The ‘C’ in ACLU Is for Cowardice
The group harasses schools offering a moment of silence, but dares not attack overt religious expression in Congress or the military.
We’re past Halloween and approaching Christmas and gearing up for the biggest battles in the highest stakes contact sport there is. No, we’re not talking about college football’s bowl season. Rather, ’tis the season for filing legal briefs over Christmas displays.
Like two prize fighters, the American Civil Liberties Union and the Alliance Defense Fund are preparing to go at it as the ACLU begins its annual season of silly lawsuits. The fear of silly lawsuits leads schools and local governments to take even more ridiculous actions, such as the school that banned red and green napkins from a “holiday” party a few years back. The Alliance Defense Fund’s prepping a phalanx of attorneys to go to battle has brought a touch of sanity to the annual festival of PC insanity by ensuring that government bodies realize trampling on the rights of citizens out of ACLUaphobia will have consequences.
With the ACLU, the silly season never stops; it just hits its biggest fever pitch around Christmas. They’re engaged in a lawsuit in Illinois and have found a friendly judge to agree with their atheist client that a moment of silence in schools is unconstitutional. Yes, having a moment of silence where kids can do whatever silent activity they want, from praying to thinking about their hot date tonight, is now considered something the drafters of the First Amendment would condemn.
However, there’s a glaring hypocrisy, dare I say cowardice, in the way the ACLU executes its inane war. The ACLU’s favorite modus operandi is to find a town or school district, generally a small one with a limited budget, and look for an easily offended person to file a lawsuit. This is what happened in Dixie County, Florida, when the ACLU admitted to “shaking the tree” to find a plaintiff to sue the county for having a Ten Commandments monument. It seems a stretch to say the ACLU was protecting the liberties of anyone by filing a lawsuit in a county where they had to conduct a search for someone to be offended.
If one is sincere about the need for an absolute and impregnable separation of church and state, the ACLU would have far bigger fish to fry than Dixie County, Florida, and Illinois students who are violating the Constitution by being silent.
Recently, I listened to a recording of the U.S. Army band performing “The Battle Hymn of the Republic.” They sang the fifth verse, which says:
In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea,
With a glory in His bosom that transfigures you and me:
As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free,
While God is marching on.
How is it that the armed forces of the state singing such a sectarian verse is not a violation of separation of church and state, but the posting of the Ten Commandments, which are part of not only the Christian faith, but also the Jewish faith, and are compatible with Islam, is considered a violation of the Constitution?
Page 1 of 2 Next ->
Adam Graham is a contributor at Race42012.com and host of the Truth and Hope Report podcast. His personal site is Adam's Blog.
 |
 |
 |
Podcasts |  PJM Home |
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
40 Comments
1. Marc Malone:The only people who have no free speech in this country are the Christians. Speak out on politics in Church, and lose your tax-exempt status. You get taxed for your speech, literally. Christianity in schools? Verboten! Well, at least after the government took over our schools. It used to be we all learned to read and write from one Book.
How to suppress religion? Move the government into a sphere which has religion, then declare that they can’t have religion there, anymore, because of the First Amendment. They have so twisted the purpose of it. When the State moves in, then God must go. “There’s not enough room for both of us, pardner. You have until Sunset to get out of town.” Get the government into everything, then there will be no room for Christianity, anywhere.
Keep your damned religion and morals in your Churches! God has no place in public life, you superstitious primitives! It causes us embarrassment, and aye, even revulsion, to see it, you evil Christians!
Nov 4, 2009 - 1:12 am 2. Dave K.:Churches are parasites, not paying any taxes and reaping all the benefits of modern society.
The next time a church burns down, they shouldn’t be helped by the tax-supported fire brigade.
If they don’t pay any taxes, they can go on the free market and buy some insurance instead.
Nov 4, 2009 - 4:37 am 3. blotto:Gee Roger, you can censor my comments about race but Dave K can make inflammatory comments about religion/churches and it’s okay. I think your real colors are beginning to show.
Nov 4, 2009 - 5:00 am 4. Right as well as Correct:Speaking for myself, as a non-religious individual, I think Dave K. has it completely backwards. The ACLU is the parasite here.
Nov 4, 2009 - 5:21 am 5. deguello:Dave K IS a parasite,living off welfare,and Soros handouts so that he can infest this website,not to mention the huge medicaid expenditures wasted treating his stds.TIME TO GLOAT: OBAMA IS IMPLODING!
