NationStates Jolt Archive

from stoptheaclu
The American Legion, with 2.7-million members the largest veterans organization in the world, has launched a nationwide grass-roots campaign to support a bill in Congress that would stop the ACLU from receiving taxpayer-paid attorney fees in the many religious-establishment cases against the Boy Scouts, the public display of the Ten Commandments and other symbols of America's religious history and heritage.
The Public Expression of Religion Act, or PERA, would amend the Civil Rights Attorney Fees Act to withdraw the authority of courts to award attorney fees, or damages, to the American Civil Liberties Union, or anyone else, in lawsuits brought under the Establishment of Religion clause in the First Amendment.

Generally unknown to the public, the ACLU has received enormous attorney fee awards from judges in Establishment Clause cases.

The American Legion argues that not a single judge, as far as is known, has exercised the court's discretion to deny the ACLU's motions for attorney fees – usually at $350 an hour – to be paid by taxpayers.

This has been done in spite of the fact that the ACLU has incurred no actual attorney expenses, because its lawsuits are handled by staff or volunteer lawyers.

The Legion says the ACLU has used the threat of attorney fees to intimidate cities, counties, school boards and other locally elected bodies into surrendering to its demands to remove religion from the public square.

The ACLU recently has engaged in many lawsuits against the Boy Scouts' usage of public property, arguing the organization is religious because its Scout Oath includes a pledge of duty to God.

The American Legion, whose creed has been "For God And Country" since its founding by GIs during World War I, stepped up its campaign of support for the congressional bill with the release of "In The Footsteps Of The Founders – A Guide To Defending American Values " at its conference last week in the nation's capitol.

Legionnaires distributed copies of the guide, available by request at this e-mail address to every member of the House and Senate during the conference. Members reported that many legislators expressed surprise at the size of attorney fees sought and gained by the ACLU and indicated support for the bill.

"There simply is no reasonable basis to support the profiteering in attorney fee awards ordered by judges in these cases," the Legion's grassroots guide states. "The very threat of such fees has made elected bodies, large and small, surrender to the ACLU's demands to secularly cleanse the public square."

What do ya'll think? I do know that years ago the law firm I worked in was involved in litigation supported by the ACLU (it was over the Americans with Disabilities Act and disable voter access). The ACLU didn't pay the firm anything (they did fund the expenses for the lawsuit though) and the firm did the case for the publicity and because we believed in the issues. However, when the case was over and the firm won, it got a big ass attorney fee award half of which went to the ACLU. Should the ACLU (or anyone for that matter) get attorney fees in a case where they don't actually incurr fees to prove their case?

from stop the aclu

Stop the aclu is Obviosly biased and the religious right are idiots.

Actually I'd say the 'Hit 'em in the pocketbook' tactic works wonders, more so than a court rulling. The ouch factor of losing millions will keep them following the law.

I also look at the fact that they want the law to cover the establishment clause only, seeming to acknolwedge that the law is being broken here, but hope that removing the fees would therefore stop the ACLU from pointing this fact out.

Putting the exception only in cases involving the establishment clause shows these people's hand. It's not about not having taxpayers pay for cases that don't cost the ACLU money, it's about not having taxpayers pay for cases that reinforce their religious rights.

from stop the aclu

Stop the aclu is Obviosly biased and the religious right are idiots.

good answer!:rolleyes:

Personally i think anything that has to do with religion should keep away from washington becuase when you mix government and religion you get the middle east the biggest hell hole to date. so if the american legion can prove the Aclu has then theres good reason but really why hell dont we just let religion run its course away from goverment.

Putting the exception only in cases involving the establishment clause shows these people's hand. It's not about not having taxpayers pay for cases that don't cost the ACLU money, it's about not having taxpayers pay for cases that reinforce their religious rights.
One has to wonder though, do they mean it when the ACLU goes to court for Christians as well?

Hmm, where's Cat with his list when ya need it?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9714318&postcount=1

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)

ENOUGH ALREADY WITH THE CANARD THAT THE ACLU IS JUST LEFTIST OR ANTI-CHRISTIAN!!!! :headbang:

The lesson for the ACLU is do not screw with veterans, their families, or American values. Go Legion, go.

Death to the right to challenge stuff in courts!

