NationStates Jolt Archive

I've decided to go to work on a project regarding the oft-maligned ACLU. 'Round about this time of year, I hear all the time that the ACLU is oppressing Christian citizens and/or trying to attack Christmas using unjust methods, and then a chorus of voices insisting that the ACLU is doing no such thing. In an effort to settle some of the debate (at least among my own friends and coworkers) I'm trying to assemble a record of the cases in which the ACLU has violated the rights of Christian citizens or Christmas-celebrating citizens.

I can Google "ACLU hates Christians" just as well as anybody else, so I'm not looking for a long list of editorials about how awful the ACLU is. I need case names, or case numbers, or specific references to non-editorial documentation. World Net Daily pieces about the ACLU are not helpful.

Please remember, I don't want to debate whether or not the ACLU likes Christianity. In America, we all have the right to dislike whomever we please, so Christians can't rightfully claim they are "oppressed" by being disliked or by being confronted with a group that opposes their agenda.

Thank you in advance to all who participate!

Facts? Bah! ;)

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACLU#Christian_and_other_religious_critics) offers a pretty objective view of the ACLU here.

Facts? Bah! ;)
Yes, I realize that this is probably not going to be a popular thread. Perhaps I should add that all useful submissions will be rewarded with cookies?

Doesn't the ACLU have a case list of thier history on their website?

Wait...I can answer that...(presume now a moment where I go look)no, not exactly what you're looking for...

I slap my wrist for thinking that you would have missed something that easy.

Good luck, I think the second paragraph will be largely ignored.

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACLU#Christian_and_other_religious_critics) offers a pretty objective view of the ACLU here.
Yeah, that was one of the first places I looked, but it doesn't seem to show any cases in which the ACLU's actions infringed on the rights of Christians or Christmas celebrators. I am not going to base my stance on a claim that absence of evidence is evidence of absence, especially not when dealing with Wiki :P.

Doesn't the ACLU have a case list of thier history on their website?

Wait...I can answer that...(presume now a moment where I go look)no, not exactly what you're looking for...

I slap my wrist for thinking that you would have missed something that easy.

Good luck, I think the second paragraph will be largely ignored.
Yeah, I did check the ACLU website, but obviously it's going to be biased in favor of the ACLU (and nothing wrong with that, of course, since it's THEIR site).

Yeah, I did check the ACLU website, but obviously it's going to be biased in favor of the ACLU (and nothing wrong with that, of course, since it's THEIR site).

Check the justice dept.'s websites? They should be organised/have links to cases on a state by state basis. Dunno if it'd be worth your time to start in the bible belt, or New York/California, your call

Elgesh']Check the justice dept.'s websites? They should be organised/have links to cases on a state by state basis. Dunno if it'd be worth your time to start in the bible belt, or New York/California, your call
Oooh, good idea...thanks!

welcome! hope it works:)

I'm trying to assemble a record of the cases in which the ACLU has violated the rights of Christian citizens or Christmas-celebrating citizens.

How could the ACLU violate anyone's rights?

How could the ACLU violate anyone's rights?
I am not sure. However, there are a great many people who insist that the ACLU does indeed violate the rights of Christians and Christmas-celebrators, and that the ACLU is oppressing, repressing, or otherwise infringing upon the freedoms of said Christians and Christmas-celebrators. I wish to give their side a fair hearing.

Ah yes, the ACLU. Try this link http://www.cafepress.com/rightwingstuff/290222 :D

I am not sure. However, there are a great many people who insist that the ACLU does indeed violate the rights of Christians and Christmas-celebrators, and that the ACLU is oppressing, repressing, or otherwise infringing upon the freedoms of said Christians and Christmas-celebrators. I wish to give their side a fair hearing.

I guess I would also like to know how the ACLU can do that, seeing as they're not part of government, but are just lawyers who sue the government and other organisations when they feel that someone's rights have been violated. How the upholding of someone rights by a court becomes a violation of someone else's rights and to be blamed on the lawyers is quite an interesting question.

Ah yes, the ACLU. Try this link http://www.cafepress.com/rightwingstuff/290222 :D
Wow, I totally have to buy one of those!

Think about it: say you wear one of those shirts for the purposes of "liberal baiting" (as the website suggests). Say that a liberal, thus baited, decides to try to force you to cover up or remove the offensive shirt.

Guess which organization will be the one defending your right to wear the viciously anti-ACLU shirt? Yeah. The irony is dee-licious.

Ah yes, the ACLU. Try this link http://www.cafepress.com/rightwingstuff/290222 :D

How unclever, but what leaves me perplexed is this: "Visible Text to keep whiney CP shop owners from pissin' & moanin'". Why would people with cerebral palsy "piss and moan" about the exclusion of a tiny, "visible" text?

Think about it: say you wear one of those shirts for the purposes of "liberal baiting" (as the website suggests). Say that a liberal, thus baited, decides to try to force you to cover up or remove the offensive shirt.

Guess which organization will be the one defending your right to wear the viciously anti-ACLU shirt? Yeah. The irony is dee-licious.

I'm glad to see I'm not the only one to savour it.

I'm glad to see I'm not the only one to savour it.
Reminds me of the Onion article, "ACLU Defends Nazis' Right To Burn Down ACLU Headquarters."

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACLU#Christian_and_other_religious_critics) offers a pretty objective view of the ACLU here.

Wikipedia is, by its very nature, inobjective. I'm sick to the teeth of people trying to use it for factual reference.

Wow, I totally have to buy one of those!

Think about it: say you wear one of those shirts for the purposes of "liberal baiting" (as the website suggests). Say that a liberal, thus baited, decides to try to force you to cover up or remove the offensive shirt.

Guess which organization will be the one defending your right to wear the viciously anti-ACLU shirt? Yeah. The irony is dee-licious.

Yeah, those so knee-jerk in their responses tend to forget that the ACLU has defended Rush Limbaugh and many other right-leaning folks and institutions. But hey, don't let that fact stand in the way of "honest Americans" trying to make a buck on misperception. That's capitalism, baby. Love it or leave it.

Wikipedia is, by its very nature, inobjective. I'm sick to the teeth of people trying to use it for factual reference.

Please, he suggested it as a starting point for research, not as an end point :rolleyes:

And I note that you just simply dismiss it out of hand, without actually engaging with it showing how it is wrong.


And good luck Bottle, but I doubt I'll be any help.

Please, he suggested it as a starting point for research, not as an end point :rolleyes:

And I note that you just simply dismiss it out of hand, without actually engaging with it showing how it is wrong.


And good luck Bottle, but I doubt I'll be any help.

Well, the articles are submitted by those who surf to the site. How's that?

Ah yes, the ACLU. Try this link http://www.cafepress.com/rightwingstuff/290222 :D

The thing I found most interesting at this site was the assertion that the ACLU "wastes taxpayer money". Is the ACLU a government entity? I thought it was a bunch of lawyers who make sure those who come to them have their rights defended in court. If that "waste" claim means the time and money spent in court, well, isn't that the right of every American?

The thing I found most interesting at this site was the assertion that the ACLU "wastes taxpayer money". Is the ACLU a government entity? I thought it was a bunch of lawyers who make sure those who come to them have their rights defended in court. If that "waste" claim means the time and money spent in court, well, isn't that the right of every American?
I think it's the second bit they object to: the ACLU challenges the government, forcing the government to participate in legal actions, and some people feel that it is "unAmerican" to hold the government accountable. Particularly if doing so costs (GASP!) money.

Well, the articles are submitted by those who surf to the site. How's that?

Irrelevant. If you're going to refute what is said in the Wiki, refute what is said there. Saying "but anyone can edit it!" has nothing to do with the contents of the page that was linked.

I understand that the ACLU's own website might be biased, but they do seem to have reasonably comprehensive records. Advanced search pulls up 5 hits for "christmas" under "Religious Liberty" and 39 hits overall.

If you're worried about the case descriptions, pop open another tab on Findlaw and review the case proceedings yourself. As most of those hits are cases, it should be a reasonably representative set.

I understand that the ACLU's own website might be biased, but they do seem to have reasonably comprehensive records. Advanced search pulls up 5 hits for "christmas" under "Religious Liberty" and 39 hits overall.

If you're worried about the case descriptions, pop open another tab on Findlaw and review the case proceedings yourself. As most of those hits are cases, it should be a reasonably representative set.
That's pretty much what I'm working with so far. But the thing is, none of those cases show the ACLU doing anything that infringes on the rights of Christians or Christmas celebrators.

I'm an optimist, and I choose to give the benefit of the doubt to those who claim the ACLU infringes on the rights of Christians. Those people must have reasons for their beliefs, evidence even, and I want to hear about it. I have been unable, so far, to find this evidence on my own, but I am falible. If they have information I have missed then I wish to consider it along with the information I have found.

That's pretty much what I'm working with so far. But the thing is, none of those cases show the ACLU doing anything that infringes on the rights of Christians or Christmas celebrators.Ah, yes, like "ACLU Defends Student Handing out Candy Canes With Religious Messages."

"ACLU Defends Church's Right to Run "Anti-Santa" Ads in Boston Subway" could probably count, but it's hard to frame that as the ACLU working to oppress a religious group.I'm an optimist, and I choose to give the benefit of the doubt to those who claim the ACLU infringes on the rights of Christians. Those people must have reasons for their beliefs, evidence even, and I want to hear about it. I have been unable, so far, to find this evidence on my own, but I am falible. If they have information I have missed then I wish to consider it along with the information I have found.Frankly, I've heard complaints about this before, and usually the religious right's complaints about the ACLU ultimately boil down to barring prayers led by employees of the state while on duty. Perhaps I'm just not optimistic enough, but I've always thought the "ACLU is out to KILL CHRISTMAS!" complaints were mostly just scare tactics.

Ah yes, the ACLU. Try this link http://www.cafepress.com/rightwingstuff/290222 :D

Not to hijack this thread, but that is just infantile ::rolls eyes::

Ah yes, the ACLU. Try this link http://www.cafepress.com/rightwingstuff/290222 :D

Is it supposed to be funny? I don't get it.....

Bottle you could look into the ACLU defending Rush as he openly bashed them whenever possible......

Bottle you could look into the ACLU defending Rush as he openly bashed them whenever possible......
I've already got all of "my side" worked out. I worked out my reasons for supporting the ACLU long ago, and I do my homework. However, I'm willing to believe that I missed important information, which is why I'm asking for the "con" position to present their case.

(And yes, I'm familiar with the ACLU's defense of Rush, as well as the cases in which the ACLU has supported Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. Falwell, as some will remember, blamed the ACLU for 9/11.)

Facts? Bah! ;)

Religion has no place in schools, just like facts have no place in organized religion.-- The Simpsons.

I've already got all of "my side" worked out. I worked out my reasons for supporting the ACLU long ago, and I do my homework. However, I'm willing to believe that I missed important information, which is why I'm asking for the "con" position to present their case.

(And yes, I'm familiar with the ACLU's defense of Rush, as well as the cases in which the ACLU has supported Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. Falwell, as some will remember, blamed the ACLU for 9/11.)

Yup, as the old saying goes, "sticks and stones may break my bones but words will detonate jet fuel within major downtown financial centers costing billions of dollars in damage and killing thousands." Or something like that. I'm a little fuzzy on the details of it.

Besides, we all know that it was in fact the abortionists. It was their diabolical plot to perform several thousand 120th trimester abortions. ;)

The thing I found most interesting at this site was the assertion that the ACLU "wastes taxpayer money". Is the ACLU a government entity? I thought it was a bunch of lawyers who make sure those who come to them have their rights defended in court. If that "waste" claim means the time and money spent in court, well, isn't that the right of every American?

The right to file frivolous law suits may be the "right" of every American, but they waist taxpayers money and clog the courts. I guess it's like every American's right to send SPAM and clog the Internet. :D

Not to hijack this thread, but that is just infantile ::rolls eyes::

I'm in my second childhood. :D

I've already got all of "my side" worked out. I worked out my reasons for supporting the ACLU long ago, and I do my homework. However, I'm willing to believe that I missed important information, which is why I'm asking for the "con" position to present their case.
I know you have your side worked out, but I was looking for the "con" side and found this, it could help you out.


http://www.aclu.org//studentsrights/expression/12845prs20040511.html

http://www.aclu.org//studentsrights/expression/12845prs20040511.html

From the above link: "Student Rights:
Constitutional violations are far too common in public schools across the country. Teachers and administrators have a responsibility to provide a safe environment for the students that is conducive to learning. They also have a responsibility to respect each student's individual rights. Simply put, students have rights too. Learn more and take action to protect the rights guaranteed to all Americans."

