Godless ACLU attacks the 1st Amendment

Status
Not open for further replies.

John/az2

New member
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_fosterj_news/20000517_xnfoj_banned_ken.shtml


<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Banned in Kentucky:
God, country, etc.
10 Commandments, Mayflower Compact,
Declaration of Independence, U.S. motto

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By Julie Foster
© 2000 WorldNetDaily.com


Today, schools and courthouses in eastern Kentucky are taking down displays of historical documents -- including the Mayflower Compact and the preamble to the state's constitution -- in compliance with an order from Federal District Judge Jennifer Coffman, who said the displays are a violation of the First Amendment.

Set up over the course of last year in Harlan County schools and the courthouses of McCreary and Pulaski counties, the displays have the effect of "conveying a very specific governmental endorsement of religion," says Coffman's order.

Beginning as postings of the Ten Commandments, the exhibits were augmented to include historical documents that show America's reliance on Judeo-Christian value systems in civic life.

According to Coffman's ruling, issued May 5, the additional documents were added by the schools and counties who "conceded that they did so in an attempt to bring the display within the parameters of the First Amendment and to insulate themselves" from a lawsuit filed by American Civil Liberties Union in November of last year.

The judge claimed, however, the revised displays still do not pass constitutional muster, as they were specifically designed to promote Christianity.

Displays contained the following documents:


an excerpt from the Declaration of Independence, saying, "All men ... are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness";

the preamble to the Constitution of Kentucky, which states, "We, the people of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties we enjoy, and invoking the continuance of these blessings, do ordain and establish this Constitution";

the national motto, "In God we trust";

a page from the congressional record of Wednesday, Feb. 2, 1983, Vol. 129, No. 8, which declares 1983 as the "Year of the Bible" and lists the Ten Commandments;

a proclamation by President Ronald Reagan marking 1983 the "Year of the Bible";

a proclamation by President Abraham Lincoln designating April 30, 1863, a "National Day of Prayer and Humiliation";

an excerpt from President Lincoln's "Reply to Loyal Colored People of Baltimore upon Presentation of a Bible" reading, "The Bible is the best gift God has ever given to man";

the Mayflower Compact, in which the colony's founders invoke "the name of God" and explain that their journey was taken, among other reasons, "for the glory of God and advancement of the Christian faith."

Because displays originally included only the Ten Commandments, and because the revised displays still contained copies of them, Coffman refers to the displays throughout her ruling as "the Ten Commandments."
Defendants, including Judge Darrell BeShears of Pulaski County, who set up a display in his courthouse, maintain their purpose was to teach residents and students about American religious history and the foundations of the modern state.

However, Coffman said defendants "narrowly tailored" their selection of "foundational documents to incorporate only those with specific references to Christianity and texts that, while promulgated by the federal government, were chosen solely for their religious references."

"The display does not appear to have been intended to educate ... [c]ounty residents, in a balanced or accurate manner, about the traditions and texts that were drawn upon by this nation's founders or about the complex role religion has played in this country's history," she continued.

Coffman admitted "a display of some of these documents may not have the effect of endorsing religion in another context," but the defendants' motives and lack of a posted explanation that the display was to show "the documents' historical significance" render the exhibits unconstitutional.

Harlan, Pulaski and McCreary counties asked Coffman for a stay of the ruling during the appeals process, but the request was denied on the basis that the anonymous plaintiffs "will be substantially harmed ... because they will continue to suffer the violation of their constitutional rights."

"We certainly agree with her ruling," said Jeff Vessels, executive director of the ACLU of Kentucky. "[Coffman's] denial of the stay demonstrates that there is significant and immediate harm to the plaintiffs and that, in her judgment, there is little chance that these displays could be found constitutional."

Vessels indicated the counties had ulterior motives in including historical documents in the display.

"The excerpts were selected because of their religious content," he said. "She saw right through that."

"The courts typically look at motivation or the purpose ... and they also look at the effect," Vessels told WorldNetDaily. "In this case, the purpose and effect [was] to clearly promote religion. The context is very critical. These kinds of displays really need to be looked at on a case-by-case basis."

Attorney Johnnie Turner, who represents the Harlan County schools, told WND the exhibited documents are mistakenly referred to as "excerpts."

"The only thing you can say is an excerpt ... is the Declaration of Independence and the preamble to the Kentucky Constitution," he said.

Each display in Harlan County schools was accompanied by copies of a resolution passed by the school board on Dec. 30, 1999, encouraging the display of historical documents regardless of religious content, and a Kentucky statute authorizing the exhibit of founding, historical documents.