Stop! The ACLU is obviosly biased.

Yes, my edit. :D

The lesson for the ACLU is do not screw with veterans, their families, or American values. Go Legion, go.
American values like civil liberties? :confused:

The lesson for the ACLU is do not screw with veterans, their families, or American values. Go Legion, go.


The only lesson is that the American Legion isnt all it's cracked up to be.

Yes, my edit. :D
Did you bother to read Cat-Tribes' list where he shows rather convincingly that they are not?

The lesson for the ACLU is do not screw with veterans, their families, or American values. Go Legion, go.

Just curious, WTF did the ACLU do to veterans? The only thing mentioned here is the Boy Scouts, and the number of war veterans in the Boy Scouts is rather small. I mean there may be a few child soldiers, but they'd be rather rare.

American values like civil liberties? :confused:

Yes, like freedom of religion.

Yes, like freedom of religion.

The government doesn't pay people to preach. That's freedom of religion.

Yes, like freedom of religion.


The ACLU strongly promotes and vigorously fights to uphold freedom of religion.

Thank god for the aclu.

Just curious, WTF did the ACLU do to veterans? The only thing mentioned here is the Boy Scouts, and the number of war veterans in the Boy Scouts is rather small. I mean there may be a few child soldiers, but they'd be rather rare.

What part of American values did you not understand?

Yes, like freedom of religion.
aka freedom from religion.

What part of American values did you not understand?

The concept that the Boy Scouts are one? Or that separation of church and state isn't?

The ACLU strongly promotes and vigorously fights to uphold freedom of religion.

Thank god for the aclu.

Then why can't my grandchildren pray in school? Then why can't a Christian Christmas display be placed on public property but a Jewish religious display can?
Why can't the Ten Commandments be displayed in a courthouse in Alabama? It is all because the ACLU is opposed to freedom of religion. Oh, and read the US Constitution before you respond. Congress shall pass not law...

The government doesn't pay people to preach. That's freedom of religion.

Ok, if you say so. :rolleyes:

aka freedom from religion.

The Constitution makes no mention of freedom from religion.

Ok, if you say so. :rolleyes:

No establishment, plain as day. That one's not hard to argue about. You pay an organization to teach kids to be anything in particular and you're establishing a religion. It only turns questionable when you don't know for sure whether it's just display or actual prosletism.

Then why can't my grandchildren pray in school? Then why can't a Christian Christmas display be placed on public property but a Jewish religious display can?
Why can't the Ten Commandments be displayed in a courthouse in Alabama? It is all because the ACLU is opposed to freedom of religion. Oh, and read the US Constitution before you respond. Congress shall pass not law...
I'm sure they can pray silently on their own if they wanted to. It's freedom FROM religion also. Not just freedom of religion. No one's stopping the free excerise of religion, they're trying to stop the organized exercise of religion where it shouldn't exist.

The Constitution makes no mention of freedom from religion.
That's because there wasn't really want we'd call athiesm when the constitution was written. So freedom of religion for atheists is no religion thus freedom FROM religion as well.

Yes, like freedom of religion.
If you're going to try to argue that the ACLU is anti-Christian
Actually (http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=15897&c=141) read (http://www.aclu.org/StudentsRights/StudentsRights.cfm?ID=18159&c=159) the (http://www.aclu.org/StudentsRights/StudentsRights.cfm?ID=15680&c=159) facts (http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=17237&c=29) instead (http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=16295&c=142) of (http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=10248&c=42) making (http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=16125&c=86) things (http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=7876&c=139) up (http://www.aclu.org/court/court.cfm?ID=18363&c=286).

The Cat-Tribe has provided many cases where the ACLU has defended religious freedom, of which those are some, and your argument has little basis until you address those.

School-led prayer and the posting of the commandment "hold no god before jehova" are substantial violations both of the establishment and free excercize clauses.

Allowing those things to stand and trample our religious freedom is unconstitutional, and that is why the ACLU opposes them.

If your grandson or daughter is forbidden to pray in school, contact your state's ACLU branch for free legal representation in suing the school to right this wrong.

That's because there wasn't really want we'd call athiesm when the constitution was written. So freedom of religion for atheists is no religion thus freedom FROM religion as well.

