The ACLU is next door

[the-man]

I live in whashington state in a small county called adams county and the aclu just moved into the county next to us called grant county. I have no clue why the hell they are there but im just a little worried.

[Redneck]

I live in whashington state in a small county called adams county and the aclu just moved into the county next to us called grant county (which is the largest county in the state) I have no clue why the hell they are there but im just a little worried.


It was on the radio this morning. I couldn't make most of it out.

[the-man]

Definint #4 and a possible #5

They are on the wrong side of the state.

[RightisRightLeftisWrong]

the-man look on the up side atleast you have target practice now.

[Argonath]

It may not be wise to go in and start cappin' ACLU ass. That would be a fun game, though. 'Roddney, the Right-wing Republican: Cappin' ass and taking names!". That would be a cool game. Then the sequel would be "Larry, the Left-wing Lonnie: spawn of Roddney" I should go into making games, I could make millions!

[Wadi66]

I live in whashington state in a small county called adams county and the aclu just moved into the county next to us called grant county. I have no clue why the hell they are there but im just a little worried.Look at what's in Grant county. Soap Lake, Coulee City, Ephrata, Quincy, Moses Lake and a smattering of "don't blink you'll miss it" one horse farming communities. All of which comprise a hotbed of conservatism. Is it any wonder the ACLU would go in there and push their agenda? This is farm country we're talking about where the tax dollars aren't there to fight them in court. The ACLU isn't likely to attack a conservative community with money. Best to undermine American society one little piece at a time.

As for Adams County, heck, you guys are a drop in the bucket. Where do the kids go to school? Othello, Ritzville, Ralston, Cunningham, Washlucna? Any place there is a small community with a small school and no extra money to fight them in court, you'll find the ACLU.

[The Sheriff]

No, the ACLU protects rights. The ACLU has the right to worry you. The ACLU has the right to be stupid. The ACLU has the right to not have to listen to you open your mouth. The ACLU has the right to force you to... wait.... I think these "rights" are getting out of hand.

[rightwingxtremist]

Greetings,

I wonder when the aclu will become interested in the rights of freedom of religion and expression for government employees, and of townspeople who recogize their history in their town seals...

- Nate

[Bumblebee]

ACLU started with good intentions, the problem is they have taken up all these left wing agendas. They've lost their way and back up all these un-American causes.

[rightwingxtremist]

Greetings,

What I want to know is whether or not folks from the aclu weigh the cost of the civil liberties that they support against those that stand to lose from their agenda becoming valid law.

Does the right of a government employee to express their personal religion even appear as a blip on the radar screen of the aclu when they insist that such people never utter the words "Merry Christmas"?

These are the differences between maturity and blind foolishness, defenders of civil rights and defenders of their own narrow wills; self-criticism, and fear and trembling at each step.

- Nate

[DoleIn08]

i will admit, if i was too get bashed up by the cops. i wouldn't mind having the ACLU help me out.

[Lazaruslong]

I believe that the main hostility towards the ACLU is based one of the following reasons (or all of them):
1. They seem to be splitting hairs in a lot of their cases. I.E. too litigation happy over "irrelevant" issues.
2. The cases they are trying don't appeal to you.
3. They are attacking things that are sensitive to people--religion, sexuality, dress etc.

Bearing all of these things in mind I will say that I think the "newsworthy" cases are the ones that sound ridiculous (and get the most press as talking points or points of contention) while the vast majority are addressing the government/corporations overstepping their Constituional boundaries. What troubles me is that a lot of people are all too happy to get rid of the ACLU---and it's these same people who don't trust their government. Do you actually trust the government? Do you think that the founding fathers trusted in government? (I know that sounds ridiculous but our government was designed to protect itself from itself--three branches etc.) I for one don't trust my government. I didn't trust it under Bush sr., Clinton and I don't trust it under our present leader. Their is far too much going on in the open that is crooked and undemocratic (let alone what happens behind closed doors). I have watched my civil liberties and country eroding--Imminent Domain, Patriot Act, Special Interest Groups, Lobbyists, Government Contractors...I could go on and on but the fact remains that the Federal Government has far too much power and any group that works to keep that power in check is okay with me--I'll take the "good ACLU" and the "bad ACLU" in equal measure because remember--they are taking cases to court based on the Constitutionality of the case.

[erichthewebguy]

Laz, I believe that you are incorrect.


