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 the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


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?”

And so it goes, as the ACLU picks and chooses its battles. The group is demanding a Virginia Wiccan’s right to offer public prayers, even as it sues to stop a Virginia Christian from doing the same thing. In Bridgeport, West Virginia, it objects to a picture of Jesus that has been hanging in a high school hallway for decades. So far, a Great Awakening hasn’t broken out on campus, and students aren’t crowding in to genuflect before the Galilean. But depictions of divinity are the definition of danger, to the ACLU.

Why? For 2,000 years, Jesus Christ has been recognized as history’s most profound and compelling advocate of forgiveness, self-sacrifice, and moral self-discipline. He urged his followers to respect the government, honor its leaders, and put the needs of others before their own. Which of these principles is the ACLU afraid the Bridgeport teens or their teachers will emulate?

What if the picture was of George Washington or Abraham Lincoln? Wouldn’t most students understand that the school was saluting these presidents’ wise and courageous leadership? Would we really have to order the paintings removed, lest some youngster think he was being encouraged to own slaves or vote Republican?

Ironically, the very virulence of ACLU hostility underscores the importance of the man they would minimize. The group has shown little concern about public expressions of other faiths, post- 9/11. Yet just saying “Merry Christmas” sends them into fits.

A few weeks ago, the Bridgeport case came to a de facto end when a thief broke into the school one night, cut the picture of Jesus from its frame, and carried it off into the night.

The ACLU presumably had nothing to do with the theft. But one has to wonder if their sympathies aren’t with the thief.

After all, they’ve been trying to cut Jesus out of the picture for years.

Alan Sears, a former federal prosecutor who held various posts in the departments of Justice and Interior during the Reagan Administration, is president and CEO of the Alliance Defense Fund, a legal alliance defending the right to hear and speak the Truth through strategy, training, funding, and litigation. He is co-author with Craig Osten of the book The ACLU vs. America: Exposing the Agenda to Redefine Moral Values and The Homosexual Agenda: Exposing the Principal Threat to Religious Freedom.

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)




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. Perhaps you are unaware of the constant scuffling under the conservative tent between economic conservatives, social conservatives, neocons, paleocons, theocons, libertoids, and others?

Why do I preach to the choir here? If it hasn't yet penetrated from earlier discussion, let me try again...lib sites won't allow me to "preach to the heathen" there. Of course, pointing this out is considered "whining" by you (yet another lib trait - all statements from them are Olympian pronouncements, all statements from others are "whining") And by the way, you still haven't quite figured out that the whole bit about you being a liberal troll (despite your shared traits) is a joke (hint: words like tongue-in-cheek and satire are strong indicators of the presence of humor for those unable to detect it themselves). 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. By the way, why does it have to be an acusation? It doesn't bother me if someone labels me conservative.

Your challenges have certainly been agressive, but hardly rational. As I pointed out, you have no ideas you are debating, merely personal attacks based on your own wrong perceptions.

Finally, you write :

"JohnGalt writes: Wednesday, September, 13, 2006 5:50 PM
"And Another Thing...
Mike Hihn has protested my selection of a pen name."

(sigh) You're lying again. Show me where."

Yet on September 11th, you wrote:

"I protest (informally) that names like JohnGalt and d'Anconia can be usurped by such bluffers and know-nothings"

Yep...you caught me "lying" again!

Frankly, I couldn't care less how many Rand books you own, whether you've met Pat Buchanan or hairlipped the Pope, you clearly have a weak grasp at best of free speech. Further, I suspect that your knowledge of free market capitalism is even hazier. I would suggest that you broaden your knowledge in these areas and worry less about attacking others.



hihn = anti-partisan
If it's not obvious by now, mikehihn is my screenname on another computer. Still not sure why I had to do that, but apologies for any confusion.

JohnGalt
"So let me state it explicitly: Democrat.com has the unfettered right to delete my posts and ban me from their site."

Good, then stop yer whining.

No, I ain't gonna prove it a THIRD time, Bub.

Just a suggestion -- you spend too much time preaching to the choir (here), which is why you can't deal with a rational and aggresive challenge -- 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). What a champion you are!

Regarding free speech, I have mostly presented arguments I learned from Barry Goldwater (who I actually met and voted for) and Ayn Rand.


JohnGalt
"The Constitution says nothing about separating church and state."

Technically true. Those words are merely the opinion of one man as to what the ammendment means ... Thomas Jefferson.

"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state. "

So who do we believe on this. JohnGalt (sic) or Thomas Jefferson?


Brujo Blanco
Brujo Blanco writes: Wednesday, September, 13, 2006 9:38 PM
"With the ACLU it is not about liberties it is about the money and the left wing political agenda."

I hate to interrupt your conspiracy theory ... but why did they defend the right of a sitting state Supreme Court Justice to address a pro-life rally?????

" They get 'reimbursed' for their expenses when they get involved in any case regarding civil rights. The ACLU is not consistent. It appears as though they support freedom of religion for Muslims and Wiccans but not for Christians."

See my example above. I'm guessiong you have no clue what you're talking about, and are just repeating some other knee-jerk clone-thinker.





Whining
JohnGalt writes: Wednesday, September, 13, 2006 5:50 PM
"And Another Thing...
Mike Hihn has protested my selection of a pen name."

(sigh) You're lying again. Show me where.


ACLU AND LIBERTIES
With the ACLU it is not about liberties it is about the money and the left wing political agenda. They get 'reimbursed' for their expenses when they get involved in any case regarding civil rights. The ACLU is not consistent. It appears as though they support freedom of religion for Muslims and Wiccans but not for Christians.

And Another Thing...
Mike Hihn has protested my selection of a pen name. No doubt he would prefer that some sort of "name czar" be established to judge the appropriateness of any given name (based on his own subjective judgement, of course)

The owners and operators of TH would, of course, be totally within their rights to do so. But we can be thankful that they have not...Mike can take his brand of censorship elsewhere.

Mike - Stop the nonsense!
I'm not sure why I'm bothering to respond to your "arguments" - as a time-waster it's second only to trying to have a rational discussion with those on another thread who believe that Bush bombed the WTC on 9/11 (let me guess...you buy into that one, too?)

I'll try to explain it slowly so even you can understand. You are deeply confused about the concept of free speech (another sign that you may be a liberal, as Foxworthy would say...hmmm). You apparently disagree with my statement that any person or organization has the ability to limit free speech, even citing that statement as a priori proof that I don't understand free speech. Yet people and organizations deny free speech on a daily basis. I limit the free speech of the children in my household. Employers across the country limit the free speech of their employees. Schools limit the free speech of their students. In most cases, it is totally legal within the framework of our Constitution and may be completely appropriate.

This is the point your obtuse mind seems incapable of grasping -- the vast majority of free speech limitation has nothing whatever to do with constitutionally protected speech. Yes, your Sophist argument that I didn't defend their right to limit speech is correct--I didn't defend it because no one attacked it, you bloody fool.

So let me state it explicitly: Democrat.com has the unfettered right to delete my posts and ban me from their site. I will not add the trite "and I will die to defend that right" because in all probability I will not. However, this in no way changes my point that liberals are often unwilling to argue their views openly. And no, the fact that I am able to express the concept of free speech using other words and terminology is not a deception (actually, this is another sign of a liberal...always seeking to twist the words of their opponent to "proove" they are lying or deceptive...hmmm)

And here's a little kicker for you...Bush's most egregious action to date was to sign the obscene McCain-Feingold bill, which explicitly limits constitutionally protected political speech. That one must have managed to slip through my "knee-jerk partisanship" screen.

You also need a little work on your reading comprehension skills. You say I labeled you a liberal troll because you disagree with me. First, we have no disagreement because you have no substantive point, only your silly personal attacks on me based on your flawed interpretation of my statement. Second, I stated explicitly that I suspected you of trolldom because of your shared traits with liberals - arrogance, pomposity, propensity for ad hominem attacks and knee-jerk defense of the ACLU. The bit about you being a liberal troll was actually tongue in cheek, but a complete lack of humor and inability to detect satire is another sure sign of a lib...hmmm--maybe there's something there after all.

This absurd "argument" is beginning to remind me of a Monty Python sketch...the producer is now walking onto the set, informing me that your arguments really are too silly--time to cut to another sketch.

ACLU means
Anti-Christian-Liberal-Ultraism

Hate American, Americans and Christians first is their only agenda.

Clyde9

I said:
Quoting me (falsely)
"Nazis are super-Christians."

He responded:
"The quote, and this one, came verbatim from your post, and therefore are definitely not false."

The dishonesty comes from not including what I had replied to of yours, which then allowed you to change the subject as below:

"The Nazi's were anything but Christian. They may have lived in a Christian country and been raised in that faith, but their actions were not carried out in the name of Christianity, and their long term goal regarding religion was to make Nazism their religion."

And you're wrong anyhow. Hitler most certainly "carried out" his genocide "in the name of Christianity" -- which is true (of course) of most anti-semites.

But the main point is your claim about the ACLU and Christianity is simply wrong.

The ACLU has even defended anti-abortion views, as they involve free speech and right of association -- which one would never know if one is a knee-jerk conservative. Thus, I'm actually embarrassed by the level of ignorance expressed by so many posters on this page, claiming to be Christians. If you're too bigoted to take a civil liberties case to the ACLU, then blame yourself. For unilateral disarmament.


JohnGalt : Exposed
This seems to be a common way of lying around here: Start with the other guys quote, but ignore and misrepresent what the other guy was responding to.

Below, JohnGalt quotes me, but not what I had responded to, which he then goes on to misrepresent.

See mine at Tuesday, September, 12, 2006 12:14 PM

JohnGalt writes:
"Perhaps you can point out where in my post I argued that lib sites don't have the right to restrict speech? "

My response:
"Never said you did, sport."

Galt disagrees, so what does he have to prove I did -- which he is conning us about? He has to show that I accused him of saying (in effect) "Lib sites don't have the right to restrict speech"

Now, despite a lot of huffing, puffing and bravado, he never seems to actually show what he needs to show.

