They can kiss my ass

[DeadCanDance]

"Helping normal Christians in maybe 10 cases over the past ten years while it attacks regular Christians constantly all over the country"


You're hopeless. You failed the honesty test. Now, you're having to resort to qualifying and cherrypicking which cases the ACLU defended "normal" christians, as oppossed to "abnormal" chrisitians.

So, when the ACLU defends Mormoms or Adventists, your going to toss out those examples, since they are not "normal" chrsitians?

Yeah, you're a nutball.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

"Helping normal Christians in maybe 10 cases over the past ten years while it attacks regular Christians constantly all over the country"


You're hopeless. You failed the honesty test. Now, you're having to resort to qualifying and cherrypicking which cases the ACLU defended "normal" christians, as oppossed to "abnormal" chrisitians.

So, when the ACLU defends Mormoms or Adventists, your going to toss out those examples, since they are not "normal" chrsitians?

Yeah, you're a nutball.

No way. You're ignoring the facts. Sure, you can claim the ACLU "supports Christians"... in a few cases....heck, you can even include the prisoners and sidewalk freak cases, I don't care. The numbers still don't speak to the reality of what is really going on in community after community. You're the nutball living in his fantasy aclu land.

 

[mattskramer]

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.

Who are you to say what is a normal Christian or Christian group and what is not? So who counts as a normal Christian and who does not count as a normal Christian? Do Catholics count? Do Baptists count? The fact of the matter is that the ACLU has a record of defending Christians – though probably not as many Christians as you would like.

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.

As I continue to say, it depends on where you stand on the political spectrum. If you stand to the right, then things that are actually neutral will appear to have a left-wing bias. The ACLU is not as conservative as the wealthy Pat Robertson would like, so he helped establish the ACLJ.

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

It was founded in 1990 by Christian Dr. Pat Robertson as a nonprofit public interest law firm. It was conceived as a counterweight to the American Civil Liberties Union, an organization which Dr. Robertson maintains is "hostile to traditional American values".

That does not necessarily mean that, in reality, the ACLU is hostile to traditional American values. The ACLU does defend Christians in situations that it considers to be important. People think that there is a left wing media bias. Therefore, NewsBusters was created. People think that there is a right wing bias. Therefore, Media Matters was created. Just because people who thought that Wikipedia is too liberal created Conservapedia does not mean that Wikipedia really is too liberal. If you think that something is too biased, and you have resources, you can counter it by making what you think is conservative countermeasure to it.

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.

There are so many instances in which people are unjustly denied their civil liberties and there are only so many resources available to the ACLU that, unfortunately, it must pick and choose. Sometimes it sees that Christians are victims and sometimes it sees that non-Christians are the victims.

Finally, you are factually wrong again. The ACLU is no more tax-supported than is the ACLJ.

http://www.aclu.org/about/

The ACLU is supported by annual dues and contributions from its members, plus grants from private foundations and individuals. We do not receive any government funding.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Who are you to say what is a normal Christian or Christian group and what is not? So who counts as a normal Christian and who does not count as a normal Christian? Do Catholics count? Do Baptists count? The fact of the matter is that the ACLU has a record of defending Christians – though probably not as many Christians as you would like.

A typical liberal response. Let's have a big blithering idiot argument about what is "normal" or not! What I see is the ACLU defending lots of street people and criminals instead of countless regular church-going, hardworking Christians who just want to perhaps see a Christmas tree and manger in their town square.

As I continue to say, it depends on where you stand on the political spectrum. If you stand to the right, then things that are actually neutral will appear to have a left-wing bias. The ACLU is not as conservative as the wealthy Pat Robertson would like, so he helped establish the ACLJ.

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

It was founded in 1990 by Christian Dr. Pat Robertson as a nonprofit public interest law firm. It was conceived as a counterweight to the American Civil Liberties Union, an organization which Dr. Robertson maintains is "hostile to traditional American values".

