ACLU Charged With 'Revising' American History

townhall.com ^ | 11.05.01 | CNSNews

[KayEyeDoubleDee]

The Constitution bans the establishment of a nationwide religion. It allows allows the free expression of religion, which would seem to apply to local jurisdictions as decided by the constituents.

[He Rides A White Horse]

Stanley believes it is the intent of the ACLU to rid the country of the historical connection between religion, law and government.

.......or more simply, any competition. Leftist always hated that.

[toenail]

One of these days we ought to just have a ten commandments / separation of church and state FreeRepublic free-for-all. But we ought to plan it out, so everyone can get source documents together.

[Pharmboy]

Right. The Constitution says Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion.

[Pharmboy]

And how does this not qualify as part of multiculturalism? The Judeo-Christian moral tradition is part of our diverse culture, is it not??

[vladog]

Anything the ACLU does is a crime. Since their founding they have tried to remake The American Republic in their image of what they think it should be. We need more Conservative judges and lawmakers to counter this. Get out and vote.

[BUSHdude2000]

One of the planks in the Cummunist Manifesto calls for "changing" a nations history. Look at the Clintongue years. They changed the celebration of 2 Presidents birthdays into one holiday called Presidents Day. But MLK still has his own day.... I forget the WWII victory day, but the Clintonistas changed one of those days to "Vicotry in the Pacific" day or something like that (maybe a well knowing Freeper can help with the specifics). The ACLU is certainly trying to re-write history.

[toenail]

"The Judeo-Christian moral tradition is part of our diverse culture, is it not??"

Sure, but it's not really part of our historical foundation. The major part of religion's influence on the founding of our country was just a Protestant moral tradition. Jews, Catholics, atheists, and other non-Protestants were second-class citizens, in many states being denied freedom of religion.

But as I said before, we ought to just schedule a free-for-all sometime.

[Twins613]

"If the court bought into [the ACLU's] arguments, effectively what that would require them to do is take a chisel to the depiction of Moses above the chief justice's head in the Supreme Court chamber," he said.

Don't give them any ideas :)

[callisto]

"The ACLU is certainly trying to re-write history."

And once they set precedence for changing history, the Constitution is not far away. Everyone keeps wanting to read/translate it with modern meanings. Do they think so little of our Founding Fathers' intellect as to suppose that they were short-sighted as to the meanings of their own words?

[freeperforpresident]

I've studied the Commies quite closely, as an academic exercise, and nowhere in the Commie (rat?) Manifesto is there any mention of rewriting history. That's just bs. Now, that doesn't mean they couldn't/wouldn't do it anyway...

I also wouldn't dismiss the ACLU 100%. (gasp) They've supported Jehovah's Witnesses and other small Christian sects on a number of important occaisions, and they've been fighting the McCainiac campaign finance reform crap tooth and nail. 90% of what they do may be rat work, but the extra 10% isn't insiginificant. In this case, they're wrong.

[toenail]

The Sabbath was never (to my knowledge) given any attention at all by American law. Sunday laws were quite the rage at one time (still are in some places), but sundown-Friday to sundown-Saturday was never a big deal.

[Ohioan]

The Constitution bans the establishment of a nationwide religion. It allows the free expression of religion, which would seem to apply to local jurisdictions as decided by the constituents.

That is not quite how I would phrase it, but there is no doubt but that the Founding Fathers took the view that you suggest. The ACLU has gone to great lengths, over a great many years, to obfuscate the issue. They really do deserve their comeuppance on this. (See Leftwing Word Games & Religious Freedom.)

I wonder if the ACLU client in this contacted them, or was someone whom they solicited. One suspects that there are not too many ACLU supporters in those Counties--but then I could be wrong.

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

[Cleburne]

Silly, anything realted to Christianity doesn't fall within the boundaries of multicultarlism and diversity. Now, run along to the re-education camp.

[Joee]

ACLU is part of the internal enemy! They should be treated as traitor and put where traitors go.

[KayEyeDoubleDee]

I am not quite sure what the founders would have thought about this particular issue, which is a local issue and more a question of expression than establishment.

Come to think of it, I don't even know what they would have said about such a question at the state level.

[Pharmboy]

Sure, but it's [the Judeo-Christian morality] not really part of our historical foundation. The major part of religion's influence on the founding of our country was just a Protestant moral tradition. Jews, Catholics, atheists, and other non-Protestants were second-class citizens, in many states being denied freedom of religion.

Uh, I'm not so sure you are correct about that. The Judeo-Christian morality not part of our foundation? Whaa?

First, the Protestants were surely in charge, but how are they out of the orbit of "Judeo-Christian" morality? Second, if these guys were so bad, how did they (as you imply, all of a sudden) grant religious freedom to all? And third, Jews and Catholics were free to practice their religions in every colony that I am familiar with by the 1750s. Perhaps there were exceptions that I am unaware of, so please help me out here.

[toenail]

"I am not quite sure what the founders would have thought about this particular issue, which is a local issue and more a question of expression than establishment. Come to think of it, I don't even know what they would have said about such a question at the state level."

If you can find a copy, read "The Birth of the Bill of Rights, 1776-1791," by Robert Allen Rutland. One state (can't remember off the top of my head) guaranteed freedom of religion, but only to Protestants -- and then they forbad any pastor to hold any civil or military post. The early 'freedom of/from religion' issue is very convoluted and would absolutely shock most people if they studied it. For instance, one state's government only recognized marriages by Anglican ministers, up until 1780 if I remember correctly. If a couple were married by a Baptist preacher, then they weren't legally married, and their kids were bastards.