---

JohnGalt writes: Tuesday, September, 12, 2006 2:17 PM
Last Word to "Objectivist" Mike
"Never said you did, sport" - let's go to the tape. Whoops, you said, "The REAL John Galt would defend the right of web site owners to do whatever they chose to do with their own private property" Again I ask, when did I deny their right to restrict speech?

Your question is illogical (or dishonest) Read it again (move your lips this time. I said you had failed to defend a property right. Period.

Galt again:
"Whoops, you said, "The REAL John Galt knows that "free speech" can only be violated by government." Again I ask, where did I state that my (or anyone's) free speech rights have been violated?

Again illogical (or dishonest). I said you were confused about who COULD violate "free speech"

Here's what you did say, sport -- second repetition -- which is the language I copied (your language).

JohnGalt writes: Monday, September, 11, 2006 12:02 PM
"Imagine if I were allowed to post on liberal sites (which I am not...they are not really big proponents of free speech) and I wrote the following:"

Simple logic: you accused them of not defending free speech.

You sound like some whiny liberal, sniveling that your "free speech" has been violated -- when (2nd time) the real issue is property rights by the owner of a web site.

"Pointing out that libs restrict speech contrary to their views on their sites is NOT a complaint that constitutional rights have been violated, merely an interesting observation that they avoid open discussion of their views and policies."

Curious that you no longer call it "free speech" -- and now we can all see your deception on that.

"Looks like YOUR knee is jerking, "sport"."

I'll show you how you're still doing it.

JohnGalt
"My conclusion is that you are new, improved liberal troll, much like Terminator 2."

The ultimate knee-jerk comment -- anyone who disagrees simply MUST be a liberal.

The REAL John Galt would also never be so bigoted.

Here's another crock:

JohnGalt writes: Monday, September, 11, 2006 1:56 PM
"What statement have I ever made on Townhall that is a disgrace to my namesake?"

He asks me the question, then he blames me for the answer. Thus, an even bigger disgrace.

I saved the best for last. Even after being challenged, he still repeats the same blunder!!!


JohnGalt writes: Tuesday, September, 12, 2006 9:34 AM
Mike Hihn
"1) Any person or organization has the ability to limit free speech."

THIS JohnGalt doesn't even know what "free speech" means .... precisely as I said, at the very beginning.

(flush)








Another bluff called
Clyde9 writes: Tuesday, September, 12, 2006 2:50 PM


mike_hihn:
"Uhhhh, Skokie is WHERE they defended the Nazi's right to peacably assemble."

Clyde9
"Actually I was referring to actions of the Nazis that took place 50 years ago, and those did not take place in Skokie."

Okay, I'll call your bluff. Describe the incident for us .... if you can. :-)

mike_hihn
One more time: Do YOU believe Nazis have the right of asembly, or do you just throw rocks at the ACLU.

"I never said they did not."

You never said they did. And until you actually describe the events you mentioned, we have no way of knowing whether you claim has any value at all.

Nazis have rights too, you know -- like the right to peaceably assemble. It's called due process.

This is very simple. Stop running away from the issue and defend your claim. WHAT were the Nazis defended of doing???


Clyde9
"My statement about the meaning of ACLU was based on virtually every lawsuit by the ACLU reported by the media being against Christian activities, either group or individual."

Well, you're wrong on that too. But stop changing the subject.

"My criticism, if anything, was to point out that the ACLU of fifty plus years virtually eliminated their defense of the Nazis when that interfered with their membership and fund raising -- which if anything means their committment to liberty is, or wasn't that pure."

That's so crazy wrong it's hysterical -- considering you may actually know when Skokie happened --- 1977 --- long after you claim they had abandoned such actions.

I happen to be an ACLU member -- and a member of Gun Owners of America (typical libertarian) -- so I KNOW you have mistaken Skokie, where the Nazis were defended for the right to peaceably assemble (it was a parade).

So ... unless you can cite a REAL event from 50 years ago ... you have just been caught in a fairly big whopper.

Thank you for playing.









mike_hihn
Quoting me (falsely)
"Nazis are super-Christians."

The quote, and this one, came verbatim from your post, and therefore are definitely not false.

The Nazi's were anything but Christian. They may have lived in a Christian country and been raised in that faith, but their actions were not carried out in the name of Christianity, and their long term goal regarding religion was to make Nazism their religion.

Snort!
Jay_in_Milwaukee writes: Tuesday, September, 12, 2006 3:03 PM
Snort!
"Nazis are super-Christians."

"That must be why Hitler decreed that the cross or crucifix shall be replaced by a sword standing to the right of the altar, and the Bible replaced with Mein Kampf. (Rise and Fall of the 3rd Reich. Shirer, Wm. 1959)"

SNORT! How can you possibly believe that is relevant? Ever hear of the Inquisition?

Hitler was a professed Catholic -- WAS NEVER EXCOMMUNICATED -- and thought he was doing the Lord's work by slaughtering Jews (a fairly common believe/excuse among anti-semites.

You will find it in Mein Kampf: "Therefore, I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews, I am doing the Lord's Work."

Hitler said it again at a Nazi Christmas celebration in 1926: "Christ was the greatest early fighter in the battle against the world enemy, the Jews ... The work that Christ started but could not finish, I -- Adolf Hitler -- will conclude."

In a Reichstag speech in 1938, Hitler again echoed the religious origins of his crusade. "I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews, I am fighting for the Lord's work."

Hitler regarded himself as a Catholic until he died. "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so," he told Gerhard Engel, one of his generals, in 1941.

There was really no reason for Hitler to doubt his good standing as a Catholic. The Catholic press in Germany was eager to curry his favor, and the princes of the Catholic Church never asked for his excommunication.


Polly forgets
Polly writes: Tuesday, September, 12, 2006 2:32 PM
Read more carefully, Mike
mike_hihn writes "Polly forgets."

"You are correct, Mike. I forget much and often. But the time period I cited, 50's and 60's, when I was in school was well after the Scopes Trial (really)."

Me too. But how curious that you never heard of it, were never taught about it in high school, and never saw the classic movie .... made in 1960. Also 3 made-for-TV movies.

At the time you and I were in school, it was still considered the trial of the century (for obvious reasons). Many still consider it the trial of the century .... but you never heard of it.

All lf which demolishes your theory about the impact of the Civil Rights Attorney Fees Awards Act. Plus this ...

"... the ACLU had to pick and choose their lawsuits to avoid wasting their limited resources (in the sense that all resources are limited). The Civil Rights Attorney Fees Awards Act removed those annoying limitations and ultimately guaranteed almost unlimited compensation to those busy ACLU lawyers--because taxpayer contributions are, for all intents and purposes, unlimited, at least with our current grasping government."

Scopes proves you wrong -- and the exact same bill authorized attorney fees for suits brought under .... ready? ....Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993!!!

"You're the closest thing I've seen to an "ACLU lawsuit expert,"

I repeated something most jr high students were taught.

"And I'd be pleased to read your stats on whether such lawsuits increased after 1976.
Really."

No, the burden of proof is still yours. And (of course) You'd also need to show cause and effect. Can you?

"The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." It doesn't mention anything about "no evidence of any religion shall be on public view," or anything of the like. We've come a long way, don't you think?"

Yes, you have done a superb job of mis-stating the issue. Do you really believe anyone here is stoopid enough to believe this is about "public view"?

"And yes, I went to public schools. But it was before teachers' unions,"

Wrong again (sigh). Why is everything a dark conspiracy of liberals to you?

Both the NEA and (former) ATA were founded over 100 years ago. These two large and well-established unions merged in 1966, just after your schooling (perhaps during).

But you weren't aware of that either.

"they did still teach, and I believe all my graduating classmates were able to read their diplomas."

But nothing about the trial of the century.

And you never heard of the teacher unions which were already long dominant.


Snort!
"Nazis are super-Christians."

That must be why Hitler decreed that the cross or crucifix shall be replaced by a sword standing to the right of the altar, and the Bible replaced with Mein Kampf. (Rise and Fall of the 3rd Reich. Shirer, Wm. 1959)

Maybe those Nazi-wannabes claim they are, but look out!

ACLU
mike_hihn
Uhhhh, Skokie is WHERE they defended the Nazi's right to peacably assemble.

Actually I was referring to actions of the Nazis that took place 50 years ago, and those did not take place in Skokie.

mike_hihn
One more time: Do YOU believe Nazis have the right of asembly, or do you just throw rocks at the ACLU.

I never said they did not.

My statement about the meaning of ACLU was based on virtually every lawsuit by the ACLU reported by the media being against Christian activities, either group or individual.

My criticism, if anything, was to point out that the ACLU of fifty plus years virtually eliminated their defense of the Nazis when that interfered with their membership and fund raising -- which if anything means their committment to liberty is, or wasn't that pure.

mike_hihn
Quoting me (falsely)
"Nazis are super-Christians."

The quote, and this one, came verbatim from your post, and therefore are definitely not false.

The Nazi's were anything but Christian. They may have lived in a Christian country and been raised in that faith, but their actions were not carried out in the name of Christianity, and their long term goal regarding religion was to make Nazism their religion.

Clyde9


Read more carefully, Mike
mike_hihn writes "Polly forgets."

You are correct, Mike. I forget much and often. But the time period I cited, 50's and 60's, when I was in school was well after the Scopes Trial (really). I sang in my school choir's CHRISTMAS concert, references to Christmas, God, Jesus, all them r'ligious folks were not the subject of ACLU lawsuits, crosses and The Ten Commandments were generally accepted (and/or ignored) and the ACLU had to pick and choose their lawsuits to avoid wasting their limited resources (in the sense that all resources are limited). The Civil Rights Attorney Fees Awards Act removed those annoying limitations and ultimately guaranteed almost unlimited compensation to those busy ACLU lawyers--because taxpayer contributions are, for all intents and purposes, unlimited, at least with our current grasping government.

I don't doubt there may have been an ACLU Establishment Clause lawsuit or two, even during the 50's and 60's. You're the closest thing I've seen to an "ACLU lawsuit expert," and I'd be pleased to read your description of those suits. And I'd be pleased to read your stats on whether such lawsuits increased after 1976.
Really. (Although I realize that was AFTER you wrote your paper, so....)