Now, that's what I call good propaganda because according to the ACLU those students do not have a right to pray in school, they do not have a right to read the bible in school, they do not have the right to have a religous club meeting in school during non-school hours, etc.

From the above link: "Student Rights:
Constitutional violations are far too common in public schools across the country. Teachers and administrators have a responsibility to provide a safe environment for the students that is conducive to learning. They also have a responsibility to respect each student's individual rights. Simply put, students have rights too. Learn more and take action to protect the rights guaranteed to all Americans."

Now, that's what I call good propaganda because according to the ACLU those students do not have a right to pray in school, they do not have a right to read the bible in school, they do not have the right to have a religous club meeting in school during non-school hours, etc.


Accully, the ACLU defends student's rights to do all those things.

The *school* doesn't have the right to lead schoolwide prayer, or teach the Bible, other then as a historic document, in a religion class, or as example of art, or to create religious clubs, but students have the right to do all three.

I think it's the second bit they object to: the ACLU challenges the government, forcing the government to participate in legal actions, and some people feel that it is "unAmerican" to hold the government accountable. Particularly if doing so costs (GASP!) money.
Funny how conservatives claim to be skeptical of big government.

Ah yes, the ACLU. Try this link http://www.cafepress.com/rightwingstuff/290222 :D
Calling people you don't like "communists" is so 20th century.

I'm in my second childhood.
Senile and proud of it, eh? ;)

...according to the ACLU those students do not have a right to pray in school, they do not have a right to read the bible in school, they do not have the right to have a religous club meeting in school during non-school hours, etc.
Got proof?

A re-post of one of the better posts ever to grace the forum:

Care of our beloved The Cat-Tribe

The ACLU routinely defends the free speech, free exercise of religion, and other rights of Christians, anti-abortion groups, Republicans, and conservatives.

About having former Republican Majority Leader Dick Armey as a consultant?

Conservative firebrand Bob Barr (former Republican Congressman from GA and leader of the impeachment of Bill Clinton) is a consultant. clicky (http://www.aclu.org/LesbianGayRights/LesbianGayRights.cfm?ID=15989&c=101) and clicky (http://www.aclu.org/Privacy/Privacy.cfm?ID=11449&c=39).

The ACLU has currently defending Rush Limbaugh and formerly worked for Ollie North. The ACLU has worked closely with a number of conservative groups over the years. The ACLU has cooperated frequently with the NRA.

In most of the separation of Church and State cases, major religions organizations -- including major Christian denominations -- have sided with the ACLU.

The ACLU has stood up for the rights of religious groups, including Christians on numerous occasions. They have repeatedly defended the rights of anti-abortion protesters.

There are scores upon scores of other actions in which the ACLU has defended or cooperated with Conservatives and Christian groups. Here are just a very small sample:
Following Threat of ACLU of Virginia Lawsuit, Officials to Agree Not to Ban Baptisms in Public Parks (http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=15897&c=141)
Iowa Civil Liberties Union Defends Right of Students to Wear Anti-Abortion T-Shirts (http://www.aclu.org/StudentsRights/StudentsRights.cfm?ID=18159&c=159) (note many other examples of defending Christians given in the artice)
Speech by James Ziglar, conservative and Bush's INS Commissioner, to the Membership Meeting of the American Civil Liberties Union (http://www.aclu.org/Conference/Conference.cfm?ID=12896&c=256)
After ACLU Intervention on Behalf of Christian Valedictorian, Michigan High School Agrees to Stop Censoring Religious Yearbook Entries (http://www.aclu.org/StudentsRights/StudentsRights.cfm?ID=15680&c=159)
ACLU of New Jersey Successfully Defends Right of Religious Expression by Jurors (http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=17237&c=29)
ACLU backs students on Confederate shirts (http://cnnstudentnews.cnn.com/2001/fyi/teachers.ednews/05/09/confederate.shirts.ap/)
West Virginia School Officials Violated Student’s Rights By Punishing Him Over a T-Shirt, Court Rules (http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=18399&c=42)
ACLU of Nebraska Defends Presbyterian Church Facing Eviction by the City of Lincoln (http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=16295&c=142)
Michigan Court Punishes Catholic Man for Refusing Conversion to Pentecostal Faith in Drug Rehab Program (http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=16138&c=142)

Here is additional evidence:
ACLU Defends California Artist After Los Angeles Orders Removal of “God Bless America” Mural (http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=10248&c=42)
ACLU Defends Church's Right to Run "Anti-Santa" Ads in Boston Subways (http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=10206&c=42)
ACLU of New Jersey Successfully Defends Republican Candidates' Right to Political Speech (http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=17457&c=42)
ACLU Sues to Protect Free Speech Rights of Anti-Abortion Church Group in Indiana (http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=16125&c=86)
In Win for Rev. Falwell (and the ACLU), Judge Rules VA Must Allow Churches to Incorporate (http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=10147&c=142)
ACLU Hails Plans to Sign Religious Freedom Bill into Law (http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=8122&c=142)
ACLU of Ohio Will Defend GOP Chairman in Political Yard Sign Case (http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=16843&c=42)
Connecticut Veteran Sues For Right to Commemorate Fallen War Hero on his Property (http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=7356&c=42)
Nevada Officials Drop Plan to License and Fingerprint Clergy (http://www.aclu.org/Privacy/Privacy.cfm?ID=7777&c=130)
ACLU of Nebraska Defends Presbyterian Church Facing Eviction by the City of Lincoln (http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=16295&c=142)
ACLU and 18 Texas Families Sue to Stop 'Prove Your Religion' School Uniform Policy (http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=7876&c=139)
ACLU Applauds Supreme Court Ruling Protecting Religious Liberty in Prisons (http://www.aclu.org/court/court.cfm?ID=18363&c=286)
Following Threat of ACLU of Virginia Lawsuit, Officials to Agree Not to Ban Baptisms in Public Parks (http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=15897&c=141)
ACLU of Georgia Sues City Over Arrest of Political Activist During Fourth of July Celebrations (http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=15870&c=86)
ACLU of Nevada Asks Court to End Ban of Book Critical of the IRS (http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=12525&c=83)
ACLU of New Jersey Successfully Defends Right of Religious Expression by Jurors (http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=17237&c=29)
ACLU of Pennsylvania Supports Congregation's Fight for Religious Freedom (http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=9298&c=141)
Iowa Civil Liberties Union Defends Right of Students to Wear Anti-Abortion T-Shirts (http://www.aclu.org/StudentsRights/StudentsRights.cfm?ID=18159&c=159)
ACLU Says Texas Police Violated Art Gallery Owner’s Freedom of Expression - Police Forced Artist to Cover Classical Image of Nude ‘Eve’ (http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=17297&c=83)
After ACLU Intervention on Behalf of Christian Valedictorian, Michigan High School Agrees to Stop Censoring Religious Yearbook Entries (http://www.aclu.org/StudentsRights/StudentsRights.cfm?ID=15680&c=159)
Last-Minute ACLU Appeal Allows Exiled Cubane Activist To Take His Anti-Castro Message to the Skies (http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=7143&c=86)
Pennsylvania Superior Court Rules: Amish Can Stick With Reflective Tape on Buggies (http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=14162&c=29)



Can read Cat-Tribe's original here:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9714318&postcount=1

The right to file frivolous law suits may be the "right" of every American, but they waist taxpayers money and clog the courts. I guess it's like every American's right to send SPAM and clog the Internet. :D

Yeah. The price of freedom is a meaningless phrase...:rolleyes:

It sucks that people, when given the right to petition the government, assemble and speak freely, sometimes use it frivolously.

Ah well, at least it's better than the alternative.

I am a donater to the ACLU- its one of the most important things to do if you care about your freedoms in america.
You have to see that they aren't partial to chritanity or any religion for that matter, because they realize that religion has no place in politics.
They do not dislike any reigion- they just don't court it.
Isint that what you do if your a political insitution? :confused:

p.s. anyone who is aganist what I said, please don't be shy. =D

Accully, the ACLU defends student's rights to do all those things.

The *school* doesn't have the right to lead schoolwide prayer, or teach the Bible, other then as a historic document, in a religion class, or as example of art, or to create religious clubs, but students have the right to do all three.

Exactly, they do not allow a teacher to lead a prayer because OF course the teacher would probally make them pray to a christian god, which is wrong. However, making someone pray to any god other than their own is wrong... I see where it's bad here. It's not like if your son/daughter comes in with a bible they won't be shot... esta bien. :rolleyes:

ACLU Attacks religious displays at public elementary school…
http://atheism.about.com/b/a/091395.htm


But then, this last August…

"Each of the accusations the ACLU made in this lawsuit was either completely unfounded or simply not a violation of the federal Constitution, the Louisiana Constitution, or any statute," said Johnson. "Bossier Parish school officials have repeatedly shown their resolve to respect the law and the religious beliefs of all of their students and personnel.
http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/news/pressrelease.aspx?cid=3500

Another one...
http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/news/pressrelease.aspx?cid=3476

ACLU Attacks religious displays at public elementary school…
http://atheism.about.com/b/a/091395.htm


But then, this last August…

"Each of the accusations the ACLU made in this lawsuit was either completely unfounded or simply not a violation of the federal Constitution, the Louisiana Constitution, or any statute," said Johnson. "Bossier Parish school officials have repeatedly shown their resolve to respect the law and the religious beliefs of all of their students and personnel.
http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/news/pressrelease.aspx?cid=3500

Another one...
http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/news/pressrelease.aspx?cid=3476

This is because the school was supporting religious activity. That means taxpayers money for the furtherment of christanity. which is wrong. What if they muslim family down the street wanted their tax money to go to a school furtherment of islam and several students converted? Would those christian parents be happy than? :confused:
You see if your going to be fair include everything, or don't even do it at all.
I think they teach this in.. kindergarten?
I applaud the ACLU for this action to make america for everyone.

I remember one NS thread detailing how the ACLU defended the right of this couple to baptize their son in public or something like that...although why do I get the feeling that was more for show than legitimate defense of civil liberties?

I remember one NS thread detailing how the ACLU defended the right of this couple to baptize their son in public or something like that...although why do I get the feeling that was more for show than legitimate defense of civil liberties?

Uh, look one page back. That and a multitude of other cased where the ACLU defended the rights of christians and/or conservatives is listed.

...
I applaud the ACLU for this action to make america for everyone.

In case you didn't notice, the ACLU's argument was found 'wanting' in that case and they lost. They should be sued for cost to cover their frivolous cases. They get paid when they win, they should have to pay when they lose.

In case you didn't notice, the ACLU's argument was found 'wanting' in that case and they lost. They should be sued for cost to cover their frivolous cases. They get paid when they win, they should have to pay when they lose.

Thats horrible! If I lived in that parish or whatever I would sew for backtaxes that went to the school district for them to support religion. Think of the children!

In case you didn't notice, the ACLU's argument was found 'wanting' in that case and they lost. They should be sued for cost to cover their frivolous cases. They get paid when they win, they should have to pay when they lose.

So, your problem is that the ACLU doesn't have a 100% success rate. I guess you're in favor of fining every prosecutor in the land as well? How about when the ACLU defends a Chritian's rights and loses?

Thats horrible! If I lived in that parish or whatever I would sew for backtaxes that went to the school district for them to support religion. Think of the children!
Greeenlander knows what's good for the children, and that's God!

Greeenlander knows what's good for the children, and that's God!


But only if Jesus is God.

Greeenlander knows what's good for the children, and that's God!

OH JOY OH RAPTURE!
...mmm....
What would be good for children would be too many things that his god cannot give them.

The ACLU is so anti-religious freedom to liberty protection they are even against it when the Democrats sponsor it...

To amend title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to establish provisions with respect to religious accommodation in employment, and for other purposes.
Mr. SANTORUM (for himself, Mr. KERRY, Mr. ENSIGN, Ms. MIKULSKI, Mr. SMITH, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. HATCH, Mr. LIEBERMAN, Mr. BROWNBACK, Mr. CORZINE, and Mrs. CLINTON) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
http://www.theorator.com/bills108/s893.html


The American Civil Liberties Union strongly urges you to oppose S. 893, the Workplace Religious Freedom Act
http://www.aclu.org//religion/frb/16224leg20040602.html

The ACLU is so anti-religious freedom to liberty protection they are even against it when the Democrats sponsor it...

