Then he got to the good stuff! He repeated....
"The ACLU is involved in the secular cleansing of our history. This is not just a fight about free exercise, but about the protection of our American history. The ACLU want to deny America the knowledge of their Christian heritage."
"For example, the Ten Commandments in Court Houses. I don't think this is an "endorsement" of religion. It is an acknowledgment of our history. I don't care if it causes discomfort to Islamic terrorists, Islamic terrorist sympathizers, or Hindus and their holy cows."
At this point I felt like saying, ....Bwhahahahah! However I restrained myself like the nice guy that I am. I'm glad I did, cause this is when he got the really good stuff.
"This is a Christian Nation! And we ought to be damn proud it is! Because it is only in Christian Nations where you will find freedom of religion. We are a Christian Nation, and the U.S. Supreme Court said so. The Supreme Court in HOLY TRINITY CHURCH v. U.S. that this is a Christian Nation. That is our history. The history the ACLU wants to erase."
"Secular Humanism is a religion. Again, the Supreme Court ruled this in Torcaso vs. Watkins. If this is true, then it is being given precedence over other religions in our nation today."
I finally asked the question that I primarily called for. Knowing that the American Legion is supporting The Public Expression of Religion Act of 2005 would it affect the ability of a poor person to defend their religious liberty by having to pay attorney fees out of pocket? To this question he answered....
"Absolutely not! This legislation would only apply to "Establishment Clause" cases. This would help to keep organizations from being paid attorney's fees in cases such as the ones where the ACLU is fighting to take down our Veterans' Memorials. It would only affect these kinds of suits. The "Free Exercise" is not affected at all. So someone defending their right to express religion could still collect attorney's fees."
"The ACLU crossed the damn line when they denied the Boyscouts charter on U.S. Military Bases. People need to stand up on this. The American Legion has a creed we say now..."For God and Country Forever! Surrender To The ACLU, Never!" We have 2.7 million members and we are stepping up. And when we step, we march, we don't mince."
What a great man, and a great organization! We all need to stand up, and demand of our representative to "represent" us! Mr. Lloyd is going to keep in touch with me, and I'm sure we will hear more from him in the future. I hope so.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Eric Olsen
thanks and welcome Jay! I don't necessarily agree with the premise, but well done.
2 - Temple Stark
These STOPTHEACLU people are, well, very evangelical.
Just what nobody really needs ...
Funnily enough through the whole piece I thought it was a send up mocking of the guy - until the "hail Mary" URL link at the bottom.
But good job on representing your 1600s POV. Makes me feel better about myself, somehow. And everyone needs a self-esteem boost now and then.
3 - Temple Stark
See I thought it was funny that this guy became an ACLU lawyer without realizing the separation of church and state was, kind of important to them. I bet they had more than one SOCAS position, and I didn't quite realize Bob Barr and others were "lefties."
4 - Jay
I feel for those that are fooled by the ACLU.
5 - Nancy
Why does it never occur to 'christians' there's reasons non-christians consider them so distasteful & un-American? Very likely they don't care, however, as long as in the end everyone is forced to think, worship, & live in lockstep according to their rules. In my experience, 'christian' is synonymous with 'fascist' in the most classical sense of the word. I'd be willing to bet most christians are completely unaware that the catholic church did, in fact, invent fascism. Good basic article on fascism in Wikipedia, if one is needed.
6 - Margaret Romao Toigo
I was wondering when you'd get around to posting your articles on Blogcritics, Jay. You're one of Stop the ACLU's better writers/debaters.
I do hope that you remembered to bring your asbestos gear as most of the viewpoints here, like the rest of America (including President Bush), are to your left. And some are just as far to the left as you are to the right. But that's half the fun, isn't it?
For example, my viewpoint is that the separation between church and state is essential to our religious freedom as well as our civil liberties.
When mere mortals who are unfit to judge sin start attempting to not only judge sin but to punish it as well, then religion is reduced to a political tool, making it a questionable source of spiritual and moral guidance.
Not to mention that the specific politicization of the Christian faith has made spreading the Word more difficult.
Because of the political machinations of the Religious Right, it has become risky to even quote Scripture because of the potential for nasty rebukes and condescending looks that say, "Oh, you're one of them," loudly and clearly.
When religious doctrine is used as justification for state authoritarianism, we cease to have free will. How can any of us repent sincerely if we are deprived of our free will?
7 - Jay
Thank you for the compliment Margeret. I must say you are one of the best debaters that come to my site too. Most of the ones that come over to my site don't have much talent in that area. It's refreshing when you come over...very coherent, even though we disagree on most issues.