The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." It doesn't mention anything about "no evidence of any religion shall be on public view," or anything of the like. We've come a long way, don't you think?

And yes, I went to public schools. But it was before teachers' unions, they did still teach, and I believe all my graduating classmates were able to read their diplomas.




Last Word to "Objectivist" Mike
"Never said you did, sport" - let's go to the tape. Whoops, you said, "The REAL John Galt would defend the right of web site owners to do whatever they chose to do with their own private property" Again I ask, when did I deny their right to restrict speech? Whoops, you said, "The REAL John Galt knows that "free speech" can only be violated by government." Again I ask, where did I state that my (or anyone's) free speech rights have been violated? Pointing out that libs restrict speech contrary to their views on their sites is NOT a complaint that constitutional rights have been violated, merely an interesting observation that they avoid open discussion of their views and policies. Looks like YOUR knee is jerking, "sport".

You claim that you are not a self-appointed guardian of Objectivism, yet you protest my "usurpation" of the name John Galt, call me a "fake" John Galt, give pompous lectures on what the "real" John Galt would say, and call me a "bluffer" and "know-nothing," all based on my 3 line post pointing out that someone had mistaken a parody for a serious post. Somehow this constitutes "blatant contradictions" - which ones? Where? Perhaps the "free speech" claim, already de-bunked? As they say, if you find a contradiction, go back and check your premises--you will find that one of them is wrong. In your case, all of them.

Finally, you claim that pointing out someone's error regarding a parody and mentioning the fact that lib sites, unlike this one, do not allow dissenting opinions offers conclusive "proof" that I am a knee-jerk partisan. I never demanded that you read my other posts; I merely assumed you had, as only a fool could possibly have manufactured all of those bogus claims, faulty assumptions and cheap accusations from my original post on this thread. Sorry, my mistake.

My conclusion is that you are new, improved liberal troll, much like Terminator 2. The original version, which called up conservative radio hosts at the behest of their Marxist masters and claimed "I'm a lifelong conservative, but...Bush lied, blah, blah, blah" became too easy to spot. So now we have you, camouflaging yourself with claims of being an Objectivist. But your pomposity, arrogance, ad hominem attacks, hidden "facts" and "contradictions," knee-jerk defense of the ACLU all scream Liberal! Yes, my knee IS jerking, and my eybrow twitching, and my belly shaking...with laughter at your preposterous arguments.

Mtn Rose:
"The obsession of some to be antagonistic toward the faithful is a mystery, unless you believe that the "battle" is not an earthly one."

My sympathy on your persecution. I had to put up with it, too, when I was an active Christian. It got old fast.

It's not that I don't "get to see" pictures of all the other religions. They just aren't here, at least not where I've been. I have no desire to see them any more than a desire to see a painting of Jesus (and why does He ALWAYS look European and not Semitic?).

My point was, and I don't know if your persecution complaint was leveled at me or not, if you allow a picture of any one religion's deity in a public school, then under the Establishment clause you have to allow ALL of them. It's not being hostile to Christianity. It's being equal to all; equal accomodation I think the term is.

And my kids' school is plenty diverse here in Milwaukee. We have Poles AND Germans. That's a joke, BTW.

Mike Hihn wrote:
"Bzzt, wrong. Yet another conservative myth. The Supreme Court ruled PRECISELY that prox 1989. And I enforced it as a school board member in Ohio. Technically, if ANY clubs can meet after school, then the school is OBLIGED to allow religious clubs under equal standards.

It was a case that the ACLU won, for equal rights."

OK, I stand corrected. Thanks, Mike. They couldn't meet when I was in school (1980s), at least in my district.

And all you ACLU bashers out there, here's to ya!

Cattrapper asked
"What do we do about the Liberty Bell? It is on public display in Philly. It does have the word God on it."

Historical artifact and fait accompli. Leave it.

"What about the crosses at Arlington? It is govt. property."

Putting a cross-shaped marker on someone's grave does not constitute "establishment".

"What about our national motto engraved on all our money?"

SCOTUS addressed that one years ago. Gov't can put on its money whatever it likes.

JohnGalt
JohnGalt writes: Tuesday, September, 12, 2006 9:34 AM
"Perhaps you can point out where in my post I argued that lib sites don't have the right to restrict speech? "

Never said you did, sport.

"Sooo...you're the self-appointed grand wizard of Objectivism and all things Randian.

Never said that, either. I simply listed a few blatant contradictions that any jr high student could have caught.

"I merely find it interesting that libs are often unwilling to to allow their arguments to sink or swim in the marketplace of ideas, instead preferring to silence critics or those who disagree with them. Don't believe me? Take a look at any college campus.

My point is -- knee-jerk conservatives are just as bad at it.

"2) You accuse me of "knee-jerk" partisanship."

Yep.

" The beauty of the ad hominem attack is that it requires no facts or arguments to back it up, merely a stated opinion.

You're just ignoring them.


"I will give yours all the weight it deserves. If you had read any of my many posts to this site, you would have seen that I often take issue with the President and the Republican party when I believe them to be wrong, and that I credit libs on the few occasions when they are right. Hardly evidence of "knee-jerk partisanship."

Each thread stands alone. If your defense requires me to search this entire site, well ... that's silly.

"But I suppose you are right...Rand would certainly have embraced today's Democrat party and their attempts to impose their Marxist collectivist vision on the country, and would have refrained from any criticism of them lest she be labled a knee jerk partisan."

She'd have attacked both parties, sport, as I do. Your knee is jerking again.

Thank you for playing.


Supreme Court cases (another point)
Everson v. Board of Education was a bad ruling also because it completely goes against the part of the 1st Amendment that says that "Congress shall make no law...prohibiting the free exercise thereof [meaning religion]."

Supreme Court cases
In Reynolds v U.S. (1878), the Supreme Court ruled that the federal, state and, in this case, the territorial governments cannot regulate religious beliefs but they can regulate religious acts. Michael's repsone to a'Anconia reflects this thinking. Everson v. Board of Education ((1947) went further. The Court ruled, in part that "No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion." This ruling, more than anything else, has been the ACLU's incentive to seek to eliminate all forms of religious expression in any public forum. It is also a bad ruling because is bases its ruling on the letter written by Thomas Jefferson, not on anything in the Constitution.

Thank you, John Galt . . .
for putting mike_hihn in his place.

Typical lib that he is, the first amendment only applies to him and his sanctimonious opinions. All others need not apply.

He's probably one of the moveon.org hired posters who get paid by the post. It's amazing that the other liberal posters aren't rushing to his side, defending him from us evil "know-nothing conservatives."

I posted that I'm not a Christian. That doesn't mean that I won't defend Christian's rights to worship as they choose. Those rights, which mike_hihn denigrates, are the cornerstone of this country.

d'Anconia
"As to your discussion about religious clubs in the public schools, they are legal. As long s the school district allows for any type of clubs and someone is willing to sponsor it, a religious club may be formed. The district cannot, however, dictate which religions may be represented and which may not. Therefore, most do not allow religious clubs, probably fearing that the Bible club meeting in one room would be disturbed by the Satanists' chanting or Santerians' (SP?) sacrifices from down the hall."

There are still limits on Freedom of Speech, of Religion, etc. Ex, you can't shout "Fire" in a crowded theater - unless there really is a fire.

Many communities have noise ordinances; the same might be applied - I expect - to loud or overly exuberant chanting, particularly in a public place, like a public school, for example.

If your religion requires animal sacrifice, there are likely to be some local ordinances as to where you can do that. (It tends to get a bit messy. I've been living on a small farm for the past six years, eating most of what we raise. I've participated in slaughtering three sheep and several chickens, so I know at least a little about the mess involved.)

If your religion requires human sacrifice, that would amount to murder, and you should expect prosecution if/when you actually carry it out. Freedom of Religion is one thing, but human sacrifice would deprive someone of their Right to Life, which is referred to in the Declaration of Independence, as I recall.

Mike Hihn
Sooo...you're the self-appointed grand wizard of Objectivism and all things Randian...glad to know it. I'll be sure to check with you in advance to make sure my opinions are "real" and don't offend your delicate sensibilities. To address your ridiculous arguments:

1) Any person or organization has the ability to limit free speech. You are correct that only the government is Constitutionlally prohibited from doing so. Perhaps you can point out where in my post I argued that lib sites don't have the right to restrict speech? No? Then don't assign me opinions which I don't hold based on your flawed assumptions. I merely find it interesting that libs are often unwilling to to allow their arguments to sink or swim in the marketplace of ideas, instead preferring to silence critics or those who disagree with them. Don't believe me? Take a look at any college campus. And yes, I have had posts deleted and been banned from sites like democrat.com and Kos despite a total lack of profanity or personal attacks in my posts.

2) You accuse me of "knee-jerk" partisanship. The beauty of the ad hominem attack is that it requires no facts or arguments to back it up, merely a stated opinion. I will give yours all the weight it deserves. If you had read any of my many posts to this site, you would have seen that I often take issue with the President and the Republican party when I believe them to be wrong, and that I credit libs on the few occasions when they are right. Hardly evidence of "knee-jerk partisanship." But I suppose you are right...Rand would certainly have embraced today's Democrat party and their attempts to impose their Marxist collectivist vision on the country, and would have refrained from any criticism of them lest she be labled a knee jerk partisan.

I will grant that there was one correct statement in your post...you are most definitely familiar with second-handers

ProfGene
Regarding your post: What it used to be like

As I wasn't born until 1953, I am rather ignorant as to these details of what it was like in elementary schools in the 1940s. Reading this post of yours makes me very sad, and I am truly sorry. While I couldn't possibly have influenced what happened in your school, I wish I could have. On behalf of American Christians, to the extent that I represent them (being one of them), I apologize and ask your forgiveness.

Separation of
Mr. Sears quotes:

"“They [the Christians] have always crossed the line of separation of church and government,” Cook said."

