|
ACLU: AMERICAN CHRISTIAN LOATHERS UNION
Posted By: Professor
on 9/11/2006 2:12:05 PM in
ACLU
"The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has been called the “most dangerous organization in America.” And rightly so.
The ACLU is a secular organization that exploits the law to impose their anti-God agenda. Its lawyers litigate lawsuits that aim to take away our Constitutional right to freedom of religion. The ACLU wants to erase any mention of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob found in public places. They have fought to remove "One nation, under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance, they want to erase "In God we trust" from our currency and rid the country of all religious displays such as the Ten Commandments, Christian holiday displays and state mottos. They do this under the guise of the so-called wall of separation of church and state, or what has come to be known as the establishment-clause of the First Amendment. What is the ACLU's position on church-state separation? There shall be no mention of God on public property. Period.
Courts, legal scholars and historians have quarreled over the true meaning of the establishment-clause ever since the Bill of Rights was ratified. So it is continually evolving as each new case is brought before the court.
The ACLU has been known to use fear, intimidation, and disinformation. As a result many public officials and educational leaders mistakenly believe that they have no choice but to silence any form of Christian religious expression. ACLU lawyers are fully aware that most government schools don’t have the funds to fight expensive lawsuits so they often get what they want. The attorneys who agree to take on these lawsuits are hostile to God. In the Bible when someone’s hostile to God they’re called anti-Christs.
Thanks to groups like the ACLU and the liberal judges that legislate from the bench, traditions we’ve held in this country for over 200 years are suddenly deemed unconstitutional. The far-Left won’t rest until God has been driven out of the public square! This is a ludicrous undertaking considering all the religious symbols on government structures throughout the U.S. Many of these symbols have been placed on prestigious government buildings -- including the Supreme Court!
Speaking of the Supreme Court, near the top of the building is a row of the world's lawgivers. Each person is facing a man in the middle who’s in full frontal view. The man is Moses and he’s holding the Ten Commandments! As you enter the Supreme Court courtroom the Ten Commandments is engraved on the lower portion of two massive oak doors. The wall directly above where the Supreme Court judges sit is a display of the Ten Commandments! The first Supreme Court Justice, John Jay, said, "Americans should select and prefer Christians as their rulers."
But I digress.
In America we have freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. Religious symbols in the public square are no threat to our freedom; they’re simply reminders of our heritage and the foundation on which our county was built.
The Boy Scouts are not the enemy of America, yet they are vilified and viciously attacked by the ACLU. Why? The unfortunate answer is that the Scouts are a religious organization.
Veterans and the memorials that pay tribute to their service to this country are not the enemies of America, yet the ACLU wants those memorials removed if there is any mention of God on them. Why? Because their aim is for Americans to worship another god?thhe god of the radical Left -- secular humanism!
And that’s not all they’re up to.
“In Vermont, the ACLU advocated for the removal of convicted child molester’s names from public record, a dangerous and ill-conceived position that would facilitate the open, undetectable movement of vicious criminals and leave everyone in their path?especially children?in grave danger. It seems thathat the ACLU is more concerned with the rights of convicted felons than the rights of innocent, law-abiding citizens.” - Alex Fitzsimmons
If that’s not bad enough, the ACLU has challenged state and federal efforts to pass Jessica’s law, a piece of legislation that calls for more rigorous tracking of convicted sex offenders.
But here’s the most surprising thing of all. The ACLU is defending the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), a group of evil predators that advocates sex between grown men and innocent little boys. According to Fox News’s Bill O’Reilly, NAMBLA’s website posted techniques “designed to lure boys into having sex with men and also supplied information on what an adult should do if caught."
The ACLU’s attorneys are attempting to remove religious symbols from the public square. They’re hostile to the Boy Scouts, whose only crime is turning boys into men. They’re trying to thwart Jessica’s law. They’re fighting to remove the names of child rapists from public record. But they offer their services to defend the freedom of speech and association rights of NAMBLA, a group of sexual deviates whose goal is the abolition of age-of-consent laws that classify sex with schoolboys as rape. What’s wrong with this picture?
