Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Monday, September 11, 2006
Alan Sears :: Townhall.com Columnist
Five years after 9/11, the ACLU considers Christians the terrorists
by Alan Sears
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will Sarah Palin make a run at the GOP Nomination in 2012?


Joe Cook has long since apologized for what he said last summer.

Although he is director of the Louisiana chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, and strenuously opposed to anything resembling prayer in public schools or God in public life, he says he wasn’t speaking for the ACLU – or, curiously, even for himself – when he said what he said.

He said it about some teachers, students, and school board members in Tangipahoa Parish who, on infrequent occasions, have offered public, “sectarian” prayers in their classrooms, at school banquets, or to open board meetings.

“They [the Christians] have always crossed the line of separation of church and government,” Cook said. “They believe they answer to a higher power, in my opinion… which is the kind of thinking you had with the people who flew airplanes in the buildings in this country.”

While his comment didn’t draw the media attention that Mel Gibson gets for cursing a cop’s ethnic heritage, five years after 9/11, it is still arguably the most succinct and candid expression of what is transparently the ACLU’s guiding philosophy. The ACLU, after all, has spent most of the last 100 years working to silence Christian voices and curtail Christian influence in every arena of public life.

Taken at face value, Cook’s statement equates a teacher praying for, say, a student’s ailing mother, or her pupils’ performance on a standardized test, with the determination of radical Muslim terrorists to destroy as many innocent lives as possible. A child saying grace over lunch or a teen praying for the team’s injured player is really no different from a terrorist praising Allah for the privilege of slitting a flight attendant’s throat.

Because, Cook said, people who really believe in God are often the people who find fulfillment in destroying other people.

No, no, no, he says, now. That’s not what he meant.

“Our message in the Tangipahoa schools case and elsewhere is simple,” he says. “Religious freedom thrives best when government stays out of religion.”

But, of course, what the ACLU really wants is for religion to stay out of government. That’s why its attorneys have spent years pressuring California courts to remove the cross on Mount Soledad. The cross, which for half a century has honored American war dead on government property in San Diego, enjoys enormous popular support in the community. But it’s a thorn in the side of the ACLU’s philosophy of government-sponsored atheism.

In Las Cruces, New Mexico, the ACLU is actually waging war on the very name of the community: “cruces,” you see, means “crosses,” and we all know what those Spanish priests must have meant by that. No telling how many unwitting travelers, bound for Albuquerque, have found themselves mysteriously compelled to embrace Christianity, just glancing at the “Now Entering ...” sign. Better we just call the place “Las,” and get it over with.

But, of course, where does that stop? Los Angeles (“The Angels”)? San Francisco (“Saint Francis”)? What are we going to do about the Jefferson Memorial, where the government has etched in stone the Declaration of Independence proclamation that Americans have been “endowed by their Creator with certain Unalienable Rights?” Continued...

1 2
| Full Article & Comments | Next >
Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Alan Sears, a former federal prosecutor in the Reagan Administration, is president and CEO of the Alliance Defense Fund, a legal alliance employing a unique combination of strategy, training, funding, and litigation to protect and preserve religious liberty, the sanctity of life, marriage, and the family.

Be the first to read Alan Sears' column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

Mike - Right At Last!
Finally, at long last and amid more rambling nonsense, you have happened upon a correct statement, in much the same way that a broken clock is right twice a day. I did indeed say earlier that it would be my last word. However, your twisted logic, false conclusions and sheer sand-pounding stupidity hold a strange fascination. But this will indeed be my last word; my earlier assessment of the time-wasting nature of this discussion hasn't changed.

If possible, your grasp of critical and deductive reasoning is even flimsier than your understanding of free speech concepts. Let's break down your childish attempt at logic:

It actually all falls apart with your first statement: "1) If everyone (not just me) who disagrees with JohnGalt is a liberal, according to JohnGalt .... then that presumes no CONSERVATIVE can disagree with JohnGalt." There are several major errors in this house of cards--

1) As I've already stated, we have no disagreement--this would require us to hold differing opinions about some substantive issue. Instead, I find myself in the tiresome position of "proving" that I don't hold opinions or beliefs that you falsely claim I do, based on your own weak logic. If I have an opinion about an issue differing from yours, I'll be happy to debate it. If you wrongly assign me opinions I don't hold, I normally see no need to go through detailed proof that I don't hold those opinions; an assertion that you are wrong should be enough.