First it was advocated "separation of church and state;" now it's "government." Neither of which is in our Constitution. In fact, forbidding public school teachers and/or students to pray, or discuss religion, incorporates government precisely where it is forbidden to be! "Congress shall make no law regarding..." is explicit. Only sophists, and sophist judgements, could accomplish the changes the ACLU has, through litigations, prompted to fly in the face of reason. It is government, not Christians, who have "crossed the line." Individuals have rights; government does not!

In what manner really is a school teacher, employed by a local school board, an employee of government? Does becoming a school teacher negate the individual's freedom of speech and freedom of religion? Liberals talk "diversity," but it is its absence they seek. They want nothing mentioned in any classroom that does not concur with their own, narrow-minded view of life, ethics, and government.

Education is supposed to be the arena in which individuals learn to think through examination of diversified historical and current thought. But, there is only one thought the ACLU wants students legally enabled to examine - the left's. I hear that, "Misery loves miserable company." Thus, the ACLU, damming itself, wants to take the whole nation down with it, way down, eternally down....

As for Abraham Lincoln and George Washington, both of their birthdays used to be school holidays. They've already been eliminated via "Presidents Day," and "Martin Luther King Day," as though all presidents deserve equal respect, and King's achievements, though worth remembering, are comparable to Lincoln's or Washington's in US history.

I don't think so! I think that adding Bill Clinton, and a considerable number of other puny, late 20th Century presidents, into the "let's commemorate" pot is to betray the memories of excellent American heritage, which school children and university students ought to be enabled to grasp there's good reason to admire.

Wall of separation
What most people are either unaware of, or just choose to ignore (ie. the Left), is that Thomas Jefferson, who coined the phrase "wall of separation between church and state" attended church services every Sunday of his presidency. While he argued that government should stay out of religion, he certainly didn't believe that a person had to hide his religious feelings just because he enters public office or a public job.

Movwater
"What is totally amazing, is that the Federal Courts have found the 1st Amendment is actually about pornography .... "

(laughing) Not on this planet.

They've said it INCLUDES pornography (actually defined pornography in a way you seem to disagree with). BIG difference.

movwater
"... and does protect public religious expression or political speech. Go figure!"

Wrong again -- I assume you meant does "not" protect. Public religious expression has never been limited,except by government (and not always), nor has policial speech.

I realize many social conservatives seek a state-mandated conformity, like I grew up with in the 1950s. But mess with MY liberties and you'd best start by prying my cold, dead fingers off my gun.




Clyde9 -- still confused.
Clyde9 writes: Tuesday, September, 12, 2006 12:21 AM

Quoting me:
"You oppose equal rights? In that case (Skokie Ill) the right to peacably assemble. It's in te Constitution, bub."

Clyde9:
"I never said anything for or against ANYONES rights."

Look again. See the question mark?

Clyde9:
"Someone said the ACLU will soon be defending Nazis and I made a simple statement of fact pointing out that they already have. A point that has nothing to do with Skokie, Ill."

Uhhhh, Skokie is WHERE they defended the Nazi's right to peacably assemble.

One more time: Do YOU believe Nazis have the right of asembly, or do you just throw rocks at the ACLU.

Quoting me (falsely)
"Nazis are super-Christians."

Clyde9:
"What does that statement have to do with anything?"

Uhhhhhh, it was probably a response to your own statement, which I quoted immediately above it.
"Based on their actions, it makes me wonder if their name isn't actually the Anti-Christian Leadership Union."

The Nazis were Christians. They were defended by the ACLU, as you stated yourself in the same post.

Got it?





sloopy
sloopy writes: Tuesday, September, 12, 2006 12:41 AM
"mike_hihn
Actually, I quoted you in your post as 10:43PM and you claimed "It's not name-calling if I prove my case, which I did."

Ducking the issue?


"So now you want to shift gears and talk about different posts?"

Uhhhhh , no .... those are the posts I proved it in.



mike_hihn
Actually, I quoted you in your post as 10:43PM and you claimed "It's not name-calling if I prove my case, which I did.

So now you want to shift gears and talk about different posts? I guess this means maybe you looked over what you'd written and realized, as I said, that you proved nothing. Nice try, though. As always, you are proved to be a liar.

Say What?
mike-hihn

"You oppose equal rights? In that case (Skokie Ill) the right to peacably assemble. It's in te Constitution, bub."

I never said anything for or against ANYONES rights. Someone said the ACLU will soon be defending Nazis and I made a simple statement of fact pointing out that they already have. A point that has nothing to do with Skokie, Ill.

"Nazis are super-Christians."

What does that statement have to do with anything?

Clyde9

Sloopy
sloopy writes: Tuesday, September, 12, 2006 12:05 AM
"Mike
You didn't prove anything. Keep it civil."

Find somebody else to intimidate.

I stand my my statement of having proven/demonstrated my points ... one at 11:29 PM ...the other at 11:20 PM ... and have no problem with others making their own unbiased decisions on that.

Thank you for playing.

Jay_Milwaukee -- yet another myth
Jay_in_Milwaukee writes: Monday, September, 11, 2006 3:53 PM
To Michael, on clubs
"Okay, but where do you draw the line? When I was in high school in the late 1960's (Oh, have I dated myself now!), there was a Christian club - "

"Yeah, that's a tough one. My personal feeling is that as long as ANY religion (as well as atehists) is free to associate on school grounds after school, then you can't claim favoritism, and by extension, establishment. The courts disagree."

Bzzt, wrong. Yet another conservative myth. The Supreme Court ruled PRECISELY that prox 1989. And I enforced it as a school board member in Ohio. Technically, if ANY clubs can meet after school, then the school is OBLIGED to allow religious clubs under equal standards.

It was a case that the ACLU won, for equal rights.



Mike
You didn't prove anything. Keep it civil.

Sloopy
I'll try to keep this in words of one syllable.

sloopy writes: Monday, September, 11, 2006 11:56 PM
"Mikey, Mikey, Mikey
mike_hihn writes: "Hmmm, as an Objectivist, I protest (informally) that names like JohnGalt and d'Anconia can be usurped by such bluffers and know-nothings"

"You did okay at first. Your first blog on this post didn't call anyone names, and the arrogance was actually pretty minimal, for you. But you are getting nasty again."

It's not name-calling if I prove my case, which I did. You don't now the difference between ad hominem and a supported argment????

REALLY?





Clyde9
Clyde9 writes: Monday, September, 11, 2006 4:30 PM
ACLU
"50 years ago the ACLU was defending Nazi organizations in the U.S. and was open and proud about such actions, until it adversely affected their membership and finances."

You oppose equal rights? In that case (Skokie Ill) the right to peacably assemble. It's in te Constitution, bub.

"Based on their actions, it makes me wonder if their name isn't actually the Anti-Christian Leadership Union."

Nazis are super-Christians.


Mikey, Mikey, Mikey
mike_hihn writes: "Hmmm, as an Objectivist, I protest (informally) that names like JohnGalt and d'Anconia can be usurped by such bluffers and know-nothings"

You did okay at first. Your first blog on this post didn't call anyone names, and the arrogance was actually pretty minimal, for you. But you are getting nasty again.

Anti-socialist -- another myth
anti-socialist writes: Monday, September, 11, 2006 2:18 PM
"ACLU = communism...
ACLU is nothing other than a communist organization seeking to destroy our constitutional republic for a communist society."

Nah ... the ACLU charter forbids membership by anyone who has belonged to the Communist Party, or any other totalitarian organization.

There is no such ban in the Republican Party.

d'Anconia confused
d`Anconia writes: Monday, September, 11, 2006 10:20 PM
"As to your discussion about religious clubs in the public schools, they are legal. As long s the school district allows for any type of clubs and someone is willing to sponsor it, a religious club may be formed."

Yeah ... that's what I said.

"The district cannot, however, dictate which religions may be represented and which may not. Therefore, most do not allow religious clubs, probably fearing that the Bible club meeting in one room would be disturbed by the Satanists' chanting or Santerians' (SP?) sacrifices from down the hall."

Funny, but total nonsense -- if the school allows ANY club at all, say, Chess Club, then they are LEGALLY OBLIGED to permit whatever religious clubs wish to apply.

THAT is what the Supreme Court ruled. (I was an elected school board member in the late 1980s.)

Hmmm, as an Objectivist, I protest (informally) that names like JohnGalt and d'Anconia can be usurped by such bluffers and know-nothings.



David Mcuseless 2
DavidMac writes: Monday, September, 11, 2006 10:43 PM

"I realize that government employees can't lead school prayers. Mike, I can even cite the O'Hare case, if you want me to do so, unless you think I'm one of the "screeching" "know-nothing" conservatives."

I didn't think that until now.

"My point was that I, personally, don't care who prays in school. Period."

Silly me, I thought you meant something else entirely, but ....

"You, however, take my post literally, "

How shameful of me to think you might have meant what you said, which was ....

"Even though I'm not a Christian, I think there should be prayers allowed in school."

Like I said ... they are .. which you still haven't admitted.

"Report back to moveon.org, Mike, that it's "mission accomplished", you've destroyed another conservative. You're merely another ignorant phoney who gets a thrill posting liberal BS on conservative boards."

Actually, I'm an Objectivist.

Your bluff. My call. So wipe the egg off your face, and try to keep your knee from jerking.









Any Lefties out there
Since ProfGene and Jay in Mil. are either gone or won't respond to the questions in my post at 8:24 pm, maybe some of you on the left would care to try?

Polly forgets
Polly writes: Monday, September, 11, 2006 3:41 PM
"The ACLU may or may not want to destroy America, but you can blame Congress for the multitude of anti-religious lawsuits the ACLU is filing.

"I don't recall ANY ACLU lawsuits against religious practices, even Christmas, when I was in school (50's and 60's). But in 1976 Congress passed the Civil Rights Attorny Fees Awards Act, ostensibly to aid the poor people whose civil rights were violated but who could not afford to pay attorneys."

So ... based on your own terrible memory ....

I graduated high school in 1960, and wrote a paper on ACLU and others against religious activities in the fall of that year.

You REALLY never heard of the Scopes Trial ... way back in ... uhhhh ... 1925??

Perhaps you attended public schools? :-)





Mike_hihn . . .
you want me to ignore the "conservative know-nothings"?