That does not necessarily mean that, in reality, the ACLU is hostile to traditional American values. The ACLU does defend Christians in situations that it considers to be important. People think that there is a left wing media bias. Therefore, NewsBusters was created. People think that there is a right wing bias. Therefore, Media Matters was created. Just because people who thought that Wikipedia is too liberal created Conservapedia does not mean that Wikipedia really is too liberal. If you think that something is too biased, and you have resources, you can counter it by making what you think is conservative countermeasure to it.

In reality the ACLU is hostile to traditional American values. Among other things it supports prostitution, pornography, homosexuality, child molestors, all of which are NOT traditional American values.

There are so many instances in which people are unjustly denied their civil liberties and there are only so many resources available to the ACLU that, unfortunately, it must pick and choose. Sometimes it sees that Christians are victims and sometimes it sees that non-Christians are the victims.

Finally, you are factually wrong again. The ACLU is no more tax-supported than is the ACLJ.

http://www.aclu.org/about/

The ACLU is supported by annual dues and contributions from its members, plus grants from private foundations and individuals. We do not receive any government funding.

Stop with the "poor resources" excuse. Is that why they skipped the cartoon case? You're right that the ACLU "picks and chooses"…according to its own agenda!

The ACLU sues communities on behalf of their clients for people expressing their Christian heritage in the public square. That is how they make their money.
Community money is tax money.

ps: Read about the Public Expressions of Religion Protection Act:
http://usconservatives.about.com/b/a/257320.htm

 

[mattskramer]

A typical liberal response. Let's have a big blithering idiot argument about what is "normal" or not! What I see is the ACLU defending lots of street people and criminals instead of countless regular church-going, hardworking Christians who just want to perhaps see a Christmas tree and manger in their town square.

Don't criticize yourself too harshly. See. You were the one to bring up the notion that some Churches are normal and some churches are not normal. By the way, don’t stoop to name-calling. It just reveals how desperate you are.

In reality the ACLU is hostile to traditional American values. Among other things it supports prostitution, pornography, homosexuality, child molestors, all of which are NOT traditional American values.

“American Values” is a subjective and relative term. I’m an American. I have values. My values might be different from your values. There is no objective, concrete, quantifiable definition for “American Value”.

Anyway, see http://www.aclu.org/studentsrights/expression/12845prs20040511.html

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

It sounds like it is defending a pretty good value to me. Doesn’t it deserve to be compensated by the Michigan High School for going to the defense of this high-achieving Christian student?

Stop with the "poor resources" excuse. Is that why they skipped the cartoon case? You're right that the ACLU "picks and chooses"…according to its own agenda!

Give up and stop with the "clandestine anti-Christian agenda" excuse. It has been so easily crushed that it amazes me that you still think that the ACLU is anti-Christian.

See http://www.aclu.org/religion/tencomm/16254res20050302.html

Oh. But wait. Some of these might not count. They might not be your “normal” Christians or Churches. LOL. (Breathe) Okay. What cartoon case are you talking about? Is it the one that a cartoonist made in a foreign country concerning Mohamed and a bomb under his turban? I don’t know the specifics of the case. I don’t know why they did not pursue it. It may have to do with the fact that it was not done in America. Anyway, if you are so concerned about why it did not take up particular cases, send the ACLU and email and ask it.

The American Civil Liberties Union picks and chooses based upon its resources and in accordance with what it considers to be serious violations of civil liberties.

The ACLU sues communities on behalf of their clients for people expressing their Christian heritage in the public square. That is how they make their money.
Community money is tax money.

If a community (local, city, state, or federal agency) does something wrong, it should pay for its mistake and compensate those who took the time, trouble, and expense to successfully win cases against it.

We might find some agreement with the “loser pays” notion. Do you think that if the ACLU loses a case, it should pay/compensate the community for the resources it used to defend itself? Be careful. The same would apply to other legal firms such as the ACLJ.

 

[mattskramer]

What I see is the ACLU defending lots of street people and criminals instead of countless regular church-going, hardworking Christians who just want to perhaps see a Christmas tree and manger in their town square.