Nov 4, 2009 - 5:25 am 6. Alex Bensky:I assume you’re talking about property taxes, Dave, since I assume churches generally hand over payroll taxes and such. I don’t think the Red Cross pays property taxes either. May I conclude that you don’t think the fire department should put out their fires, either?
Nov 4, 2009 - 5:33 am 7. David S:Like any advocacy group, the ACLU pursues cases it believes are potential winners. Going after Congress or the Army is not a wise use of the funds at their disposal. Moreover, the impact of a case on the moment of silence subject is much broader and more significant than the impact of the Battle Hymn.
This article brought to mind the recent, disturbing case of a Florida law that requires students to recite the pledge of allegiance, even if they object, unless they can obtain a parental waiver. The SCOTUS refused to review this clear violation of freedom of conscience, leaving doubt about whether the precedents at issue will stand. I commend the student in this case for refusing to recognize this unconstitutional law, and encourage others to practice civil disobedience in such cases.
Taking on indoctrination in the public schools has a much greater impact on citizens’ freedoms than taking on indoctrination in Congress.
Peace.
DS
Nov 4, 2009 - 6:29 am 8. mnewman:Be careful what you wish for. These are strange times and there are strange people in power.
Nov 4, 2009 - 6:53 am 9. Dave M.:Dave K. is absolutely right. Except for the fact that churches feed, clothe, house, and help care for more poor and destitude people than any government program, they are all parasites. The fact that churches are the first to arrive and last to leave when disaster strikes, natural and man-made, doesn’t excuse their secular sin of not paying taxes. Just because churches have established non-profit hospitals, run orphanages, provide sholarships, provide charity to poverty stricken regions all over the world, doesn’t mean they have ever done anthing for anyone.
One thing Dave K. did get wrong though is churches do have to buy insurance from the evil, wicked free market. But hey, no one’s perfect, not even Dave “churches are all parasites” K.
War.
Nov 4, 2009 - 7:19 am 10. Filthy Screw:I used to work for a social services agency. The only ones you could always depend on for help were the churches. If a pastor or preacher had to find room in his house to put up someone for the night they’d do it. They would cover all kinds of emergencies that the state never would and they fed, clothed, and sheltered the poor on a daily basis.
Sounds like leaches to me.
Nov 4, 2009 - 7:36 am 11. Moho:First things first. Is there an actual link somewhere for this:
“Dixie County essentially thumbed its nose at the Constitution,” said Glenn Katon, regional director for the ACLU’s Central Florida office. “We were shaking the trees for a plaintiff.”
Because other than the link you posted, which is another blog, using the attribution without any citation, I can’t find it. I’ve googled the entire phrase, and I’ve googled portions of it and the only place it comes out is the blog “Baltimore Reporter”. The blog posts it as a quote, indicating it came from another source but doesn’t provide the source. Is it the product of original reporting? I’d wager its a complete fabrication. Can you defend the use of this comment?
The next silly suit the ACLU takes is to sue you both for defamation. Here’s an example of the kind of silly lawsuits the ACLU carries out:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/16/mixed-race-couple-marriage-licence
US mixed race couple denied marriage licence
Louisiana justice of peace says he refused to marry mixed race couple out of concern for children they might have
A Louisiana justice of the peace said he refused to issue a marriage licence to an interracial couple out of concern for any children the couple might have.
Keith Bardwell, justice of the peace in Tangipahoa parish, said it was his experience that most interracial marriages did not last long.
“I’m not a racist. I just don’t believe in mixing the races that way,” Bardwell said. “I have piles and piles of black friends. They come to my home, I marry them, they use my bathroom. I treat them just like everyone else.”
Bardwell said he asked everyone who called about marriage if they were a mixed race couple. If they were, he did not marry them.
Bardwell said he had discussed the topic with black and white people, along with witnessing some interracial marriages. He came to the conclusion that most of black society did not readily accept offspring of such relationships, and nor did white society.
“There is a problem with both groups accepting a child from such a marriage. I think those children suffer and I won’t help put them through it.”
If he did an interracial marriage for one couple, he must do the same for all, he said.
“I try to treat everyone equally.”
Bardwell estimates that he has refused to marry about four couples during his career.