To amend title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to establish provisions with respect to religious accommodation in employment, and for other purposes.
Mr. SANTORUM (for himself, Mr. KERRY, Mr. ENSIGN, Ms. MIKULSKI, Mr. SMITH, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. HATCH, Mr. LIEBERMAN, Mr. BROWNBACK, Mr. CORZINE, and Mrs. CLINTON) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
http://www.theorator.com/bills108/s893.html


The American Civil Liberties Union strongly urges you to oppose S. 893, the Workplace Religious Freedom Act
http://www.aclu.org//religion/frb/16224leg20040602.html

.........................
GURR NO EDIT SORRY
the democratic platform has changed love.

.........................
The democratic platform has changed love.

Just pointing it out, missy.

It does not matter if you point it out or not, the topic is about how the ACLU attacks religious instutions.

While some narrow minded people may beleive that. They are just not partial to them, but isint anything that supports our government suposed to not be affiliated with religion??? :confused:

Schools that collect tax dollars are suported by the gov't, which means peple of all religions support them- as I said before if you cannot be all inclusive, it's a good idea you should just leave it alone. The problem is there are too many religions in this country to accomidate to.. and why does christanity HAVE to be linked with schools?? Why can't there be Islam Clubs in those schools?

... Why can't there be Islam Clubs in those schools?

There are Islam clubs in schools, and Jewish ones, and Native American ones, when the students get together and form them, they have them.

There are Islam clubs in schools, and Jewish ones, and Native American ones, when the students get together and form them, they have them.

I am sure there are, but are there Athiest, Pagan, Wicca, and Tribal clubs in schools???
I have not seen poof of them.
So why dont we just leave religion out of school? Is that so hard to do?

Forgive me, but I still don't see how the ACLU violated the rights of Christian citizens in any of those cases. Maybe I'm just being dense...can somebody explain it to me?

A re-post of one of the better posts ever to grace the forum:

Care of our beloved The Cat-Tribe

The ACLU routinely defends the free speech, free exercise of religion, and other rights of Christians, anti-abortion groups, Republicans, and conservatives.

About having former Republican Majority Leader Dick Armey as a consultant?

Conservative firebrand Bob Barr (former Republican Congressman from GA and leader of the impeachment of Bill Clinton) is a consultant. clicky (http://www.aclu.org/LesbianGayRights/LesbianGayRights.cfm?ID=15989&c=101) and clicky (http://www.aclu.org/Privacy/Privacy.cfm?ID=11449&c=39).

The ACLU has currently defending Rush Limbaugh and formerly worked for Ollie North. The ACLU has worked closely with a number of conservative groups over the years. The ACLU has cooperated frequently with the NRA.

In most of the separation of Church and State cases, major religions organizations -- including major Christian denominations -- have sided with the ACLU.

The ACLU has stood up for the rights of religious groups, including Christians on numerous occasions. They have repeatedly defended the rights of anti-abortion protesters.

There are scores upon scores of other actions in which the ACLU has defended or cooperated with Conservatives and Christian groups. Here are just a very small sample:
Following Threat of ACLU of Virginia Lawsuit, Officials to Agree Not to Ban Baptisms in Public Parks (http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=15897&c=141)
Iowa Civil Liberties Union Defends Right of Students to Wear Anti-Abortion T-Shirts (http://www.aclu.org/StudentsRights/StudentsRights.cfm?ID=18159&c=159) (note many other examples of defending Christians given in the artice)
Speech by James Ziglar, conservative and Bush's INS Commissioner, to the Membership Meeting of the American Civil Liberties Union (http://www.aclu.org/Conference/Conference.cfm?ID=12896&c=256)
After ACLU Intervention on Behalf of Christian Valedictorian, Michigan High School Agrees to Stop Censoring Religious Yearbook Entries (http://www.aclu.org/StudentsRights/StudentsRights.cfm?ID=15680&c=159)
ACLU of New Jersey Successfully Defends Right of Religious Expression by Jurors (http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=17237&c=29)
ACLU backs students on Confederate shirts (http://cnnstudentnews.cnn.com/2001/fyi/teachers.ednews/05/09/confederate.shirts.ap/)
West Virginia School Officials Violated Student’s Rights By Punishing Him Over a T-Shirt, Court Rules (http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=18399&c=42)
ACLU of Nebraska Defends Presbyterian Church Facing Eviction by the City of Lincoln (http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=16295&c=142)
Michigan Court Punishes Catholic Man for Refusing Conversion to Pentecostal Faith in Drug Rehab Program (http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=16138&c=142)

Here is additional evidence:
ACLU Defends California Artist After Los Angeles Orders Removal of “God Bless America” Mural (http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=10248&c=42)
ACLU Defends Church's Right to Run "Anti-Santa" Ads in Boston Subways (http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=10206&c=42)
ACLU of New Jersey Successfully Defends Republican Candidates' Right to Political Speech (http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=17457&c=42)
ACLU Sues to Protect Free Speech Rights of Anti-Abortion Church Group in Indiana (http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=16125&c=86)
In Win for Rev. Falwell (and the ACLU), Judge Rules VA Must Allow Churches to Incorporate (http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=10147&c=142)
ACLU Hails Plans to Sign Religious Freedom Bill into Law (http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=8122&c=142)
ACLU of Ohio Will Defend GOP Chairman in Political Yard Sign Case (http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=16843&c=42)
Connecticut Veteran Sues For Right to Commemorate Fallen War Hero on his Property (http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=7356&c=42)
Nevada Officials Drop Plan to License and Fingerprint Clergy (http://www.aclu.org/Privacy/Privacy.cfm?ID=7777&c=130)
ACLU of Nebraska Defends Presbyterian Church Facing Eviction by the City of Lincoln (http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=16295&c=142)
ACLU and 18 Texas Families Sue to Stop 'Prove Your Religion' School Uniform Policy (http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=7876&c=139)
ACLU Applauds Supreme Court Ruling Protecting Religious Liberty in Prisons (http://www.aclu.org/court/court.cfm?ID=18363&c=286)
Following Threat of ACLU of Virginia Lawsuit, Officials to Agree Not to Ban Baptisms in Public Parks (http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=15897&c=141)
ACLU of Georgia Sues City Over Arrest of Political Activist During Fourth of July Celebrations (http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=15870&c=86)
ACLU of Nevada Asks Court to End Ban of Book Critical of the IRS (http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=12525&c=83)
ACLU of New Jersey Successfully Defends Right of Religious Expression by Jurors (http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=17237&c=29)
ACLU of Pennsylvania Supports Congregation's Fight for Religious Freedom (http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=9298&c=141)
Iowa Civil Liberties Union Defends Right of Students to Wear Anti-Abortion T-Shirts (http://www.aclu.org/StudentsRights/StudentsRights.cfm?ID=18159&c=159)
ACLU Says Texas Police Violated Art Gallery Owner’s Freedom of Expression - Police Forced Artist to Cover Classical Image of Nude ‘Eve’ (http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=17297&c=83)
After ACLU Intervention on Behalf of Christian Valedictorian, Michigan High School Agrees to Stop Censoring Religious Yearbook Entries (http://www.aclu.org/StudentsRights/StudentsRights.cfm?ID=15680&c=159)
Last-Minute ACLU Appeal Allows Exiled Cubane Activist To Take His Anti-Castro Message to the Skies (http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=7143&c=86)
Pennsylvania Superior Court Rules: Amish Can Stick With Reflective Tape on Buggies (http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=14162&c=29)



Can read Cat-Tribe's original here:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9714318&postcount=1

QFT

Seriously, the ACLU is apolitical. We simply live in a society where currently it tends to be Christian administrators breaking the responsibility of all state institutions to be areligious, instead of the other way around.

In case you didn't notice, the ACLU's argument was found 'wanting' in that case and they lost. They should be sued for cost to cover their frivolous cases. They get paid when they win, they should have to pay when they lose.

The ACLU doesn't really sue for money. They sue to overturn executive or legislative decisions that are inconsistent with the constitution. Sometimes the judge agrees with them, and sometimes he/she doesn't, and they agree or disagree on grounds that are sometimes good and sometimes bad. I fail to see how that is "frivolous" use of the right to procedural due process.

Moreover, if you are going to have people pay when they lose, all you are really doing is limiting the right to due process to those who can afford to lose, a group of people who, ironically enough, are usually the least in need of having their constitutional rights protected. How American of you. [rollseyes]

The ACLU doesn't really sue for money.

Actually they do. The federal government has to pay them for every first amendment cases that they win.

... They sue to overturn executive or legislative decisions that are inconsistent with the constitution. Sometimes the judge agrees with them, and sometimes he/she doesn't, and they agree or disagree on grounds that are sometimes good and sometimes bad. I fail to see how that is "frivolous" use of the right to procedural due process.

Because they can sue and win money and sue and owe nothing, it favors 'multiple' suits over quality suits. Thus, frivolous are encouraged.

Moreover, if you are going to have people pay when they lose, all you are really doing is limiting the right to due process to those who can afford to lose, a group of people who, ironically enough, are usually the least in need of having their constitutional rights protected.

If they had to pay for being wrong, it would protect the underfunded shools and small communities ability to defend themselves from frivolous lawsuits brought on them by the ACLU threats of lawsuits. "Why that's a stupid accusation,” they might say, “we can win this" vs. the option they have now without the possibility of regaining their financial loss for winning a defensive first amendment legal fight… “we can't afford to hire lawyers for a long dragged out fight, even if we win in the end, better we should capitulate now because we can’t afford to defend ourselves...”

How American of you.[rollseyes]

How very totalitarian of you. :rolleyes:

How very totalitarian of you. :rolleyes:
Wait, wait, you're calling him totalitarian because he supports people not being made to pay when they lose cases?
Err, forgive me if I don't see the connection, but it seems like that's a random, unconnected insult...?

Actually they do. The federal government has to pay them for every first amendment cases that they win.

. . .Which is why the ACLU relies so heavily on donations and membership dues for its organizations costs. I'm sorry, but you're going to have to provide some evidence for this one, because I know for certain that they are not a for-profit firm. As such, they have no incentive to flood the legal system with lawsuits, as any money that is paid (of which I am still uncertain that there is any) is done to cover legal expenses, time, and attorney's fees.


Because they can sue and win money and sue and owe nothing, it favors 'multiple' suits over quality suits. Thus, frivolous are encouraged.


No, it is not encouraged. The ACLU lives and dies on its reputation as the last line of defense for American liberties. If it flooded the court with lawsuits, the irrevocable damage to that reputation would far outweigh the (as mentioned above) nominal returns that their non-profit organization would earn. Thus, frivolous suits are not encouraged; they are emphatically discouraged.


If they had to pay for being wrong, it would protect the underfunded shools and small communities ability to defend themselves from frivolous lawsuits brought on them by the ACLU threats of lawsuits. "Why that's a stupid accusation,” they might say, “we can win this" vs. the option they have now without the possibility of regaining their financial loss for winning a defensive first amendment legal fight… “we can't afford to hire lawyers for a long dragged out fight, even if we win in the end, better we should capitulate now because we can’t afford to defend ourselves...”


1) Make up your mind: are you talking about lawsuits or threats of lawsuits? Settling a lawsuit with the ACLU costs jack, because usually what they ask for is a policy reversal and maybe an apology. Same thing with getting a threatened lawsuit dismissed on the grounds of lacking conflict.

2) The ACLU, as noted above, hardly files suit for no good reason. When they do, they usually have a fairly strong legal defense, in the form of long case history, solid constitutional backing, etc. Might that be the reason that school districts cave (i.e. their lawyers telling them point-blank: you are going to lose this case), rather than simple funding?

3) Why exactly would the ACLU target poor schools if their object was to make money? You would think they'd go after the richest school districts in the nation.

4) I don't suppose you could back up your assertion that the ACLU specifically targets poor school districts. Because if you look at their case history, such as Korematsu v. US, a series of lawsuits targeting McCarthy-era legislation, Buck v. Bell in which state-mandated sterilizations were overturned, etc., they seem to target the richest state agencies purely on the basis that their policies are wrong and unconstitutional, not because they can make a quick dollar.


How very totalitarian of you. :rolleyes:

Pray tell how arguing for the defense of poor people's constitutional due process is "totalitarian"?

Actually they do. The federal government has to pay them for every first amendment cases that they win.