In fact, KRS 158.195, passed by the Kentucky General Assembly in 1992, states unequivocally: "There shall be no content-based censorship of American history or heritage in the Commonwealth based on religious references in these writings, documents, and records."

The counties have filed for an appeal, though attorneys may request that the case be remanded for clarification of the ruling.

"The judge says we cannot post anything similar. Does she mean we cannot post the Kentucky Constitution?" asked Turner, also a state legislator.

In reference to the Lincoln quote included in the exhibits, Turner asks, "How much of that document do you have to post" before it becomes constitutional?

"The American people better look at what's happening in these cases," he urged. "We are allowing ... our history to be censored and suppressed. Do we have to ask a judge each time, 'Do we have enough of [this document] up?' Or can the ACLU come in and say [the document] had a religious intent?"

"This holding is scary, and it should be scary to every American," Turner added. "The fight has just begun."

"With the good Lord's help, we shall win," the attorney concluded. "We need the prayers and support of Americans."
[/quote]

Coming next from ACLU and our judicial system: God banned from conversation outside of Church and Home!

------------------
John/az
"When freedom is at stake, your silence is not golden, it's yellow..." RKBA!
www.cphv.com
 
You mean the founders of this country were openly Christian? Omigod! We need to change that! Let's start with the history books.


We certainly would not want any values in our schools. The schools are doing so well since we took morals out of them.


It is utterly amazing how much mileage the ACLU can get out of ONE SENTENCE in ONE paper of the Federalist documents that mentions "separation of church and State" (and they even take it out of context).

But, they refuse to acknowledge the entire Second Amendment and all the many quotes in the Federalist papers regarding it.




[This message has been edited by CassandraComplex (edited May 17, 2000).]
 
What would happen if they refused to obey the order ? Who would carry out what actions ? If all sensible people band together fools would be left out in the cold .

------------------
TOM SASS AMERICAN LEGION NRA
 
Wait, I've got an idea, let's attack someone working to protect civil liberties.
I'm sorry, but I'm tired of hearing all this BS about the ACLU. These people work to protect our rights as specified in the constitution. By disagreeing with some of their work and approving others, we're just as bad as people who are anti-gun. You either respect the constitution or you don't. You can't just like part of it.
Also, you can argue about values until you're blue in the face, but I don't think it's right to insist on posting blantantly Christian doctrines like the 10 commandments in public schools. It comes down to a question of instituting one group's values over another's. Who decides what gets posted?
Keep in mind that some of us aren't christians and that some of us don't believe in God at all. Keep in mind that some of us who call ourselves Christians will be the first ones in line to burn. It's my right to believe what I want as far as this is concerned--you can read that in the consitution.
Frankly, IMHO, LIBERTY gives me the right to believe whatever I want as long as it doesn't infringe on the liberty of others.
This ignorant conservative party line attack is just stupid in my opinion.
 
Censure is not protecting civil liberties.

The expression of belief is not an infringement upon another's freedoms. And from your post I gather that speaking or expressing religious belief should be done in closets or behind closed doors.

The ACLU is misguided in its efforts when it, too, picks and chooses what are or are not liberties to be defended.

There is nothing written in the Constitution that guarantees that we will not be offended, nor is it a God-given right to not be offended.

Gird up your loins and pray for strength to stand upon truth, no matter where you find it.

Even if it's in a public building... :)

------------------
John/az
"When freedom is at stake, your silence is not golden, it's yellow..." RKBA!
www.cphv.com

[This message has been edited by John/az2 (edited May 18, 2000).]
 
Amen John Amen! Can I get a witness?.......What gives the Anti-God Coalition the right to tell me to take it down??? What if the school is 51% Christian, does that mean that the 49% get their way? No I think not, If you don't like it walk away it's not like it is being shoved down your throat, I have as much right too it as you do from it, Honestly what harm is there in the 10 commandments?? Thou shall not commit murder,Thou shall not steal, honor your mother and father, thou shall not commit adultery, thou shall not give false testimony (lie) Thou shall not covet thy neighbors house , wife etc. etc. Yeah I can see why you wouldn't want those things in front of your childrens faces day in and day out. Given the state of our school system and our sense of morality as a Society SINCE we decided that God no longer belongs in school I can see why this is a problem, Hey why stop there no sense being a hypocrite, take God out of the pledge of allegiance and off the almighty dollar too don't want to offend anyone. Honestly I believe that we have gone too far in some areas and we are reaping what we have sown and it has spilled over into other areas we all hold dear (Like RKBA issues) The Constitution itself does not even call for a separation of Church and State. So if we portend to be protectors of the Constitution then why do we allow this falsehood to exist??? Okay enough I'll get off my soap box...........