1. They seem to be splitting hairs in a lot of their cases. I.E. too litigation happy over "irrelevant" issues.
There is no such thing as an irrelevant issue. If someone is litigating an issue, it is by implication relevant, at least to the person who is initiating the litigation. Perhaps you would care to clarify the above statement.


2. The cases they are trying don't appeal to you.
That's absurd. All of the cases that the ACLU pursues appeal to almost everyone here, in one way or another.


3. They are attacking things that are sensitive to people--religion, sexuality, dress etc.
They are attacking those things, but unfairly. When you say that the ACLU is attacking religion, for example, you should be saying that they are attacking Christianity. When you say that they are attacking sexuality, you should be saying that they are attacking heterosexuality. Do you see a pattern emerging?


the vast majority are addressing the government/corporations overstepping their Constituional boundaries
Do you have any facts to support that assertion?


Do you think that the founding fathers trusted in government? (I know that sounds ridiculous
Not at all. It is quite well-known that the founding fathers had a deep mistrust of government. That is why they created the system of checks and balances that we have in place today. Note that the founding fathers did not create the ACLU!


I'll take the "good ACLU" and the "bad ACLU" in equal measure
The only problem is that the two parts are not available in equal measure. The "bad ACLU," as you put it, is far more prevelant than the "good ACLU."


they are taking cases to court based on the Constitutionality of the case
The ACLU has litigated many cases of school prayer, based upon the premise that it is "unconstitutional" to offer prayer in school. I would like for you to post the text from the constitution that forbids prayer in school.

[Lazaruslong]

eric,
Alright regarding your first three points/resposnses to my post I have to say that those are not the reasons I have a problem with the ACLU---they are the reasons I think that the ACLU is so hated. Fourth point--I don't have the relevant facts available so I'll have to do some research. Point 6--this is linked to the fourth point so I'll have to get back to you. And lastly I would point to the establishment clause. Sorry for the format but I don't know how to include quotes.

[erichthewebguy]

I would point to the establishment clause

Establishment clause:


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
Remember that I said prayer was offered in school, not forced. How does offering something equate to establishment? If a school were forcing students to pray in school, that would equal establishment.

Take, for example, when the ACLU sued Alabama for their 60 second moment of silence. The ACLU challenged the law, saying that the moment of silence introduced a "potential opportunity for a student to pray."

That sounds like a violation of the establishment clause, in that it prohibits free expression of religion!

[Lazaruslong]

Eric--What sticks in my mind, when considering the numerous ways that prayer is packaged to be more innocuous, is the simple fact that prayer does not belong in school. To clarify this I will say that the school has no business initiating or advocating anything in the way of a moment of silence, a prayer, a generic prayer or anything regarding theology. What really makes me angry is the idea that "my kid isn't allowed to pray at school". Why does ones religious views need to be a matter of public attention? Or recognition/endorsement from the public school system? The following is a quote from the book of matthew Matthew 6:5-6: "And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men....when thou prayest, enter into thy closet and when thou has shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret...." What is to prevent a student from taking his or her own personal moment in which to pray? How many hours in the day are there in which a student isn't in school? 17 at my count. 17 hours in the day in which they are allowed to pursue whatever religious ideoligies they prefer. It is not the job of the public school system.

[erichthewebguy]

Laz,

You said that you were going to come back with facts. Since you seemingly have absolutely no factual evidence to support your argument, and want to debate on opinions only, allow me to retort:

- Why should a school day not include a moment of silence? You say that schools should not endorse anything regarding theology, yet a moment of silence is just that, silence. You contradict yourself in your own argument.

- If a child chooses to pray at school, should disciplinary action be taken? If so, what action, and why?

- Why should one NOT be angry that his or her child is not allowed to pray in school? The school most certainly is not endorsing any single religion with a moment of silence!

- You say that our religious views should not be a matter of public attention, nor should they be endorsed by the public school system. How is a moment of silence bringing to the piblic's attention any religious view, and how is it endorsing any single religion?

- You also state that religious views should not be recognized by a public school. If that is your position, then clearly you would have no objection to forcing a Jewish student to eat pork in the cafeteria, or forcing a Muslim student to dress in "western" attire, am I correct?

- Regarding your scripture quote: If a student *chooses* to pray in silence, in school or not, how does that compare to the "hypocrites" who "stand on the corners in the streets?" If someone is silent, is that not in secret?