The ACLU Position:

http://www.aclu.org/religion/tencomm/index.html

Religion is pervasive in the public square in the United States - and it is constitutionally protected. The ACLU has long defended individuals, families, and religious communities who wish to manifest their religion in public. Particularly when compared to other industrialized democracies, religion plays a prominent role in American public life. Churches, synagogues, mosques, temples, cathedrals, and Gurdwaras are plainly visible in the public sphere and their right to display religious symbols and to construct religious edifices is protected by the Constitution and by statutes. The ACLU has actively supported the right of people to preach their religion in public places and to go door-to-door to spread their religious messages. The Constitution properly protects the right of religious figures to preach their messages over the public airwaves. Religious books, magazines, and newspapers are freely published and delivered through the U.S. Postal System. No other industrialized democracy has as much religion in the public square as does the United States.

Some people, however, mistakenly use the word "public" when they really mean "governmental." This can be seen, for example, with Ten Commandments monuments. The right of churches and families to erect such monuments on their own property is constitutionally protected, regardless of whether it is public or private and regardless of whether someone is offended or not. A Christian cross that is fully visible from a public sidewalk is constitutionally protected when placed in front of a church. But if that same cross were moved across the street and placed in front of city hall, it would violate the Constitution. The issue is not "religion in the public square" - as the rhetoric misleadingly suggests - but whether the government should be making decisions about whose sacred texts and symbols should be placed on government property and whose should be rejected.

 

[DeadCanDance]

Originally Posted by ScreamingEagle
What I see is the ACLU defending lots of street people

If your refering to the case of ACLU defending an Evangelical minister's right to preach on the public streets, I find your so-called "normal" christian view to be very elitist. I applaud the ACLU for defending ANY KIND of christian: from Jerry Falwell, to a street preacher.

and criminals...

I suppose ACLU defending a Christian prison inmate's right to exercise his religious beliefs places him in the "abnormal" christian category- , the category you want to subtract from ACLU's defense of christians legal record.

instead of countless regular church-going, hardworking Christians who just want to perhaps see a Christmas tree and manger in their town square.

You, or any american can display ALL the christmans trees and mangers you want. Its your constitutional right, and ACLU defends it. You can have all the mangers and nativity scenes you want on private property, in churches, and in houses.

You can't put religious symbols or scenes on government property. Government cannot endorse religious displays or symbols. Government employees and government property are supposed to stay out of the business of promoting any one religion. Any religion at all.


This thread has been quite embarrassing for you. I see you want to continue to believe whatever it is you heard on talk radio, regardless of the facts. Its really quite embarrassing that you began by saying ACLU is anti-christian, and would up basically asserting that they didn't defend christians - or "normal" christians - enough.

 

[roadhouse158]

A Christian cross that is fully visible from a public sidewalk is constitutionally protected when placed in front of a church. But if that same cross were moved across the street and placed in front of city hall, it would violate the Constitution. The issue is not "religion in the public square" - as the rhetoric misleadingly suggests - but whether the government should be making decisions about whose sacred texts and symbols should be placed on government property and whose should be rejected.

Again....This is not in the Constitution. First off I am not calling you wrong...I am calling the ACLU wrong. This is a decision that was made by a judge. He made a very BROAD interpretation of the first amendment. It's history...They should look it up. Lets not kid ourselves either. Judges are human beings that have their own political, and personal beliefs that influence their judgment. Law isn't a science at all. It's all interpretation. Eventually another judge could easily rule in the opposite direction. The constitution never says that government buildings couldn't house Christian objects. Just that the Federal Government could not establish a national religion. Calling the 10 commandments outside a courthouse unconstitutional is false. America....The only country who's history must be hid from public conscientiousness.

Just to comment....I cannot for the life of me....even if I were playing devils advocate...see how anyone can defend the ACLU. An organization that represents the Man Boy Love Association. That is beyond disgusting. That should discredit them alone. It's not the Law that the ACLU is concerned about. If it was, they wouldn't be defending an association, that in it's name, shows they break the law. Man Boy Love....disgusting...

 

[mattskramer]

Law isn't a science at all. It's all interpretation. Eventually another judge could easily rule in the opposite direction. ...Calling the 10 commandments outside a courthouse unconstitutional is false. America....The only country who's history must be hid from public conscientiousness.