2) I don't actually believe that you are a liberal. As you apparently missed it the last 2 times-- It. Was. A. Joke. I believe that you are an obnoxious fool, but not a liberal. And before you play "gotcha" games, I held the same belief in my earlier posts. In case you missed it again, it was a joke.

3) Even in my joking assessment of you as a liberal, I cited traits you share with liberals as a basis for that assessment. Your statement that my assessment relied only on my disagreement with you is therefore demonstrably false, or, as you would say, a lie.

4) Even if we did disagree and I did believe you were a liberal based only on that disagreement, you have no evidence that I have falsely labeled others who disagree with me as liberals. This would require that you had read all my other posts, and in fact you admitted to reading none of them. So your statement "everyone (not just me) who disagrees with JohnGalt is a liberal" is what you call a mere assertion. But unlike my assertion, which was based on personal knowledge of my own opinions, your assertion is an absurd non sequiter. As you are probably unaware, an absolute statement such as "John Galt believes that everyone who disagrees with him is a liberal" requires only a single contrary example to be proven false. We'll leave aside the example of GWB (if given only 2 choices, liberal and conservative, Bush would HAVE to be labeled a conservative, even if not all of his actions or beliefs are conservative) I have had numerous arguments on TH on the subject of free global trade, which I am in favor of, without labeling my opponents as liberal. So since you probably still don't understand, let me state it clearly in the form of an example: I believe that Pat Buchanan's isolationism is wrong headed, but I don't believe Pat Buchanan is a liberal. Therefore your assertion that I believe everyone who disagrees with me to be a liberal is false, or, as you would put it, a lie.

Needless to say (except maybe to you) any conclusions derived from this pile of falsehoods are also erroneous.

Unlike you, I don't claim the authority to speak for any author or philosophy. So I'll leave it to anyone who has waded through your muddled collection of bald assertions, twisted logic and odious accusations to determine who is the disgrace.




Logic Lesson
Unlike JohnGalt, who said several messages ago that that would be his last one ... this will be MY last one, so he can get the last word.

As most of you know Ayn Rand was big on logic. As we see here, THIS JohnGalt knows nothing about THAT either.

If you haven't seen it yest -- I guarantee HE hasn't -- then I'll show you.

But first, an apology. I was wrong. I stated that I had not protested JohnGalt's choice of an penname. I checked the wrong post of mine. I did indeed protest his choice of a penname.

And do so again, when we see how he cannot grasp even elementary logic.

So I'll expose a new lie to keep things in balance.

JohnGalt writes: Thursday, September, 14, 2006 1:07 AM
"Mike Hihn - wrong yet again
You've proven nothing a first or second time, let alone a third, except for your bulldog tenacity in holding onto flawed assumptions and eroneous conclusions.
Yet another example: your false conclusion that I believe all conservatives think alike is obvious only to yourself, and sounds especially foolish following my comment about egregious decisions made by GWB, whom the Left, at least, considers to be a conservative."

That statement of his is called a "mere" assertion. He simply states that something is false. He never even tries to address how I reached that conclusion.

Denial is NOT rebuttal. Rebutall is what I do.

Here's what I said:

"...and accuse everyone who disagrees with you (not just me) of being a liberal."
" Thus, checking YOUR premises, your obvious assumption is that all conservatives think alike (and like you)."

Is anyone else incapable of grasping this simple syllogism???

1) If everyone (not just me) who disagrees with JohnGalt is a liberal, according to JohnGalt .... then that presumes no CONSERVATIVE can disagree with JohnGalt.

Duh.

2) Thus, according to JohnGalt, all conservatives must agree with him -- despite his later revision about disagreeing with Bush, and I hope nobody HERE considers Bush a conservative.

DoubleDuh.

And yet another "revision" (perhaps the biggest whopper yet.

JohnGalt:
"Further, although I often comment on lib policies, beliefs and actions, the only individuals I have labeled such on this site are self-admitted libs like LeftAngle and Philo."

Sorry, chump, but there they are.

"My conclusion is that you are new, improved liberal troll, much like Terminator 2. " (9/12, 2:17 PM.)

Let's see the Brain Trust in action. :-)

First you said it (9/12, 2:17 PM).

Then you defended it. (9/13, 2:02 PM)

Then you denied ever saying it. (9/14, 1:07 AM)

That proves EXACTLY what I first stated:
you disgrace the name of John Galt.

(flush)



Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.