I don't think there were not any atheists back when the Constitution was written. Freedom of religion for atheists is to not believe in a God or any religion and the right of other religions to practice their belief does not deny atheists their right to not believe.

I don't think there were not any atheists back when the Constitution was written. Freedom of religion for atheists is to not believe in a God or any religion and the right of other religions to practice their belief does not deny atheists their right to not believe.
But having the goverment spend monies on a religion or pick a religion does.

Celtlund, what if the tables were turned, and the issue was government funding of the Spiral Scouts? Surely you'd want the ACLU at your back to fight that?

I don't think there were not any atheists back when the Constitution was written.
I didn't say there weren't any athiests, just not nearly in the numbers we see today.
Freedom of religion for atheists is to not believe in a God or any religion and the right of other religions to practice their belief does not deny atheists their right to not believe.
It does if it is forced, like in the Boy Scouts, where they sit around talking about how God is great and he created the universe. It's fine if your grandchildren pray silently in school, but if they make the whole class pray with them (as in school prayer), that denies athiests the right to not believe.

But having the goverment spend monies on a religion or pick a religion does.

No, it doesn't stop atheists from believing. It does violate the establishment clause, but it doesn't violate atheist right to freedom of religion. They're different things.

But having the goverment spend monies on a religion or pick a religion does.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The amendment clearly states that Congress shall make no law establishing or prohibiting religion. So how does my grandchild’s praying in school or reading the bible in school violate that amendment? How does the placing of the Ten Commandments in a courthouse in Alabama violate that amendment? How does the placing of a Christian Christmas scene on public property violate that amendment? They don't because in all these cases Congress has made no law establishing or prohibiting religion.

How does the placing of the Ten Commandments in a courthouse in Alabama violate that amendment?
That statement alone proves your ignorance.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The amendment clearly states that Congress shall make no law establishing or prohibiting religion. So how does my grandchild’s praying in school or reading the bible in school violate that amendment? How does the placing of the Ten Commandments in a courthouse in Alabama violate that amendment? How does the placing of a Christian Christmas scene on public property violate that amendment? They don't because in all these cases Congress has made no law establishing or prohibiting religion.

Praying in school doesnt, school-led prayer does.

Reading the bible in school isnt unconstitutional, what are you talking about?

The ten commandments was addressed above. You have to scroll up and read it, maybe go back a page.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The amendment clearly states that Congress shall make no law establishing or prohibiting religion. So how does my grandchild’s praying in school or reading the bible in school violate that amendment? How does the placing of the Ten Commandments in a courthouse in Alabama violate that amendment? How does the placing of a Christian Christmas scene on public property violate that amendment? They don't because in all these cases Congress has made no law establishing or prohibiting religion.

You put the ten commandments on a courthouse, you establish that future decisions in that courthouse will be guided by the ten commandments. You mandate school prayer and you increase the number of christians past the natural growth rate, thus establishing christianity. They're all tenuous, but possible arguments. It's the courts' job, not that of a bunch of veterans, to decide whether those claims are acceptable.

Anyway, by your logic government funding of something like Spiral Scouts would not be establishment, yet I'm sure if they did you'd want the ACLU all over them. Rights are a tool that both sides need.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
That's the point I've been making this whole time. Free exercise of religion to athiests, is not having to hear it or see it where it doesn't belong.

The amendment clearly states that Congress shall make no law establishing or prohibiting religion. So how does my grandchild’s praying in school or reading the bible in school violate that amendment?
As long has he's praying silently and not making atheists hear him read the Bible or whatever, it's fine. As far as I'm aware of silent prayer or reading the bible silently at school hasn't been declared unconstituational.

How does the placing of the Ten Commandments in a courthouse in Alabama violate that amendment? How does the placing of a Christian Christmas scene on public property violate that amendment?
Alright, so the 10 commandments thing outside of a courthouse is a bit of a stretch, it makes sense to have universal "rules" outside a courthouse, but that's not even the point here.

They don't because in all these cases Congress has made no law establishing or prohibiting religion.Yes it does, if there is a public display of religion where it shouldn't exist, then the first amerndment has been violated. And judging where displays of religion should and should not exist is the charm of this issue. For all legal purposes, atheism should be conisedered as a "religion".