"This idea appears on Free Republic and some other conservative sites.
This doesn't make it right or wrong. But I don't see evidence for the
view. See, in particular:

"Is it true that the ACLU gets paid by our own government to sue .....
anyone or anything?"
Free Republic
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1460784/posts

This discussion cites the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards Act of
1976, which amended 42 U.S.C. section 1988.

"Title 42 > Chapter 21 > Subchapter I > § 1988 -- Notes" [under "Short
Title of 1976 Amendment"]
Legal Information Institute (LII)
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode42/usc_sec_42_00001988----000-notes.html

Here is the statute as it appears on LII:

"Title 42 > Chapter 21 > Subchapter I > § 1988" (Release date: 2005-02-25)
LII
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/search/display.html?terms=1988&url=/uscode/html/uscode42/usc_sec_42_00001988----000-.html

It says that "... the court, in its discretion, may allow the
prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable
attorney's fee as part of the costs ...." The key phrase appears to
be "the prevailing party."

Perhaps the view that the government pays the ACLU even when the ACLU
doesn't represent a prevailing party stems from the phrase "other than
the United States." One might conclude from that phrase alone that
the United States always loses under this statute -- in other words,
always pays money to the ACLU. But while the United States apparently
cannot receive attorney's fees from the ACLU under this statute, it
appears that the ACLU cannot get attorney's fees from the government
either when it does not prevail."

http://www.answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=557527

Thank you for the insight, DM.

Wait, wait, you're calling him totalitarian because he supports people not being made to pay when they lose cases?
Err, forgive me if I don't see the connection, but it seems like that's a random, unconnected insult...?
If yer checkin' Greenlander on posts and logical consistency ...
well, sit back w/a brew or something, you're in fer a long haul. :(
To be fair, Greenlander's posts are more coherent here than they often are.

This idea appears on Free Republic and some other conservative sites.
This doesn't make it right or wrong. But I don't see evidence for the
view. See, in particular:

"Is it true that the ACLU gets paid by our own government to sue .....
anyone or anything?"
Free Republic
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1460784/posts

This discussion cites the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards Act of
1976, which amended 42 U.S.C. section 1988.

"Title 42 > Chapter 21 > Subchapter I > § 1988 -- Notes" [under "Short
Title of 1976 Amendment"]
Legal Information Institute (LII)
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode42/usc_sec_42_00001988----000-notes.html

Here is the statute as it appears on LII:

"Title 42 > Chapter 21 > Subchapter I > § 1988" (Release date: 2005-02-25)
LII
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/search/display.html?terms=1988&url=/uscode/html/uscode42/usc_sec_42_00001988----000-.html

It says that "... the court, in its discretion, may allow the
prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable
attorney's fee as part of the costs ...." The key phrase appears to
be "the prevailing party."

Perhaps the view that the government pays the ACLU even when the ACLU
doesn't represent a prevailing party stems from the phrase "other than
the United States." One might conclude from that phrase alone that
the United States always loses under this statute -- in other words,
always pays money to the ACLU. But while the United States apparently
cannot receive attorney's fees from the ACLU under this statute, it
appears that the ACLU cannot get attorney's fees from the government
either when it does not prevail.

http://www.answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=557527
Your Kung Fu is better than Greenlander's Kung Fu. *bows*

Right on.

OED
of a dictatorial government requiring complete subservience.

Webster's
designating or of a government in which one political group maintains complete control, esp. under a dictator

---
Now, what administration comes to mind?

Hint: "We're not a democracy, we're a republic."
"We're not a democratic republic, we're a benevolent dictatorship."
"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator." --- George W. Bush

So when Greenlander's "totalitarian" comment is put into context ....

Hey, i'm sensing some kind of pattern here.

The ACLU is so anti-religious freedom to liberty protection they are even against it when the Democrats sponsor it...

1) the ACLU is not allied with the democrats

2) one page back, there is a whole list of cases that show that your claim is bullshit. As one Christain to another, shut your hole, stop making us all look bad, and stop spouting bullshit lies.

The right to file frivolous law suits may be the "right" of every American, but they waist taxpayers money and clog the courts. I guess it's like every American's right to send SPAM and clog the Internet. :D

email SPAM is illegal.

The ACLU is so anti-religious freedom to liberty protection they are even against it when the Democrats sponsor it...

To amend title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to establish provisions with respect to religious accommodation in employment, and for other purposes.
Mr. SANTORUM (for himself, Mr. KERRY, Mr. ENSIGN, Ms. MIKULSKI, Mr. SMITH, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. HATCH, Mr. LIEBERMAN, Mr. BROWNBACK, Mr. CORZINE, and Mrs. CLINTON) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
http://www.theorator.com/bills108/s893.html


The American Civil Liberties Union strongly urges you to oppose S. 893, the Workplace Religious Freedom Act
http://www.aclu.org//religion/frb/16224leg20040602.html


Did you even read their complaint? When Police decide to follow their morality instead of the laws they are supposed to uphold? :eek:

You know what? I am going to send them money; just so that will help keep people like you in line......

email SPAM is illegal.

That's only if you opted out and the fact if it's only happens inside the borders.

Canspam act :( Increased spam!

Now lets return from this tangent ;)

Now, that's what I call good propaganda because according to the ACLU those students do not have a right to pray in school, they do not have a right to read the bible in school, they do not have the right to have a religous club meeting in school during non-school hours, etc.
My daughter can do all of those things in school, and I don't believe that I have ever seen the ACLU speak out about student led prayer/Bible study. I agree that it shouldn't be teacher/public school led prayer/Bible study, because I don't want my kids forced to worship or pray in anyway that they are not comfortable with.

My daughter can do all of those things in school, and I don't believe that I have ever seen the ACLU speak out about student led prayer/Bible study. I agree that it shouldn't be teacher/public school led prayer/Bible study, because I don't want my kids forced to worship or pray in anyway that they are not comfortable with.
If only more christians felt that way.

If only more christians felt that way.
I don't really see why so many Christians are afraid of the separation of church and state (although some people do take it a little too far sometimes) it is really there imo to protect my rights to worship how I want, don't you know that as a protestant I would be screwed if a non-protestant denomination ran the government?

It doesn't take much to look around and see that religion run government is a bad bad idea.

I don't really see why so many Christians are afraid of the separation of church and state (although some people do take it a little too far sometimes) it is really there imo to protect my rights to worship how I want, don't you know that as a protestant I would be screwed if a non-protestant denomination ran the government?

It doesn't take much to look around and see that religion run government is a bad bad idea.
EXACTLY
If I had religion I would not want my government sticking its nose in my personal faith

Sadly many christians see the fact that they are the majority and can not seem to understand that they do to people exactly what they would not want done to them

I don't really see why so many Christians are afraid of the separation of church and state (although some people do take it a little too far sometimes) it is really there imo to protect my rights to worship how I want, don't you know that as a protestant I would be screwed if a non-protestant denomination ran the government?

It doesn't take much to look around and see that religion run government is a bad bad idea.
Here's what a few of the christians who want to tear down the wall think, in my experience--that since they are the only christians who truly have the full understanding of what god wants humans to do in order to worship Him, then of course God would ensure that they would be the ones in charge, and if they weren't in charge, then it would just be another test of their faith. It's all rationalization through the eyes of their faith.

Your point of view is the one I've tried to posit to those people when I've discussed it with them, and yet they fail to see it.

Ah yes, the ACLU. Try this link http://www.cafepress.com/rightwingstuff/290222 :D

It raises my eyebrow, that this site claims the ACLU is the 'enemy' of America... but only a quarter of the products they sell are American made...

Makes you wonder who is really keeping the concerns of the USA at heart...?

Your Kung Fu is better than Greenlander's Kung Fu. *bows*

Right on.

Hey, nincompoop, what part of that post disagrees with what I said? Nice meaningless personal attacks too BTW: nice that I give you a reason for posting at all eh?

I don't really see why so many Christians are afraid of the separation of church and state (although some people do take it a little too far sometimes) it is really there imo to protect my rights to worship how I want, don't you know that as a protestant I would be screwed if a non-protestant denomination ran the government?

It doesn't take much to look around and see that religion run government is a bad bad idea.

Well, most Christians haven't ever been in the minority of their particular region. Lord knows growing up Lutheran in the heart of LDSville (Southeastern Idaho) colored a lot of my perceptions about seperation of church and state. Moreover, it seems that a lot of Christians haven't ever bothered to read people like Aquinas or Augustine, who warn that there is a reason why church and state not only ought not mix, but cannot mix either: they serve entirely different functions.

EXACTLY
If I had religion I would not want my government sticking its nose in my personal faith

That's exactly how I feel. My relationship with God is my own, I don't need or want a government telling me how to worship, what to believe, claiming to be the authority on my God et cetera.

Here's what a few of the christians who want to tear down the wall think, in my experience--that since they are the only christians who truly have the full understanding of what god wants humans to do in order to worship Him, then of course God would ensure that they would be the ones in charge, and if they weren't in charge, then it would just be another test of their faith. It's all rationalization through the eyes of their faith.

I reject this way of thinking, because, in my opinion, God does not cause everything to happen. God does not take such a direct hand in events. If He did, it would completely negate the concept of free will, one of the greatest of God's gifts to man. Things happen because of people's choices, and because of physics, natural laws, et cetera. God did not make it rain, or hurricane. The moisture in the air, pressure caused by air currents and thermals, et cetera did. People need to understand this.

In responce to pretty much all of Greenlander's pointless inaccurate ranting about the ACLU being "anti-Christain"

A re-post of one of the better posts ever to grace the forum:

Care of our beloved The Cat-Tribe

The ACLU routinely defends the free speech, free exercise of religion, and other rights of Christians, anti-abortion groups, Republicans, and conservatives.

About having former Republican Majority Leader Dick Armey as a consultant?

Conservative firebrand Bob Barr (former Republican Congressman from GA and leader of the impeachment of Bill Clinton) is a consultant. clicky (http://www.aclu.org/LesbianGayRights/LesbianGayRights.cfm?ID=15989&c=101) and clicky (http://www.aclu.org/Privacy/Privacy.cfm?ID=11449&c=39).

The ACLU has currently defending Rush Limbaugh and formerly worked for Ollie North. The ACLU has worked closely with a number of conservative groups over the years. The ACLU has cooperated frequently with the NRA.

In most of the separation of Church and State cases, major religions organizations -- including major Christian denominations -- have sided with the ACLU.

The ACLU has stood up for the rights of religious groups, including Christians on numerous occasions. They have repeatedly defended the rights of anti-abortion protesters.

There are scores upon scores of other actions in which the ACLU has defended or cooperated with Conservatives and Christian groups. Here are just a very small sample:
Following Threat of ACLU of Virginia Lawsuit, Officials to Agree Not to Ban Baptisms in Public Parks (http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=15897&c=141)
Iowa Civil Liberties Union Defends Right of Students to Wear Anti-Abortion T-Shirts (http://www.aclu.org/StudentsRights/StudentsRights.cfm?ID=18159&c=159) (note many other examples of defending Christians given in the artice)
Speech by James Ziglar, conservative and Bush's INS Commissioner, to the Membership Meeting of the American Civil Liberties Union (http://www.aclu.org/Conference/Conference.cfm?ID=12896&c=256)
After ACLU Intervention on Behalf of Christian Valedictorian, Michigan High School Agrees to Stop Censoring Religious Yearbook Entries (http://www.aclu.org/StudentsRights/StudentsRights.cfm?ID=15680&c=159)
ACLU of New Jersey Successfully Defends Right of Religious Expression by Jurors (http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=17237&c=29)
ACLU backs students on Confederate shirts (http://cnnstudentnews.cnn.com/2001/fyi/teachers.ednews/05/09/confederate.shirts.ap/)
West Virginia School Officials Violated Student’s Rights By Punishing Him Over a T-Shirt, Court Rules (http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=18399&c=42)
ACLU of Nebraska Defends Presbyterian Church Facing Eviction by the City of Lincoln (http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=16295&c=142)
Michigan Court Punishes Catholic Man for Refusing Conversion to Pentecostal Faith in Drug Rehab Program (http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=16138&c=142)