Just to comment....I cannot for the life of me....even if I were playing devils advocate...see how anyone can defend the ACLU. An organization that represents the Man Boy Love Association. That is beyond disgusting. That should discredit them alone. It's not the Law that the ACLU is concerned about. If it was, they wouldn't be defending an association, that in it's name, shows they break the law. Man Boy Love....disgusting...

If you want history go to a library or museum. As I interpret the constitution, the “10 Commandments” or “Bible” has no place on the front lawn of a courthouse. Do we still have to keep the Sabbath holy? The founding fathers had their biases.

I did not realize that the ACLU defended NAMBLA. After I read a summary of the case (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curley_v._NAMBLA) I see myself siding with the ACLU while I detest NAMBLA. It is a free speech issue. NAMBLA did not call for the murder of that child. I side with the ACLU in its defense of NAMBLA. Should Ozzy Osbourne be held responsible for a child killing himself after listening to “Suicide Solution”? No. Parents are responsible for the actions of their children until the children “come of age”. Then they are considered to be adults and, as adults, are responsible for their own actions irrespective of what they see, hear, or read.

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judas_Priest#Subliminal_message_trial

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

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Provide a direct quote from the Constitution that declares religious material can not be on about or in Government property, money or seals. In fact provide a direct quote that says seperation of church and state.

 

[no1tovote4]

Provide a direct quote from the Constitution that declares religious material can not be on about or in Government property, money or seals. In fact provide a direct quote that says seperation of church and state.

I prefer an inclusive rather than exclusive form of religious freedom. Instead of denying all religions, represent each of them.

 

[mattskramer]

Provide a direct quote from the Constitution that declares religious material can not be on about or in Government property, money or seals. In fact provide a direct quote that says seperation of church and state.

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

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is a part of the United States Bill of Rights. It prohibits the federal legislature from making laws that establish religion (the "Establishment Clause") or prohibit free exercise of religion (the "Free Exercise Clause"), laws that infringe the freedom of speech, infringe the freedom of the press, limit the right to assemble peaceably, or limit the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Although the First Amendment explicitly prohibits only the named rights from being abridged by laws made by Congress, the courts have interpreted it as applying more broadly. As the first sentence in the body of the Constitution reserves all law-making ("legislative") authority to Congress, the courts have held that the First Amendment's terms also extend to the executive and judicial branches. Additionally, in the 20th century the Supreme Court has held that the Due Process clause of the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment "incorporates" the limitations of the First Amendment to restrict also the states.

 

[mattskramer]

Provide a direct quote from the Constitution that declares religious material can not be on about or in Government property, money or seals. In fact provide a direct quote that says seperation of church and state.

Where in the constitution does it say that people are not allowed to have abortions?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Don't criticize yourself too harshly. See. You were the one to bring up the notion that some Churches are normal and some churches are not normal. By the way, don’t stoop to name-calling. It just reveals how desperate you are.

If you can't get your mind around the concept that the ACLU is disproportionately favoring "junk" cases, like ones about street preachers and prisoners who have nothing better to do with their time, (not to mention Muslims & Wiccans) instead of everyday Christian people, then so be it. That's your prob. Also, the "normal" argument has been argued ad nauseum by liberals for years and I have no desire to go there again either. And I'm certainly not "desperate" considering the weak replies I'm getting from you. btw I did not say "normal churches" - I said "normal Christians". At least get your stupid accusations correct.

“American Values” is a subjective and relative term. I’m an American. I have values. My values might be different from your values. There is no objective, concrete, quantifiable definition for “American Value”.

So, because you think American values are "subjective" you think the ACLU is a "progressive" and real cool organization when it supports all kinds of deviant behaviors that are NOT acceptable to most Americans?

Anyway, see http://www.aclu.org/studentsrights/expression/12845prs20040511.html

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

It sounds like it is defending a pretty good value to me. Doesn’t it deserve to be compensated by the Michigan High School for going to the defense of this high-achieving Christian student?

Let them sue the individual teacher responsible who will then, of course, go bankrupt and not be able to pay the ACLU and its client the huge reparations they want, which, of course, they are now getting from the school district and all its taxpayers.