It's fine if your grandchildren pray silently in school, but if they make the whole class pray with them (as in school prayer), that denies athiests the right to not believe.

No, it does not, because the atheists can remain silent and not pray. No one is forcing them to pray.

When I was a kid, we had a bible reading, a prayer, and a pledge of allegiance in school every morning. The Jewish kids had no problem reading a bible passage from the Old Testament. The Christian kids had no problem reading from either the old or New Testament. The kids that were not Jewish or Christian did not have to read from the bible. After the bible reading, we recited the Lords Prayer. The Jewish and non-Christian kids remained silent (or prayed silently). The Catholic kids (I was one) remained silent when we reached the part that says, " For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever and ever."

No one had a problem with it. So why is there a problem with it now? What is wrong with exposing the values this country is based on? What is wrong with doing in school what Congress does in chambers?

The amendment clearly states that Congress shall make no law establishing or prohibiting religion. So how does my grandchild’s praying in school or reading the bible in school violate that amendment?
Your grandchild can pray in school and read the Bible as long as it does not interfear with lessons. What the school (and please note the difference) cannot do is mandate school prayer as it is defacto goverment establishment of religion.

I'm sure you wouldn't want your grandchild forced to read Buddhist sutras or have to pray at a Shinto Shrine before class would ya?

How does the placing of the Ten Commandments in a courthouse in Alabama violate that amendment?
Defacto establishment of religion, in effect stating the laws of (whatever version they were) the Bible had surpremacy over other religious laws and/or those of the United States. Thou Shall Not Worship Other gods Before Me... makes it hard to argue that it is not a religious document.

How does the placing of a Christian Christmas scene on public property violate that amendment?
Defacto establishment, favortism, of religion. Not just Christanity, but a particular brand of as not all Christians agree with the display of Christian scenes, nor of Christmas itself.

They don't because in all these cases Congress has made no law establishing or prohibiting religion.
Because you have forgotten that the 14th amendment states point blank that the Constitution of the United States of America and its amendments are THE law of the land and applicable to the several states and have primacy over any laws passed by the several states. That's how if a state acts, but Congress does not, it still applies.

That statement alone proves your ignorance.

Attack the person, not the idea?

This debate is headed the wrong way from what I intended with the original post. I don't care if the ACLU is or is not anti or pro-christian. What I'm interested in is views on the idea that they (or any other group) should not receive $$ in the form of attorney fees when they in fact don't have any to begin with. The closest I've heard to my intent was expressed by Vegas-Rex and NERVUN. What if attorney fees were done away with in ALL 42 USC 1983 cases, not just establishment clause ones? Should those fees be limited in some way similar to tort reform, what if they are done away with only in establishment clause cases, etc. That's what I'm interested in - the idea of doing away with or limiting fees in these types of lawsuits and/or being payable to organizations such as the ACLU, ACLJ, NAACP, etc.

No, it does not, because the atheists can remain silent and not pray. No one is forcing them to pray.

When I was a kid, we had a bible reading, a prayer, and a pledge of allegiance in school every morning. The Jewish kids had no problem reading a bible passage from the Old Testament. The Christian kids had no problem reading from either the old or New Testament. The kids that were not Jewish or Christian did not have to read from the bible. After the bible reading, we recited the Lords Prayer. The Jewish and non-Christian kids remained silent (or prayed silently). The Catholic kids (I was one) remained silent when we reached the part that says, " For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever and ever."

No one had a problem with it. So why is there a problem with it now? What is wrong with exposing the values this country is based on? What is wrong with doing in school what Congress does in chambers?

It's not an issue of atheist ability to be atheist, it's an issue of state establishment. They're different things.

This debate is headed the wrong way from what I intended with the original post.
The joys of NS General. By page three we've all forgotten what was stated in the OP. ;)

What if attorney fees were done away with in ALL 42 USC 1983 cases, not just establishment clause ones? Should those fees be limited in some way similar to tort reform, what if they are done away with only in establishment clause cases, etc. That's what I'm interested in - the idea of doing away with or limiting fees in these types of lawsuits and/or being payable to organizations such as the ACLU, ACLJ, NAACP, etc.
Hmm, again I would state that a court victory without a means of backing it up or some sort of 'punishment' (if you will) would be hollow. I mean, if it doesn't hit your wallet or your liberty, what's to stop you from doing it again if you just get yelled at?

