ACLU

[Pastor Larry]

The ACLU cannot be said in any sense to protect traditional American values. They are trying to rewrite things in a pluralistic manner. For instance, there is no freedom under the constitution to not have to hear a public prayer. It simply isn't there. When the ACLU fights for that "freedom," they are trying to rewrite the constitution. The ACLU is rarely on the side of the conservatism and the Constitution.

Unfortunately they have found a sympathetic hear in judges who share their view of the constitution as a "living document" that can be made to mean whatever a panel of judges decides. They are guilty of destroying some of hte fundamental values of this country such as the rule of law.

There is a way in which the ACLU can accomplish its desires. IT can go to Congress and get laws passed and the constitution amended in the way that the Constitution provided for. No one is doing that.

It was funny this week in the Roberts hearing to hear him tell Feinstein on an issue that Congress could solve a lot of problems by being more explicit in what they meant by something. Scalia is right. There is a way to do all these things that the ACLU (and others) want to do. Pass laws and amend the constitution. Don't ask the courts to do it.

 

[carpro]

Originally posted by Daisy:God cannot be removed from the public square unless He so chooses. A Christmas tree is not God; a statue representing the 10 Commandments is not God; organized public prayer is not God.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by carpro:
Agreed.

So why don't we,as people, just leave them like they are and let God do the removing?

Sure - let Him remove whatever He places. </font>[/QUOTE]I have a neighbor named Tim. Tim is not a Christian. But I'm not going to share Christ with him. If God wants him to accept Christ, he'll do it without my help. Right?

 

[Marcia]

I agree with Daisy.

The 10 commandments imply that we all must live by them to get to heaven (have you ever asked nonbelievers about this -- many of them believe this). Also, the 10 commandments were given to Israel, not to the Gentiles -- and when Christ came, he fulfilled them and believing in Christ is they way to live out the 10 commandments by the HS (though not perfectly, of course).

Yes, we should share Christ! But having a Christmas tree or posting the 10 commandments in public is not my way of sharing Christ. While Christians expend time and money for these things, that is using up time and money that could be spent better elsewhere, imo.

 

[carpro]

Originally posted by Marcia:
I agree with Daisy.

But having a Christmas tree or posting the 10 commandments in public is not my way of sharing Christ.

But it could be. Maybe it should be. As a Christian, if you're afraid to make a public statement about Christ and God and your relationship to them, why bother being a Christian at all?

If you can't take a stand against those, including the aclu, that seek to deny you the right to celebrate your relationship to the Lord in public way, you might as well be a Christian in secret. And my experience with secret Christians is that they never share Christ with anyone.

Although God is in control of all things, I believe the aclu is an instrument of Satan, the destroyer.

 

[KenH]

The government clearly is forbidden to establish a State religion. But the government is also clearly forbidden from stopping the free exercise of religion - even by government officials, even on government property.

 

[Plain Old Bill]

The history of the ACLU is pretty common knowledge no matter who writes about it.

 

[Daisy]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
The ACLU cannot be said in any sense to protect traditional American values.

Nor do they claim to. Their mission is to protect civil liberties.

They are trying to rewrite things in a pluralistic manner.

E Plurbius Unum - that was the traditional national motto.

The ACLU is rarely on the side of the conservatism and the Constitution.

I suppose that depends on whether you consider the Bill of Rights and subsequent amendments to be part of the Constitution or radical liberal tack-ons.

Unfortunately they have found a sympathetic hear in judges who share their view of the constitution as a "living document" that can be made to mean whatever a panel of judges decides. They are guilty of destroying some of hte fundamental values of this country such as the rule of law.

Last I looked this country was still ruled by law. Civil liberties are written into law, particularly into the Constitution, particularly into the Bill of Rights and subsequent amendments.

There is a way in which the ACLU can accomplish its desires. IT can go to Congress and get laws passed and the constitution amended in the way that the Constitution provided for. No one is doing that.

What they are doing is getting the amendments enforced.

It was funny this week in the Roberts hearing to hear him tell Feinstein on an issue that Congress could solve a lot of problems by being more explicit in what they meant by something. Scalia is right. There is a way to do all these things that the ACLU (and others) want to do. Pass laws and amend the constitution. Don't ask the courts to do it.

They are asking the courts to enforce the laws and amendments that have been passed. If the law is vague, the courts must decide.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

Originally posted by KenH:
The government clearly is forbidden to establish a State religion. But the government is also clearly forbidden from stopping the free exercise of religion - even by government officials, even on government property.

If they are in the role as private citizens, I would agree. In their role as government officials, their actions can be construed as establishment of religion.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Magnetic Poles:
In their role as government officials, their actions can be construed as establishment of religion.

I disagree. One does not give up his right to the free exercise of religion because he works for the government or is on government property.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

Originally posted by hillclimber:
While the ACLJ is obviously a good organization, its head, Jay Sekulow, is of a mind that if the Supremes decide a case, Jay supports it. When the Supremes decided against Judge ______ in Alabama (I think) about removal of the ten commandments, Sekulow dissed the Judge and confirmed the ruling.

My point is, I do not support bad law and Sekulow should not either. OK fire away.

I know I'm the only one that can't think of the judge's name.

ACLJ is Pat Robertson's little project. As he has no credibility, neither does the ACLJ.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

Originally posted by KenH:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Magnetic Poles:
In their role as government officials, their actions can be construed as establishment of religion.

