News: ACLU...America's Taliban?

ACLU and Christianity

Russ <><

 

Thank you New Man, for the link above. It was informative. The only thing we conservative Christians can do for them is Pray hard. Pray that someone will come to them with the message of Salvation. One idea a friend of mine stated, was to send the aclu members to iraq. I kind of liked that idea. The first 4 verses of 2 Tim. chapter 3, pretty much reminds me of the aclu. Read these when you get a chance. Rick Sr.

 

The article you reference has so many problems with fact and relevance that it would take far too much bandwidth to respond to in any detail. The quotes from the "founding fathers" generally fall into three categories:

1.) The "fathers" quoted were on the losing side of the church and state separation vote, so while the quote may honestly represent their views, their views are irrelevant to the historicity of the separation of church and state intent of the First Amendment
2.) The "fathers" quoted have had their quotes taken out of context or the quotes are regarding the beliefs of the respective persons regarding the value of religion -- not whether church and state should be separate. The unspoken assumption is that a person who valued religion would be opposed to church and state separation. Nothing could be further from the truth. Baptists and other people of Christian conviction fought hard to obtain and maintain separation of church and state.
3.) The "fathers" are not really fathers of our country at all. Since when has Abraham Lincoln, Andrew Jackson or Daniel Webster been considered a "founding father"?

In any case, I will present one glaring problem in a Supreme Court case presented as evidence:

The article reads:

This quote is accurate and affirms that the government is not to be hostile to religion or religious people. Please notice sentences three and four: government is not to show partiality toward one religion over another. This contradicts the quote attributed to Joseph Story regard the idea that all religions should be treated equally as mentioned in the last sentence of his quote. To be fair, Story is only talking about sentiment, not the Constitution, so his observation has little merit regarding the actual intent of the First Amendment.

In any case, the writer of this article did not read these quotes very carefully (or hoped you would not) because Justice Douglas' quote does not "reaffirm that historical verity".

OOPS!

The writer of this article just made a false statement and misrepresented a quote -- two deceptions in one sentence.

The false statement

Justice Douglas did not go "on to assert" the quote attributed to him here. He did write that sentence, but this sentence preceded the previous quote. If this was intentional, the writer of the article is being deceptive. If it is not intentional, it demonstrates that the writer of the article has probably never read the case he quotes and likely does not understand even the basics of the issue. Either way it severely undermines his credibility.

The misrepresented quote

Another favorite tactic of those who strive to prove the separation of church and state is not the intent of the First Amendment is to use quotes from cases out of context. Here is a much more complete context for this quote:

"There is much talk of the separation of Church and State in the history of the Bill of Rights and in the decisions clustering around the First Amendment. (See Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1; McCollum v. Board of Education, supra.) There cannot be the slightest doubt that the First Amendment reflects the philosophy that Church and State should be separated. And so far as interference with the "free exercise" of religion and an "establishment" of religion are concerned, the separation must be complete and unequivocal. The First Amendment within the scope of its coverage permits no exception; the prohibition is absolute. The First Amendment, however, does not say that in every and all respects there shall be a separation of Church and State. Rather, it studiously defines the manner, the specific ways, in which there shall be no concert or union or dependency one on the other. That is the common sense of the matter. Otherwise the state and religion would be aliens to each other - hostile, suspicious, and even unfriendly. Churches could not be required to pay even property taxes. Municipalities would not be permitted to render police or fire protection to religious groups. Policemen who helped parishioners into their places of worship would violate the Constitution... We would have to press the concept of separation of Church and State to these extremes to condemn the present law on constitutional grounds."

The quote, taken in context, is merely explains how "complete and unequivocal" separation of church and state should work in the real world. That's a far cry from what the writer of this article claimed.

You can read Zorach v. Clauson for yourself at:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&court=US&case=/us/343/306.html

Do I need to go on?

If you want to discuss issues of church and state in the court of public opinion, please do your homework first... some real homework -- not these blatantly false polemics posing as a "Christian" perspective.

Every time Christians make a stink about issues like this and they follow these false teachers of history, they only harden unbelievers and shame Christ. If we truly believe that Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, we should make sure that everything we say to the world is well-researched and above reproach. Otherwise we are doing the evil one's work for him.