Give up and stop with the "clandestine anti-Christian agenda" excuse. It has been so easily crushed that it amazes me that you still think that the ACLU is anti-Christian.

It is really not all that "clandestine" if you will just open your eyes and witness all the anti-Christian lawsuits and threats of lawsuits by ACLU clients around the country. Please don't attempt to lol "crush" me again by holding up your pathetic list of ACLU cases provided as great proof that the ACLU is pro-Christian. In case you didn't get it, I tore that list apart into shreds showing it to be nothing more than pathetic window-dressing it really is...have some more koolaid…

See http://www.aclu.org/religion/tencomm/16254res20050302.html

Oh. But wait. Some of these might not count. They might not be your “normal” Christians or Churches. LOL. (Breathe) Okay. What cartoon case are you talking about? Is it the one that a cartoonist made in a foreign country concerning Mohamed and a bomb under his turban? I don’t know the specifics of the case. I don’t know why they did not pursue it. It may have to do with the fact that it was not done in America. Anyway, if you are so concerned about why it did not take up particular cases, send the ACLU and email and ask it.

No comment.

The American Civil Liberties Union picks and chooses based upon its resources and in accordance with what it considers to be serious violations of civil liberties.

Yeah, what it considers to be...

If a community (local, city, state, or federal agency) does something wrong, it should pay for its mistake and compensate those who took the time, trouble, and expense to successfully win cases against it.

We might find some agreement with the “loser pays” notion. Do you think that if the ACLU loses a case, it should pay/compensate the community for the resources it used to defend itself? Be careful. The same would apply to other legal firms such as the ACLJ.

Let's just see how effective the ACLU is going to be when the loophole is closed and its scumbag lawyers can no longer rip off taxpayers.

 

[roadhouse158]

The argument about abortion is not an argument about constitutionality. It's an argument about law. If a woman has an abortion, it isn't considered murder. If someone kills a pregnant woman, they are charged with two murders. Seems fair to me ...It's the womans choice. The man that helped to conceive the child however has no say so of the child.

Please don't quote Wikipedia. That site is not factual. Anyone can put anything on there as long as it isn't in bad taste.

And the previous is poster is right....Separation of Church and State is not in the Constitution. It's from the Baptist sermon The Garden and The Wilderness. That's where it came from. The reason for the 1st amendment clause that states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" was made due to the fact that several states had "official" religions of the state. This is one reason so many Christians fought the British to establish America...To have freedom of religion. They fought hard to defend their right to show the 10 Commandments, and use the Bible for swearing in ceremonies. However they also knew not everyone was a baptist, or a methodist, or pentecostal, or catholic. Our founding fathers fought hard for these rights. Now it's being completely wiped away. The 10 commandments at a courthouse has no bearing on Congress passing a law....the founding fathers wrote The Bill of Rights, but they still put the 10 Commandments at courthouses and Federal buildings....HMMMM....I think they knew what they meant....Don't you???

About ACLU and NAMBLA.......That is totally distasteful. That group is extremely sick. Then again, the same Professor from Indiana back in the 50's and 60's that argued that homosexuality was ok and normal, also said the same thing about "intergenerational" love....The grown ups are just loving the kids. That's it...Not hurting them. No one with morals could defend them for any reason. To have all the freedoms of this country, your also supposed to obey all laws....Pedophilia is not lawful. They don't deserve to be defended.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

If your refering to the case of ACLU defending an Evangelical minister's right to preach on the public streets, I find your so-called "normal" christian view to be very elitist. I applaud the ACLU for defending ANY KIND of christian: from Jerry Falwell, to a street preacher.

I suppose ACLU defending a Christian prison inmate's right to exercise his religious beliefs places him in the "abnormal" christian category- , the category you want to subtract from ACLU's defense of christians legal record.

I might take your statements into consideration IF the ACLU did not attack Christianity in so many ways. These pathetic cases are nothing more than window dressing for the organization.

You, or any american can display ALL the christmans trees and mangers you want. Its your constitutional right, and ACLU defends it. You can have all the mangers and nativity scenes you want on private property, in churches, and in houses.