Beth Humphrey, 30, and Terence McKay, 32, both of Hammond, said they would consult the US justice department about a discrimination complaint.
Humphrey, an account manager for a marketing firm, said she and McKay, a welder, had just returned to Louisiana. She is white and he is black. She plans to enrol in the University of New Orleans to pursue a masters degree in minority politics.
“That was one thing that made this so unbelievable,” she said. “It’s not something you expect in this day and age.”
Humphrey said that when she called Bardwell on 6 October to inquire about getting a marriage licence signed his wife told her he would not sign marriage licences for interracial couples. Bardwell suggested the couple go to another justice of the peace in the parish who agreed to marry them.
“We are looking forward to having children,” Humphrey said. “And all our friends and co-workers have been very supportive. Except for this, we’re typical happy newlyweds.”
Katie Schwartzmann, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana, said it was “really astonishing and disappointing” to see such a case in 2009. “The supreme court ruled as far back as 1963 that the government cannot tell people who they can and cannot marry.”
The ACLU has asked the Louisiana judiciary committee, which oversees state justices of the peace, to investigate Bardwell and recommended “the most severe sanctions available, because such blatant bigotry poses a substantial threat of serious harm to the administration of justice”.
“He knew he was breaking the law, but continued to do it,” Schwartzmann said.
Bardwell said: “I’ve been a justice of the peace for 34 years and I don’t think I’ve mistreated anybody. I’ve made some mistakes, but you have to. I didn’t tell this couple they couldn’t get married. I just told them I wouldn’t do it.”
If you think the Battle Hymn of the Republic is such an important case, then go out and find a plaintiff. They can’t do everything for you.
Nov 4, 2009 - 8:12 am 12. Anneke:Two thoughts: (1) the ACLU goes after school practices because, like all radical indoctrinators, they know that if they can influence the thinking of children their aims can be more readily achieved when those children become adults and start voting. (2) The ACLU goes after the low-hanging fruit in place like Dixie County because it will cost them less time and effort to establish precedent.
Nov 4, 2009 - 8:39 am 13. Mike G:I am a not involved in any organized religion and from my perch I find both sides here to be silly and annoying. Why can’t religions be satisfied with practicing privately at home, amongst gatherings of like-minded people and at their places of worship? The incessant need to “market” and display the religion in public seems to be nothing but a marketing and long term membership and revenue growth strategy. Religious groups are always testing the principle of separation of church and state and when rebuffed are quick to claim persecution. But there is no persecution – just a reminder that we really must have this separation and it some level of diligence to maintain it is needed.
On the other hand I agree with the characterization of the ACLU as an obnoxious and opportunistic bully. Civil liberties do need protecting when a government gets large and powerful like ours, but they seem less interested in “liberty” and more interested in politically correct activism. I live in a small town that was sued by the ACLU over our “treatment” of the homeless (i.e. we didn’t allow them to set up camp in public places nor provide sufficient amenities for them). The town was basically helpless against the suit and as a result the homeless population has burgeoned as word got out that local authorities could enforce our vagrancy laws. Hundreds are now living in our beautiful park, blocking access to pathways, restrooms and in general denying the townsfolk and our non-homeless visitors enjoyment of the public places that we all paid to develop. I don’t know the legal details but I know our town politicians have given up trying to fight and are looking for compromises that include building permanent home for the homeless. Little do they know the Pandora’s Box this will open. Are there any towns out there who want to trade your squabbles over “moments of silence” and “mangers in the town square” for a rapidly growing homeless population?
Nov 4, 2009 - 9:04 am 14. Carlos Caliente:Mike G: Why not give those homeless a one way bus ticket to ACLU headquarters. See how they like taking care of smelly stinky bums.
Nov 4, 2009 - 9:39 am 15. Carlos Caliente:One of the many beauties of freedom of speech is that it allows the likes of DAVE K to open their mouths and let the world know how loony and bigoted some folks can actually be.
Nov 4, 2009 - 9:55 am 16. DA:The ACLU is the equivalent of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson….drumming “donations” from the dupes with the imaginary specter of racism or forced religion nipping at their heels. After the NAMBLA fiasco, those that were mildly rational left the ACLU….all thats left are the hardcore degenerates.
Nov 4, 2009 - 9:58 am 17. David S:The Alliance Defense Fund has some interesting priorities:
Public schools do not need to be used as tools for religious indoctrination. Is Christianity really so weak that it must resort to bribing children with candy canes in the public schools?