------------------
...“ They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” --Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.

Whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it.
---Richard Henry Lee, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788

Take care and God Bless, El Jefe

The ANTI-HCI Site!
 
What the heck is the deal with these "anonymous plaintiffs"?

"'Harlan, Pulaski and McCreary counties asked Coffman for a stay of the ruling during the appeals process, but the request was denied on the basis that the anonymous plaintiffs "will be substantially harmed ... because they will continue to suffer the violation of their constitutional rights." "

I was under the impression that a defendant had a right to face his accuser. Well, come on down, you gutless wonders!

To tackdriver, I cannot remember anytime when I have agreed with the ACLU, although I admit that I don't keep as close an eye as I should on them. I think they are a bunch of well-meaning folks, but what they are doing here seems to be much closer to censorship and re-writing the history books than it is to keeping religion out of schools. (Which also is not a good idea, because religion is the basis from which we ALL have received moral standards of one sort or another).
My $.02
 
I think there is a point that people are missing...."All men are endowed by their creator certain unalienable rights, and that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happines,"....think about what that sentence has in it.......it speaks of unalienable rights, rights not priveliges. It outlines three, but dosent limit it to just three life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (originally the pursuit of happiness was the pursuit of property). It acknowledges the existence of God, with the removal of that ackowledgement or awareness ofthe possibility for some of Gods existence it negates the rest of the statement for their purposes.....a systematic attack continuing on the foundation of the countrys ruling documents. Btw, those dead old white guys could write.....they say more in concepts in a short sentence than most can say in an 500 word essay....lol....fubsy.
 
"Anonymous plaintiffs" don't have standing to appear in court and can't win as they, be definition, cannot show a particularized injury. Someone had to be a named plaintiff and the article either refers to other people who were part of a class action suit, or is just plain wrong.

The ACLU symobilzes about everything that is wrong in this country and that I hate about lawyers.
 
Two points:<UL TYPE=SQUARE><LI> There is no such thing as "seperation of church and state" -- it doesn't say that anywhere. It says that Congress shall not establish a national religion.
<LI> If they are so against religious references, why do they continue to use our (American) money? After all, it says "In God We Trust". Why don't they use somebody else's money to fund all of their efforts?</UL>
 
Did anyone ever consider that declarations from an imaginary God might be offensive to athiests (who, by the way, have as much right to exist as anyone else)?
If seeing it on money, walls of schools, and reciting it every morning isn't being shoved down one's throat, I don't know what is.
 
There is indeed a separation of church and state, simply because the Supreme Court says that's what (that portion of) the First Amendment means. The prohibition is NOT against establishing a national religion - rather, the threshhold for infringement is far far less - the prohibition is against any "law respecting an establishing of religion", in other words, any law "respecting" [i.e. more or less "favoring"] in any way, any particular already-established religion. This has argubly been taken a few steps further than the literal words by establishing this complete "separation of church[es] and state" - however, as I said, it's the law now as interpreted by the Supremes. Yes, the Supremes can "wrongly" interpret the law in theory, but in practice, what they say IS the law, because you can't appeal them. I personally don't think this "separation" goes beyond the intent of the First. On whether I agree with this particular decision, that's tough. It's borderline because of the historical documents argument.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tackdriver:
Did anyone ever consider that declarations from an imaginary God might be offensive to athiests (who, by the way, have as much right to exist as anyone else)?[/quote]

Sure, everyone has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Notice that nobody has a right to not be offended. The people who founded this country were by and large Christian-White-Men. That is a FACT. The way they wrote shouldn't be revised to fit present day PC standards.

A funny thought just ocurred to me... "all men are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights..." These rights are not granted by the government. If you don't believe in a creator, do you still have those rights? ;)

------------------
RKBA!
"The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security"
Ohio Constitution, Article I, Section 4 Concealed Carry is illegal in Ohio.
Ohioans for Concealed Carry Website
 
I'm "godless" in the literal sence, being that I'm a buddhist.