Now it doesn't have to go to the lawyers, but I am for monitary damages because it does provide an expensive reminder that what they did was a no-no and you shouldn't do that in the first place.

Anyway, by your logic government funding of something like Spiral Scouts would not be establishment, yet I'm sure if they did you'd want the ACLU all over them. Rights are a tool that both sides need.

The government does not provide funding to the Boy Scouts. They may provide facilities that they can use such as campsites etc. I would have no problem with the government providing access to the same or similar sites to the Spiral Scouts.

The government does not provide funding to the Boy Scouts. They may provide facilities that they can use such as campsites etc.
And they are provided for free. That's a LOT of money, and with access to a military base that other groups could not get. Goods and services are the same as money.

Celtlund is right, the Constitution doesn't give us the explicit right to be free from religion, or even freedom of religion.

However, nearly two centuries ago, the Supreme Court ruled that that is what it means. And in those two centuries, no Supreme Court has over-turned that decision and no Congress has attempted to pass (AFAIK) any amendments altering that.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The amendment clearly states that Congress shall make no law establishing or prohibiting religion. So how does my grandchild’s praying in school or reading the bible in school violate that amendment? How does the placing of the Ten Commandments in a courthouse in Alabama violate that amendment? How does the placing of a Christian Christmas scene on public property violate that amendment? They don't because in all these cases Congress has made no law establishing or prohibiting religion.

LOL.

The first Amendment by itself only refers to Congress. That is why it didn't originally apply to the states. As incorporated by the 14th Amendment, however, it applies to any state action.

Try reading a little basic Constitutional Law. See here (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/index.html).

For example, kids are free to pray in school, they just cannot be led in prayer by the schoool. Engel v. Vitale (http://www.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=370&invol=421), 370 U.S. 421, 424, 425 (1962):

''We think that by using its public school system to encourage recitation of the Regents' prayer, the State of New York had adopted a practice wholly inconsistent with the Establishment Clause. There can, of course, be no doubt that New York's program of daily classroom invocation of God's blessings as prescribed in the Regents' prayer is a religious activity. . . . [W]e think that the constitutional prohibition against laws respecting an establishment of religion must at least mean that in this country it is no part of the business of government to compose official prayers for any group of the American people to recite as a part of a religious program carried on by government.''


BTW, you have yet to respond to the list of cases in which the ACLU defends Christians. It must be inconvenient to your world view.

You put the ten commandments on a courthouse, you establish that future decisions in that courthouse will be guided by the ten commandments.

1. This nation was established on those principals.
2. You beleive the Ten Commandments should be removed from the building the Supreme Court sits in?

The government does not provide funding to the Boy Scouts. They may provide facilities that they can use such as campsites etc. I would have no problem with the government providing access to the same or similar sites to the Spiral Scouts.

Well the whole point of the thread was veterans objecting to lawsuits designed to stop funding, so I really don't see how you can possibly remain relevant to this thread. Good day.

1. This nation was established on those principals.
2. You beleive the Ten Commandments should be removed from the building the Supreme Court sits in?

The nation wasn't established on most of them. Matter of fact, almost every single one of them was broken in the course of establishing the nation. And yes, they shouldn't be on the Supreme Court either.

The joys of NS General. By page three we've all forgotten what was stated in the OP. ;)


Hmm, again I would state that a court victory without a means of backing it up or some sort of 'punishment' (if you will) would be hollow. I mean, if it doesn't hit your wallet or your liberty, what's to stop you from doing it again if you just get yelled at?

Now it doesn't have to go to the lawyers, but I am for monitary damages because it does provide an expensive reminder that what they did was a no-no and you shouldn't do that in the first place.

In these types of cases, typically, there is a "punishment" so to speak in that an injunction is entered requiring someone to do something that costs $$. For example, in the case I was involved in that I discuss in the OP, one of the things that came out of it was a requirement that EVERY polling place in my state have handicapped parking and wheelchair accessibility, the state had to spend quite a bit of $$ to make that happen. Should they also pay attorney fees?

The government does not provide funding to the Boy Scouts. They may provide facilities that they can use such as campsites etc. I would have no problem with the government providing access to the same or similar sites to the Spiral Scouts.