If you want to sing Christmas carols in public schools, you need to accommodate the Walpurgisnacht crowd, too. If religious liberty is the cause, one can’t discriminate. That means that along with those candy canes, you’ll see sugar cookie stars of David, Kwanzaa snacks, and pagan solstice granola bars. Calling it “Christmas vacation” is simply not accurate – it typically extends from the solstice through the new year for most children. Why not New Year vacation? When it comes to the nativity scene on public property, the can of worms being opened is far too large to fathom. Erecting shrines on public property for religious purposes is a poor precedent. Also, so far as I can tell, nobody has tried yet to make speaking the words “Merry Christmas” illegal.
I really think the problem with the ADF is that they work year round to protect the religious liberties of Christians to the exclusion of any other faith. That’s not defending civil liberties – that’s demonstrating a clear preference for one religion over all others. Bigotry.
Peace.
DS
Nov 4, 2009 - 11:02 am 18. Graham:It would appear that D.S. is a bigot. What, with showing preference to one party over all others.
Nov 4, 2009 - 11:46 am 19. Peter the Bubblehead:13. Mike G wrote:
Religious groups are always testing the principle of separation of church and state and when rebuffed are quick to claim persecution. But there is no persecution – just a reminder that we really must have this separation and it some level of diligence to maintain it is needed.
Peter writes: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
Please Mike, explain to me how a Christmas tree on a town square is establishing religion? Please explain how the display of a Menorah at a street corner forces YOU to become a Jew? Please explain how the display of a Nativity Scene on the island of a city street across from a church forces ANYONE to suddenly convert to Christianity?
For those dumb@$$es of you out there who freak every time the word God is said or written, it’s “Freedom OF Religion”… NOT Freedom FROM Religion.
You don’t like it? Hey, no one is stopping you from closing your eyes or looking the other direction. But don’t tell me I, or any other group in this country, have to stop observing traditions that have been going on longer than this country has existed because it ‘offends’ you!
Nov 4, 2009 - 12:02 pm 20. Peter the Bubblehead:To explain further for those who just don’t seem to get it;
The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibits the establishment of a national religion by the Congress or the preference of one religion over another, non-religion over religion, or religion over non-religion.
Notice what it says there. The 1st Amendment PROHIBITS the preference of non-religion over religion!!! Yet what is it we have seen, over and over, for the last 30 years. Every religion has to take a back seat to non-religion because some dumb@$$ decides he or she is ‘offended’ (or more likely looking for some sort of big pay-off) by seeing traditional holiday displays.
Well I’M offended by their attitude and behavior. When do I get MY big pay-off? Huh? When do I get preference in the courts? I’m an ‘offended’ party! Why should my ‘rignt to not be offended’ take a back seat to these anti-religious zealots?
Nov 4, 2009 - 12:07 pm 21. David S:@18. Graham:
It is one thing to show preference for one party over others – we are all partisans to some degree. It is an entirely different thing to ask the state to sanction religious indoctrination. Specifically, it is an unconstitutional thing.
I happily tolerate those who have differences of opinion, and I listen to their perspectives. I expect the same courtesy in return – but that is not what the ADF is advocating.
More to the point, I don’t show preference to one party over all others – you speak from a platform of ignorance.
Peace.
DS
Nov 4, 2009 - 12:16 pm 22. Moho:Graham, it looks like you’re not going to answer this question about the “shaking the trees” quote:
Because other than the link you posted, which is another blog, using the attribution without any citation, I can’t find it. I’ve googled the entire phrase, and I’ve googled portions of it and the only place it comes out is the blog “Baltimore Reporter”. The blog posts it as a quote, indicating it came from another source but doesn’t provide the source. Is it the product of original reporting? I’d wager its a complete fabrication. Can you defend the use of this comment?
I’ll have to assume you’re a liar, rather than a simple-minded dupe.
Nov 4, 2009 - 12:53 pm 23. Jack Herman:TOO MANY LAWYERS. If there were fewer attorneys, those that remained would have to do honest work. As long as there is this abundance, too many will gravitate towards the goverment where every regulation and law passed through congress is simply an attorney full employment act. Just look at the provision in the stupid health care bill that protects attorney compensation.