As Deroy Murdock so aptly put it, “It would be nice to see NAMBLA siphon its own bank account rather than the ACLU's to justify its evil ways. The ACLU decides for itself where to devote its finite resources. Hence, its leaders freely chose to stand with cheerleaders for pederasty while torpedoing those who mentor rather than rape little boys.” (Marsha West/NewsWithViews.com 9/1/06)
Source Link(s)
2
COMMENTS
One Reporter’s Opinion — ACLU Targeting Boy Scouts
Posted
By: 
DAD
on 2/29/2008 10:23:55 AM
"It is this reporter’s opinion that the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is unneccessarily attacking American institutions.
It is the Boy Scouts that the ACLU now has in its crosshairs. The Scouts, it is claimed by adversaries, excludes children or adult volunteers based on their sexual orientation.
One can only ask, Why does the ACLU with so many other problems in the world that we face, take a destructive stance against the Boy Scouts? Why attack an organization that relies on the very values our Founding Fathers espoused?
Furthermore, the exclusion based on sexual orientation is a false claim. The scouts are against overt sexual conduct or statement by anyone — homosexual or heterosexual. Sexuality has no place in the Boy Scouts organization.
There has been plenty of backlash: The book “On My Honor Why the Values of the Boy Scouts are Worth Fighting For” by Texas Gov. Rick Perry, is putting the Boys Scouts and the ACLU’s position of homosexuality into the forefront of renewed discussion. The book explores the depths to which liberal organizations sink when they condemn values-oriented organizations.
As a lifelong member of the scouting movement, from 10-year-old prescout activity to being named the youngest member of the National Council of the Boys Scouts of America, I feel well qualified to speak against those who attack the scouting movement.
How better to stop youth gang activity and violence than for boys to spend their adolescence as members of the Boy Scouts? The effort begins in the family, at home, and in the community.
What better way to learn values and ideals than as a member of the Boy Scouts?
Since scouting’s humble beginnings in 1908, Boy Scouts have epitomized the ideals of community service. What a wonderful way to stop youth gang activities than to introduce these kids when they are young to scouting.
That is the way to stop gangs from proliferating. The numbers are staggering: In America, youth gangs are taking over and may number as high as 30,000 violent street gangs with 800,000 members.
In Los Angeles alone, the birthplace of notorious gangs such as MS-13, the Bloods, and the Crips, there are 700 street gangs comprised of 40,000 gang members.
Incredible that to be a Boy Scout in the 21st century entails strange consequences. It means you may not get funding from the United Way, that you cannot have summer camp in the city park, that your troop cannot be sponsored by a public school, that you may even be booed at a national political convention.
It even has meant you will be compared with the Taliban which is exactly what the Philadelphia Daily News did a few years ago.
Recently, in Philadelphia, home of the liberty bell symbolizing our freedom, being a Boy Scout means a $200,000 rent increase on the headquarters building. This increase followed the decision by the city of Philadelphia to penalize the scouts for the organization’s long-term policy excluding homosexual members and leaders.
Now the scouts in Philadelphia must make a tough decision in order to come up with a fair-market rent of $200,000 annually — $199,999 more than the previous annual rate of $1.
What this means is that Philadelphia is cutting off one of its most valuable partners, the Boy Scouts, because of their gay ban. And regardless of how one stands on the Boy Scout policy on homosexuals, there is no question the Boy Scouts benefit America’s communities.
This following a U.S. Supreme Court in 2000 that the Boy Scout organization has the right to establish its own membership standards.
No one in Philadelphia is forced to accept the Boy Scout policies. What the public must accept is a partnership in benefiting from the thousands upon thousands of volunteer hours generated by members. The countless “good turns” the boys do undoubtedly make Philadelphia a better place to live.
All scouts, since the days of the birth of the movement by Lord Robert Baden-Powell share in one common oath: “On my honor I will do my best; to do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law; to help other people at all times; to keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight.”
That is the statement that appears to upset the ACLU. It is a statement that has inspired millions of young men from puberty to adulthood for nearly 100 years to live lives of service and leadership.