Here is additional evidence:
ACLU Defends California Artist After Los Angeles Orders Removal of “God Bless America” Mural (http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=10248&c=42)
ACLU Defends Church's Right to Run "Anti-Santa" Ads in Boston Subways (http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=10206&c=42)
ACLU of New Jersey Successfully Defends Republican Candidates' Right to Political Speech (http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=17457&c=42)
ACLU Sues to Protect Free Speech Rights of Anti-Abortion Church Group in Indiana (http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=16125&c=86)
In Win for Rev. Falwell (and the ACLU), Judge Rules VA Must Allow Churches to Incorporate (http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=10147&c=142)
ACLU Hails Plans to Sign Religious Freedom Bill into Law (http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=8122&c=142)
ACLU of Ohio Will Defend GOP Chairman in Political Yard Sign Case (http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=16843&c=42)
Connecticut Veteran Sues For Right to Commemorate Fallen War Hero on his Property (http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=7356&c=42)
Nevada Officials Drop Plan to License and Fingerprint Clergy (http://www.aclu.org/Privacy/Privacy.cfm?ID=7777&c=130)
ACLU of Nebraska Defends Presbyterian Church Facing Eviction by the City of Lincoln (http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=16295&c=142)
ACLU and 18 Texas Families Sue to Stop 'Prove Your Religion' School Uniform Policy (http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=7876&c=139)
ACLU Applauds Supreme Court Ruling Protecting Religious Liberty in Prisons (http://www.aclu.org/court/court.cfm?ID=18363&c=286)
Following Threat of ACLU of Virginia Lawsuit, Officials to Agree Not to Ban Baptisms in Public Parks (http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=15897&c=141)
ACLU of Georgia Sues City Over Arrest of Political Activist During Fourth of July Celebrations (http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=15870&c=86)
ACLU of Nevada Asks Court to End Ban of Book Critical of the IRS (http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=12525&c=83)
ACLU of New Jersey Successfully Defends Right of Religious Expression by Jurors (http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=17237&c=29)
ACLU of Pennsylvania Supports Congregation's Fight for Religious Freedom (http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=9298&c=141)
Iowa Civil Liberties Union Defends Right of Students to Wear Anti-Abortion T-Shirts (http://www.aclu.org/StudentsRights/StudentsRights.cfm?ID=18159&c=159)
ACLU Says Texas Police Violated Art Gallery Owner’s Freedom of Expression - Police Forced Artist to Cover Classical Image of Nude ‘Eve’ (http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=17297&c=83)
After ACLU Intervention on Behalf of Christian Valedictorian, Michigan High School Agrees to Stop Censoring Religious Yearbook Entries (http://www.aclu.org/StudentsRights/StudentsRights.cfm?ID=15680&c=159)
Last-Minute ACLU Appeal Allows Exiled Cubane Activist To Take His Anti-Castro Message to the Skies (http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=7143&c=86)
Pennsylvania Superior Court Rules: Amish Can Stick With Reflective Tape on Buggies (http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=14162&c=29)



Can read Cat-Tribe's original here:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9714318&postcount=1

Hey, nincompoop, what part of that post disagrees with what I said? Nice meaningless personal attacks too BTW: nice that I give you a reason for posting at all eh?
Cause you know this post had so much more value lol

Still waiting for cases of ACLU persecution of Christians...

Still waiting for cases of ACLU persecution of Christians...
You'll be waiting for a while.

You'll be waiting for a while.

Ok what if I hold my breath?

*inhale*

mMMMmmmMMMMm

*passes out*

Yeah, that was one of the first places I looked, but it doesn't seem to show any cases in which the ACLU's actions infringed on the rights of Christians or Christmas celebrators. I am not going to base my stance on a claim that absence of evidence is evidence of absence, especially not when dealing with Wiki :P.

Well, the only people who complain about is are Christian fundamentalists who wish to turn the United States into some theocracy along with the bullshit, Republican myth that the US is a nation chosen by god, with people blessed by god and all the religious entrapments that go with it.

Ah yes, the whole bullshit mythology espoused by the neo-cons whose ideology is based on the ramblings of Strauss the concept of using the noble lie, aka Religion, to united a country against a common enemy, and if no enemy exists, in the case of Iraq, just make it up on the fly.

I thought that was Israel and Isreal Minor (Palestine)

I thought that was Israel and Isreal Minor (Palestine)

True, but atleast the government can tell a minority group (the settlers) that the rest of the nation isn't going to be held hostage to their religious ramblings.

Then look at the US, they seem for ever more willing to bend over for religious extremists when ever the opportunity arrises.

True, but atleast the government can tell a minority group (the settlers) that the rest of the nation isn't going to be held hostage to their religious ramblings.

Then look at the US, they seem for ever more willing to bend over for religious extremists when ever the opportunity arrises.

I have nothign to say but gah I am so sick of fuckign religion in politics and I'm so drunk right now!

I wish the whole world could share a doobie and see a better life.

I've decided to go to work on a project regarding the oft-maligned ACLU. 'Round about this time of year, I hear all the time that the ACLU is oppressing Christian citizens and/or trying to attack Christmas using unjust methods, and then a chorus of voices insisting that the ACLU is doing no such thing. In an effort to settle some of the debate (at least among my own friends and coworkers) I'm trying to assemble a record of the cases in which the ACLU has violated the rights of Christian citizens or Christmas-celebrating citizens.

I can Google "ACLU hates Christians" just as well as anybody else, so I'm not looking for a long list of editorials about how awful the ACLU is. I need case names, or case numbers, or specific references to non-editorial documentation. World Net Daily pieces about the ACLU are not helpful.

Please remember, I don't want to debate whether or not the ACLU likes Christianity. In America, we all have the right to dislike whomever we please, so Christians can't rightfully claim they are "oppressed" by being disliked or by being confronted with a group that opposes their agenda.

Thank you in advance to all who participate!

Please do humanity a favor; don't reproduce. Go be an abbey monk. You will be living the 'moral' 'wholesome' life you crave and the rest of us will not have to endure your fanatical zealotry.

Please do humanity a favor; don't reproduce. Go be an abbey monk. You will be living the 'moral' 'wholesome' life you crave and the rest of us will not have to endure your fanatical zealotry.
You might want to read that through again, and maybe some of the other posts in the thread. Just sayin'...

Please do humanity a favor; don't reproduce. Go be an abbey monk. You will be living the 'moral' 'wholesome' life you crave and the rest of us will not have to endure your fanatical zealotry.


If you are so high and mighty and can so easily see the flaws in what Bottle is saying or attempting to show, then please elaborate. What is so wrong with Bottle trying to get proof of the ACLU's attempts to oppress Christians? If you take a moment and look thru the thread you will see that the only real evidence presented shows the exact opposite and nothing to the contrary.

Ok my eyes glazed over for a while there. Did Greenlander ever get around to explaining how consistently defending the rights of individual christianss and church organisations to practice their religious beliefs makes the ACLU rabidly anti-christian?

Or is he still trying to find a polite way of saying that what he really hates is the way the ACLU stands up for faggots and won't let schools use taxpayer money to convert unbelievers? :D

Ok my eyes glazed over for a while there. Did Greenlander ever get around to explaining how consistently defending the rights of individual christianss and church organisations to practice their religious beliefs makes the ACLU rabidly anti-christian?

Or is he still trying to find a polite way of saying that what he really hates is the way the ACLU stands up for faggots and won't let schools use taxpayer money to convert unbelievers? :D

BingBingBingBingBingBingBingBing!! :D

Don't forget that they want the government to build a national concentration camp where fags, dykes, towelheads and liberals can all be sent to for due process- aka executions.

Please do humanity a favor; don't reproduce. Go be an abbey monk. You will be living the 'moral' 'wholesome' life you crave and the rest of us will not have to endure your fanatical zealotry.
Um, I don't think the abbey will want me, since I'm a bisexual agnostic. We might clash on our definitions of "wholesome," too, since mine involves gay sex, occasional recreational drug use, and a Playstation.

Um, I don't think the abbey will want me, since I'm a bisexual agnostic. We might clash on our definitions of "wholesome," too, since mine involves gay sex, occasional recreational drug use, and a Playstation.

YAY! :D

Um, I don't think the abbey will want me, since I'm a bisexual agnostic. We might clash on our definitions of "wholesome," too, since mine involves gay sex, occasional recreational drug use, and a Playstation.
Man, your abbey would kick so much ass...

Man, your abbey would kick so much ass...
We'd have foosball, and all our monk robes would come with Batman-style utility belts.

I've decided to go to work on a project regarding the oft-maligned ACLU. 'Round about this time of year, I hear all the time that the ACLU is oppressing Christian citizens and/or trying to attack Christmas using unjust methods, and then a chorus of voices insisting that the ACLU is doing no such thing. In an effort to settle some of the debate (at least among my own friends and coworkers) I'm trying to assemble a record of the cases in which the ACLU has violated the rights of Christian citizens or Christmas-celebrating citizens.

I can Google "ACLU hates Christians" just as well as anybody else, so I'm not looking for a long list of editorials about how awful the ACLU is. I need case names, or case numbers, or specific references to non-editorial documentation. World Net Daily pieces about the ACLU are not helpful.

Please remember, I don't want to debate whether or not the ACLU likes Christianity. In America, we all have the right to dislike whomever we please, so Christians can't rightfully claim they are "oppressed" by being disliked or by being confronted with a group that opposes their agenda.

Thank you in advance to all who participate!

You've bitten off quite a mouthful! You could also have a look at the way certain people who call themselves "Christians" persecute the ACLU. That in turn could take you to how some people who are heavily politically oriented call themselves "Christians" while refusing to acknowledge the validity of other political points of view because they don't understand that no political viewpoint can claim to be "inspired". (I make these distinctions because the ACLU also has had strong support from others with an equal claim -- at least theologically, which is the definition that matters -- to the label "Christian".)

When you get to that point, you'll be in a real theological quagmire, and you'll need to survey serious theologians and not just the "amateurs".

Good luck.

I am a donater to the ACLU- its one of the most important things to do if you care about your freedoms in america.
You have to see that they aren't partial to chritanity or any religion for that matter, because they realize that religion has no place in politics.
They do not dislike any reigion- they just don't court it.
Isint that what you do if your a political insitution? :confused:

p.s. anyone who is aganist what I said, please don't be shy. =D

We owe the ACLU a great debt for fighting for the implementation of our Constitution when no one else -- including our government officials -- was willing to stick out their necks. Our CND movement, the Civil Rights Movement of the '50s and '60s, and the anti-war movement of the Vietnam war era, all owe them our thanks for defending the rights of citizens to enjoy equality as Americans, and to be protected from government attempts to stifle political dissent. Come to that, we need them now for the same reasons.

It is not patriotism to suppress disagreement and criticism; it is an attack on our Constitution and our democratic republic. The ACLU has a history of reminding our courts and legislators of this.

You've bitten off quite a mouthful! You could also have a look at the way certain people who call themselves "Christians" persecute the ACLU. That in turn could take you to how some people who are heavily politically oriented call themselves "Christians" while refusing to acknowledge the validity of other political points of view because they don't understand that no political viewpoint can claim to be "inspired". (I make these distinctions because the ACLU also has had strong support from others with an equal claim -- at least theologically, which is the definition that matters -- to the label "Christian".)

When you get to that point, you'll be in a real theological quagmire, and you'll need to survey serious theologians and not just the "amateurs".

Good luck.
You know what's really stupid? I always get myself into these things right before a major exam. For some reason, my curiosity kicks in at the most inconvenient times. Take right now, for instance: huge comprehensive neuroanatomy exam in two days. So what do I do? Why, I start researching the ACLU, of course!

Take right now, for instance: huge comprehensive neuroanatomy exam in two days.
I already failed just at the title...

This is because the school was supporting religious activity. That means taxpayers money for the furtherment of christanity. which is wrong. What if they muslim family down the street wanted their tax money to go to a school furtherment of islam and several students converted? Would those christian parents be happy than? :confused:
You see if your going to be fair include everything, or don't even do it at all.
I think they teach this in.. kindergarten?
I applaud the ACLU for this action to make america for everyone.

Supporting voluntary religious activity of their students... IOW, no violation.