Obama accused doctors of removing body parts for financial greed. When with the media and president touch on the subject of lawyers and their rampant greed?
Nov 4, 2009 - 12:57 pm 24. Graham:The point D.S. which I never expect you to grasp, is that “showing preference” is not the same thing as “stubborn intolerance.” Thus, not bigotry.
My god, you are dense.
Nov 4, 2009 - 1:57 pm 25. annie:As long as there are test in school their will be prayers! Dave K has all this time on his hand because he gets his government check, food stamps, rental vouchers, medicaid card, etc in his mailbox on the 1st of each month.
Nov 4, 2009 - 2:02 pm 26. Mike G.:To Peter the Bubblehead from another bubblehead:
Well, I really don’t care if anyone puts up a Menorah or a Christmas Tree in the Town Square. I said the whole argument was silly on that level. But it gets deadly serious when a religious group plays politics and when politicians make important decisions for all of us based on religion.
Also, I don’t see what you are so angry about, what “preference in the courts” you are being denied or what “back seat” you are being asked to sit in. Asking that public places and organization are free of religious displays and discussions does not interfere with your religious practice in any way. But it does interfere with one’s desire to assert one’s beliefs over others and perhaps this is the reason for the heated response.
Nov 4, 2009 - 2:08 pm 27. Graham:“I really think the problem with the CAIR is that they work year round to protect the religious liberties of Muslims to the exclusion of any other faith. That’s not defending civil liberties – that’s demonstrating a clear preference for one religion over all others. Bigotry.”
“I really think the problem with the AARP is that they work year round to protect the interests of seniors to the exclusion of any others. That’s not defending interests – that’s demonstrating a clear preference for one group over all others. Bigotry.”
“I really think the problem with MoveOn is that they work year round to advance the interests of Democrats to the exclusion of any other party. That’s not defending interests – that’s demonstrating a clear preference for one party over all others. Bigotry.”
“I really think the problem with the Heritage Foundation is that they work year round to advance the interests of conservatives to the exclusion of any others. That’s not defending interests – that’s demonstrating a clear preference for one group over all others. Bigotry.”
Seriously, dimwit, try not to toss that term “Bigotry” around until you know what it means. Try reading for comprehension.
Nov 4, 2009 - 2:10 pm 28. Adam Graham:#22
Sir, local newspapers do not keep their archives online. However, I’d read of this situation at the time, and the ACLU had not been able to find a plantiff at first, so they couldn’t sue. Unless, you have some reason to accuse Baltimore Reporter of making up an entire news story, this is just a waste of time.
Nov 4, 2009 - 2:32 pm 29. Peter the Bubblehead:26. Mike G. wrote:
But it does interfere with one’s desire to assert one’s beliefs over others and perhaps this is the reason for the heated response.
Peter writes: The reason for the heated response is that, for the last 30 years, only the intolerant seem to have a voice in the courts. When I was young, there were holiday displays EVERYWHERE, of all sorts of religions. Then all of a sudden, the ACLU and a handful of intolerant people started filing needless lawsuits because they don’t want to be reminded of any religion in any form in any public venue or, more likely, are looking to get rich off of settlements.
But does anyone listen to those who supported the displays of religious holiday decorations? No. 90% of the country can be religious (or at least tolerant of religion and religious displays) but because the other 10% is intolerant the 90% must abide? What happened to majority rules?
I reiterate;
The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibits the establishment of a national religion by the Congress or the preference of one religion over another, non-religion over religion, or religion over non-religion.
Please read that again…
…prohibits the establishment of a national religion by the Congress or the preference of one religion over another, non-religion over religion…
That is in the Constitution. PROHIBITS non-religion over religion. Then please explain to me how a bunch of activist judges are allowed to take down displays that do NOT force anyone to convert to that religion, as long as every religion is allowed to raised displays as well if they so wish?
Why are MY rights infringed upon (infringement of the 1st Amendment) to apease a handful of intolerant idiots?
Nov 4, 2009 - 3:26 pm 30. Moho:Sir, local newspapers do not keep their archives online. However, I’d read of this situation at the time, and the ACLU had not been able to find a plantiff at first, so they couldn’t sue. Unless, you have some reason to accuse Baltimore Reporter of making up an entire news story, this is just a waste of time.