But apparently there are consequences for choosing honor these days. Being a Boy Scout is not as publicly admirable as it was years ago. But that should not stop decent people from doing the right thing.
It is time America says we have had enough and springs to the support of efforts of thousands of scout leaders and parents who are making a day-to-day positive difference in the lives of our youth.
That is one reporter’s opinion. I welcome yours!" (George Putnam/NewsMax.com 2/28/08)
Source Link(s)
1
|
God Save The United States And This Honorable Court
Posted
By:
Liberty
on 3/3/2007 12:36:37 PM
"Earlier this week, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case brought by the Freedom From Religion Foundation. The Supreme Court has an important opportunity to put an end to federal taxpayer lawsuits by church-state separationists that is long overdue. The a focuses on a challenge of using taxpayer dollars to fund a program of President Bush’s faith-based initiative. At the ACLJ, we filed a brief with the high court in support of the federal government’s position.
There is no constitutional conflict in using taxpayer dollars to fund faith-based initiatives. This is a position we’ve advocated for years. The Supreme Court should leave the faith-based initiative alone and focus instead on removing the special privileges that are afforded to atheists and others who are antagonistic to religion. These church-state separationists have been given a free pass in federal court to bring Establishment Clause lawsuits simply because something is taking place that they don’t like. They have not had to show that a law or government activity actually injured them in any way before they could challenge it in federal court. All they had to do was show that they were taxpayers somewhere. That is not only unfair, but wrong. In no other area of the law are plaintiffs given a free pass to federal court simply because they are taxpayers. This Religion Clause exception to the traditional rules of legal standing should be put to an end. I am hopeful that the Supreme Court will put an end to this special treatment given to groups like the Freedom From Religion Foundation.
In the Freedom From Religion Foundation case, the separationist taxpayers challenged the federal faith-based initiatives program involving conferences that took place throughout the United States. The federal district court in Wisconsin dismissed the case, ruling that the Freedom From Religion Foundation had no “standing” – capacity to sue – because there was no federal grant at issue. Unfortunately, a federal appeals court reinstated the lawsuit ruling that the separationists had standing to challenge the use of federal funds to run the challenged program. The federal government appealed to the Supreme Court.
In our friend-of-the-court brief in support of the federal government, we pointed out that no federal taxpayer suits are allowed in any other context aside from Establishment Clause suits challenging federal spending. That exception rests on the 1968 decision in Flast v. Cohen. Subsequent to Flast, however, the Supreme Court has refused to expand Flast and has rejected every argument that the Court has made in the Flast decision.
All that was at issue here was federal funding going to conferences that encourage faith-based organizations to participate in meeting community needs. This should not constitute a constitutional crisis. Nor should this case be used as a test case on how taxpayer funds are spent. Instead, the high court needs to bring an end to the special treatment given to atheists and other separationists in these lawsuits. The Flast precedent has created an uneven playing field because it empowered every disgruntled atheist to make a federal case out of any hint of religion in government action. This is simply wrong.
It appeared that Justice Kennedy understood the significance of the impact of this case. He noted that the Supreme Court of the United States starts each session with the phrase, “God Save The United States and This Honorable Court.” The statement is made by a Court Marshall, who is a federal employee. Justice Kennedy duly noted that if the proportion of the salary of this federal employee could be determined so that an allocation could be made which shows that federal tax dollars are being used to promote the phrase, “God Save The United States and This Honorable Court,” then, under the Plaintiff’s theory, anybody in the United States could bring a lawsuit challenging this time-honored practice. Justice Kennedy is right. These standing rules have created a field day for separationists who want to remove all vestiges of religion from America’s public life. The Court has an opportunity to end this abuse of the federal court system. I am hopeful that the Court will hold that there is no standing present, and that God will continue to save the United States and the Honorable Court so that it can address real issues of constitutional significance." (Jay Sekulow/TownHall.com 3/2/07)
Source Link(s)
1
|
|
Please
Note: You must login to post a comment.
Login
View Post |
|
