A Denver appeals court further eroded the Fourth Amendment by allowing police to ask stopped motorists whether they have a loaded gun, a civil liberties lawyer said Thursday.

"How many of these things have to happen before we realize we're living in a police state and not a place governed by the Constitution?" asked Micheal Salem, a volunteer attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union.

http://keepandbeararms.com/news/nl/display_day_archive.asp?d=9%2F8/2001[/quote]

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The ACLU doesn't do many second amendments cases first, because the Supreme Court has long ruled that the right to arms is a collective right intended to protect the right of States to maintain militias to ensure their own freedom and security against a central government. It is not an unlimited individual right. And this is consistent with what the Supreme court long has ruled.

The ACLU does do defense of individuals right to own guns, on fourth amendment grounds - privacy and property.

Now, will you admit that you were vastly misinformed on the ACLU: that they are tireless advocates for EVERYONE'S individual civil rights : from christians, to hindus, to muslims - from Rush Limbaugh to Jerry Falwell, to rightwing former congressman Bob Barr?

Provide a legal cite from the Supreme Court that supports your claim. The last Court case that dealt with the 2nd Amendment was in 1939 White Vs Texas and the ruling was that individual rights DID exist but the man lost because according to the court the weapon had to be a weapon generally usable or used by the military ( ala the illegal assault weapon ban) and he transported a sawed off shotgun which the military does not use.

 

[DeadCanDance]

* United States v. Miller (1939) [7] - The only Supreme Court case which was directly related to the issues of the Second Amendment at the heart of the case. The court stated in part:

"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense... The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."'

The Court also stated:

'The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power - "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress." With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firear...s_relating_directly_with_the_Second_Amendment



Are you ever going to answer my question, about how much you've learned tonight about the fairness and consistency with which ACLU defends EVERYONE'S individual civil liberties - from chrisitans to muslims to jews, and everything in between?

 

[DeadCanDance]

* Presser v. Illinois (1886), [6] -

One of only two post-Civil War 19th Century U.S. Supreme Court cases to address the Second amendment, the sole other one being the above-mentioned U.S. v. Cruikshank. This second post-Civil War era case related to the meaning of the Second Amendment rights relating to militias and individuals. The court ruled the Second Amendment right was a right of individuals, not militias, and was not a right to form or belong to a militia, but related to an individual right to bear arms for the good of the United States, who could serve as members of a militia upon being called up by the Government in time of collective need. In essence, it declared, although individuals have the right to keep and bear arms, a state law prohibiting common citizens from forming personal military organizations, and drilling or parading, is still constitutional because prohibiting such personal military formations and parades does not limit a personal right to keep and bear arms:

"We think it clear that there are no sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

The Court also noted that the 2nd Amendment only restrained the federal government from regulating gun ownership, not the individual states:

"The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes to what is called in City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. [116 U.S. 252, 102] 139, the 'powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was perhaps more properly called internal police,' 'not surrendered or restrained' by the constitution of the United States."

 

[DeadCanDance]

Provide a legal cite from the Supreme Court that supports your claim. The last Court case that dealt with the 2nd Amendment was in 1939 White Vs Texas and the ruling was that individual rights DID exist but the man lost because according to the court the weapon had to be a weapon generally usable or used by the military ( ala the illegal assault weapon ban) and he transported a sawed off shotgun which the military does not use.

You ask me to answer one of your question, which I did, and then you log off?

How about answering my questions?

Given that I provided numerous documented examples of ACLU defending christians, defending Jerry Falwell, defending Rush Limbaugh, and teaming up with conservative congressman Bob Barr (of Clinton impeachment fame), would you agree with me, that the posters here who claimed ACLU is an anti-christian, communist advocacy group, were dead wrong?