Nor does the ACLU have problems with the Boy Scouts having access to public facilities on the same terms as other groups. I dare you to find a case where the ACLU has tried to deny equal access to the Boy Scouts.

However, the Boy Scouts, in order to keep out athiests and homosexuals, declared itself a religious organization. Because of that, it cannot be shown be provided public support or favoritism. That has been the subject of litigation, which the ACLU has won.

(And the Pentagon used to provide funding to some Boy Scout troops until after the Boy Scouts declared themselves a religious organization.)

For all legal purposes, atheism should be conisedered as a "religion".

If athiesim is a religion, then athiests must beleive in a supreme being acording to the definiton of religion.

re·li·gion
1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.

In these types of cases, typically, there is a "punishment" so to speak in that an injunction is entered requiring someone to do something that costs $$. For example, in the case I was involved in that I discuss in the OP, one of the things that came out of it was a requirement that EVERY polling place in my state have handicapped parking and wheelchair accessibility, the state had to spend quite a bit of $$ to make that happen. Should they also pay attorney fees?
That was a change in the physical layout of the building, how do you make the same change of a religion? Usually the court cases turn on getting someone to stop doing something, such as schools leading prayer before classes. It costs no money to do so, so what's to stop them from doing it again, and again, and again once the case has been decided?

1. This nation was established on those principals.
2. You beleive the Ten Commandments should be removed from the building the Supreme Court sits in?

1. No it wasn't. It was founded on the quest for new sources of tradable materials and other sources of wealth. Some of the people involved in that quest happened to also be religious wingnuts, but the founding of the nation was about money.

If implicit evidence that the country was not founded on Christianity isn't enough for you, then perhaps explicit proof that it wasn't will be.

Ratified by the 5th Congress, sufficiently close to the nation's founding to be considered original:

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

2. The 10 Commandments aren't in the Supreme Court. A scene depicting Moses carrying them is in it along with a picture of Hamurabi and similar scenes of famous moments in the (pre)history of law, but the 10 Commandments themselves aren't displayed. The scene of Moses carrying them is right up there with the statue of Minerva in the Great Hall of the Justice Department. The latter does not promote Roman Paganism, and the former does not enshrine Judaism.

1. This nation was established on those principals.
2. You beleive the Ten Commandments should be removed from the building the Supreme Court sits in?

1. This nation was not founded on the Ten Commandments. You will find them nowhere in the Constitution.

2. The Ten Commandments themselves are not on the building the Supreme Court sits in. Common myth.

3. The Supreme Court has not banned the Ten Commandments from public property. To the contrary, they recently upheld one display of the Ten Commandments and struck down another. It is a matter of details whether a display of the Ten Commandments violates the Establishment Clause.

Yeah, Cat-Tribe has arrived! I know you know what a 42 USC 1983 lawsuit is and how attorney fees are awarded in such cases under 42 USC 1988. What is your view on changing that in some way to limit or bar attorney fees in certain cases or for certain groups or people that file cases under those provisions? It appears that is what is being proposed for establishment clause cases with the idea it will "hurt" the ACLU. I think if it passed, it would "hurt" much more than the ACLU and I have an issue with it applying to ONLY establishment clause cases in any event.

That was a change in the physical layout of the building, how do you make the same change of a religion? Usually the court cases turn on getting someone to stop doing something, such as schools leading prayer before classes. It costs no money to do so, so what's to stop them from doing it again, and again, and again once the case has been decided?

Because if an injunction has been entered and they disobey it they can be fined, punished and people can even go to jail for contempt of court.

Because if an injunction has been entered and they disobey it they can be fined, punished and people can even go to jail for contempt of court.
Which takes more time and money to work its way back up again to SCOTUS.

If athiesim is a religion, then athiests must beleive in a supreme being acording to the definiton of religion.

re·li·gion
1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.

You walk a dangerous road, my friend.

If atheism is not a religion, then it can be official taught in schools, right?

Atheism could be officially established as the belief system of the government -- because, if it is not a religion, its establishment would not be the establishment of a religion.

Your position that only some religious beliefs qualify a religion is either simple prejudice or a disingenuous tap-dance.

Regardless, they are not the law.