I don't want state authoritarianism! Thats what the Islamist fanatics want. I want freedom of religion to cease being supressed under the lie of seperation of church and state. The ACLU is radically far left, and in my opinion anything that extreme, elitist, and absolutist is dangerous to America, whether it be left or right.
What the legislation I am promoting ask for is simply for our tax money not to be given to people or organizations that sue on the grounds of the establishment clause. Being offended is not injury. They can still sue...but I don't want to pay for it.
8 - Nancy
OK, I need some information: what, exactly, do you refer to as the establishment clause? I don't back any kind of establishment of public religion or recognition of same, but at the same time I spend a good deal of time wondering what kind of lunacy has infected the ACLU; sometimes they seem to pick their cases on the basis of how bizarre it can get. Thanks.
9 - Jay
There is the establishment clause...Congress shall make no law..and the freedom of expression clause. There is a law that pays attorneys fees to the winners in all first amendment and civil rights cases. This legislation would ammend that to exclude establishment clauses. You could still sue, but the taxpayer's wouldn't pay for it.
So if you are offended by someone's baby Jesus display...sue...but use your own money, not mine.
10 - Nancy
Thanks. Whose baby Jesus display? In your own church or yard? No, certainly not. In front of town hall, paid for by everyone's taxes, well ... iffy, but unless lots of money is involved, who cares? Altho actually I'd love to see an 'equal opportunity' scene of - instead of Jesus in the manger - Mohammed in the cave w/Gabe hovering outside dictating! THAT would be pretty amazing. Just as well muslims aren't permitted to portray persons, I suppose.
Actually, I love other peoples'/cultures' holidays: colorful & generally lots of fun & interesting food, etc.
11 - PseudoErsatz
Ahh! It is so welcoming to hear (read) the confessions of an ACLU Lawyer! Thanks for your work, Jay. Many not-so-gullible individuals have long discerned and identified the actual intents of the ACLU by the fruit they have borne, so this is not really a surprise, but more like, "Ahha! We knew it all along!"
12 - Jay
That is what is beautiful about freedom of religion. On the public square the Muslims should be able to display their faith along side everyone else. If that right is denied, then they should sue. But don't sue over someone elses religion being displayed and expressed.
In the article it points out that human secluarism was ruled by the Supreme Court to be a religion, and if that is true...it is being forced on people much more than any other religion today.
13 - Maynard
I can get behind some of this, but not other parts: INstance, Bob Barr is left wing?
On another note, as for public money, as soon as churches pay taxes, then I will gladly listen to them as groups of concerned citizens. Exempting them causes a bit of an "iffy" situation in the establishment clause. The positive side is that the church of satan can also be tax exempt, thus providin gequal opportunity for all. That may be the sole redeeming factor in the policy.
Take away any other taxpayer subsidies to organized religion, and then I have no difficulty with removing the same from the ACLU. Both can find a way to fund themselves.
14 - Sister Ray
"So if you are offended by someone's baby Jesus display...sue...but use your own money, not mine.
If you want to put up a baby Jesus display, use your own money, not mine. That's what the Establishment Clause is getting at.
Not that I support all the ACLU's positions...or am all that offended by baby Jesus displays for that matter.
15 - Maynard
Nicely said Sister Ray. Adding to that, the bulk of this Post seems to be obsessed with the erroneous thought that the US is a "christian" nation. Many people in the US are christian, of course, and some of our national culture stems from that fact. However, it is a decidedly secular nation. The establishment clause does not say anything about christian religions or hindu religions or buddhist religions etc.
I can't seem to find the word "christ" anywhere in the Constitution or even the Declaration of INdependance, nor any amendments in the Bill of Rights.
It has always seemed to me that the establishment clause was set out the way it was to NOT allow this country to become any kind of "christian", "hindu", "buddhist" , or any other variation of religious, Nation.
Hence my personal dilemma when certain factions make sense half the time, then turn around and toss in malarky like "this is a christian nation"
However, I do stand with my previous statements about tax money.
16 - Nancy
Yes, I think it's about time anyway for churches to pay taxes. Poorer institutions or those that could prove they actually did fund charitable activities wouldn't end up paying much if anything anyway, while those dedicated mainly to "evangelizing" aka propaganda/advertising, or maintaining their leaders in a comfortable lifestyle, like Oral Roberts or Jerry Falwell, would be subject to audit & penalties if cheating, just like anyone else.
I live in a very little town. At a meeting, someone proposed spending $200 for materials to make a "Town Manger". It got passed, & I admit I didn't object that much, because it wasn't worth carping about $2 to make most of my neighbors happy. I also went along the next year w/expenditure of about the same amount for an outdoor menorah. Both look nice, both are festive, & yeah, I guess my principles are screwed up & inconsistent, but in small communities you have to live w/people. Now if I were in a big city, and it were $2000, or $20,000, or more, it would be another matter. As pure principle, I should have nixed it. Given the situation, I didn't because it made everyone pretty happy. Sometimes you have to just excercise common sense as well as pick your fights.