 

Check again... it is false teaching.

Certainly we should pray for the ongoing work for true religious liberty in our nation, including the work that the ACLU does.

I'm sure many people in the ACLU are committed believers. Don't assume that they are non-Christians.

I'm sure a number of ACLU members will serve their country in Iraq. Many more serve their country here by supporting the rights of unpopular people.

Not to me... I alway think about the ninth commandment when I read articles like the one quoted... They should not bear false witness -- especially in the name of God!

 

I called them nonsense because they are not true. You said the Bible was not allowed in school and that is patently false. If we are going to talk about this, we need to deal in truth.

The account you quote is under dispute. He is an outline of the curriculum for these classes in California:

http://www.cde.ca.gov/standards/history/grade7.html

As you can see, they study many things - including the Reformation. Someone may have gone overboard in the classroom mentioned, but it is hardly a state-wide program to promote Islam. Instead, California teaches about Islam which is not unconstitutional. They can also teach about Christianity as long as they do not promote it and remain neutral.

As I have stated before, I do not support all positions of the ACLU. However, I generally approve of the position that the ACLU takes on religious liberty.

You ask about interpreting through my biases...

I am biased toward the truth. I have studied these issues formally (Southwestern Seminary "Church and State" class with Dr. W.R. Estep and in an "Interdisciplinary Christian Thought" class in college) as well as careful study and research on my own. I have books of Supreme Court cases in my library and I have read all of the landmark decisions regarding religious liberty. I have study the history of the founding of this nation and the creation of the First Amendment of the Constitution. I have read and studied the works of those who oppose separation of church and state (especially the work of David Barton -- one of the primary leaders of this most recent movement against separation) and have found with very few exceptions that their material is at best, poorly research, and at worst, completely dishonest.

Yes I have biases, but I judge everything I see upon the knowledge and understanding I have gained over the past 15 years of studying the subject. I have yet to see the Religious Right put forth an credible argument that stands up to the New Testament and accurately references the appropriate documents.

[ January 11, 2003, 11:24 AM: Message edited by: Baptist Believer ]

 

Here's yet another goodie about the KGB...er, I mean, the ACLU:

http://www.mormonstoday.com/991121/N1MainStreet01.shtml

The property bought for 8.1 million is now private property, with right of way ONLY being given to citizens, as per the deal. Now the ACLU takes it upon themselves to obstruct what religious organizations do with private property? Spare me!

Wonder why they don't go after some of these Islamic madrassas we have here in the US? Haven't heard about that yet, nor do I expect to!

And yes, evolution and secular humanism are religions. Creation & Christianity should have equal time in public schools...not just being allowed to carry the Bible, but to teach from it, too. Oh, how I long for the good old days before Prayer was kicked out of public schools by a judiciary who legislated from the bench! Funny thing, we had prayer & Bible reading in public classrooms for a couple hundred years & we didn't have Columbines back then, either.

 

Amen Sheeagle: When the Bible and prayer were a part of the school, kids were not killing kids,and there were no Anti-Christian Lovers Union(sorry seems I've stated something that a majority of Christians believe). Brfore long the aclu will be wanting to tell our preachers what to preach. This sounds like a stste run church. Rick Sr.

 

That is a poor statement.

Correctly stated, People using the scientific method strive to examine the theory put forth that living things arose from non-living things without the need for an outside intelligence creating anything.
You might say that the word "science", as used, is a blanket word that covers the phrase "People using the scientific method". The word describes the discipline.
We've got to stop saying, "evolution is science". That's a terrible phrase. You've got to take a much greater leap of faith to believe in evolution than to believe in an all-powerful supernatural creator.

The ACLU doesn't fight against the religion of evolution and secular humanism because Roger Baldwin (and all the following leaders IMHO)really wanted this country to convert to communism.
Most folks know that the ACLU is at the forefront of perpetuating the myth of separation of church and state. What is not well known however, is that its founders were closely affiliated with the American Communist movement. Roger Baldwin wrote the following in his Harvard Reunion Year Book 16 years after founding the ACLU, "I seek social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and sole control of those who produced the wealth: communism is the goal."
Dr. Harry Ward, first chairman of the ACLU is the author of "Soviet Democracy" and "Soviet Spirit," two pro-Communist books which clearly show Dr. Ward's love for the Soviet system of government. A key tenant of the soviet government was a godless society.