I disagree. One does not give up his right to the free exercise of religion because he works for the government or is on government property. </font>[/QUOTE]Free exercise does not require a person in their role as a government official to make a public display of their private religion. John Kennedy had it right re: absolute separation.

 

[KenH]

The ACLJ has just as much credibility as the ACLU.

Show MP what we think of the ACLU, Puff. Make it go away!

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Magnetic Poles:
Free exercise does not require a person in their role as a government official to make a public display of their private religion.

I agree. There is no requirement. But there is also no prohibition of a government official exercising his right to publicly display his religion as your side wishes to deprive him of.

 

[Daisy]

Originally posted by carpro:
But it could be. Maybe it should be. As a Christian, if you're afraid to make a public statement about Christ and God and your relationship to them, why bother being a Christian at all?

Choice, not fear. The ACLU would support your right to decorate your own yard with crosses and creches and glowing Santas, if that is how you share your Christianity with your neighbors.

I like Christmas lights and decorations.

If you can't take a stand against those, including the aclu, that seek to deny you the right to celebrate your relationship to the Lord in public way, you might as well be a Christian in secret.

The ACLU supports the right of individuals to practice their religions freely and openly.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by KenH:
The government clearly is forbidden to establish a State religion. But the government is also clearly forbidden from stopping the free exercise of religion - even by government officials, even on government property.

Yes, providing it isn't being financed out of general tax revenues or seen as official government sanctioning of a particular religion. Government officials are allowed to practice their religion short of evangelising their underlings but as private individuals rather than as public servants .

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Daisy:
The ACLU supports the right of individuals to practice their religions freely and openly.

They don't if you are a government official or even a private citizen on government property. The ACLU is clearly anti-first amendment on the free exercise clause.

 

[Alcott]

Originally posted by Magnetic Poles:
re: absolute separation.

I will never be for absolute separation. If we had that, churches would be exempt from building codes and could construct large floors with only a single exit, they could use shoddy materials with inadequate wiring and insulations. They could also dump their own garbage in the cities, burning or burying it, whichever they choose, as long as it was on their own grounds, and they would have to take care of their own sewage some way, since there must be absolute separation between the church and the municipality and its services. If a criminal was being chased by the police, if he went into a church and stayed there, he could remain unless the church had enough strong men to physically throw him out-- the police couldn't do it, as they couldn't even go into a church with absolute separation. No vandalism aganst a church could be prosecuted, including spray painting a swastika on a synogogue, with absolute separation; a religious body could not look to government for any help or any justice in anything whatsoever. As for making political statements from the pulpit or on official church stationary, that would be allowed, since no government entity can recognize anything done or said in a church-- this is the case where extreme leftists want exactly the opposite of absolute separation.

Absolute separation is not the way to go, no matter what the ACLU, Americans United for Separation, the Baptist Joint Committe, the American Atheist Association, or any other group claims.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Magnetic Poles:
ACLJ is Pat Robertson's little project.

That has nothing to do with the substance. I'm no fan of Pat Robertson, either. However, your smear tactic against the ACLJ fails.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Daisy:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
The ACLU cannot be said in any sense to protect traditional American values.

Nor do they claim to. Their mission is to protect civil liberties.</font>[/QUOTE]From their website: The ACLU is our nation's guardian of liberty. We work daily in courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States. Our job is to conserve America's original civic values - the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. http://www.aclu.org/about/aboutmain.cfm

E Plurbius Unum - that was the traditional national motto.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with what I said.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />The ACLU is rarely on the side of the conservatism and the Constitution.

I suppose that depends on whether you consider the Bill of Rights and subsequent amendments to be part of the Constitution or radical liberal tack-ons.</font>[/QUOTE]The BOR and the Amendments are being destroyed by the ACLU. They have no regard for the first amendment. They argue that government can make a law regarding the free exercise of religion. Note how many times they have gone to bat against public prayer (an exercise of religion), against religious displays (an exercise of religion), etc. This is cut and dried. When the first amendment says "no law," it means "no law" either for or against. The ACLU is destroying the first amendment.

Last I looked this country was still ruled by law.['quote]Look again. In our constitution, laws are made by teh legislature, signed and enforced by the executive, and litigated by the courts. Now, we have courts making law. Everytime you hear someone say that "Roe is settled law" you have a prime case of a country not ruled by law. Roe isn't a law at all. It was a court case. Judges have no power to make law, or to write law, but that is what they do.

Civil liberties are written into law, particularly into the Constitution, particularly into the Bill of Rights and subsequent amendments.

But they are not being defended very well by the ACLU. When was the last time the ACLU went to bat for baby who was about to be killed? Where were they arguing for that baby's civil rights?

What they are doing is getting the amendments enforced.

No, they're not. They are legislating through the courts.

They are asking the courts to enforce the laws and amendments that have been passed.

In most of the public casese, they are not. They are asking the courts to legislate.

If the law is vague, the courts must decide.

The court should send it back to Congress for clarification, if that is the case. They do not have the power to write new laws.

 

[carpro]

Originally posted by KenH:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Daisy:
The ACLU supports the right of individuals to practice their religions freely and openly.

They don't if you are a government official or even a private citizen on government property. The ACLU is clearly anti-first amendment on the free exercise clause. </font>[/QUOTE]Clearly.

The aclu doesn't support my right to practise my religion freely and openly when they have been instrumental in restricting where, when and how I practise it also depending on who I work for and who might be in hearing distance.

That's very restrictive and not what I call freedom to practise my religion openly and freely at all.

 

[LadyEagle]

I am going to start praying that God destroys the wicked ACLU if it could please Him.