Rewriting the First Amendment by the ACLU (drops religion from 1st amendment on its website)

GoGov.com ^ | January 15, 2004 | R. Betts

[BJungNan]

Rewriting the First Amendment
by the ACLU

The ACLU's crusade against religion should be no secret to anyone. The organization is well know for its stand against any signs of religion in government buildings or practices.

But it seems when it comes the U.S. constitution, the ACLU has taken matters into it own hands, well, at least as it sites the first amendment on its web page section dealing with free speech.

Here is how the first amendment appears to the ACLU on its web site. (link Here)

"Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."- as quoted by the ACLU

Something in the passage above is amiss, has been omitted, replaced with ( "...") in the ACLU's recitation of this important amendment. Have a look at the original wording of the first amendment below and see if you can see what the ACLU left out.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The ACLU has taken it upon itself to edit out all reference to religion in the first amendment, which by the way comes ahead of free speech.

We understand ACLU has its views on what the first amendment means and respect its free speech rights to debate it. That debate, however, ought to be legitimate. Altering the text of the first amendment to suits it ends is anything but legitimate. It's downright deceptive. Shame.

ACLU free speech page cached here.

[newsgatherer]

Ahumm, http://www.christian-news-in-maine.com/guest.html

Article One of the Bill of Rights versus the aclu.
Jay777 a Staff SGT in the USAF

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Article One of the Bill of Rights

I'm sure everyone recognizes this as the first amendment of the Constitution. Many have interpreted this to mean "separation of Church and State". But nowhere in this amendment are the words "church", or "state" to be found. However there is a statement there that protects us from Congress prohibiting the free exercise of our religion.

The ACLU, under the guise of defending civil liberties, has used... for the full editorial by Freeper Jay777 click hjere

*******************

[Ready4Freddy]

The site says that it's the 'first freedom mentioned in the First Amendment'. They're right, of course.

[BJungNan]

Wow! Good find. You are correct. Here is what they say on their site.

"It is probably no accident that freedom of speech is the first freedom mentioned in the First Amendment: "

That is just flat out incorrect. Some would call it a lie!

[nicmarlo]

Altering the text of the first amendment to suits it ends is anything but legitimate. It's downright deceptive.

But, this is the MO of ALL liberals. To them, truth is irrelevant.

[Da Bilge Troll]

There was a time when the ACLU did good work, they represented both sides of an issue which related to citizen's rights. Howevert that all changed, I am willing to bet that a change in leadership with-in the ACLU in the past 10 years or so has brought about this SECULAR position on the ACLU organization. maybe someone should look into this apparent Change in leadership to see WHO basicly had the POWER to move the Organization to the SECULAR/LEFT.

The ACLU was formed to defend Communists in Hollywood from Sen. McCarthy's investigations of their treason. It has ALWAYS been, not just leftist/secularist, but positively Marxist in outlook. The have never defended religious freedom, or the right to bear arms, or free speech for that matter, if was spoken against their agenda.

So, when, exactly, was the time when they did "good work"?

[BJungNan]

But, this is the MO of ALL liberals. To them, truth is irrelevant.

But this is so blatant, shockingly so.

[nicmarlo]

I have learned, they will employ whatever method best suits their purpose, whether that means their deception is overt or covert; remember, "the ends justifies the means." I have long gotten over the fact that they have no qualms about lying outright.

[BJungNan]

Did you see the poll at the link?

Is the ACLU website page about the first amendment (referenced on this page) purposely deceptive?

- No, they are only making a point about the free speech. No reason to mention religion. 45%
- Yes, this is typical of the ACLU. A bold faced lie 54%

[mazack]

This is just more proof that ACLU really stands for, "Anti-Christian Liberal Union."

[rollo tomasi]

Just to be technically 'free exercise thereof' comes before 'abridging the freedom of speech'.

Since freedom is the noun form of the adjective free and also freedom is derived from free I would say even literally, the ACLU is wrong.

[rollo tomasi]

technically= technical

[Let's Roll]

They are going to push and push until we do change the Constitution to require a state religion and it ain't gonna be atheism or something the slammies want.

[nicmarlo]

No, I haven't gone to the ACLU website, but you've piqued my curiosity. I'll check that out.

[nicmarlo]

GoGov.com Poll

Is the ACLU website page about the first amendment (referenced on this page) purposely deceptive?

No, they are only making a point about free speech. No reason to mention religion.	45%
Yes, this is typical of the ACLU. A bold faced lie	55%

Enter your comments: 
GoGov.com

[StACase]

That the ACLU intentionally edited out with "..." the religious freedom and establishment clause and then claimed the free speech clause to be first is a bit hard to dismiss as a simple error because they had to do two dumb things. But, I suppose it is. One of the sites linked in the many posts above says it has cached the page for future use. Probably a sensible thing to do. Even if it is an error on the ACLU's part, it certainly illustrates their mindset. I would not have made the mistake.

[GoldenOrchid]

Maybe you could POSE this question to Shaun Hannity, he used to be a card carrying member of the ACLU. I can't site specifics but I know of many instances back 15-20 years ago when the ACLU did some good work.

[GoldenOrchid]

Example #1--I did a VERY quick search on Yahoo

---

ACLU-NJ Successfully Defends Right of Religious Expression by Jurors

For Immediate Release
December 22, 2004

Newark, NJ -- The State Supreme Court ruled today that a prosecutor violated the New Jersey Constitution when he removed two jurors from a jury pool, one for wearing Muslim religious clothing and another for having engaged in missionary activity.

"In this country people have a right to express their religious beliefs without fear of discrimination by the government for so doing," said ACLU-NJ Legal Director Ed Barocas, "Excluding people from jury pools based on their religious belief or expression violates the principles of freedom found in the Bill of Rights."

The case concerns the dismissal of two jurors in a criminal case in the New Jersey Superior Court in Essex County. The prosecutor excused the jurors, saying that they were "demonstrative about their religion" and that such persons "tend to favor defendants.."

In its brief, the ACLU-NJ argued that such actions violated the Equal Protection and freedom of religion clauses of the United States and New Jersey Constitutions, as well as the right to trial by an impartial jury. The ACLU-NJ explained that not only should people be free to express themselves about their religion but, in addition, such a basis for jury removal will often lead to discrimination against identifiable religious minorities.

[virgil]

The ACLU has been taken over by the Fascist homosexual agenda. The gays are the ones who are attacking religion, especially christianity. They can't go after Jews after what happened the first time. There's been too many books and movies made about that.

[longtermmemmory]

every single interview with the aclu always leaves out the "free escersise thereof" part of the first.