From the majority opinion in Wallace v. Jaffree (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/472/38.html ), 472 U.S. 38 (1985):

Just as the right to speak and the right to refrain from speaking are complementary components of a broader concept of individual freedom of mind, so also the individual's freedom to choose his own creed is the counterpart of his right to refrain from accepting the creed established by the majority. At one time it was thought that this right merely proscribed the preference of one Christian sect over another, but would not require equal respect for the conscience of the infidel, the atheist, or the adherent of a non-Christian faith such as Islam or Judaism. But when the underlying principle has been examined in the crucible of litigation, the Court has unambiguously concluded that the individual freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment embraces the right to select any religious faith or none at all. This conclusion derives support not only from the interest in respecting the individual's freedom of conscience, but also from the conviction that religious beliefs worthy of respect are the product of free and voluntary choice by the faithful, and from recognition of the fact that the political interest in forestalling intolerance extends beyond intolerance among Christian sects - or even intolerance among "religions" - to encompass intolerance of the disbeliever and the uncertain.

Would you really argue against that sentiment?

See, e.g., Lee v. Weisman (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/505/577.html ), 505 US 577 (1992) ("The First Amendment's Religion Clauses mean that religious beliefs and religious expression are too precious to be either proscribed or prescribed by the State. The design of the Constitution is that preservation and transmission of religious beliefs and worship is a responsibility and a choice committed to the private sphere, which itself is promised freedom to pursue that mission. It must not be forgotten, then, that, while concern must be given to define the protection granted to an objector or a dissenting nonbeliever, these same Clauses exist to protect religion from government interference."); Torcaso v. Watkins (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=367&invol=488#495), 367 U.S. 488, 495 (1961) ("We repeat and again reaffirm that neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person `to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion.' Neither can constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs"); Everson v. Board of Education (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=volpage&court=us&vol=330&page=15#15), 330 US 1, 18 (1947) (the First Amendment "requires the state to be a neutral in its relations with groups of religious believers and non-believers").

You might also read some of the conscientious objector cases. It is has been clearly held that "religion" does not require belief in a God or gods. That firmly held athiestic beliefs qualify as a religion.

Well the whole point of the thread was veterans objecting to lawsuits designed to stop funding, so I really don't see how you can possibly remain relevant to this thread. Good day.

You are right. Good night and thanks to all for the lively discussion. Sorry if I took it off topic.

Yeah, Cat-Tribe has arrived! I know you know what a 42 USC 1983 lawsuit is and how attorney fees are awarded in such cases under 42 USC 1988. What is your view on changing that in some way to limit or bar attorney fees in certain cases or for certain groups or people that file cases under those provisions? It appears that is what is being proposed for establishment clause cases with the idea it will "hurt" the ACLU. I think if it passed, it would "hurt" much more than the ACLU and I have an issue with it applying to ONLY establishment clause cases in any event.

Yes. This is pure stupidity. It is merely a tantrum being thrown.

It is wrong to exempt the Establishment Clause from 42 USC 1988 because it would create a disincentive to enforce the Establishment Clause -- by any group whether it be the ACLU or the Christian Legal Society.

True conservatives will oppose this move for the idiocy that it is. Our Constitution is not a money game.

Every member of the ACLU can go straight to hell, in my opinion. I firmly believe that if the ACLU never materialized, then parents would still be able to discipline their own children, without fear of reprimand themselves. With discipline of children, we would (arguably) be a better nation. They're CHILDREN - the responsibility of THE PARENT! Not the government. It doesn't take the village to raise the village idiot, but if the village DOES the raising, here's where your village idiot comes from.

Religion would not be a taboo subject, and nobody would have to worry about offending somebody for praying over a meal in a restaurant. While I personally do not agree with organized religion, I feel I am a spiritual person, and I believe in a God that has been forgotten for far too long, and a return to at least SOME moral standards, based on a person's upbringing, should be adequate without a jagg-off, watchdog, fucking government organization telling me what is right and wrong... I know what's right and wrong. The ACLU can keep their collective noses out of my business.

If I ever become president, the ACLU is the FIRST abolishment to happen! (Actually, a job I wouldn't ever want. Dubya is probably one of the most reviled men on the planet for his illegal "War on Terror". I didn't vote for him... *I* can sleep at night, thank you.)