- You are right, there are many, many hours in the day with which to practice religious views. What makes this country great is that we do not have to choose a time period that we are allowed to practice our religion. What would you say to a Muslim, whose religion says that he or she should pray at noon, while school is in session? Ah, before you answer, what would you say to a Christian in the same class who wanted to pray at noon?

- You are right, it is not the job of the public school system to hold prayer services. Nor is it the job of the public school system to be the "prayer police!" If a student chooses to pray, why should he or she be denied that freedom?

[Oi_Ve]

Well the man, look on the bright side. It could have been a colony of giant ants that moved into the neighboring county.

Suddenly the ACLU doesn't seem so bad, now does it?

[namvet]

I live in whashington state in a small county called adams county and the aclu just moved into the county next to us called grant county. I have no clue why the hell they are there but im just a little worried.

give me your address. ill send you a gun.

[Lazaruslong]

Eric: Are there any examples of a child NOT being allowed to pray in school? And let me preface that question. I'm not asking for examples in which "The young Christians for Christ want to have a prayer meeting in the gym" or a student isn't allowed to read a prayer over a PA system. I want you to find me an example of an Individual prevented from praying in school. Many appropriate times for prayer or personal reflection are mentioned later on in this post. What you are saying is that by not having a moment of silence in school students are not being allowed to pray. Come on--there is lunch, recess, study hall, before and after school, period changes (between classes in Jr. and High school) and the many hours in the day in which our undereducated children space out and daydream and you are going to tell me that children are being prevented from praying? Ridiculous. Students are provided many opportunities throughout the day to interact with their god or "have a moment of silence"-I just don't think it should be an official school policy that everyone should do so. How long will the Christian MAJORITY consider themselves under siege? and an oppressed minority? And regarding a Jewish student "forced" to eat pork? stop being shrill--students are never forced to eat anything. They are allowed to bring bag lunches and they have numerous options in cafeteria food. Lastly regarding Muslim dress and Muslim prayer (at noon and facing Mecca--do muslims have an innate sense of direction or do they use compasses-I'm serious on this one) I haven't the faintest idea. I have not seen any cases in which Muslim dress and prayer ritual were addressed in the U.S. However France took the liberty of banning Muslim dress in their schools. Beyond that I don't know. Regarding youre assertion that I have presented no facts in my arguments well here goes.

Wallace V. Jaffree(1985) addressed a compulsory moment of silence in Alabama public schools. The Supreme Court overruled the Alabama law citing the establishment clause. There you go. According to the constitution you're moment of silence will not fly.

Lastly, in regards to your statement responding to the verse I posted regarding public prayer, the silence you are advocating is provided to students student througout the day at times of their choosing. By the way your moment of silence would "force" students to pray at a certain time...sounds pretty muslim to me.

[Wadi66]

I thought this was interesting...

Freedom of speech and press is guaranteed to students unless the topic is religious, at which time such speech becomes unconstitutional. [Stein vs. Oshinski, 1965; Collins v. Chandler Unified School district, 644 F. 2d 759, 760 (9th Cir. 1981).

Wait a minute, suddenly free speech is UNconstitutional? The Constitution does not contradict itself. FREE SPEECH IS FREE SPEECH, no matter where you are and as long as you are not endangering others.


Wallace V. Jaffree(1985) addressed a compulsory moment of silence in Alabama public schools. The Supreme Court overruled the Alabama law citing the establishment clause. There you go. According to the constitution you're moment of silence will not fly. You can expect this one to be overturned.

In the US, Muslims are allowed to dress as they wish and are given time out for their prayers. This is not and never has been an attack on "religion". It IS an attack on Christianity.

Every time a pop quiz is given, someone says a silent prayer.

Laz, you and others like you have completely misunderstood what the establishment clause is. Ho hum, public education at its finest.

[Wadi66]

Northwest Ordinance 1787

ART. 3. Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.

[Oi_Ve]

The moment of silence was created out of time alotted for prayer in public schools back in the day, but "moment of silence" is not a religious term: in fact it has absolutely NO connection with prayer at all. Its a moment to honor the dead, which has no religious connection at all.
Now, granted, you're free to honor the dead in anyway you choose during this moment, so long as its silent, including prayer. You don't have to pray, in fact moments of slience don't encourage prayer at all. All you do is keep quiet, if only to show repect.
Doesn't anyone find it odd that the moment of silence comes right after the pledge of allegence in most schools?
Couldn't it be a moment where you're expected to show patriotism, not necessarily religious convictions?
IThere's a certain amount of respect that is due to the people who founded this nation, died for this nation, and for all those who have come before us in general.
Asking school children to be quiet for one minute a day seems like the least we could do.