I realize that government employees can't lead school prayers. Mike, I can even cite the O'Hare case, if you want me to do so, unless you think I'm one of the "screeching" "know-nothing" conservatives.

My point was that I, personally, don't care who prays in school. Period.

You, however, take my post literally, throw in an ad hominem fallacy or two, and pat yourself on the back for a job well done.

Report back to moveon.org, Mike, that it's "mission accomplished", you've destroyed another conservative. You're merely another ignorant phoney who gets a thrill posting liberal BS on conservative boards.

JohnGalt -- the fake one.
JohnGalt writes: Monday, September, 11, 2006 1:56 PM
Mike Hihn
"What statement have I ever made on Townhall that is a disgrace to my namesake? You either have no understanding of that namesake or have confused me with someone else."

Wrong on both counts -- thus a false choice.

Ummm, I attended Nathaniel Branden Institute lectures on Objectivism in the early 1960s, own everything Rand ever wrote, including both Objectivist Newsletters, and an autographed and numbered first edition of For The New Intellectual.

Here it is

JohnGalt writes: Monday, September, 11, 2006 12:02 PM
"Imagine if I were allowed to post on liberal sites (which I am not...they are not really big proponents of free speech) and I wrote the following:"

1) The REAL John Galt knows that "free speech" can only be violated by government.

2) The REAL John Galt would defend the right of web site owners to do whatever they chose to do with their own private property (except initiate force).

Finally ... tell us WHICH liberal sites don't allow you to post. The REAL John Galt would not traffic in knee-jerk partisanship.

I also know what a second-hander is.


David Mcuseless
DavidMac writes: Monday, September, 11, 2006 10:00 AM
"Even though I'm not a Christian, I think there should be prayers allowed in school."

Errrr ... they are. You need to stop listening to conservative know-nothings, who do a lot of ignorant screeching on this issues.

The only prohibition is to teacher-led prayer, as a function of government. Kids can pray whenever they want to, and religious student groups (like Hi-Y) can meet on school grounds (equal to non-religious groups).

Why on earth would you want government officials leading prayers anyhow????


Mountain Rose ...

Mountain Rose writes: Monday, September, 11, 2006 9:01 AM

"The ACLU should be ashamed of themselves, and the guardians of our society should be equally ashamed that they have caved into pressures from these bullies."

Yeah ... individual liberty is a b**ch.

Jay - another hypothetical
On Louis Farakahn's "Day of Atonement", does OJ take the day off from looking for the real killers?

Michael and Jay
As to your discussion about religious clubs in the public schools, they are legal. As long s the school district allows for any type of clubs and someone is willing to sponsor it, a religious club may be formed. The district cannot, however, dictate which religions may be represented and which may not. Therefore, most do not allow religious clubs, probably fearing that the Bible club meeting in one room would be disturbed by the Satanists' chanting or Santerians' (SP?) sacrifices from down the hall.

By the way, JohnGalt, you've written nothing that detracts from your illustrious name.

Jay and ProfGene
Please do not be offended in any way because I am addressing the 2 of you together. I mean nothing by it just want to get some different opinions.

What do we do about the Liberty Bell? It is on public display in Philly. It does have the word God on it.

What about the crosses at Arlington? It is govt. property.

What about our national motto engraved on all our money?

ProfGene said it all
This is a case of the majority religion stepping on people's toes. Did anyone ask if the kids were Jewish? Did anyone care?

Freedom of religion is for everyone, even atheists, which in their case is freedom _from_ religion, but we all need tolerance.

Thanks for the view from the other side, Gene. Glad you shared.

Rhetorical question and brain fahrt: Is an atheist who takes Christmas off a hypocrite?

What it used to be like
I went to grade school in Philadelphia PA between 1942 and 1945, we had the Lord's prayer every day in assembly and sang yes Jesus Loves me. In our study room every day the teacher read from the New Testament, never the old testament. The problem is I was Jewish and felt a great sense of injustice. I knew nothing about the laws or the separation of Church and State, I just knew that in the public school I was attending which was in a Jewish neighborhood was forcing us into a Christian Sunday school setting every day and I have never forgotten it and it leaves a bad taste in my mouth to this day. I have nothing against Christians practicing their religion but to force it upon a class half full of Jewish student was not right will never be right and it sickens me to hear people wanting to bring it back. Now Islam does not distinguish between the church and the state and they are intolerant of other religons and would like to force theirs upon us. They would not hesitate to kill anyone who does not convert and they will not stop their jihad until we submit to Sharia law. But in order to keep our freedom of religon for all people's not just Christians and for people of all faiths and those who choose not to believe. The Christians are in the majority but our constitutiton was setup to also protect the minorities and as a child I was not protected from having Christiantiy forced upon me at the same time that some Christians were calling my and my little brother dirty Jews.

The Deciple....Have no fear.........
THANKS SO MUCH FOR YOUR INPUT..I FELT THE SOOTHING BALM OF GILLEAD THE MOMENT I STARTING READING YOUR COMMENTS..GOD IS GOOD.

ACLU
50 years ago the ACLU was defending Nazi organizations in the U.S. and was open and proud about such actions, until it adversely affected their membership and finances.

Based on their actions, it makes me wonder if their name isn't actually the Anti-Christian Leadership Union.

Clyde9

To Michael, on clubs
"Okay, but where do you draw the line? When I was in high school in the late 1960's (Oh, have I dated myself now!), there was a Christian club - "

Yeah, that's a tough one. My personal feeling is that as long as ANY religion (as well as atehists) is free to associate on school grounds after school, then you can't claim favoritism, and by extension, establishment. The courts disagree.

"Another issue here is at graduation ceremonies: at some schools,..."

There was that case where some girl started giving the school-approved valedictory speech, but then veered into the parts they had excised and started issuing what amounted to an altar call. The school cut her mike. That's an inappropriate forum for that. She sued on free speech, the school countered countered on same grounds, saying she deviated from the approved "script" and peoples' freedom to not have to hear it. I think the precedent was that as long the speech did not proselytize, it was OK. She did, it wasn't. I think it's still in litigation.

"We can go on from here - there's the Ten Commandments monument that was in a courthouse in Alabama,..."

So leave out the ones with "God" in them. Who could argue with those? Good rules.

"...the word "Christmas" on a govt-issued calendar informing citizens when govt offices will be closed, the word "Christmas" and Christmas decorations on public school bulletin boards, etc."

It's a holiday. Shall we deny its existence? Shall we try to claim that letting people know of its existence is "establishment"? Totally absurd. Doubtless some atheist nutball will try. If someone prints Eid-al-fitr on a calendar, am I being proselytized? Of course not.

movwater
True, from the perspective of the ordinary citizens, and particularly from the perspective of religious leaders (Catholic and Orthodox priests, Protestant ministers, and especially Jewish rabbis), there was very little to distinguish life in Nazi Germany from life in the USSR. However, some of the details are inevitably different, because Hitler and Stalin didn't consult with each other. In fact, they hated each other's guts - possibly only because each wanted to be the Supreme One In Command Of The Entire World.

I don't have any of these details in front of me, but I am confident that they had some different ideas as to the best way to conquer the world.

No, you sillies; follow the money
The ACLU may or may not want to destroy America, but you can blame Congress for the multitude of anti-religious lawsuits the ACLU is filing.

I don't recall ANY ACLU lawsuits against religious practices, even Christmas, when I was in school (50's and 60's). But in 1976 Congress passed the Civil Rights Attorny Fees Awards Act, ostensibly to aid the poor people whose civil rights were violated but who could not afford to pay attorneys. Under the Act, the winning party in any civil rights (most especially, Establishment Clause) case recovers attorney fees.

WOW, OPEN THE FLOODGATES!!! Crosses that have stood for a century MUST COME DOWN. God MUST NOT be mentioned in public. And with the huge fees the ACLU collects when the anti-religious liberal judges vote in their favor, the ACLU is suddenly a very rich group. If someone else beats them in bringing a case, they can bring an additional case under the same facts and (unless someone can show for positive their case is redundant) collect. It's almost a can't-lose situation for the ACLU, and, yes, we taxpayers pay the bill.

I'm an agnostic so why should I care? Just because seeing a cross brings me a feeling of peace? Just because I'm glad there are people who are comforted by their religion? Just because I hate having my tax money spent on a lazy bunch of lawyers who have found an easy way to make lots of $$? All of the above, maybe, and more.

I'm sure the ACLU has their place, does good on occasion. Too bad all their good is overshadowed and outweighed by their outrageous attacks on Christianity in all ridiculous ways.

Does anyone know of any case where they've boldly attacked...Islam? Now THAT would be interesting. (Beheaded ACLU lawyer, anyone?)


ACLU = communism...
ACLU is nothing other than a communist organization seeking to destroy our constitutional republic for a communist society.

The NEA has aided them by using our public educational system to promote communist principals (claiming "academic freedom") while oppressing any pro-constitutional freedom of speach.

Time to take back our educational & court system from the communists.

Mike Hihn
What statement have I ever made on Townhall that is a disgrace to my namesake? You either have no understanding of that namesake or have confused me with someone else.

Jay_in_Milwaukee
"My personal view on prayer in public schools: As long as it is individual, not led by a teacher, not coerced, and particularly, not disruptive of class or any passageway (group of students block a hallway for instance), and is on the students' own time (lunch or recess, for instance), and is reasonably unobtrusive (no screaming prayers at the top of your lungs), then I have no problem with it. As long as these are done, then any persecution is the problem of he persecutors, not those who pray."

Okay, but where do you draw the line? When I was in high school in the late 1960's (Oh, have I dated myself now!), there was a Christian club - I don't recall the exact name, but it was very explicitly Christian. Like every other club, subject to school rules, it had to be supervised (or some word like that) by a teacher; Mr. Smith - who taught English, as I recall - was our supervisor. For the most part, he let us run it ourselves; we met after school, not on schooltime, we had Bible studies and prayer meetings. Attendance was entirely optional, and the club wasn't even advertised on flyers tacked up on bulletin boards. I found out about it by word of mouth, from another student. A few years ago, I heard that the ACLU was making a fuss over something like this in some school district. I don't recall now where, nor even which state, nor do I recall hearing how it turned out. But how would you feel about something like this?

