Arlington Cemetary
And then, will they go after these?
American Cemetary, Normandy
That spit of land on the western shore of France must offend an awful lot of people.
How sad for those who lie there.
Posted on 12/28/2005 7:50:10 AM PST by Baby Driver
An attorney who once worked for the American Civil Liberties Union has slammed the organization for "perverting" federal law by successfully threatening government officials into getting rid of public expressions of religion.
Rees Lloyd made the comments in an online podcast hosted by Rep. John Hostettler, R-Ind., in which the two discuss the congressman's legislation, the Public Expression of Religion Act, or PERA (H.R.2679). The bill would prohibit judges in civil suits involving the First Amendment's Establishment Clause from awarding attorney's fees to those offended by religious symbols or actions in the public square – such as a Ten Commandments display in a courthouse or a cross on a county seal.
(snip)
Hostettler says some organizations have created a new civil liberty – a right to be protected "from religion, which is found nowhere in the Constitution, nowhere in the Bill of Rights." The Indiana congressman blames "a very select group" for "perverting" the original statute, including the ACLU, People for the American Way and Americans United for the Separate of Church and State.
"They use this statute to extort behavior out of individuals," the congressman said, citing the Indiana Civil Liberties Union threatening local educators. The group sent a letter to officials saying they would be sued and be forced to pay attorney's fees should any graduation prayers be offered at commencement ceremonies. The threat sent the message, Hostettler said, that individuals tied to school districts could be impoverished personally.
(snip)
Hostettler's bill would allow cases to move through the courts without public officials worrying about being held personally liable for thousands in attorneys fees.
"Let's let these cases go forward; let's let the courts decide what's constitutional and what's not, and let's not leave it up to the ACLU," he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
Freedom "from" all religious expression is just codifying atheism, a religious faith (the No God god), as the official state religion in all courts, schools, and public squares.
Their supposed commitment to civil liberties is merely a cover for a hateful ANTI-civil rights agenda. They seek to destroy the US, using our own laws.
The dirty secret around the ACLU's threats against public officials is that often anti-Christian public officials settle out of court and deny religious free speech as ordered by the ACLU - happily. They count on the ACLU's threats to do what they do not have the political or legal power to do against the majority they govern, but hate.
I fervently hope that more and more people begin to understand that the ACLU gets paid from our tax dollars to litigate these suits. It's a giant money-making scheme, and they're constantly on the prowl to generate these suits.
They scoff up the cash in two ways: 1) from legal, court-ordered fees; 2) from fundraising letters citing each grand and glorious cause d'jour to useful idiots who dutifully stroke out a check.
File Name: 05a0477p.06 NOTE: pdf documentAMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF KENTUCKY; BART MCQUEARY, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. MERCER COUNTY, KENTUCKY; CHARLES H. MCGINNIS, in his official capacity as Mercer County Judge Executive, Defendants-Appellees.
~~snip~~ (to Page 13 of 14)
"Were we to focus on the perceptions of individuals, every religious display would be “necessarily precluded so long as some passersby would perceive a governmental endorsement thereof.” Pinette, 515 U.S. at 779 (O’Connor J., concurring). Thus, we find unavailing the ACLU’s own assertions that it finds the display offensive and that the display “diminishes [its] enjoyment of the courthouse.” (Compl. ¶ 18.) Religion does not become relevant to standing in the political community simply because a particular viewer of a governmental display feels uncomfortable. Id. at 780 (O’Connor J., concurring); see Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577, 597-98 (1992) (“People may take offense to all manner of religious as well as nonreligious messages, but offense alone does not in every case show a violation. We know too that sometimes to endure social isolation or even anger may be the price of conscience or noncomformity.”). Our concern is that of the reasonable person. And the ACLU, an organization whose mission is “to ensure that . . . the government [is kept] out of the religion business,” 16 does not embody the reasonable person.
