Posted on 05/26/2005 2:03:21 PM PDT by CHARLITE
Each spring as high school graduation approaches, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) sends out a letter to public schools warning them that no one can pray or make remarks referring to their faith at graduation. But the ACLU goes further than that. They typically demand that public schools censure any speech that might be viewed as having a religious tone. It is not enough that the school not sponsor prayer or religious activities, the ACLU believes government must prevent people from doing or saying anything that may have religious meaning. I sat on a public school board and saw the ACLU’s constitutionally skewed letters. It is in this context that Fairfax County (Virginia) Public Schools have prohibited all employees from speaking at any privately organized and privately sponsored baccalaureate ceremony – even when it is held outside of school.
Fairfax County Public Schools sent out an instruction to all high schools stating: “Principals and other staff members may not be speakers at a baccalaureate, regardless of whether it is held at the school or elsewhere.” Baccalaureates are privately organized and sponsored. They are completely voluntary. The only people who attend are those who choose to do so. Public schools play no role in a baccalaureate. Typically, a group of parents and students organize the baccalaureate – including inviting the speakers. Yet, the school system bans teachers and staff from accepting invitations from students to speak at baccalaureates. Why?
To make matters worse, when the school system’s spokesman was asked to explain or defend the school’s clearly unconstitutional policy by a local news radio station, the spokesman refused. Thus, in essence the school violates the constitutional rights of students and teachers and then tells the public and taxpayers that they deserve no explanation whatsoever. This unfortunately is how monopolists behave.
How does a public school get off ordering employees to not speak on their own time at a private and voluntary gathering of students? Does the school have the right to order its employees to stop attending private church services on weekends? Does the school have the right to prohibit teachers from reading the Bible on their own time? Of course not! But the ACLU’s overzealous efforts to ban any public expressions of faith are having an impact. Schools are caving into the legal bullying of the ACLU.
According to the ACLU, kids have a constitutional right to wear shirts to school that display the F-word, but kids must be forcibly prevented by government officials from even mentioning faith at graduation. And teachers must be banned from speaking to students at privately organized Baccalaureate services. This bizarre conflict explains why so many mainstream Americans hold the ACLU in contempt and view it as a counter-culture, anti-constitutional organization.
Public schools are weary of expensive and distracting litigation and scared to death that the ACLU will make their lives miserable. Every time the school board upon which I served received such a letter, several board members spent inordinate time trying to figure out how to avoid the wrath of the ACLU rather than upholding the Constitution. Simply stated, the ACLU is a large, wealthy and extreme bullying organization dedicated to attacking America’s traditional institutions – the Boy Scouts of America, the Pledge of Allegiance, Christmas displays, schools, etc.
To make matters worse, the ACLU often turns the Constitution on its head to accomplish their destructive and counterproductive goals. To make matters even worse, the ACLU receives millions of our tax dollars to attack our Constitution and our traditional institutions. It is time for Americans everywhere to stand up to the ACLU and to demand a change to the law so that the ACLU does not receive our tax dollars to sue the Boy Scouts, ban the pledge, prohibit expressions of faith, or bully our local schools into violating our constitutional rights. We should not be forced to fund our attackers.
###
Mr. Landrith is a graduate of the University of Virginia School of Law, where he was Business Editor of the Virginia Journal of Law and Politics. He had a successful law practice in business and litigation. In 1994 and 1996, Mr. Landrith was a candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives from Virginia's Fifth Congressional District. He served on the Albemarle County School Board. Mr. Landrith is an adjunct professor at the George Mason School of Law. He is recognized as an authority on constitutional law and jurisprudence, federalism, global warming, and property rights.
Comments:george@ff.org
Sickening.
This country needs a serious cleansing of these hypocritical, degenerate bastards. I've had it with these commies already.
What else can we expect from the Atheist Civil Liberties Union?
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
The issue of Baccalaureate is dumb. If you aren't forced to be there, what difference does it make who speaks? It would certainly appear that they would only be preaching to the choir anyway.
Asshole Communist Lackey Union
Relax folks. This will not affect in any way the call to prayer by your local mosque.
Do the bullying threats issued by the ACLU constitute a form of "assault"?
If so, can the issuers of those threats be legally charged with the crime of "assault"?
I think it's time for the ACLU to start to "share the pain" they cause...
Wonder why they so hate religion ?
You win :) I'll buy the bumper sticker.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
They hate all religions but their own. Secular Humanism. Well that's what it used to be called anyway.
Good post CHARLITE!
ACLU PING
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
I wish I had the money Soro's had, because I would be sueing the CRAP out of the ACLU everytime they opened their Anti_American mouths.
"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."
How can this simple sentence be twisted to proclaim the opposite if its intent? Aren't there any judges who can interpret the constitution correctly? Unbelievable!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.