Another issue here is at graduation ceremonies: at some schools, the students vote, and choose - by something like 80-90% - to have someone say a prayer as part of the ceremonies, generally near the beginning. The prayer is to be written ahead of time, and approved by the principal or someone he appoints - to avoid anything too strongly Baptist, Catholic, Methodist, etc. The ACLU finds out, latches onto one of the 10-20% who happens to be Wiccan, or atheist, or pagan, or Muslim, or Hindu, or Buddhist, and files a lawsuit. Is this or is this not an example of the majority likes it, and the rest have to live with it? - recognizing that nothing like this will ever be perfectly to the liking of everyone, unless it's happening in a monastery.

We can go on from here - there's the Ten Commandments monument that was in a courthouse in Alabama, the word "Christmas" on a govt-issued calendar informing citizens when govt offices will be closed, the word "Christmas" and Christmas decorations on public school bulletin boards, etc.

The lead wingnut in KS
"Sorry to tell you but Fred Phelps (the lead wing nut in Kansas) is a dyed in the wool DEMOCRAT."

Well, he certainly doesn't represent MY views either.

Not where I've been
"Yes Satanists get to post pictures of Satan! And Muslims get to post pictures of Mohammad (although I believe it is against their faith to make pictures of him) if they wish. Jews get to have public Menorahs, and put Mezuzas on their door posts. Pagans get to have symbols of the Goddess everywhere!"

Well, _I_ haven't seen it.

Have no fear.
We are indeed in turbulent times. but we must remember, the true church that Jesus Christ planted 2000 yrs ago Was watered by the blood of the Saints. The Church always grows stongest in troubled times. It's times like these that separate the tares from the wheat.

I believe the ACLU is influanced by satanic forces. We've all noticed that Christianity is the only faith they are attacking. That 's because Jesus Christ is the only true God. and Satan trembles.

Have no fear of these things. Jesus said he will be with us even unto the end of the age. and we all Know how it ends. we've only to read the end of the book.

We must pray for these people. as they don't know what they are doing. It's not Gods will that any be lost. I don't wish the lake of fire on anyone. ( but we must also keep our powder dry and protect our nation). Lets pray that their eyes be open to the truth..amen

Have no fear.
We are indeed in turbulent times. but we must remember, the true church that Jesus Christ planted 2000 yrs ago Was watered by the blood of the Saints. The Church always grows stongest in troubled times. It's times like these that separate the tares from the wheat.

I believe the ACLU is influanced by satanic forces. We've all noticed that Christianity is the only faith they are attacking. That 's because Jesus Christ is the only true God. and Satan trembles.

Have no fear of these things. Jesus said he will be with us even unto the end of the age. and we all Know how it ends. we've only to read the end of the book.

We must pray for these people. as they don't know what they are doing. It's not Gods will that any be lost. I don't wish the lake of fire on anyone. ( but we must also keep our powder dry and protect our nation). Lets pray that their eyes be open to the truth..amen

that blasted aclu
I read about them, see them in the media, bullying, antagonizing, throwing around meaningless rhetoric framed in legal mumbo-jumbo, twisting meaning, gods of spin. I'm tired of reading about them, seeing them, their endless proselytizing about the seperation of church and state. I'm tired of them and their destruction. They have hate and death on the tongue and in that endless yawn of a black hole that couldn't even be called a soul. What do we do about it? How do we end them? How do we get rid of them? Can we get them legally defined as roaches and have Terminix deal with them? Ach!!!

sedonaman
I like that solution of yours!

Just imagine ten, forty, a hundred years from now: somebody asks, "Why is this empty frame hanging here?" (can you imagine that nobody would ask? Wouldn't it seem odd to have an empty frame hanging on the wall?)

Somebody in charge, or a historian, etc, just tells the truth, that the ACLU made a fuss because a picture of Jesus was hanging there. Someone's bound to ask, why would the ACLU make such a fuss over that? And the answers start coming.....

Michael:
My personal view on prayer in public schools: As long as it is individual, not led by a teacher, not coerced, and particularly, not disruptive of class or any passageway (group of students block a hallway for instance), and is on the students' own time (lunch or recess, for instance), and is reasonably unobtrusive (no screaming prayers at the top of your lungs), then I have no problem with it. As long as these are done, then any persecution is the problem of he persecutors, not those who pray.

Is that reasonable?

I think the ACLU has gone way overboard on this one. Eventually in life, something anyone does in public is going to offend someone else. Fine. Be an adult, get over it. You have a right to not like it, he has a right to do it.

Wrong again
Jay_in_Milwaukee writes: Uhhh, in Kansas?
"The only conservative Christians who get publicity are the obnoxious ones that the Leftie Libsters in the media can use to embarass us."

Like those nutballs from Kansas who picket soldiers' funerals (I'm highly offended!


Sorry to tell you but Fred Phelps (the lead wing nut in Kansas) is a dyed in the wool DEMOCRAT. He ran as a democrat for governor (had a "respectable" showing in the democrat primary) and was heavily involved in fund raising for Al Gore's presidential run in 1992.

JohnGalt (again)
"Shays is obviously a liberal trying to parody how he/she thinks Christians actually think."

OK, I missed that. I took seriously what was poked at me for fun. Sorry. It's a rather somber day and humor's in short supply this AM.

Nazism v. Socialism
"...This was the socialism instituted by the Nazis. And Mises calls it socialism on the German or Nazi pattern, in contrast to the more obvious socialism of the Soviets, which he calls socialism on the Russian or Bolshevik pattern."

Ummm, OK. I'll give you that.

Do we then have Fascism on the Islamist model?

Hmmmmm
I can still recall when REAL conservatives knew that this was intended as a republic, not a democracy.

And JohnGalt is an insult to his namesake.



Separation of Church and State
Let us remember that this phrase is found neither in the Constitution nor in any of its amendments. It was in a letter from Thomas Jefferson to a group of Baptists who had expressed concern that some particular dnomination of Christianity would be chosen as the State religion, similar to the Anglican church in England, and Roman Catholicism in most - if not all - of the rest of Western Europe (at that time).

The first amendment simply says that Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion, nor of the practice thereof. The SCOTUS has interpreted that to include state legislatures as if they were part of Congress, so they can't make any such law, either. So far, so good, IMO. But under the decisions in various lawsuits brought the ACLU, the SCOTUS and some lower courts have, effectiveely, made such laws - students can't pray in public schools, etc.

Even one single child is not allowed to "say grace" at lunchtime - not imposing his/her beliefs on anyone else, no one except those sitting nearby would even know that the student had said "Thank You, God, for my food" (or words to that effect) - no microphone to make those religious words heard by everyone else; the words of the prayer not written on any blackboard; ahhh, but a teacher notices the student bowing their head and their lips moving, and all ACLU breaks loose, it becomes a Federal case, and anyone after that had better learn to "say grace" without bowing their head and without moving their lips.

NAZI ism a Dichotomy
The Nazis of Germany were clearly a fascist dictatorship but they were vehemently anti-communist. Their power rested in their Nationalism--Communism was rooted in the USSR and was viewed as a worldwide movement with no National Allegiance. In the German mind Jews and Communist were interchangeable. Attempted Communist coups,led by Jews, were attempted in Munich and Berlin in the early 1920s. Both failed but the attempts and the success in Russia gave credibility to Hitler every time he took the podium to speak.

Uhhh, in Kansas?
"The only conservative Christians who get publicity are the obnoxious ones that the Leftie Libsters in the media can use to embarass us."

Like those nutballs from Kansas who picket soldiers' funerals (I'm highly offended! They defend our country and do a heck of a job.) and file lawsuits to support themselves. THEY are an embarassment. Thankfully they don't represent the bulk of the Religious Right wing.

Jay In Milwaukee
Shays is obviously a liberal trying to parody how he/she thinks Christians actually think. Imagine if I were allowed to post on liberal sites (which I am not...they are not really big proponents of free speech) and I wrote the following:

We liberals need to push our government to immediately surrender in Iraq and Afghanistan. But that won't be enough to get the terrorists to leave us alone, so we should also adopt Sharia law and begin stoning gays and adulterers and forcing our women to wear burkas.

Would you accept a conservative posting a quote from this parody as proof that liberals want to appease terrorists?

Wrong
Jay_in_Milwaukee writes: Monday, September, 11, 2006 11:32 AM
Off base
"Of course the ACLU would defend the NAZIs! They are cut out of the same cloth! NAZI stands for National Socialists! Sounds like Lefties to me!"

Shirer states in Rise and Fall of the 3rd Reich, the Nazis were neither National (at first) or Socialist. They were anti-union, pro-business-owner. Names don't always tell it all.




How wrong can you can be?

What specifically established de facto socialism in Nazi Germany was the introduction of price and wage controls in 1936. These were imposed in response to the inflation of the money supply carried out by the regime from the time of its coming to power in early 1933. The effect of the combination of inflation and price and wage controls is shortages. Shortages resulted in the Nazi imposing rationing. The combination of price controls and rationing constitutes the de facto socialization of the economic system. For it means that the government then exercises all of the substantive powers of ownership. This was the socialism instituted by the Nazis. And Mises calls it socialism on the German or Nazi pattern, in contrast to the more obvious socialism of the Soviets, which he calls socialism on the Russian or Bolshevik pattern.

Ludwig von Mises

ACLU
I am so tired of hearing about the ACLU - they are not for America or what America is about. They are liberals at their worst. I feel that the ACLU should be disbanded they are only for themselves.

hippies
Has anyone given a thought to the fact that our judges, lawyers and many in the gov't are the now adult leftist hippies of the 60's? They hated America then, and are now in a position to do it harm.

definitions
Capitalism: a system that ensures the unequal distribution of wealth.

Socialism: a system that ensures the equal distribution of poverty. Who determines what everyone's share of poverty is? Why, your kind, ever-loving Federal government, of course.

Recognizing that some people living in a socialist society don't want to accept their fair share of poverty,
Communism is Socialism with government agents holding guns at your head.

