Originally posted by Kilad:
The actions of the ACLU speak for themselves.
Yes, we agree on that. I say the ACLU takes the side of individuals against government institutions which include local, state and federal governments, the judiciary and schools.
It's customary to provide links to your sources, but since you're somewhat new here, I won't hold you to it.
This time.
In May 2001 The ACLU filed suit against VMI to ban prayer given by the school Chaplin at Dinner.
I believe that is inaccurate but I didn't find a link to the actual court case; The ACLU filed suit on behalf of two students to stop
coerced prayers at a state school.
RICHMOND, VA -- The American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia today filed a lawsuit challenging Virginia Military Institute's requirement that students be present for a prayer ceremony prior to each evening meal.
"These prayers violate our nation's tradition of religious freedom," said Kent Willis, Executive Director of the ACLU of Virginia. "As a state school, VMI cannot make prayer a condition for eating dinner or any other activity."
<snip>
According to the legal papers filed in U.S. District Court in Lynchburg, the entire VMI student body is not allowed to be seated for supper until the student chaplain leads them in a prayer provided by the school. Upperclass students are not required to attend, but if they do not, they must forgo dinner in the mess hall. All cadets, however, are required to pay for room and board.
<snip>
"This is not an attempt to remove religion from the VMI campus," added Willis. "Every student should be allowed to practice the religion of his or her choice. In fact, it would be wrong for VMI to prevent individual or group religious practices that do not disrupt the school's educational process. But the Constitution prohibits the state from pressuring anyone to participate in a religious ceremony, and that is exactly what is happening here."
Source: ACLU: press release, 05/09/2001 (linkie)
The school lost its appeal in 2003:
<snip>
In its April ruling, the three-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit noted that the U.S Supreme Court has never directly addressed whether the Establishment Clause forbids state-sponsored prayer at a public college or university. However,
the judges all agreed that the prayers at VMI are unconstitutional because they have the primary effect of endorsing religion and because
student participation is coerced.
<snip>
Source: ACLUVA news release 08/13/2003 (linkie)
See, the ACLU fights for individual's rights to pray or not according to his conscience.
In 2002 the ACLU filed suit against Franklinton, Louisiana which resulted in a sign that was paid for and put up by local churches being taken down. The sign said "Jesus is Lord over Franklinton".
The churches may have paid for the signs, but the parish taxpayers paid to have them installed. Also the signs were put up on public property, not church or private property. Public property is owned equally by all the people whether Christian, Jewish or non-religious.
<snip>
"Thomas Jefferson first articulated the phrase separation of church and state 200 years ago", according to Joe Cook, Executive Director, ACLU of Louisiana. "The lessons that Jefferson taught are as urgent today as in the 18th century when the Bill of Rights was written. If citizens are subjected to state endorsed religious displays like in Franklinton, the state rejects it duty to guard and respect that sphere of conscience and belief that marks a free people, believers and non-believers alike."
Evidence shows that
parish road crews installed official looking "Jesus Signs"
at parish expense along state rights-of-way within the city limits. The lawsuit asks the court to declare that the signs violate the Establishment and Endorsement Clauses of the First Amendment and Article 1 of the Louisiana Constitution.
Source: Louisiana ACLU news release, 2002 (linkie)
Clearly a state-church separation issue. In Louisiana, they have "parishes" instead of "townships".
So we do agree that the ACLU is for church-state separation, but we disagree as to whether that is good or evil.
The ACLU has been attacking towns an states across the country to force them to remove any Christian references within their Seals.
That's too vague, Kilad. You'll have to cite specific cases.
In one case I saw, that of Los Angelos City seal, I do disagree with the ACLU's stance. In that case, the small cross as one of many symbols of LA's history seems appropriate. (
linkie to story).
In September 2001 Breen Elementary School in Rocklin California placed the words "God Bless America" to show their support for the United States after the 9/11 attacks. The ACLU objected and attempted to forced them to remove the words.
The town rose up against the ACLU in force and the words stayed.
Apparently, a non-believing parent had complained:
Right to Dissent
In response to a parent's plea for help in challenging a "God Bless America" marquee that adorned her child's elementary school in Rocklin, the Legal Department wrote a letter to the School District requesting that Breen Elementary School substitute a more unifying symbol of patriotism, such as the flag or the message "United We Stand."
The mother had turned to us for help because her child felt upset and excluded by the religious tenor of the message.
Source: ACLU of Northern California (linkie)
If the school has non-theist children attending, then perhaps the sign was not the most appropriate.
Then there is the nation wide assault of the ACLU against the 10 commandments, the Pledge of Allegiance, "In God We Trust", etc
It goes on and on and on.
Separation of church & state, yes, and for the individual not to have institutionalized religion foisted on him. They also fight for the individual's right to practice his religion, as an individual. Civil liberties are nothing to be afraid of.
ran into something..."The fact pole" now you we can just call him Carpole