 

A couple of comments:

1. The American legal system allows groups such as the ACLU to operate. The fact that such groups are extremely well-funded by those who are anti-Christianity and anti-Bible is actually a separate issue. Groups such as the ACLU are able to choose their clients, and if they want to keep their funding, their clients will be primarily those who are fighting what the major funding parties are against. Ditto for the officers of the ACLU. Thus, while their objective statement of their reason to be may be supported by a number of people who are probably a bit naive about what is really going on, when one pays attention to the subjective way in which their objectives are carried out, one becomes aware rather quickly that their "objectivity" is a smokescreen. But, smokescreen or not, they are not illegal in their presence, funding, or operation. Therefore, in order to 'do something' about them, one would have to consider doing something first about the American legal system.

2. Evolution is not a religion. People of all sorts of religions can be evolutionists. What IS a religion is secular humanism, whereby it is declared that man is the meaning and measure of all things. Evolution, as a body of so-called science, is the APPROACH to science that humanism supports because it supports the concept of humanism. It is humanism which is totally incompatible with any form of theistic religion (Christianity very much included). But there are a good many people who do put their trust in Jesus Christ and yet still manage to believe that evolution 'is the way God did it.' The problem for them is that God states rather clearly in the Bible that He did it another way, but being mixed up about Genesis does not mean someone is not a Christian -- it just means he is not sure enough of the God he believes in yet to think that God says what He means and means what He says from Genesis on. Evolution is not even a science itself, if one wants to be technically correct; it is an interpretation of science. Basic creationism is also an interpretation of science. Science, as the collection of data, doesn't really care what the individual scientist believes.

So while a Christian can be an evolutionist, a Christian cannot be a humanist, for either man or God is the measure of things, not both. In terms of evolution and creation, either matter is eternal and, given enought time and organization produced an intelligence which made up the idea of a deity or matter is not eternal and itself was created from nothing by a deity. The Bible proclaims the latter and identifies that deity as the Lord God, our Creator and Redeemer and, to the eventual despair of many, our Judge.

 

http://www.mormonstoday.com/991121/N1MainStreet01.shtml</font>[/QUOTE]I want you to notice two things about this article that was posted:

1.) It is based on an article from the Associated Press, but it has been "helpfully" summarized by someone named Kent Larsen. We are essentially reading what Kent Larsen believes is the important part of the story -- not what the associated press reported.

2.) This material is posted on the Mormons Today website. It is likely that they summarized the content of the story to fit the Mormon agenda.

As I remember, this case concerns whether or not the city acted properly in their sale of the property to the Mormon church because the street has traditionally used by non-Mormon missionaries to teach Temple Square visitors that the Mormon church is a non-Christian cult. I believe the suit was attempting to determine if the city was trying to assist the Mormon Church rid the public area of those who oppose Mormon teachings. Since the Mormon church has obtained the property, non-Mormon missionaries are not allowed to conduct free speech in Temple Square.

I, for one, am very interested to know if the Mormon church (an organization that wields enormous power in Utah because the church does not allow any deviation by its members) used its influence upon members of the Salt Lake government to take possession of the property.

For what it is worth, Mormonism is a cult and is not Christian. This is a perfect example of the ACLU attempting to hold a non-Christian group accountable.

It is not about whether they have the right to use private property as they see fit, but rather the circumstances surrounding the acquisition of the property.

Probably because they haven't purchased areas traditionally recognized as free speech zones from the city and then placed restrictions upon those who oppose Islam.

I certainly don't want the government teaching or promoting the gospel. That's the job of the church.

Prayer was not kicked out of school. The rulings in the early 1960s only prohibited the government from promoting religion and leading religious exercises (prayer and Bible reading). You really need to stop repeating false rhetoric and stick to the facts if you want to be taken seriously.