17 - JR
One difference between physical science and social science is that in social science, there are no absolutes. That also means that there are no absolutes “in the law.” We’ve seen SCOTUS decisions reverse earlier rulings, and in many cases common sense does not prevail. Nevertheless, the First Amendment does appear to be clear " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Not being able to erect a religious display at the court house does not preclude citizens from erecting them on the front lawn of local churches. So then, I have to ask . . . what is the issue here? Now, if we assume that at some point SCOTUS might rule the other way (highly unlikely) how would Christians, Jews, Buddhists, or Hindus feel if they drove by the court house and saw some kind of a display celebrating Ramadan? With regard to prayer in public schools, would Christian parents be happy to learn that classes were interrupted three or four times every day to allow Muslims the opportunity to put out their prayer rugs? Getting back to common sense, if parents want their children to have prayer periods in school, then they ought to simply look for parochial schools, rather than placing them into public schools and then bitching about the prohibition of prayer.
18 - andy marsh
Nancy - isn't what you're talking about above how a democracy is supposed to work? If the majority of the folks in your town watned it and were willing to pay for it then shouldn't they have it?
That's the problem I have with all this...why is it that if ONE person bitches about something then that means that some group is being disenfranchised?
19 - Nancy
This all gets back to common sense & common courtesy. If we exercized those, and applied the much-vaunted but seldom-used Golden Rule, we wouldn't HAVE these problems w/people inserting themselves & their private beliefs where they don't belong. Ain't gonna happen, tho.
20 - Margaret Romao Toigo
How is freedom of religion suppressed when there is a [theoretical] separation between church and state?
This assertion makes no sense to me as my understanding of it has always been that a lack of a separation between church and state is detrimental to religious freedom because under such a system, the state would have the right to regulate and restrict the practices and doctrines of any religions seen as being contrary to the goals of the state.
Conversely, a lack of a separation between church and state leaves us all open to the prospect of a state established religion via the justification of authoritarian laws against acts and behaviors that might be sins (being mere mortals, we are unfit to judge what is and is not sin), but are definitely not crimes because they do not violate or deny civil/human rights.
When libertarians speak out against such laws, we are not speaking out against the doctrines from which they originate, but rather against the freedom-eroding cultural disease known as authoritarianism.
And, because I find partisanship unseemly, I will point out that there are infectious carriers of authoritarianism on the far left, too. You know them, they're the folks who cannot seem to comprehend that the Second Amendment secures and guarantees our right to keep and bear arms and that it is just as essential to our freedom as the First Amendment.
And some of those people are members of the ACLU! So, it is a good thing that we also have organization like the NRA to pick up the slack with regard to our Second Amendment rights.
Jay writes: "What the legislation I am promoting ask for is simply for our tax money not to be given to people or organizations that sue on the grounds of the establishment clause."
What about those individuals and groups who get that same pool of tax money to file the counter suits on the basis of their contrary interpretation of the establishment cause?
21 - Dave Nalle
Jay: "What the legislation I am promoting ask for is simply for our tax money not to be given to people or organizations that sue on the grounds of the establishment clause."
So, if the state of Utah decides to make Mormonism the state religion and outlaw all other forms of Christianity in the state, requiring attendance at Mormon services, tithing to the church, and supplementing church funds with direct taxation by the state, you'd prefer not to have the ACLU sue them and you wouldn't want the federal government to back them up?
Sounds like a brilliant plan. There are a lot of Wiccans in Colorado. Perhaps we can change the state name to EarthMotherParadise and organize the whole population into covens. All the Christians from there can move to nearby Utah and become Mormons, or perhaps flood into Idaho and make it the Old Testament Law State of Idaho and start executing homosexuals and stoning adulterers.
Sounds like a bundle of fun. I'm moving to the Voodoo Republic of Louisiana and changing my name to Captain Ogu. Start lining up virgins for my newly legal sex magic rituals.
Dave
22 - Temple Stark
Virgin elitist pigs, of course.
I'll provide a :-)
23 - Dave Nalle
All rituals will, of course, include servings of Cochon de Lait
Dave
24 - Sister Ray
"why is it that if ONE person bitches about something then that means that some group is being disenfranchised?"
Ask Rosa Parks.
25 - The Lonewacko Blog
On the immigration-related front, see How much more can the ACLU discredit itself? for more on that fine organization's efforts.
Follow the links, and see especially Kristin Sinema's attempts to catch Sean Hannity coming over the border. It's a trivial thing, but trivial things help illustrate the problem to lots of people.