Well, do you even know the newspaper’s name? I’m supposed to take your word for it? Exactly what should recommend citizen journalism over mainstream journalism if you can’t do a simple citation. “I know I saw it somewhere may be enough at the local bar, but not if you want to be taken seriously.”
Nov 4, 2009 - 3:32 pm 31. SM:Calling it “Christmas vacation” is simply not accurate – it typically extends from the solstice through the new year for most children. Why not New Year vacation?
Dave, the Christmas season extends from the vigil mass of Christmas eve until the feast of the Baptism of Jesus.
Just FYI.
Nov 4, 2009 - 4:06 pm 32. Gramps Cane:Much is currently being said about the separation of Church and State. The argument as to the exact meaning of “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” is constantly debated. Is the statement made by then-President Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury, Connecticut, Baptist Church about the “wall of separation” between Church and State valid? Despite all the talk about the separation of Church and State, the liberal left has done everything in its power to eradicate the Church and to place any remnants under government control. For example, the Church is taxed if it refuses to tow the IRS line. However, almost nothing is said about the currently more pressing issue of government usurpation of the church’s responsibilities. This unconstitutional usurpation has done more to destroy this nation than has anything else. Consider the following:
Government vs. Church in Social Programs. Up until the time of FDR, the Church and private charities were primarily responsible for helping the poor and needy in local communities. Since most of the people were known locally, their actual needs and abilities could be accurately assessed. Their spiritual and emotional needs could also be administered to at that time, thus helping the whole person. This encouraged the moral climate of the community as well as helping the physical, material and financial needs. Federal aid has the opposite effect. In order to receive aid a person often must be in immoral circumstances. This starts a downward moral spiral. Consider also that all aid to the underprivileged was given voluntarily, unlike the forced transferal of wealth from the middle class to the poor through government taxation. Also, churches typically have about a ten percent overhead. Contrast that with a seventy percent overhead for the IRS. This figure does not include the cost to companies and individuals for computing taxes. In other words, if people gave half as much to charity as they currently pay in income taxes alone, and all income taxes were abolished, more people would receive better aid than is currently being done through the government. Let me state it plainly: Voluntary socialism is the exclusive domain of the Church. Forced socialism administered by the government is an abysmal failure.
Government vs. Church in Capitalism. For over a hundred years the federal government saw fit, for the most part, to let free enterprise function uncontrolled. By the latter part of the nineteenth century humanism was becoming the dominant factor in many businesses. The weaknesses of the free enterprise system with the total depravity of man were becoming apparent. Unethical free enterprise will always drive wages down to the lowest common denominator. The ones controlling the power were keeping those at the bottom in poverty. However, with the intervention of pastors and other religious leaders things began to change. Well into the twentieth century many businesses had chaplains and allowed local clergy to hold meetings during the lunch hour. This aided the businesses by developing workers who were trustworthy and had a biblical work ethic. This helped churches by increasing membership roles. This aided the workers by making them become better people. It was a win-win situation for everyone – except the government. The federal government, always hungry for more power, soon stepped in. The results, predictably, have been disastrous. Without the absolute truths of the Scriptures relativism took over. Literally thousands of laws have been passed to ensure ethical results without any moral basis. The federal government has abdicated its actual responsibility and intervened in the church’s domain. The government’s role is supposed to be to provide a level playing field to keep us from hurting one another in the rough and tumble world of free enterprise. The church gives us the moral fiber to make capitalism work.
Government vs. Church in Foreign Aid. Currently the government is giving foreign aid to approximately 150 countries. On the mistaken theory that the enemy of my enemy is my friend, our government generously hand over billions of tax dollars that we do not have to countries that would gladly oversee our demise. This is one of the things our Founding Fathers warned against. But what if free enterprise and private charities took over this role? Then aid would go to those whom “we, the people” designate. On a level playing ground Christianity can out perform any other religion and free enterprise beat any other economic policy. This would improve the moral climate around the world, increase America’s good will in other nations, and stop propping up petty dictators. However, it would have one other important implication – the law of unintended consequences. Our government, forbidden from aiding the advancement of religion, is nonetheless indirectly giving millions of dollars for the advancement of radical Islam in this country. The United States gives billions of dollars to Saudi Arabia and other Muslim countries. They, being devoted to the spreading of Islam, use this money (or money freed up by it) to set up college courses in our universities for the study of Islam. They also use it to support Muslim groups in our country.