The good ole' days were not as good as you make them out to be. Furthermore prayer and Bible reading were not universal across the United States but was a localized thing. Neither one of my parents had prayer and Bible reading in the public schools and they went to public schools between 1930-1942 and 1948-1952 -- my father is 10 years older than my mother, so their school years are widely separated.

The issue of shootings in schools is is a complex one, but one of the primary reasons we have some of these incidents has to do with the modern media reporting of these incidents that make the murderers famous and, ironically, the harsh school policies that restrict violence until it turns into murderous rage -- that is, there are relatively few school fist fights anymore because the penalties are so severe. So instead of a kid who has been picked on having a relatively "safe" was to release the rage and prove himself to peers by standing up to them in a fight, you have a kid driven to settle the score with a gun when he feels he can't take it anymore.

Furthermore, there has been violence in schools for years, but it did not always get the press it does now.

 

Thanks for the discussion, seeing we have reached page 3 the thread will close in the AM. (whenever I get up) unless The Squire beats me to it.
Have agreat evening.
Murph

 

Oh, thanks for the warning, Murph!

I have to hurry & get the last word before Baptist Believer (maybe it'll be locked before he catches on...wink..wink)!

Yes, I do long for the good old days when there was Bible reading & prayer in public schools. (sigh) Sorry you missed it, but it was great to be a kid then. Sorry your parents missed it too. But it used to be common place for the last couple hundred years like I said.

Do you try to miss the point of my posts on purpose? Just wondering...

Ripping apart the article I posted about the Mormons completely misses my point. The point wasn't about the Mormons or them being a cult. The point was about the GESTAPO ACLU trying to elbow their way into a financial real estate transaction conducted between an organization & a city government!

You can pooh-pooh about Columbine & Bible reading & prayer all you want to. Columbine might be a complex issue to those who want to psychoanalize everything & everybody.

But the fact is, when there was Bible reading & prayers in school, when there was taught the sanctity of human life (before Roe v Wade), when the 10 Commandments and the rest of our Judeo-Christian heritage was part of our educational foundation in this country, Columbines didn't exist. It's all relative. It has to do with children learning to have a moral compass....something they don't get from secular humanism. They don't teach etiquette in school anymore either, it would seem. Things like respect for your elders.

It's all relative, Baptist Believer, when you look at the BIG PICTURE.

And the ACLU is just another anti-God, anti-Christ, anti-Christian organization that should be listed as Public Enemy #1 on the Post Office bulletin board of wanted posters!

That's my last word....(Hurry up & lock this thread, please.... )

 

Too late. But I'm going to bed in a few minutes, so you still have a chance.

My father was a school teacher for a year in the 1950s and was forced to lead prayer and Bible reading in the public school. It didn't seem to help the kids in his class. He had to also participate in a patrol of a garden area on the school property because high school student would often sneak off into the bushes and have sex.

Unless you were non-white or a religious minority in your area. Roman Catholics were the majority in my home town and when I had a 5th grade teacher who ignored the Supreme Court rulings and led us in prayer, it was using Roman Catholic prayers. Do you want Baptist kids to be taught Roman Catholic doctrine in school?

Not nearly as common as you suggest. If you do some research on it you'll find that prayer and Bible reading in schools tended to occur only in certain parts of the country and was a relatively recent phenomenon.

Not on purpose. Instead of missing the point, I think I'm just disagreeing with you.

You offered it as evidence, so I analyzed the evidence...

That's certainly the Mormon point-of-view. I see it as the City of Salt Lake and the Mormon Church conspiring to get rid of the embarrassment of having non-Mormon missionaries in Temple Square telling visitors that Mormonism is a false religion. If the property was transfered to favor the Mormon church, then it is clearly an illegal act. There was even a clause in the purchase agreement that seemed to anticipate the court case that resulted -- in case the sale was deemed unconstitutional, the Mormon church would get back the full purchase price and the city would take back the property.

I wasn't trying to "psychoanalyze" it as much as point out that there are some obvious things that have changed beyond mandatory prayer and Bible reading that likely have much more to do with the problem than simplistic answers that don't consider all the facts.

I didn't exist before 1965, so maybe I'm the problem. That's just as logical as your explanation.