"Christmas is a
time to celebrate Christ's birth." Well, this is not
true as literal, historical accuracy for the
Christian. As no one knows Jesus’ birth date,
originally Christmas was celebrated on March 21 by
Origin’s papal decree. March 21 was determined by Biblical clues and indepedent documents for the Epiphany and the arrival of the Magi.
The early Christian Church "took Christ out of Christmas" in 336 A.D.
politicizing Christmas in an attempt to convert
“pagans”; the date was changed to January 6. This date
coincides with the Roman Empire holiday the “Birth of
the Gods and Goddesses”. Later, the date was changed
to December 15 under Constantine to coincide with the
Roman holiday the “Birthday of the Unconquerable Sun”.
This date coincides with the Winter Solstice in
another attempt to convert “pagans”. In 1528, the
date was set by Pope Gregory the XIII to December 25th
to fix problems in the Julian calendar. Christianity
started this "War on Christmas" and it continues to
this day. This so called “war” is yet another example
of Christianity’s religious intolerance, hostility,
and centrism.

Thats horrible! If I lived in that parish or whatever I would sew for backtaxes that went to the school district for them to support religion. Think of the children!

1. "sew"? You mean sue don't you? "sew" is what you do with needle and thread... Sue is what you do involving a civil court.

2. We do think of the children... That is why the ACLU's positions was found wanting, they were suing the school for allowing students to exercize first amendment rights... Thus the case was wanting. One's first amendment rights do not extend to the point of denying other those same rights...

Supporting voluntary religious activity of their students... IOW, no violation.
Volutary religious activity of students...led by teachers, sponsored by school officials, paid for with school funds. When a school's Drug Education Program involves prayer, religious songs and speeches that ended with the words "God bless you," I think the school is stepping over a very clearly-marked line.

Volutary religious activity of students...led by teachers, sponsored by school officials, paid for with school funds. When a school's Drug Education Program involves prayer, religious songs and speeches that ended with the words "God bless you," I think the school is stepping over a very clearly-marked line.
Stepping over it, spitting on it, rubbing it out with its foot, and paving a goddamn highway over it is more like it.

I am sure there are, but are there Athiest, Pagan, Wicca, and Tribal clubs in schools???
I have not seen poof of them.
So why dont we just leave religion out of school? Is that so hard to do?

Because the right cuts both ways.... My dear...

To "leave religion out of schools" in the manner you propose, VIOLATES the civil liberties of the students... The same right which bars government from endorsing a particular religion, ALSO BARS THE GOVERNMENT FROM PROHIBITING ITS FREE EXERCIZE... Prohibiting students from forming said groups is a form of prohibition, and is thus ILLEGAL... No matter how you want to spin it.... It's anti-constitutional.

Because the right cuts both ways.... My dear...

To "leave religion out of schools" in the manner you propose, VIOLATES the civil liberties of the students... The same right which bars government from endorsing a particular religion, ALSO BARS THE GOVERNMENT FROM PROHIBITING ITS FREE EXERCIZE... Prohibiting students from forming said groups is a form of prohibition, and is thus ILLEGAL... No matter how you want to spin it.... It's anti-constitutional.
Red herring, students can-there are several examples in this thread of that. It can't be compelled by the school. There is a difference.

Because the right cuts both ways.... My dear...

To "leave religion out of schools" in the manner you propose, VIOLATES the civil liberties of the students... The same right which bars government from endorsing a particular religion, ALSO BARS THE GOVERNMENT FROM PROHIBITING ITS FREE EXERCIZE... Prohibiting students from forming said groups is a form of prohibition, and is thus ILLEGAL... No matter how you want to spin it.... It's anti-constitutional.
No, it doesn't, and your condescending tone doesn't make your point any stronger.

Because the right cuts both ways.... My dear...

To "leave religion out of schools" in the manner you propose, VIOLATES the civil liberties of the students... The same right which bars government from endorsing a particular religion, ALSO BARS THE GOVERNMENT FROM PROHIBITING ITS FREE EXERCIZE... Prohibiting students from forming said groups is a form of prohibition, and is thus ILLEGAL... No matter how you want to spin it.... It's anti-constitutional.
Hon, schools prohibit students from the "free exercise" of religion all the time. Try saying the Lord's Prayer aloud during a math exam, and you'll see what I mean. ;)

Red herring, students can-there are several examples in this thread of that. It can't be compelled by the school. There is a difference.
Students can't pray together on school grounds, even if it's not compelled by the school (at least not where I am). Can't pray aloud alone, either.

There is an exception - if you're Muslim, you get your own prayer room for the Muslim students, along with a teacher to supervise the activity (not lead prayer, but make sure that's what you're doing instead of goofing off).

Red herring, students can-there are several examples in this thread of that. It can't be compelled by the school. There is a difference.
Oh, you must have missed the memo:

The Dobson Administration has added some fine print to the US Constitution. It is now illegal for any school to prohibit students and teachers from using school funds to establish Christian religious organizations, or to insert Christian doctrine into official school programs and activities. Also, the ACLU is unConstitutional.

That is all.

Students can't pray together on school grounds, even if it's not compelled by the school (at least not where I am). Can't pray aloud alone, either.

There is an exception - if you're Muslim, you get your own prayer room for the Muslim students, along with a teacher to supervise the activity (not lead prayer, but make sure that's what you're doing instead of goofing off).
Cite it.

Students can't pray together on school grounds, even if it's not compelled by the school (at least not where I am). Can't pray aloud alone, either.

There is an exception - if you're Muslim, you get your own prayer room for the Muslim students, along with a teacher to supervise the activity (not lead prayer, but make sure that's what you're doing instead of goofing off).
I suspect that you can't prove the first part of that.

Cite it.
See, you're beating me now. :D

Students can't pray together on school grounds, even if it's not compelled by the school (at least not where I am). Can't pray aloud alone, either.

If your school is blocking students from praying on their own time, then you should contact the ACLU and they will fight for your right to do so.

It IS perfectly legal for students to pray aloud, provided they aren't disrupting classes etc, and it IS legal for students to pray in groups on school property (again, assuming they aren't disrupting school when they do so). If your school is trying to block these activities then the ACLU will step up to defend you just as they have stepped up to defend students in similar situations in the past.

If your school is blocking students from praying on their own time, then you should contact the ACLU and they will fight for your right to do so.

It IS perfectly legal for students to pray aloud, provided they aren't disrupting classes etc, and it IS legal for students to pray in groups on school property (again, assuming they aren't disrupting school when they do so). If your school is trying to block these activities then the ACLU will step up to defend you just as they have stepped up to defend students in similar situations in the past.There you go being all civil and reasonable again. :D

See, you're beating me now. :D
I'm experimenting with this 'brevity' thing I've heard so much about...I don't know how well I'll do.

You see, back when I was...oh, wait...

Still got some practicing to do...

Red herring, students can-there are several examples in this thread of that. It can't be compelled by the school. There is a difference.

No, it's not a Red-Herring...

Which you would have known HAD YOU ACTUALLY READ WHAT I WAS FUCKING RESPONDING TO... Which was a poster PROPOSING THE DENIAL OF STUDENTS TO HAVE SUCH RELIGIOUS GROUPS...

If your school is blocking students from praying on their own time, then you should contact the ACLU and they will fight for your right to do so.

It IS perfectly legal for students to pray aloud, provided they aren't disrupting classes etc, and it IS legal for students to pray in groups on school property (again, assuming they aren't disrupting school when they do so). If your school is trying to block these activities then the ACLU will step up to defend you just as they have stepped up to defend students in similar situations in the past.
Agreed if the school is actually acting in such a manner then the ACLU can defiantly be a first contact in making sure that student rights are not infringed on.

I suspect that you can't prove the first part of that.
Yes, I can. My daughter attends Fairfax County Public Schools, and students can only pray in a group before school hours outside the building.

Try it inside the building, even during lunch, and you're going to the principal's office and possible detention.

If your school is blocking students from praying on their own time, then you should contact the ACLU and they will fight for your right to do so.

It IS perfectly legal for students to pray aloud, provided they aren't disrupting classes etc, and it IS legal for students to pray in groups on school property (again, assuming they aren't disrupting school when they do so). If your school is trying to block these activities then the ACLU will step up to defend you just as they have stepped up to defend students in similar situations in the past.

Nope, and nope. Can't even do it at lunch, can't do it in the hallway between classes. The ACLU won't even answer our letters.

Sorry. Try again.

No, it's not a Red-Herring...

Which you would have known HAD YOU ACTUALLY READ WHAT I WAS FUCKING RESPONDING TO... Which was a poster PROPOSING THE DENIAL OF STUDENTS TO HAVE SUCH RELIGIOUS GROUPS...
Wow dude. You're tense. And I think there might be something wrong with you caps lock.

While I am a tried and true believer in Christ, and do disapprove of many things the ACLU has done over the years, I have to say that they are consistent in their defense of anyone who they feel has had their rights violated. And I personally believe that no many how many cases you cite where Christians feel that their rights have been stepped on, there will be just as many or at least close to as many where those same rights have been defended. While certain judgements may be disagreed with, in the end the institution itself was a good idea and is well meant.

Now, as far as seperation of church and state, this has always bothered me. The intent of the founding fathers was to simply put into practice a law that prohibited a church run state, i.e. the Anglican Church of England that they were fleeing due to religious persecution. They didn't want the government to ignore all religion, or welcome all religion, they wanted the heads of each to be kept seperate so as to not give the government complete and total authority. The term "seperation of church and state" is thrown around far too often in cases where it has essentially no solid value, but it sounds good. Personally, I think that we should stop worrying about whether we're properly catering to Christians or Muslims or Catholics or anyone else. Let each person practice his or her own religion, allow free discussion of them, and as long as there is no violence stemming from it, let it be.

In fact, it caused this to spring up - praying outside at the flagpole before school - because by definition, "during school hours" makes nearly any (which most principals interpret as "all") prayer "disruptive".

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_syatp.htm

Otherwise, these students would be praying inside before math class.

But the thing is, none of those cases show the ACLU doing anything that infringes on the rights of Christians or Christmas celebrators.

Probably because there aren't any.

As you saw in that CafePress shop, a lot of conservatives are incredibly confused about just what the ACLU does. The fact that its defense of liberties is entirely non-partisan doesn't come into the picture for them. If right-wingers think the ACLU is a communist organization, I'm sure some Christians believe it is out the destroy Christmas--even when it defends anti-Santa ads and candy canes with religion messages.

I'm an optimist, and I choose to give the benefit of the doubt to those who claim the ACLU infringes on the rights of Christians. Those people must have reasons for their beliefs, evidence even, and I want to hear about it.

Hm. Well, they're Christians--their whole way of life is based on a belief for which they have absolutely no evidence. Do you really think they need evidence to start screaming about the ACLU killing Christmas?

Um, I don't think the abbey will want me, since I'm a bisexual agnostic. We might clash on our definitions of "wholesome," too, since mine involves gay sex, occasional recreational drug use, and a Playstation.
If I could still use a sig, that would so be there! :D :fluffle:

Hon, schools prohibit students from the "free exercise" of religion all the time. Try saying the Lord's Prayer aloud during a math exam, and you'll see what I mean. ;)

Yes, and since we allow no speech during an exam, it begs that we have precedent to deny them to engage in any relgious freedom anytime anywhere, including non-voluntary groups activities during recess times while not in class?

Neo-liberalism, my dear, looks just as stupid as neo-conservatism... You should try becoming an actual liberal.

If only more christians felt that way.

You'd be surprised how many of us do feel that way. I suspect that the trouble is that there may be an inverse correlation between being reasonable and being outspoken. The spectre of becoming one of those people who seems to shout "I CAN'T STAND OPINIONATED PEOPLE!" can discourage most of us. OTOH, the kind of person who doesn't want to be reasonable or let other people have a different view point seems to want to make sure everyone falls into line. That's one of the important things about a group like the ACLU; they have made the effort to fight for the rights of the "quiet folk" and even rally them to speak out.

Anyway, let me be really clear exactly what I feel as a Christian within that tradition usually labelled "evangelical".

I don't want any child having their personal relationship with God confused by the aura of authority that so easily attaches to a teacher that one might have either currently or at some time in the future. Nor do I want any child to feel their own opinions to God might be subject to the "editorial" or other approval or disapproval of such an authority figure. Nor do I want any child to be left with the idea that a teacher might deal with him or her on the basis of some affinity or lack of affinity to the teacher, real or imagined, in some religious club or meeting. Nor do I want any child absorbing the attitude that "God and Country" should be taken automatically or uncritically as some kind of package deal. The ability to ask the question, "Does my country measure up to God?" in ordinary times is part of what enables a believer to give the answer, "No!" when the country or its leaders are going badly wrong.

All in all, I don't want my children or anyone else's subjected at any time to any muddle caused by any appearance of a connection between the people who teach them and mark their papers, and God as they may or may not believe in God. God is God, and the civil authorities and their representatives shouldn't be part of our children's exposure to religion.