Government vs. Church in Education. Tomes could be written here. In the early days of this country, all schools were Christian schools. The people recognized that education was about moral character as well as knowledge. The United States had a literacy rate among the highest in the world. To get into college usually required, as a minimum, a working knowledge of Greek and Latin. Advanced knowledge of math and science were also requisite. The biggest problems facing our schools were absenteeism and chewing gum in class! There is no need to expound upon the educational mess prevalent in today’s society. However, one important aspect of our educational system is often overlooked. The government has a vested interest in having an ignorant and immoral society. A moral well educated people are capable of self-government. An ignorant and immoral people are not. The government then has an excuse for total dominance. At the close of the Constitutional Convention, September 17, 1787, Benjamin Franklin made this observation:
I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other.
I fear that that day is currently upon us.
Nov 4, 2009 - 7:55 pm 33. Ritchie Emmons:I used to have a grudging respect for the ACLU when they defended David Duke’s right to have his name on the ballot to run for office. At least they, at the time, seemed consistent enough that they could defend a buffoon like Duke as well as the people/causes that they usually defended.
But now, there is no consistency. The ACLU has become a far left arm of the Democratic party. They’ve become shamefully partisan. And as this article has pointed out, they go after the little people/entities.
I am an atheist. However, I’m disgusted with how the ACLU consistently goes after Christianity. I have no problem with public displays of religion. I have no problem with Christmas trees. As a matter of fact, I even “celebrate” Christmas (exchange gifts/have dinner with family). I would only object if someone was trying to force me to convert to their religion, which, aside from a couple of innocuous times when a religious someone has knocked on my door, has never happened.
Christians will find no bigger defender of their religion from the atheist world than they will from me. I wish the ACLU would show a little more respect for Christianity. Or at least show a little even handedness and go after all religions equally.
Nov 4, 2009 - 9:48 pm 34. yogiman:I think the Critical Club’s name has been misspelled. It is the ACLDU. Not the ACLU. The ‘D’ meaning Distruction, as they are trying to do to our nation.
Nov 4, 2009 - 11:07 pm 35. Brian:We should display ACLU lawyers hanging from the town square for Christmas instead.
Nov 5, 2009 - 4:06 am 36. tony:Truth be known as it should with a little googling, the “C” stands for communist. The ACLU was started by avowed communist
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45959
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41751
Nov 5, 2009 - 7:54 am 37. Bonnie_:My school doesn’t allow Halloween any more. No witches, jack-o-lanterns, ghosts, or costumes. The “Fall Celebration” parties are allowed to use only undecorated pumpkins and fall leaves.
My school doesn’t allow Christmas any more. “Winter Break” is celebrated. No Christmas trees, or crosses, or Christmas stars. Only snowmen and snowflake symbols are allowed. Only secular songs. No “Gloria,” no “Away in a Manger,” no “Silent Night.” Only “Jingle Bells” and other sorts.
I believe there is a special circle of Hell reserved for members of the ACLU.
Nov 5, 2009 - 8:07 am 38. Peter the Bubblehead:37. Bonnie_ wrote:
I believe there is a special circle of Hell reserved for members of the ACLU.
Peter writes: The only problem is they themselves would never believe in it.
Nov 5, 2009 - 9:43 am 39. Turkey Run:Adam Graham,
Nov 5, 2009 - 1:38 pm 40. kochevnik:Great post. I confess I have not considered why the ACLU went after the little guys.
Also consider, that after dinging all these little cases, and we in accepting the outcome, now come to agree or get worn down and accept it ourselves.
Appreciate your insight.
TR
@Dave M.:
>Dave K. is absolutely right. Except for the fact that
>churches feed, clothe, house, and help care for more
>poor and destitude people than any government program,
>they are all parasites. The fact that churches are the
>first to arrive and last to leave when disaster
>strikes, natural and man-made, doesn’t excuse their
>secular sin of not paying taxes. Just because churches
>have established non-profit hospitals, run orphanages,
>provide sholarships, provide charity to poverty
>stricken regions all over the world, doesn’t mean they
>have ever done anthing for anyone.
Yes the Jewish ghettos of Poland were exceptional examples of Christian charity. The final act of mercy was burning 18million heritics alive under the kindness of Catholic priest Adolph Hitler.
Nov 6, 2009 - 1:04 pm