But here's a little anecdote concerning people and how they feel about the moment of silence...

I taught at a high school in Alabama some years back and there was a particular student who refused to keep quiet during the moment of silence, so I threw him out of class one day.
His mother, your stereotypical large, colored woman came to school and asked what had happened. I told her that her son was talking during the moment of silence.
She turned around and slapped the kid so hard I thought he was going to fall over and then she went on a long, loud tirade about "what's the matter with you?" and "don't you know you show respect?". Then she asked me if he had stood for the pledge of allegence, and I told her that he had, although he didn't recite it.
The last thing I heard her say (that I could understand at least) was something along the lines of "boy, you better get in that car otherwise I'm gonna kick your black ass all the way home!"

[Wadi66]

The following are thoughts and quotes taken from The Heritage Guide to the Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion…

None of the Framers believed that a governmental connection to religion was an evil in itself. Rather, many (though not all) opposed an established church because they believed that it was a threat to the free exercise of religion. Their primary goal was to protect free exercise. Nor did most of the Founding generation believe that government ought to be “untainted” by religion, or ought not to take an interest in furthering people’s connection to religion. In the Northwest Ordinance (1787) the first Congress stated “Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.”

In the First Congress, the committee proposal in the House read, “no religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed”. Some expressed concern that the phrase might put in doubt the legitimacy of some of the states’ own religious establishments. Madison believed modifying the phrase to prohibit a “national religion” would make clear that the new government was not to impinge on the rights of conscience. Rep. Livermore suggested, “Congress shall make no laws touching religion or the rights of conscience”. The House finally settled on “Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, nor shall the rights of Conscience be infringed.” The Senate preferred “Congress shall make no law establishing articles of faith, or a mode of worship, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion”. In Conference, they agreed upon “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. The word “Respecting” was to prohibit Congress from legislating either to establish a national religion or to disestablish a state religion. It has been noted that “a growing body of evidence suggest that the Framers principally intended the Establishment of Religion Clause to perform two functions: to protect state religious establishment from national displacement, and to prevent the national government from aiding some, but not all, religions.” History strongly suggests that most Framers supported religion because it increased virtue among the people, which they viewed as necessary element for the maintenance of a free republic.

Modern interpretation of Jefferson’s “wall of separation” is an expansion beyond Jefferson’s own meaning and practice. As William Rehnquist noted in his dissent in the Wallace v. Jaffree (1985), the original meaning of the Establishment Clause only “forbade establishment of a national religion, and forbade preference among religious sects or denominations.” He further stated that Jefferson is “a less than ideal source of contemporary history as to the meaning of the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment”. He was absent from the country when the Bill of Rights was written, and was not involved in the legislative drafting of the First Amendment.

It is further noted that the Establishment Clause was originally meant only to prohibit the government from coercing individuals to practice religion or support it. It does however recognize that the government has the power to “accommodate” diverse religions without “coercing” individuals. As Madison stated in his 1789 explanation to the House, the goal was to prevent a sect or combination of sect from “establishing a religion to which they could compel others to conform.”

As Justice O’Conner has noted, the Establishment Clause prohibits a state from “endorsing” a religion. The test for “endorsement” as whether an objective, reasonable observer would see the state action as sending “a message to non-adherents that they are not full members of the political community”

[Dr. Madd]

Despite what the Left would have you to believe, the constitution was not designed to protect people from religion, but to protect the rights to worship from tyranny. The majority of this country is either protestant or Catholic,
with Judaism being the next big one. That said, we are in the majority, and removing the ten commandments from public buildings is not only offensive to Chrisitians, but should also be offensive to Jews and Muslims (Who consider Moses one of the prophets). That's three religions the Atheists are offending.
While I know that offending Christians doesn't seem to worry the Left, but the law is also Anti-semitic. It's racist! The Liberals, by so doing are oppressing a holy text more important to the Jews than to us. *shrugs* So much for fair treatment for Minorities. Someone should point out to the ACLU that the removal of the Ten Commandments from public buildings is insensitive to Jewish culture. Before I get flamed, I happen to be a protestant Christian with a lot of respect for the Jewish culture.