I think that covers most of it.

Yes, I can. My daughter attends Fairfax County Public Schools, and students can only pray in a group before school hours outside the building.

Try it inside the building, even during lunch, and you're going to the principal's office and possible detention.
If this is the school district (http://www.fcps.k12.va.us/DHR/oec/relguide.htm) you're talking about, and if you're being honest in the idea that any prayer group wouldn't be disrupting the regular school activities, then the school is in violation of it's own guidelines for religious accomodation.

But considering your, um, reputation on this board, those are two rather large ifs.

If this is the school district (http://www.fcps.k12.va.us/DHR/oec/relguide.htm) you're talking about, and if you're being honest in the idea that any prayer group wouldn't be disrupting the regular school activities, then the school is in violation of it's own guidelines for religious accomodation.

But considering your, um, reputation on this board, those are two rather large ifs.

No, they are not violating it - the principal defines "disruptive" as anything taking place during school hours. So you can be "disrupting" lunch, or "disrupting" recess.

That's why there's the "See You At The Flagpole" movement, with millions of children participating across the nation.

No, it doesn't, and your condescending tone doesn't make your point any stronger.

Yes, it does... Go ahead, try it... Been tried before, you will lose... Students have those rights.... Already been established by PREVIOUS CASES... Including ones the ACLU themselves were part of in DEFENSE OF...

Oh, and Nazz, just because a school posts a policy doesn't mean they follow it at all - or interpret it as you think they might. You should come here and see the reality of the situation. There are similar problems across the country.

Here's on in Texas - within the same school district they both forbid and encourage Muslim prayer rooms.

http://www.archives2005.ghazali.net/html/muslim_prayer.html

Please do humanity a favor; don't reproduce. Go be an abbey monk. You will be living the 'moral' 'wholesome' life you crave and the rest of us will not have to endure your fanatical zealotry.

OK, I'll bite. What have you got to be so hostile about? The guy just asked a question. Reasoned, measured language and tone, polite and thoughtful request. Even a "thanks" in advance. So what kind of sharp object did you just sit on to get all cranky with him?

Um, I don't think the abbey will want me, since I'm a bisexual agnostic. We might clash on our definitions of "wholesome," too, since mine involves gay sex, occasional recreational drug use, and a Playstation.

Errr, would that be all at once?

:p

Wow dude. You're tense. And I think there might be something wrong with you caps lock.

No, nothing wrong with my caps lock... It only gets engaged for people who have demonstrated some past inability to read normal sized text.

Take that as a hint.

Nope, and nope. Can't even do it at lunch, can't do it in the hallway between classes. The ACLU won't even answer our letters.

Sorry. Try again.
If you provide your school's information, along with a personal account of the school's actions, I will be more than happy to contact the ACLU on your behalf.

Yes, and since we allow no speech during an exam, it begs that we have precedent to deny them to engage in any relgious freedom anytime anywhere, including non-voluntary groups activities during recess times while not in class?

Neo-liberalism, my dear, looks just as stupid as neo-conservatism... You should try becoming an actual liberal.
Oy. I guess we need to review the concept of "a joke," then? Perhaps my winking emote and satirical tone were not enough to tip you off?

Though it is very nice of you to inform me which political orientations are acceptable. Perhaps you could provide some guidelines that would help us all avoid earning the dreaded label of "stupid neo-liberal"?

If you provide your school's information, along with a personal account of the school's actions, I will be more than happy to contact the ACLU on your behalf.
We've already done so several times.

I might add that we've been in contact with parents in different states in different counties - and most school districts have similar problems - they don't even follow their own written policies, or interpret the policy to cover their ass and then interpret it to effectively ban prayer on school grounds during school hours.

We've already done so several times.

I might add that we've been in contact with parents in different states in different counties - and most school districts have similar problems - they don't even follow their own written policies, or interpret the policy to cover their ass and then interpret it to effectively ban prayer on school grounds during school hours.
Again, if you have not been having success then I will offer to help. I have had contact with the ACLU several times in the past, and I've never had trouble getting their attention, so maybe I can use my connections to help you out.

I can even find out if the lawyer who helped the Christian student group in my high school is still around! He was really really awesome...he wrote one fantastic letter to the school administration and the issue was resolved. He didn't threaten or anything, either, which really impressed me. He helped the student organization protect its right to meet for group prayer during lunch, and nobody needed to get sued!

Again, if you have not been having success then I will offer to help. I have had contact with the ACLU several times in the past, and I've never had trouble getting their attention, so maybe I can use my connections to help you out.

We've had this trouble in both Fairfax County Public Schools (several) and Montgomery County Public Schools (even worse).

It's an endemic problem if you note the post that I showed before about Texas schools.

The key phrase is "disruptive". Which is defined by the staff at the school. If they feel that Christianity is "disruptive" and Muslim prayer is not, guess which prayer gets stopped.

As long as you're not "disruptive" you can pray - which is within the limits of the law - but most school teachers and principals define "disruptive" as "someone can hear you" and "during school hours, even if you're standing in the hallway between classes".

That's why the ACLU told us they can't touch it.

We'd have foosball, and all our monk robes would come with Batman-style utility belts.

DOUBLE YAY! :D

We've had this trouble in both Fairfax County Public Schools (several) and Montgomery County Public Schools (even worse).

It's an endemic problem if you note the post that I showed before about Texas schools.

The key phrase is "disruptive". Which is defined by the staff at the school. If they feel that Christianity is "disruptive" and Muslim prayer is not, guess which prayer gets stopped.

As long as you're not "disruptive" you can pray - which is within the limits of the law - but most school teachers and principals define "disruptive" as "someone can hear you" and "during school hours, even if you're standing in the hallway between classes".

That's why the ACLU told us they can't touch it.
So basically what you're saying is that you don't want me to contact the ACLU about this situation.

So basically what you're saying is that you don't want me to contact the ACLU about this situation.
You can contact them if you wish.

I'll TG you the information.

DOUBLE YAY! :D
We are the Holy Order Of The Kung Foos Monks. Join us, brother, and glory in our bounty.

You can contact them if you wish.

I'll TG you the information.
Great! I'll see what I can do. If the ACLU really has been turning down your case, I want to know why...it seems like there has to be something to the story that I'm missing.

Great! I'll see what I can do. If the ACLU really has been turning down your case, I want to know why...it seems like there has to be something to the story that I'm missing.

You know Bottle, I've been browsing this forum for one hell of a while, and this is probably one of the few generous and decent acts I've seen on here for...well, forever. You're a decent human being, something that soften eems to be lacking on these forums.

So basically what you're saying is that you don't want me to contact the ACLU about this situation.


Likely because Kimchi's story will fall apart at that point.

You know Bottle, I've been browsing this forum for one hell of a while, and this is probably one of the few generous and decent acts I've seen on here for...well, forever. You're a decent human being, something that soften eems to be lacking on these forums.
Meh, it's not really generous...mostly it's about how I really love to take on The Man whenever he messes with civil rights.

But thanks anyhow :).

Likely because Kimchi's story will fall apart at that point.
Hardly. Then why is it a similar problem elsewhere?

You aught to try the ADF (Alliance Defense Fund).

Likely because Kimchi's story will fall apart at that point.
Hey, it's possible there's something else to the story.

It could be that the person they're talking with at the ACLU happens to be a jackass. While the ACLU is a good organization (in my opinion), I have no doubt that there are jackasses who happen to work for them, just like there are jackasses in any organization.

It could also be that there is something more to the story that Kimchi isn't aware of. Laws regarding freedom of expression are surprisingly complex, and laws regarding the rights of school administrations are even more confusing. There may be some technical proviso that makes the school's actions legal, and the ACLU may be turning down the case because it would simply get thrown out right away on some technicality.

It could also be that the school is genuinely not violating the students' civil rights, and that mixed-signals have given people a false impression of what is going on. In my own high school, when the Christian group was having their troubles, a rumor went around that the school was going to force all Christian students to attend "diversity training," where they would be taught how evil and mean it is to pray in public. This turned out to be one of those rumors that nobody can trace to its origins, and was completely false. Sometimes these things take on a life of their own.

You aught to try the ADF (Alliance Defense Fund).
That might also be a good idea. I mean, if the ADF turns you down, then I think you can be pretty damn sure you don't have a case, because the ADF is like the uber-pro-Christian form of the ACLU.

It could also be that there is something more to the story that Kimchi isn't aware of. Laws regarding freedom of expression are surprisingly complex, and laws regarding the rights of school administrations are even more confusing. There may be some technical proviso that makes the school's actions legal, and the ACLU may be turning down the case because it would simply get thrown out right away on some technicality.

The technicality described to us on each occasion by the ACLU lawyer was the definition and use of the term "disruptive".

You have the right to pray in school as long as it is not compelled by the school AND as long as it is not "disruptive". "Disruptive" is defined by the individual teacher or administrator present. All in the name of "we're running a school here".

Depending on which school you are in, in which school district, as I posted in my previous link to the same problem in Texas, a school administrator is fully protected by their ability to define "disruptive".

They might say, "it's less disruptive to put Muslims in a prayer room off to the side" and "it's disruptive when those Christians have their prayer group in the hallway before class", or "it's disruptive (and other students complain) if another student prays alound before he eats his lunch".

They get a tremendous amount of leeway on this - and I'm not sure that most of the non-religious people on the forum would argue with that - after all, it's a school, not a church.

That's why students pray together ALOUD at the flagpole, at schools across the US, BEFORE school opens. Otherwise, their activity might be considered "disruptive".

That might also be a good idea. I mean, if the ADF turns you down, then I think you can be pretty damn sure you don't have a case, because the ADF is like the uber-pro-Christian form of the ACLU.
The problem is we're not uber-pro-Christians. We're just Christians.

The problem is we're not uber-pro-Christians. We're just Christians.
sometimes you gotta get help from people you don't normally like though. You know like the time when I had to call the ACLU because as a vegan my workplace was trying to force me to eat meat or they would fire me. ;)

The technicality described to us on each occasion by the ACLU lawyer was the definition and use of the term "disruptive".

You have the right to pray in school as long as it is not compelled by the school AND as long as it is not "disruptive". "Disruptive" is defined by the individual teacher or administrator present. All in the name of "we're running a school here".

Depending on which school you are in, in which school district, as I posted in my previous link to the same problem in Texas, a school administrator is fully protected by their ability to define "disruptive".

They might say, "it's less disruptive to put Muslims in a prayer room off to the side" and "it's disruptive when those Christians have their prayer group in the hallway before class", or "it's disruptive (and other students complain) if another student prays alound before he eats his lunch".

They get a tremendous amount of leeway on this - and I'm not sure that most of the non-religious people on the forum would argue with that - after all, it's a school, not a church.

That's why students pray together ALOUD at the flagpole, at schools across the US, BEFORE school opens. Otherwise, their activity might be considered "disruptive".
Hmm. I think I see why the ACLU might have turned this case down. To the best of my knowledge, it is perfectly "constitutional" for public schools to have rules prohibiting "disruptive" behavior, and the schools are empowered to enforce these rules within fairly broad limitations. To win the case, the ACLU would have to prove that the school officials were classifying specific behaviors as "disruptive" solely because those behaviors were Christian-related. That could be reeeeeeeeeeeally hard to do.

This actually reminds me of a thread on speeding and racial profiling from a while back...police officers in a certain county were shown to be far more likely to pull over black drivers who were speeding. Now, the black drivers WERE breaking the law, and thus they did deserve to get a ticket, but the cops were letting white drivers slide when they should have been enforcing the law. You couldn't argue that the black drivers didn't deserve their punishment, because they were breaking the rules, but it was still discrimination (and wrong) when the cops effectively made a different set of rules for white people.

If, in your school, the teachers only enforce a rule when it applies to a particular group of students, then that's really pathetic and unfair. It also makes your case very hard to win, because you have to basically prove a negative; you have to show that the teachers were not enforcing the rules on other students when they should have been.

If kids at your school really are having to put up with that kind of unreasonable crap then I am honestly sorry. I may not be Christian, but I was a high school kid only a few years back, and I remember how angry and humiliated I felt when my school messed around with students' free expression. They didn't allow us to wear HATS in my high school. Hats. Kids who could legally drive cars or get married were not trusted with HATS because they were concerned about "disruptions." It just really hit below the belt.