You can't put religious symbols or scenes on government property. Government cannot endorse religious displays or symbols. Government employees and government property are supposed to stay out of the business of promoting any one religion. Any religion at all.


This thread has been quite embarrassing for you. I see you want to continue to believe whatever it is you heard on talk radio, regardless of the facts. Its really quite embarrassing that you began by saying ACLU is anti-christian, and would up basically asserting that they didn't defend christians - or "normal" christians - enough.

Sorry, but the ACLU position is wrong. Our founding fathers did plentyof praying in government situations, even after they wrote up the Bill of Rights! Did you know that George Washington issued a proclamation for "A Day of Publick Thanksgiving and Prayer"... "to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God"?

Horrors! The ACLU (if it existed then) would have blown a gasket. I mean, think of all those poor discriminated-against atheists!
http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/firsts/thanksgiving/

Americans want to display the CHRISTMAS tree and manger in government buildings, lands, libraries, fire stations, parks and schools. Not some neutered "holiday" tree. If others want to display other seasonal religious items, no problem. For your information these "government" displays have been happening for like 200 years without any legal hassles from aclu-type organizations. Free expression of religion OF the people, BY the people, FOR the people. No government religion has ever been established and I sure don't think it is any where near happening at this point in time either.

Per the Constitution I CAN put religious symbols on government property. Who says I can't? Certainly not the Constitution. Just the ACLU and liberal activist judges. The Constitution says nothing about "promoting" religion. It talks about "establishing" religion.

This thread has not been embarrassing to me in the least despite the fact you seem to think so…like I care. Actually, if anyone is to be embarrassed, it is you. You defend the ACLU as being pro-Christian by proffering a few pathetic cases as proof. You totally ignore the huge numbers of lawsuits and threats of lawsuits by the ACLU that are systematically removing religious expression from our society. You ignore the accusation that the ACLU selects cases according to its own preferred agenda. You are in denial that the ACLU has communist roots and a far left liberal agenda. You won't address the fact that the ACLU is ripping off taxpayers. As per the title of this thread...you can kiss my ass.

 

[mattskramer]

If you can't get your mind around the concept that the ACLU is disproportionately favoring "junk" cases, like ones about street preachers and prisoners who have nothing better to do with their time, (not to mention Muslims & Wiccans) instead of everyday Christian people, then so be it. That's your prob. Also, the "normal" argument has been argued ad nauseum by liberals for years and I have no desire to go there again either. And I'm certainly not "desperate" considering the weak replies I'm getting from you. btw I did not say "normal churches" - I said "normal Christians". At least get your stupid accusations correct.

Again and again, I have shown cases where the ACLU defends various Christian and Christian groups. They have even defended what I would consider to be every-day Christians. Do you recall the Christian valedictorian that the ACLU defended? You better find out what church she attends or her background. She might not count as a normal Christian in your book so the case might not count as truly defending a Christian. LOL.

http://www.aclu.org/studentsrights/expression/12845prs20040511.html

You have no desire to go there (debate what is a "normal" Christian and what is not a "normal" Christian"). My but you don’t understand the concept of fairness. Look back at the thread. You were the one who first brought it up. It would be like me making a side point and then, when I get a reply. Deciding that I don’t want to go there. What a phony you seem to be. If you don’t want to go somewhere then don’t start going there.

So, because you think American values are "subjective" you think the ACLU is a "progressive" and real cool organization when it supports all kinds of deviant behaviors that are NOT acceptable to most Americans?

I think that American values are subjective. I would not call the ACLU progressive or conservative or cool or hot. I appreciate the fact that it defends, as it can, civil liberties. It defends behaviors that are acceptable to some Americans and it defends behaviors that are not acceptable to Americans. For example, I detest what NAMBLA says. I think that most Americans detest what NAMBLA says. Yet, I think that it has a right to say what it says.

Let them sue the individual teacher responsible who will then, of course, go bankrupt and not be able to pay the ACLU and its client the huge reparations they want, which, of course, they are now getting from the school district and all its taxpayers.