What the acronym really stands for...
ACLU = Anti-American Communist Lawyers' Union. It was actually cobbled together from the rubble of the old Communist Party USA (CPUSA) and, of course, the Jewish, or "progressive" Left. It should be declared a subversive organization.

the heart of darkness
The ACLU is attempting to destroy historic America through liberal courts. They do not just support the darkness, they are at the very heart of the darkness.

Shoe on the other foot
"What an idiotic idea to remove the historic symbols of our faith simply to appease minorities who "may be offended." "

Do religious minorities get to post symbols of their faith? Does a Satanist get to put up a picture of the Father of Lies? Tolerance is for everyone or no one. You can't pick and choose. Which shall it be?

Agree and disagree
"That said--I hasten to say our Christian heritage is and always will be the backbone of our morality--if that means we must destroy all moves toward secularism and atheism , so be it."

I'll agree with the first but dispute the 2nd.

ACLU
USroadrunner and Flagwaver,

Re my post this morning as to the ACLU being irrelevant.My apologies for posting something so absurd.After I posted,I asked myself why I did something so stupid.

Any chance I can change that to irreverent?

again,my apologies....

Commodore Barrett
You said, "What the ACLUless want is for a strict interpretation of the Constitution when it comes to the First Amendment, but a loose interpretation in other areas thereof."

Actually, no, they simply want to be in control of these issues from this time forward and forever. They don't like Christianity - as another poster said, it's the glue that holds our society together. They don't like Judaism because it promotes too many of the same ideals (fidelity to one's spouse, no divorce, etc). So they don't like THOSE religions.

On the other hand, they like other religions, if only to replace Christianity and Judaism. They want to be in control so that they CAN "have it both ways", as another poster said. ("The group is demanding a Virginia Wiccan’s right to offer public prayers, even as it sues to stop a Virginia Christian from doing the same thing.") If they're in control, then they can be inconsistent like this, and control the media so that no one knows, and no one protests.

Off base
"Of course the ACLU would defend the NAZIs! They are cut out of the same cloth! NAZI stands for National Socialists! Sounds like Lefties to me!"

Shirer states in Rise and Fall of the 3rd Reich, the Nazis were neither National (at first) or Socialist. They were anti-union, pro-business-owner. Names don't always tell it all.

John Galt
"Sorry, but you missed the point. The quote from Shays that you used to "prove" your point was a weak attempt at parody by a liberal troll."

I simply used his own words. He's the one who mentioned weapons. What am I to make of that? What use are weapons without a jihad? What would be the point? He stated more or less, take off the gloves and thump them (meaning me). How is this missing the point? Seemed pretty direct to me.

No liberal troll here. Simply putting forth an alternate viewpoint to try to get you to consider the other side, and possibly to think outside the box. If someone can be hoist on his petard (me included), so much the better.

I was using "crusade" in the sense that a Muslim would interpret it (war of the cross), not in its Western historical context or colloquial sense.

Communism--ACLU
I am adamantly opposed to the Bible being used as a basis for National Policy. Our over whelming support for Israel, I am confident, is based on our Christianity and the Covenant in the Old Testament. Too bad-- as a nation we should not use any religious document to form or sustain our National interest. That said--I hasten to say our Christian heritage is and always will be the backbone of our morality--if that means we must destroy all moves toward secularism and atheism , so be it. The ACLU is a Communist organization controlled in large measure by Communist Jews. Anti-Semitic? Probably but truth is truth. Since the early thirties of the last century, thousands of Jews from Germany and Russia have immigrated to this country bringing their Communist doctrine and dogma with them. Their children and grandchildren have been basted to the bone with Marx philosophy and secularism. We talk about our Judeo-christian heritage. Where and when did the Judeo part of that come into being? Does the Constitution mention our Judeo heritage? Jews embrace their religion in public but deny it in action. Read the biography of almost any Jew member of the Senate or the Congress and find out his religious preference. Generally, you cannot. Look at the list of the Progressive Caucus and note how many Jews are not listed but they support Socialism in action and Party affiliation. Christianity is under attack by Communist and the Communist ACLU but don't overlook the active participation of the Jews in high places. To be a closet Communist is still to be a Communist and to be a Communist is not congruent with our form of government.

Mtn Rose (and Steve)
"If Leftie "religious" folks don't have faith, what are they doing taking over the church? Why don't they join a socialist social club instead?

The truth is that they are joining the churches and insinuating themselves into places of leadership for the express purpose of DESTROYING the faith of the Faithful."

I stand corrected on the misattribution (sorry, Steve)

Has anyone considered that there might be a Religious Left? It is out there and starting to make its presence felt.

Mtn Rose:
"The ACLU should support our right to speak as much as they defend their Leftie Libster friends!"

That and the previous paragraph: excellent riposte. I agree. They should.

Jay In Milwaukee
Sorry, but you missed the point. The quote from Shays that you used to "prove" your point was a weak attempt at parody by a liberal troll. Granted, it is always heartening to see a glimmer of humor from the angry, serious left, but you can hardly use it as an indictment agains Christians. No Christian I know of would ever countenance such drivel.

I also suggest you do a little research on the Crusades; they were a little more complicated than the simple story of "Evil Christians try to convert innocent Muslims" that the Left has created to bash Christians with. To a large extent, they were an attempt to wrest back lands that had been violently seized by Muslims. There was also a good deal of good ol' fashion avarice involved.

Short sighted
I’ve seen a lot of unreasoning hatred expressed on this website, but nothing quite like this. Clearly the ACLU is a touchstone for the radical right. Many of the posters to this thread take it upon themselves to rewrite the organization’s name in various ways either to belittle it or to misrepresent its purpose. Besides demonstrating that extremists have a lousy sense of humor, these witless japes illustrate how blinded radical right is by its ideology. Of the many organizations active in American public life, the ACLU has stayed truest to its founding principle, which is to protect the Bill of Rights and insure that this part of our Constitution continues to mean exactly what it says. Pursuant to this philosophy the ACLU has defended groups and individuals from across the political spectrum, including many who represent the worst in our society, such as the Ku Klux Klan, the American Nazi Party, and Rush Limbaugh. In doing so they’ve engendered at various times the anger of both left and right. Understandably most of the antipathy toward the ACLU comes from radical conservatives, who traditionally despise civil liberties, a tendency amply illustrated in this thread.

Amid all the ranting and hate speech, I looked in vain for a single honest appraisal of the ACLU’s record of defending free speech (among other civil liberties) regardless of its nature. A typical example can be found at http://www.aclu.org/studentsrights/expression/12845prs20040511.html .
In this case the ACLU defended (and won) the right of high school students to include religious text and expressions in their highschool yearbook. Perhaps one of the ACLU’s critics could take a moment to explain how this case illustrates the ACLU’s unalterable opposition to religion. Similar examples abound, but, like Rush Limbaugh, who studiously avoids confronting the ACLU’s defense of his right to privacy, right wingers find it simplest to avoid facts which contradict their preconceptions.

For my part, I’d be more than happy to see religion vanish from human society. This kind of antiquated superstition is a blight on our species and an intellectual disgrace; and eventually we’ll outgrow it. Sadly I was born too soon to see this happy outcome.

As much as I despise religion, I wouldn’t want to see it actively expunged; but, if I did support this kind of tyranny, one thing is certain. The ACLU would fight me every inch of the way.

Mountain Rose
You said,
"I am not fond of Clinton, but before you are too hard on him for not "getting" that coward, Osama Ben Hidin' (may his name be blotted out of the Book of Life), remember that his hands were tied by the same foolishness that we are still dealing with today."

But Clinton didn't just have his hands tied with that foolishness, he promoted that foolishness. He also put his hands and/or other body parts where they didn't belong, which put him between a rock and a hard place later when our national safety was on the line.

BTW, I seriously doubt that OBL's name ever got anywhere near the Book of Life.

Somewhat off-subject, but I couldn't let that pass.

We Can Talk About it, Some Can't.
Five years ago I lost a friend in the World Trade Center Attack. He is Robert Lawrence. He left a wife and children, no, his wife and children lost a husband and a father.

It is ironic (for want of a better word) that Bob was in the towers. He left a position that he had in New Jersey and started his new position in New York on September 10.

When you personalize what happened that day it brings out tears and anger. Tears for our loss, anger that it has happened and continues to happen around the world. Some politize the President's actions. Some "Hate Bush". Some just don't get it or ignore it for their own political gain.

Bob, I will not forget.

Whose prayer??
Whenever people start arguing for prayer in the schools, I always ask whose prayer? If you are in a predominently Muslim neighborhood does that mean that six times a day you must drop to the floor and pray to the East? In the 50's some of my teachers would try to have a religous lession in addition to regular school stuff. Despite the fact that we went to church regularly this made me feel very uncomfortable as their beliefs were very much different than mine, despite the fact that we were all Christian. I can only wonder how Jews and others felt. I seem to recall Jesus being asked how to pray. He responded that it was essentially a private affair. So I feel that prayer does not have a place in education unless you want to do it individually. I suspect much of the prayer issue in evangelicals trying to do their thing.

Unfortunately we need the ACLU. Our government is out of control. They have entered into every fabric of our lives and continue to try to do more. If they would leave us alone, then maybe the ACLU would die.

As to the earlier arguments for swift justice, I am all for that but consider that some of the people excuted for the Lincoln crime were innocent (such as the woman that ran the boarding house) and though Dr. Mudd was only sent to prison, his crime was setting Booth's leg. Our police are out of control as well and would you really trust one of them with your life (just look at the cops in NO)??

Sedonaman:
re your last post: Brilliant!

SteveHerbert
said, "These people deny the scriptures are from God, hate the Apostle Paul, claim the Crucifixion and Resurrection are myths that represent the cycle of life, and ultimately doubt the existance of God."

I won't deny the possibility that they are from God. I'll just state there is no empirical proof that they are. That's why it's called FAITH.

A solution
Leave the empty frame there. Every time someone sees the empty frame, he will think of the picture, something he probably wouldn't have given a second's worth of consideration before.