The ACLU’s argument contains three fundamental flaws. First, the ACLU makes repeated reference to “the separation of church and state.” This extra-constitutional construct has grown tiresome. The First Amendment does not demand a wall of separation between church and state. See Lynch, 465 U.S. at 673; Lemon, 403 U.S. at 614; Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306, 312 (1952); Brown v. Gilmore, 258 F.3d 265, 274 (4th Cir. 2001); Stark v. Indep. Sch. Dist., No. 640., 123 F.3d 1068, 1076 (8th Cir. 1997); see also Capitol Square, 243 F.3d at 300 (dismissing strict separatism as “a notion that simply perverts our history”). Our Nation’s history is replete with governmental acknowledgment and in some cases, accommodation of religion. See, e.g., Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983) (upholding legislative prayer); McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420 (1961) (upholding Sunday closing laws); see also Lynch, 465 U.S. at 674 (“There is an unbroken history of official acknowledgment by all three branches of government of the role of religion in American life from at least 1789.”); Capitol Square, 243 F.3d at 293-99 (describing historical examples of governmental involvement with religion). After all, “[w]e are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being.” Zorach, 343 U.S. at 313. Thus, state recognition of religion that falls short of endorsement is constitutionally permissible.
Second, ~~snip~~ “proving” that the Ten Commandments themselves are religious does not prove an Establishment Clause violation.
Third, the ACLU erroneously – though perhaps intentionally – equates recognition with endorsement. To endorse is necessarily to recognize, but the converse does not follow. ~~snip~~ we fail to see why the reasonable person would interpret the presence of the Ten Commandments as part of the larger “Foundations” display as a governmental endorsement of religion.
We will not presume endorsement from the mere display of the Ten Commandments. If the reasonable observer perceived all government references to the Deity as endorsements, then many of our Nation’s cherished traditions would be unconstitutional, including the Declaration of Independence and the national motto. Fortunately, the reasonable person is not a hyper-sensitive plaintiff. ~~snip~~ . Instead, he appreciates the role religion has played in our governmental institutions, and finds it historically appropriate and traditionally acceptable for a state to include religious influences, even in the form of sacred texts, in honoring American legal traditions.
This decision was a major victory as common sense finally won out. And as to 'starry decide us' (sarcasm) it's another nail in the ACLU's coffin -- they are LOSING the anti-god war.
Roger Baldwin, the co-founder of the ACLU said: “I am for socialism, disarmament, and ultimately, for abolishing the state itself. … I seek social ownership of property, the abolition of the properties class, and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal. I don’t regret being part of the communist tactic. I knew what I was doing. I was not an innocent liberal. I wanted what the communists wanted and I traveled the United Front road to get it.” In spite of Baldwin’s Communist leanings, President Jimmy Carter awarded him the Presidential Medal of Freedom on January 16, 1981.
Baldwin didn’t create the ACLU in a vacuum, he had plenty of help. A group of Communist Party officials, fellow travelers, anarchists and radicals joined Baldwin to found the ACLU in 1920.
bump for later reading
That was in the US 6th Circuit Court of Appeals (Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio & Tennessee). And you can't get more 'national' than a US Court of Appeals, as the next step is SCOTUS.
Opinions in the cases listed below were filed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit :And Circuit Court decisions do and are cited by other circuits and SCOTUS too as to precedent.
The best way to lose freedom (for yourselves or others) is to abuse it. And that's what they do, abuse the system based on liberty in order to imprison us.
The American Civil Liberties Union
by Jamie Glazov
The following is an interview between FrontPageMagazine and Alan Sears, the co-author (with Craig Osten) of the new book, The ACLU vs. America: Exposing the Agenda to Redefine Moral Values.
http://www.schwarzreport.org/SchwarzReport/2005/november05.html
A piece on The Frankfurt School is there, also.
I guess I can't argue their right to be filthy Communist subversive enemy plague rats", but I sure as heck argue my right not to have to fund them.
I saw this guy on Fox yesterday and have been wanting to find out more about him. He was great, up there wearing his little VFW cap with all the decorations on it. I hope he gets this done. I will finish reading and I hope to find a way to contribute to this cause. He hit on one of my passions.
PING
Arlington Cemetary
And then, will they go after these?
American Cemetary, Normandy
That spit of land on the western shore of France must offend an awful lot of people.
How sad for those who lie there.
BTTT
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.