I doubt that the ACLU would go after huge reparations right away. I think that typically the plaintiff will ask the defendant to reconsider its stance. If she gets nowhere, she will contact the ACLU who will then, somewhat formally, call on the likely defendant to change its position. If all else fails and if the ACLU thinks that the case has merit, it will go after the defendant. It may try to negotiate a settlement and compromise.

Anyway, if all other avenues of inexpensive mediation and negotiation fail, if the teacher is so stubborn, then the plaintiff’s side should get compensation. The ACLU and the victim should receive reparations. Perhaps the free services of the ACLJ could help out. It probably bullies communities in a similar fashion to do what Pat Robertson thinks is right. Anyway, if the community has to raise taxes as a consequence, then the citizens may choose to move to a different community. Next time the community will know better.

It is really not all that "clandestine" if you will just open your eyes and witness all the anti-Christian lawsuits and threats of lawsuits by ACLU clients around the country. Please don't attempt to lol "crush" me again by holding up your pathetic list of ACLU cases provided as great proof that the ACLU is pro-Christian. In case you didn't get it, I tore that list apart into shreds showing it to be nothing more than pathetic window-dressing it really is...have some more koolaid…

My eyes are open. I see many cases. I see valid cases in which Christian symbols are promoted on government land above that of other religious symbols. I also see a great many valid cases in which the ACLU defends Christians who were denied their civil liberties. You didn’t tear any such list apart. The only thing that I saw you do was say that some of the Christians that were defended did not meet your criteria of being “normal” Christians (revealing a rather arrogant self-righteous attitude).

The ACLU has opinions as you have opinions.

Let's just see how effective the ACLU is going to be when the loophole is closed and its scumbag lawyers can no longer rip off taxpayers.

I read the website you recommended. I’m against legislation that restricts compensation to a winning party. Will you show some class in answering my question? Do you support “loser pays” legislation?

 

[mattskramer]

Sorry, but the ACLU position is wrong. Our founding fathers did plentyof praying in government situations, even after they wrote up the Bill of Rights! Did you know that George Washington issued a proclamation for "A Day of Publick Thanksgiving and Prayer"... "to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God"?

The founding fathers were opportunistic men. (Were there any founding women – I doubt it. All men are created equal.) They had their faults, prejudices. They could be wrong. They were hypocrites. George Washington owned slaves.

Horrors! The ACLU (if it existed then) would have blown a gasket. I mean, think of all those poor discriminated-against atheists!

I wonder. If the ACLU had existed in the late 1600’s, could it have defended the alleged witches of Salem from being executed?

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

The Salem witch trials, begun in 1692, resulted in a number of convictions and executions for witchcraft in both Salem Village and Salem Town, Massachusetts. Some have argued it was the result of a period of factional infighting and Puritan witch hysteria. The trials resulted in the executions of 20 people (14 women, 6 men) and the imprisonment of between 175 and 200 people. In addition to those executed, at least five people died in prison. One man who refused to plead to the charges was pressed to death with rocks (the medieval torture of peine forte et dure, which, if fatal, did not result in forfeiture of property).

Americans want to display the CHRISTMAS tree and manger in government buildings, lands, libraries, fire stations, parks and schools. Not some neutered "holiday" tree. If others want to display other seasonal religious items, no problem.

What if others want to display the Koran or symbols of Islam in government buildings, lands, libraries, fire stations, parks and schools – but there would be no room to include Christian symbols? I can imagine that you would cry “foul” and call for symbols of your religion the have equal treatment. Be honest. Am I wrong on that point?

For your information these "government" displays have been happening for like 200 years without any legal hassles from aclu-type organizations. Free expression of religion OF the people, BY the people, FOR the people. No government religion has ever been established and I sure don't think it is any where near happening at this point in time either.

Slavery was around in the good old days early in our nation’s history. Women were not allowed to vote until recently. We didn’t need to change. Just kidding. Just because parts of something have a long history does not mean that the parts of that thing are good or bad. People are free to express their religion but the government should not show preference. An official government religion might not have been established but the leaders of early colonial America came close to establishing official religions (Re: The Spanish Inquisition).