I think the whole issue is rediculous. While I feel there is no reason to impose religion on Americans, there is something wrong with the "revisionist movement" so popular these days. IMO, there are numerous causes more pressing than this in dire need of champions.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tackdriver: ... If seeing it on money, walls of schools, and reciting it every morning isn't being shoved down one's throat, I don't know what is.[/quote]I'm not Jewish but I don't have a problem with the Star of David being on the back of a one dollar bill. I thought that we were to accept one another's differences. After all, America is a mixture of numerous cultures and every culture has something positive to offer; thus making the whole greater than the sum of it's parts. With regard to this supposed seperation of church and state, I offer the following ... <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>US Constitution: Bill of Rights: 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.
[/quote]The Founders never envisioned any separation of religious principles from public affairs; they simply wanted a prohibition on the establishment of a national denomination. President George Washington in his "Farewell Address" made an almost identical warning. For over a century, Washington's "Farewell Address" was printed as a separate textbook because of its singular importance; students were taught that Washington's "Farewell Address" was the most significant political speech ever delivered by an American President. His "Farewell Address was explaining to America what had brought her success and what would be required to continue that success. However, Washington's address is virtually unknown today and has not been seen in most American history textbooks in nearly four decades. Perhaps it is because of all the religious warnings Washington made in his "Farewell Address."

Certainly, George Washington was a Constitutional expert; he was president of the convention which framed the Constitution and he was the President of the United States who called for and oversaw the formation of the Bill of Rights and the First Amendment. Clearly, he understood the Constitutional intent and the meaning of the First Amendment. In his "Farewell Address," Washington explained that there were only two foundations for political prosperity in America: religion and morality—and that no man could be called an American patriot who tried to separate religion and morality from politics. As he declared: "Of all the habits and dispositions which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars."

Washington continued with another warning—reminding Americans that they should continue to reject any tenet which asserted that one could be moral without religion.

[This message has been edited by FUD (edited May 18, 2000).]
 
I happen to agree with the ACLU in this case (assuming the facts are close to what was reported). As a former resident of Kentucky, I do not want ANY of my tax money going to county "displays" which so obviously favor Christianity. Because I'm not a Christian. I wouldn't dream of stealing money from Christians in order to promote my own views; why should they want to do it to me?

Given that, if those "displays" had shown other historical documents that referenced ANY other religion, even just one, I'd say leave them up. It's historical fact that people's religions have influenced their decisions and thus our country's history. That should be acknowledged -- but not just one religion to the exclusion of all the others.

Two other points in response to some of the posts above; yes, some of the Founding Fathers were Christian, but many of them weren't. And as for the "prayer in school" issue -- public school isn't the place for it, because public school is paid for by everyone in the district, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, atheist, etc. I assume that Christians would rather not have their children learn (for example) Hindu beliefs -- well give the same consideration to the other parents that you expect yourself! Besides, do you want the same idiot teachers that refuse to teach about the Second Amendment with any kind of truth or accuracy to teach your children about God? Isn't it far too important a job to leave to them?

Public schools have to teach from a common ground. Religions don't have common ground. That's why people build churchs, isn't it? If you want your children exposed to your religion, take them to church. Most children quickly learn that most of their teachers in public school don't know what they're talking about and quit listening to them anyway. Children learn most from parents -- get off your duffs and start living your beliefs, going to church, teaching your children by how you yourself live your life day in and day out, rather than trying to get brain-dead civil servents to do your job for you.

It's not my intention to offend, but this whole issue has never made sense to me. Even though I'm not Christian, it has always seemed as though religious issues are far far too important for anyone other than parents to teach their children anything at all about it.


[This message has been edited by moonshadow (edited May 18, 2000).]
 
This is an easy issue:

Posting documents crucial to the founding of American is fine with me. If they contain religious statements - that's part of the historical records.

If they are posted as end-runs to promote Christianity - then - that's horsepoop and they shouldn't be posted.

The United States is not a Christian country.
The majority belief doesn't define the nation. If you think it does - you are as big a threat to liberty as any gun grabber.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Glenn E. Meyer: ... The majority belief doesn't define the nation ...[/quote]Glenn, majority belief DOES define the country. A majority vote determines our elected officials. A majority vote allowed our president to remain in office when it was clear that he lied under oath and according to our laws, should have been removed. Majority beliefs are how our laws are passed at the local, state & federal levels. Majority belief pretty much defines everything and to say that "... you are as big a threat to liberty as any gun grabber ..." implies that our founding fathers were also a threat to liberty. After all, they let majority beliefs decide how this country was founded -- a country which was founded on liberty!

And moonshadow, with regard to public schools ... if I send my child to a private school where certain religious beliefs are taught, why do my tax dollars still go to fund public schools? After all, I'm not using any of their services. I should be credited with that money so that I can use it to pay for private school. But that's not the way it works. If my money goes to fund something than I should have a say in how it's used -- but I don't!

[This message has been edited by FUD (edited May 18, 2000).]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top