We had legalized segregation and racism with mandatory prayer and the Bible in schools... Why didn't that fix institutional racism?

Furthermore, there were incidents where school kid did try to kill classmates in the schools. Since it was in the age before television it was not as widely reported. I remember something about a kid detonating a bomb in a school somewhere here in Texas in the 1920s or 1930s...

The parents and the church need to teach morality. I'm not saying the school don't have a part in it, but it starts at home. I think these problems have more to do with the failure of the American family and the pressures of both parents working.

Yes. That's why it is important to have a good view of the nature of law, education and the biblical principle of separation of church and state before drawing simplistic conclusions.

And this is just rhetoric based on little more than a misunderstanding of the issues. Granted, I don't agree with some of the ACLU's positions (abortion for one), but they have done much to aid the Christian ideal of separation of church and state.

Too late, but then again, you still have time.

Go for it.

 

Instead of getting information solely from a group opposed to the ACLU, I suggest going directly to the ACLU's website and reading their position on the issues.

The main site is: www.aclu.org

The master page for religious liberty issues is:

http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLibertyMain.cfm

 

While glancing through the ACLU site for the last post I noticed something interesting that the Religious Right is not likely to publically mention... The ACLU supported a lawsuit by Jerry Falwell regarding an archaic law preventing religious institutions from incorporating...

http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=10147&c=142

 

They should be more aptly named: The

Anti
Christian
Liberties
Union

Our United States constitution does not have one word in it about separation of church and state. Russia's does!

The first amendment only restricted Congress from establishing a state church that one would be forced to belong to!

It also restricts congress from prohibiting citizens to freely exercize their sincerely held religious beliefs.

We see the courts more taking on themselves the law making role that was intended for congress.

This link is great to understand our God given American Freedoms.

http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=18

http://www.wallbuilders.com/

Secular Humanism is the establishment of religion that now has an unconstitutional monopoly in our school systems. I have heard that in Humanist Manifestos 1 & 2, both declare that they are a religion. It is the worship of Man, Education, and 'Science'. If the ACLU was really interested in keeping religion out of state run schools, they would be after this one, too.

God Bless

Alliswell

[ January 13, 2003, 03:44 AM: Message edited by: Alliswell ]

 

http://www.garymcleod.org/2/johnd/humanist.htm

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/edwin_wilson/manifesto/ch2.html

God Bless

Alliswell

[ January 13, 2003, 04:00 AM: Message edited by: Alliswell ]

 

Nice rhetoric. Not very original though.

Yes it does. The First Amendment clearly establishes a separation between church and state. A simple study of the early history of our nation and the development of the First Amendment demonstrates this.

Uh huh...

Trying to tie separation of church and state to the old Soviet Constitution is an old rhetorical trick...

Baptists have supported separation of church and state for hundreds of years and were the leading religious influence behind the adoption of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. This feeble rhetoric does not change the facts.

It also restricts congress from prohibiting citizens to freely exercize their sincerely held religious beliefs.[/qb][/quote]

The First Amendment does at least those things, but I means much more.

The courts interpret the Constitution and the laws of our nation. If laws passed by Congress violate the Constitution, then they are illegal and should be struck down.

David Barton has been demonstrated by many, many historians to be in serious error. I first ran across David Barton's material in a video about 10 years ago, shortly after I completed a class on religious liberty where we read many of the founding documents and pivotal court cases for our classwork. Because of my familiarity with the material, I knew immediately that David Barton was being dishonest. (He even misquoted the First Amendment!!) However, my church was unconvinced, so I researched Barton for about two years and discovered that nearly everything he said about church and state was in serious error and his "quotes" were often highly suspect. He could not quote Supreme Court cases accurately or in context and dishonestly/inaccurately quoted documents like James Madison's "A Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments".

A Christian who relies on Barton's material without doing research (actually looking up Supreme Court cases and all other documents quoted) is asking to be misled. Barton is simply a false teacher.

http://www.ifas.org/fw/9606/barton.html

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/bjcpa1.htm

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/bartidx.htm

[ January 13, 2003, 08:01 AM: Message edited by: Baptist Believer ]