Per the Constitution I CAN put religious symbols on government property. Who says I can't? Certainly not the Constitution. Just the ACLU and liberal activist judges. The Constitution says nothing about "promoting" religion. It talks about "establishing" religion.

It depends on how you interpret the Constitution. Exactly where in the Constitution does it say that you can put religious symbols on government property? My interpretation of the Constitution suggests that by having such things as a government flag include a cross, congress is establishing the Christian religion as an official religion (at least above other religions).

You totally ignore the huge numbers of lawsuits and threats of lawsuits by the ACLU that are systematically removing religious expression from our society. You ignore the accusation that the ACLU selects cases according to its own preferred agenda. You are in denial that the ACLU has communist roots and a far left liberal agenda. You won't address the fact that the ACLU is ripping off taxpayers.

The ACLU is not removing religious expression from society. Didn’t you see the article I posted? People can even preach on sidewalks. The ACLU is not trying to outlaw the saying of “Merry Christmas”. The ACLU thinks that a manger scene should not be in front of a courthouse. Oh my gosh! The ACLU selects cases to fits its agenda of defending civil liberties. The ACLU may have roots in communism. America has roots in slavery. It can only rip off taxpayers if it can be satisfactorily shown that the government leaders interfere with civil liberties.

 

[Dirt McGirt]

Per the Constitution I CAN put religious symbols on government property. Who says I can't? Certainly not the Constitution. Just the ACLU and liberal activist judges. The Constitution says nothing about "promoting" religion. It talks about "establishing" religion.

So you don't have a problem with a taxpayer funded statue of the Pillars of Faith at your local courthouse? How about a crescent moon on a Michigan flag?

 

[DeadCanDance]

Screaming eagle, there's a reason no other cons have rushed in to defend your stupid assertions: Because you have been embarrassing yourself.

You said ACLU was "anti-christian". That claim was easily debunked, by posting dozens of documented cases where ACLU defended the religious liberties of christians. You were then reduced to babbling that these either weren't "normal" chrisitians, or that the ACLU hadn't defended enough chrisitians in your view. Either of which, is a dodge away from your original assertion.

As for your assertion that ACLU is a "communist" organization, I feel embarrassed for you. Regardless of what you heard on talk radio, or what nutty book you read from an author no one's ever heard of, the facts are the ACLU defends everyone - of every political persuasion. They even defend people that I despise: Jerry Fallwell, Oliver North, and Rush Limbuagh.

This is hardly the record of a "communist" front group:

ACLU Asks Court to Protect Confidentiality of Rush Limbaugh's Medical Records (1/12/2004)

http://www.aclu.org/privacy/medical/14969prs20040112.html

-The ACLU stepped in on behalf of Oliver North during the Iran-Contra scandal, arguing that he should not be compelled to testify and then be prosecuted based on what he said.

-The ACLU also filed an amicus brief on behalf of the Rev. Jerry Falwell, the conservative televangelist, in his fight to strike down a provision in the Virginia Constitution banning religious organizations from incorporating

-ACLUhas also represented anti-abortion demonstrators in challenges to restrictions creating so-called buffer-zones around clinics that perform abortions.

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/localnews/content/news/limbaugh/011304_limbaugh.html

ACLU of New Jersey Successfully Defends Republican Candidates' Right to Political Speech (2/10/2005)

http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/gen/11507prs20050210.html

ACLU Announces Collaboration With Rep. Bob Barr; Says Conservative Congressman Will Consult on Privacy Issues

http://www.aclu.org/privacy/gen/15182prs20021125.html

ACLU, Conservative and Liberal Allies Denounce National ID Card Plan in Intelligence Reform Bill (11/15/2004)

WASHINGTON - The American Civil Liberties Union today joined with organizations from across the political spectrum to run a full-page open letter advertisement in the Washington Times, asking the conference committee on intelligence reform to remove the national ID provisions from its final 9/11 intelligence reform legislation.

The letter was signed by the American Civil Liberties Union, American Conservative Union, American Library Association, Gun Owners of America, Republican Liberty Caucus, American Immigration Lawyers Association, Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, Free Congress Foundation, and approximately 40 other organizations.

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/18761prs20041115.html