The problem is we're not uber-pro-Christians. We're just Christians.
Oh, what I meant was that you KNOW the ADF won't turn you down because of any anti-Christian bias. If you are concerned that the ACLU might be turning down your case because the ACLU has an anti-Christian bias, then it might be a good idea to try the ADF. You don't have to be "uber-Christian" to get help from the ADF...sorry I wrote that out badly :P.

Oh, what I meant was that you KNOW the ADF won't turn you down because of any anti-Christian bias. If you are concerned that the ACLU might be turning down your case because the ACLU has an anti-Christian bias, then it might be a good idea to try the ADF. You don't have to be "uber-Christian" to get help from the ADF...sorry I wrote that out badly :P.

It's not that I believe that the ACLU has an anti-Christian bias - I just think they don't care one way or the other about whether or not Christians (or anyone else) gets to practice their religion.

It's just not something that I see them feeling deeply about. Definitely not in the same sense that they care about free speech.

Your Kung Fu is better than Greenlander's Kung Fu. *bows*

Right on.
That reply was from Google Answers. I meant to make that clear that it wasn't in my own words. Just don't want to be accused of plagiarism. But thanks, anyway.

http://www.answers.google.com/answer...view?id=557527

Students can't pray together on school grounds, even if it's not compelled by the school (at least not where I am). Can't pray aloud alone, either.

There is an exception - if you're Muslim, you get your own prayer room for the Muslim students, along with a teacher to supervise the activity (not lead prayer, but make sure that's what you're doing instead of goofing off).
You should call the ACLU about that; this is shocking.

You should call the ACLU about that; this is shocking.
Already been done and rejected.

Yes, I can. My daughter attends Fairfax County Public Schools, and students can only pray in a group before school hours outside the building.

Try it inside the building, even during lunch, and you're going to the principal's office and possible detention.


Your best bet is to stage a test case where the school will discipline someone for this, then appeal that to the district, then try to throw a media fit, then threaten to sue, then contact the ACLU.

This can perhaps be one more case to add to the Civil Liberty Union's long list of defending free exercise.

We've already done so several times.

I might add that we've been in contact with parents in different states in different counties - and most school districts have similar problems - they don't even follow their own written policies, or interpret the policy to cover their ass and then interpret it to effectively ban prayer on school grounds during school hours.

And in several such cases, you have the ACLU seeking to enforce the student's rights.

You cannot blame the ACLU for school policies the ACLU has nothing to do with simply because the ACLU may not take all cases.

That reply was from Google Answers. I meant to make that clear that it wasn't in my own words. Just don't want to be accused of plagiarism. But thanks, anyway.

http://www.answers.google.com/answer...view?id=557527
Ah, well, you knew how to use it well. *bows*
Kinda like this order of words i didn't invent, right here. ;)

Oh, and Nazz, just because a school posts a policy doesn't mean they follow it at all - or interpret it as you think they might. You should come here and see the reality of the situation. There are similar problems across the country.

Here's on in Texas - within the same school district they both forbid and encourage Muslim prayer rooms.

http://www.archives2005.ghazali.net/html/muslim_prayer.html

Um. This article doesn't support your story about the oppression of Christians at all.

You are right that it shows that schools within the same district can have diffferent policies regarding prayer. So?

I'd be interested in hearing the school's side of this. There was a simular case back in Nevada with one of the schools and many people were screaming about the disruptive clause and how this was discrimination against Christians.

Turns out that the group in question, about 5 students, WERE praying out loud in the hall between classes (nutional break, my high school was on a block system) and were asked to stop because it was disruptive, but it was actually disruptive.

Mainly because said group was making it a point to go find the homosexual students (or anyone who was different, including me) and prayed loudly over that person or people for their redemtion.

I'd be interested in hearing the school's side of this. There was a simular case back in Nevada with one of the schools and many people were screaming about the disruptive clause and how this was discrimination against Christians.

Turns out that the group in question, about 5 students, WERE praying out loud in the hall between classes (nutional break, my high school was on a block system) and were asked to stop because it was disruptive, but it was actually disruptive.

Mainly because said group was making it a point to go find the homosexual students (or anyone who was different, including me) and prayed loudly over that person or people for their redemtion.
Sweet crap that would be annoying.

Though the way that Kimchi keeps backing out of people who are involved with the ACLU saying they'd go to bat for him...makes me think of that scene in Falling Down where the guy asks for gas money and dude starts pressing him "You at least have a liscence, right?" turns out he doesn't have a car...

Sweet crap that would be annoying.

Though the way that Kimchi keeps backing out of people who are involved with the ACLU saying they'd go to bat for him...makes me think of that scene in Falling Down where the guy asks for gas money and dude starts pressing him "You at least have a liscence, right?" turns out he doesn't have a car...
Wouldn't be the first time a person claimed the ACLU had a liberal bias for not taking his case, and then it turned out that he was painting a rosier picture of his case than was justified.

Sweet crap that would be annoying.
Yes, yes it was.

Though the way that Kimchi keeps backing out of people who are involved with the ACLU saying they'd go to bat for him...makes me think of that scene in Falling Down where the guy asks for gas money and dude starts pressing him "You at least have a liscence, right?" turns out he doesn't have a car...
It could be that he has a legit beef and that regular prayer IS being banned, but it could have been due to an incident such as this. Schools (and school rules) tend to be reactive (and over at times). PJ Day was fun till some girls got the bright idea of showing up in Victoria's Secret teddys. Never had another one after that...

Of course I thought tere was nothing wrong with that at that time. ;)

In fact, it caused this to spring up - praying outside at the flagpole before school - because by definition, "during school hours" makes nearly any (which most principals interpret as "all") prayer "disruptive".

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_syatp.htm

Otherwise, these students would be praying inside before math class.

Didn't Jesus say to pray away from others, anyway?

(I think closets might have been mentioned, no?)

Isn't the 'Christian' thing, therefore, to pray in seculsion.... which would, one assumes, probably be fairly non-disruptive?

Didn't Jesus say to pray away from others, anyway?

(I think closets might have been mentioned, no?)

Isn't the 'Christian' thing, therefore, to pray in seculsion.... which would, one assumes, probably be fairly non-disruptive?

You know I've heard that too come to think of it. Isn't it anti-Christian to pray out loud in public? Maybe they just like the prayign part but not the teachings of Jesus... :confused:

You know I've heard that too come to think of it. Isn't it anti-Christian to pray out loud in public? Maybe they just like the prayign part but not the teachings of Jesus... :confused:

I think it has something to do with what one radio evangelist referred to as 'casper milktoast Christians'...

They want the promise of eternal joy, but don't want to actually live the LIFE that the book sets out.

ACLU defense of Religion, and Christianity.

http://www.aclu.org/religion/tencomm/16254res20050302.html

September 20, 2005: ACLU of New Jersey joins lawsuit supporting second-grader's right to sing "Awesome God" at a talent show.

August 4, 2005: ACLU helps free a New Mexico street preacher from prison.

May 25, 2005: ACLU sues Wisconsin prison on behalf of a Muslim woman who was forced to remove her headscarf in front of male guards and prisoners.

February 2005: ACLU of Pennsylvania successfully defends the right of an African American Evangelical church to occupy a church building purchased in a predominantly white parish.

December 22, 2004: ACLU of New Jersey successfully defends right of religious expression by jurors.

November 20, 2004: ACLU of Nevada supports free speech rights of evangelists to preach on the sidewalks of the strip in Las Vegas.

November 12, 2004: ACLU of Georgia files a lawsuit on behalf of parents challenging evolution disclaimers in science textbooks.

November 9, 2004: ACLU of Nevada defends a M
ormon student who was suspended after wearing a T-shirt with a religious message to school.

August 11, 2004: ACLU of Nebraska defends church facing eviction by the city of Lincoln.

July 10, 2004: Indiana Civil Liberties Union defends the rights of a Baptist minister to preach his message on public streets.

June 9, 2004: ACLU of Nebraska files a lawsuit on behalf of a Muslim woman barred from a public pool because she refused to wear a swimsuit.

June 3, 2004: Under pressure from the ACLU of Virginia, officials agree not to prohibit baptisms on public property in Falmouth Waterside Park in Stafford County.

May 11, 2004: After ACLU of Michigan intervened on behalf of a Christian Valedictorian, a public high school agrees to stop censoring religious yearbook entries.

March 25, 2004: ACLU of Washington defends an Evangelical minister's right to preach on sidewalks.

February 21, 2003: ACLU of Massachusetts defends students punished for distributing candy canes with religious messages.

October 28, 2002: ACLU of Pennsylvania files discrimination lawsuit over denial of zoning permit for African American Baptist church.

July 11, 2002: ACLU supports right of Iowa students to distribute Christian literature at school.

April 17, 2002: In a victory for the Rev. Jerry Falwell and the ACLU of Virginia, a federal judge strikes down a provision of the Virginia Constitution that bans religious organizations from incorporating.

January 18, 2002: ACLU defends Christian church's right to run "anti-Santa" ads in Boston subways.

Wait wait wait wait wait wait... let me guess... they are brainwashing me... wait... these cases are an exception to the norm... no wait wait wait wait... they only took on these cases to try and change their image... no wait wwait... these cases never happened... no wait.. they supported christianity in these cases but MOST OF THE TIME they hate christianity...

We've had this trouble in both Fairfax County Public Schools (several) and Montgomery County Public Schools (even worse).

It's an endemic problem if you note the post that I showed before about Texas schools.

I graduated from MCPS last year, and at the school I went to, Churchill, there were several religious groups that met durring lunch. But rules were pretty lax there, because it was a school full of rich kids who's daddy's would sue the school for trying to enforce disapline ::shakes fist::

Like when the whole football team showed up to prom drunk, and were therefor kicked off the team, as is school policy. Well, they come back with lawyers and shit, and threaten to sue, because they lost scholarships or some shit like that, and the school didn't have the money to fight them in court, so they just re-enstated them.

Fucking rich kids think they can do whatever the fuck they want.

Because the right cuts both ways.... My dear...

To "leave religion out of schools" in the manner you propose, VIOLATES the civil liberties of the students... The same right which bars government from endorsing a particular religion, ALSO BARS THE GOVERNMENT FROM PROHIBITING ITS FREE EXERCIZE... Prohibiting students from forming said groups is a form of prohibition, and is thus ILLEGAL... No matter how you want to spin it.... It's anti-constitutional.

Spot on!

No, it doesn't, and your condescending tone doesn't make your point any stronger.

So you are against student's rights of free expression of religion?


Students can't pray together on school grounds, even if it's not compelled by the school (at least not where I am). Can't pray aloud alone, either.

That's bullshit. If I were you, I'd raise a ruckus. A big ruckus.

Hm. Well, they're Christians--their whole way of life is based on a belief for which they have absolutely no evidence. Do you really think they need evidence to start screaming about the ACLU killing Christmas?

Fuck you.

I am Christain, that gives you no right to make bullshit accusations about me and the way I think. Any by the way, you are way off. I support the ACLU, I know they are not out to get Christains, et cetera. And I always need proof before I believe something. Most Christains I know are the same way. Take your steriotypes and bigotry elsewhere.

I don't want any child having their personal relationship with God confused by the aura of authority that so easily attaches to a teacher that one might have either currently or at some time in the future. Nor do I want any child to feel their own opinions to God might be subject to the "editorial" or other approval or disapproval of such an authority figure. Nor do I want any child to be left with the idea that a teacher might deal with him or her on the basis of some affinity or lack of affinity to the teacher, real or imagined, in some religious club or meeting. Nor do I want any child absorbing the attitude that "God and Country" should be taken automatically or uncritically as some kind of package deal. The ability to ask the question, "Does my country measure up to God?" in ordinary times is part of what enables a believer to give the answer, "No!" when the country or its leaders are going badly wrong.

All in all, I don't want my children or anyone else's subjected at any time to any muddle caused by any appearance of a connection between the people who teach them and mark their papers, and God as they may or may not believe in God. God is God, and the civil authorities and their representatives shouldn't be part of our children's exposure to religion.

I think that covers most of it.

Spot on!

1. "sew"? You mean sue don't you? "sew" is what you do with needle and thread... Sue is what you do involving a civil court.

2. We do think of the children... That is why the ACLU's positions was found wanting, they were suing the school for allowing students to exercize first amendment rights... Thus the case was wanting. One's first amendment rights do not extend to the point of denying other those same rights...

The ACLU is not trying to block the students from doing anything. They are trying to block the school from doing something. Big difference