:upyours:ACLU:upyours:

It's not the ACLU's fault parents expect the government to raise their children for them.

Oh, I'm sorry, did that little bit of reality just strafe your troop column?

*SNIP*
Hi, welcome to NationStates General. Please read here: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9714318&postcount=1 before posting about the ACLU so we don't have to die laughing from how wrong you are.

Thank you, and have a good night.

If I ever become president, the ACLU is the FIRST abolishment to happen! And that's why we have a democratic election process, two term (ten year) presidency limit and an impeachment process. :p (Actually, a job I wouldn't ever want. Dubya is probably one of the most reviled men on the planet for his illegal "War on Terror". I didn't vote for him... *I* can sleep at night, thank you.)
You are somewhat forgiven :D

Every member of the ACLU can go straight to hell, in my opinion. I firmly believe that if the ACLU never materialized, then parents would still be able to discipline their own children, without fear of reprimand themselves. With discipline of children, we would (arguably) be a better nation. They're CHILDREN - the responsibility of THE PARENT! Not the government. It doesn't take the village to raise the village idiot, but if the village DOES the raising, here's where your village idiot comes from..

If the ACLU didn't exist, you could beat your children???!!!

And that's an argument against the ACLU???!!!


Religion would not be a taboo subject, and nobody would have to worry about offending somebody for praying over a meal in a restaurant. While I personally do not agree with organized religion, I feel I am a spiritual person, and I believe in a God that has been forgotten for far too long, and a return to at least SOME moral standards, based on a person's upbringing, should be adequate without .

Um. We happen to be one of the most religiously free countries in the world.

Religion is hardly a taboo. One reason is the First Amendment.

The ACLU protects your right to pray. Again, go back and read the list of cases in which the ACLU defended religious expression.


a jagg-off, watchdog, fucking government organization telling me what is right and wrong... I know what's right and wrong. The ACLU can keep their collective noses out of my business.

The ACLU isn't a government organization.

If I ever become president, the ACLU is the FIRST abolishment to happen!

Apparently you aren't familiar with the First Amendment's protection of freedom of assembly.

Attack the person, not the idea?
You have no knowledge of the idea.

Yes. This is pure stupidity. It is merely a tantrum being thrown.

It is wrong to exempt the Establishment Clause from 42 USC 1988 because it would create a disincentive to enforce the Establishment Clause -- by any group whether it be the ACLU or the Christian Legal Society.

True conservatives will oppose this move for the idiocy that it is. Our Constitution is not a money game.

What if 42 USC 1988 was ammended to exempt all cases, not just establishment clause cases? or;

What if it was ammended to place a cap on attorney fees in much the same way "tort reform" is capping damages and fees in generic civil cases?

What if 42 USC 1988 was ammended to exempt all cases, not just establishment clause cases? or;

That would be the same as abolishing it. Not a good idea.

What if it was ammended to place a cap on attorney fees in much the same way "tort reform" is capping damages and fees in generic civil cases?

Attorneys fees must be reasonable and are capped by how much the judge (and/or appellate judges) think is a reasonable amount.

42 USC 1988 serves an vital purpose. No one "profits" off of it. Instead, it makes it possible to bring lawsuits that defend our fundamental rights against invasion.

That would be the same as abolishing it. Not a good idea.
Attorneys fees must be reasonable and are capped by how much the judge (and/or appellate judges) think is a reasonable amount.
So I take it you oppose "tort reform" and limits on what a jury has decided is a "reasonable amount" for damages?

42 USC 1988 serves an vital purpose. No one "profits" off of it. Instead, it makes it possible to bring lawsuits that defend our fundamental rights against invasion.

Cat, just note I'm asking questions to stir up debate on the issues, I don't disagree with anything you've said.

That said: What if 42 USC 1988 limited who could recieve attorney fees, in all cases, in such a way as to cut out fees for anyone except private individuals suing over "individual" wrongs (such as a prisoner suing for abuse specific to him at the hands of prison guards, but keeping out, say, the "Association for the Reform of Prisons" when they sue in order to generally change the conditions prevalent in particular prison).

It's funny to see Celtlund unable to counter anything The Cat-Tribes wrote.