Even after most will have forgotten the picture, students will ask about the empty frame and be told there was a picture of Jesus there.

ACLU can't complain about an empty frame.

To Keys and others
One of the aspects of Robert Sherman's case against the City of Zion was he demanded the city change the names of all biblically-named streets. The then-mayor (Greek Orthodox) told him in no uncertain terms to go jump. He lost that part of the case. I think based on Sherman v Zion, city names are in no danger, so that slippery slope is invalid. There is precedent in (y)our favor.

Did I miss the point?
"That's what has always bothered me the most- WE PAY to have them tell us what we ARE ALLOWED TO DO."

You're right. We need to start at City Hall, then the County Building, the State Assembly and end up in DC.

Here you go.
"You betcha. I think it is time for us Christians to take off our Mr. Nice masks, and thump anyone we don't like. We are armed (and most of them aren't ... hee hee), so in the name of our Saviour, let's show them we won't stand for their leftist, commie, pro fascist judicial trickery telling us how we should live our lives -- public or private -- any more!"

Christian Jihad. I rest my case. No better than Muslim extremists. Crusade is just jihad by another name.

ACLU strict? Not!
"What the ACLUless want is for a strict interpretation of the Constitution when it comes to the First Amendment, but a loose interpretation in other areas thereof."

I'd like to see a strict interpretation of the establishment clause. No official religion. All the rest is trying to accomodate religion or lack of. It's a fine balance and certainly not achievable in a way that pleases everyone. That's impossible.

John Galt
I think it would help if all high school kids were required to read Atlas Shrugged and give a comprehensive report, not just on the book, but on what they have learned from the book. The people who support the ACLU are lefties who agree that "share the wealth equally" is a wonderful idea. They believe the lawyers are working for the greater good. My lefty sister told me the ACLU would be there for me (an arch Conservative) should anyone try to tromp on my rights. The rank and file of people who support them have NO IDEA what they are doing.

Where do I sign up?
"The ACLU is antiAmerican period. God and patriotism just happens to be more apparent in the Republican party."

Good. With which political party should the Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Taoists, Shintos, Zoroastrians, Buddhists, and others sign up? The GOP as a Christian club seems a bit exclusive.

Devout Christians seem to suffer from a certain myopic belief that they are the only religion in the country. No longer.

Remove the ACLU
"By any means necessary"

So you're advocating assassination and murder?

ACLU considers Christians the terrorists
Hmm. The ACLU and their allies in the judiciary and elsewhere in our culture have much to do. Many place names will have to go. The San Andreas Fault? Should that be the ACLU Fault? Mt. St. Helens? The Santa Ana Wind? The St. Lawrence Seaway? Have to go.

And how about Ascension, Assumption, Corpus Christi, Los Angeles, San Antonio, San Bernardino, San Clemente, San Francisco, San Juan, San Leandro, San Luis Obispo, San Mateo, San Miguel, Santa Barbara, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Santa Fe, Santa Rosa, St. Albans, St. Andrews, St. Ann, St. Anne, St. Augustine, St. Charles, St. Clair, St. David, St. Francis, St. François, Ste. Geneviève, oops, now St. Francois and Ste. Genevieve, St. Ignace, St. Ignatius, St. John, St. John the Baptist, St. Johns, St. Johnsbury, St. Joseph, St. Helens, St. Louis, St. Lucia, St. Marys, St. Michaels, St. Petesburg, St. Regis, St. Thomas, and a large number of other place names that logically have to go if the ACLU view prevails?

The larger the government, the firmer secularism's grip on our society. That too is logical, but the logic escapes too many people, unfortunately.

Comments on the editorial
"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."

Well, public life is for everyone, not just Christians. It's not the only religion in town any more.

"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"

Which "community"? The city's residents? Across religions? If it enjoys broad-based support across many religions, then LEAVE IT ALONE. That's democracy. I stood behind the city in Robert Sherman(?) v. City of Zion (IL). The city eventually lost (had a cross on the city seal; Sherman claimed establishment).

"The group is demanding a Virginia Wiccan’s right to offer public prayers, even as it sues to stop a Virginia Christian from doing the same thing."

Sure, it's a contradiction, but it has to fall one way or the other; everybody prays or no one does. If the ACLU wins both these cases then something's screwed up. It has to be one or the other, not both. They're playing both sides to force a coherent decision.

Now, on to read the comments...

Wrong
Joe T writes: But their power was handed to them by at least two things: 1) an ever expanding federal government (FG). When originally designed, the FG did not intrude into much of a man's daily life. Now it has infiltrated nearly evey aspect of our lives. For example, the FG did not originally fund schools, therefore, it had no authoity over them.

THEREFORE, THE PEOPLE WHO PAID FOR THE SCHOOLS DECIDED HOW THEY WOULD BE RUN


Totally inaccurate.

The COURTS have ruled that the constitution applies to ALL government levels of the US, and is in no way limited to the federal level. Schools have long been subject to Supreme Court rulings. Segregated schools where a result of the "Separate but Equal" ruling of Plessy -vs- Ferguson in 1896, until its reversal in Brown -vs- Topeka Board of Education in 1954. Both of these cases were decided decades before federal funding was an issue. If the Fourteenth Amendment applies, so does the First Amendment. Although I totally agree that the courts interpretation of the 1st Amendment totally perverts its true meaning.

Segregation of Church and State
I think this would be a better term to employ when opposing the ACLU and others. It carries more emotional truth.

Glory Glory (and I'll smack the heck ...
... out of you if you disagree!)

You betcha. I think it is time for us Christians to take off our Mr. Nice masks, and thump anyone we don't like. We are armed (and most of them aren't ... hee hee), so in the name of our Saviour, let's show them we won't stand for their leftist, commie, pro fascist judicial trickery telling us how we should live our lives -- public or private -- any more! And they don't need any trial or "fair hearing" before we bring that terrible swift sword to bear ... they'll just use legal trickery to escape our vengeance if we give them the chance. No ... this artificial protection of justice before the law, individual rights, and freedom of speech only apply to those of us who know what is right and wrong in the first place -- everyone else deserves immediate justice meted out by us who are pure and righteous. Then we will be able to live in peace and happiness.

Sandy......
I agree anyone that supports the ACLU is a fool, yet that makes up almost one half of all Americans. By and large, all Democrats/Liberals/Communists support the ACLU. Then again their foolishness was proven when they voted for Gore and then Kerry.

The Islamo-Fascists have their Al-Qeada and the Libero-Fascists have their ACLU. Both extremes recieve finacial and logistical support from their more moderate, yet completely silent majority base. Both extremes have the same level of tolerance for their opposition. One is the enemy at the gates, the other is the enemy within.

I have yet to figure out how a devout Christian Liberal can support Abortion and the Athiest's Communist Liberal Union's attacks on Chistianity. Is it naivete? Foolishness? Or just plain stupidity?

ACLUseless
Even though I'm not a Christian, I think there should be prayers allowed in school.

The ACLU has been transformed from a US Constitution-defending group into a US Constitution-destroying group.

The neo-socialists managed to take over the ACLU just as they've done to the Democratic Party.

hntr admin says the ACLU is "communist". Not true. Communism is a theoretical economic system which has never existed in practice. The current crop of radical leftists are neo-socialists who base their ideology on Marx/Engels' 19th century socialistic economic theory of strong central government and egalitarianism (out-come based equality).

The ACLU is a tool of the neo-socialists who are trying to overthrow a US government which operates in a free-market capitalist economy. The neo-socialists see the USA as the enemy and Islamofascism as a "useful idiot" which can be bought off when the socialists destroy capitalism and take over.

Quick get the ACLU!
Watch the losers at the ACLU and the DNC get up in arms. They just sang Battle Hymn of the Republic at the Ground Zero ceremony. Glory Glory Hallelujah! His Truth is marching on! Next is God Bless America.

Quick get the ACLU!
Watch the losers at the ACLU and the DNC get up in arms. They just sang Battle Hymn of the Republic at the Ground Zero ceremony. Glory Glory Hallelujah! His Truth is marching on! Next is God Bless America.

Quick get the ACLU!
Watch the losers at the ACLU and the DNC get up in arms. They just sang Battle Hymn of the Republic at the Ground Zero ceremony. Glory Glory Hallelujah! His Truth is marching on! Next is God Bless America.

Quick get the ACLU!
Watch the losers at the ACLU and the DNC get up in arms. They just sang Battle Hymn of the Republic at the Ground Zero ceremony. Glory Glory Hallelujah! His Truth is marching on! Next is God Bless America.

Quick get the ACLU!
Watch the losers at the ACLU and the DNC get up in arms. They just sang Battle Hymn of the Republic at the Ground Zero ceremony. Glory Glory Hallelujah! His Truth is marching on! Next is God Bless America.

ACLU must be screeeeeeming about now....
Anyone watching the memorials taking place at Ground Zero can see the presence of RELIGIOUS beliefs....the psalms, the readings and the outstanding music, both patriotic and religious...this must have the ACLU's panties in knot. They may keep whinning but they will never win...as long as good patriotic and God fearing AMERICAN citizens are in charge. Stay strong and never, ever forget or forgive this atrocity...
Breaking News..airline diverted....prayers that they are not still brazen enough to do this again.
VOTE REPUBLICAN in the next election...never another Dem in office...NEVER!!!

Commodore
I must disagree with your assessment that the ACLU favors a strict interpretation of the First Amendment. As it pertains to religion, the 1st Amendment says, in effect:

- Americans are free to practice the religion of their choice and to express their faith publicly

- Congress will not create an official state religion, i.e. a "Church of the United States"

The Constitution says nothing about separating church and state.

The ACLU is quick to deny Christians their right to express their faith in the public square, and has in effect established Atheism or Secular Humanism as the de facto Church of the US. If you can demonstrate to me how expelling a little girl from school for bringing a Bible has anything to do with Congress establishing a national Church, then I'll come around to your opinion that they are strong defenders of the 1st Amendment.

ROFLMAO
"As a nation, we need to be focused on preventing another attack, not fictionalizing the last one for television ratings," quoted from that last letter from Bubba to the ABC networks. I rethought it and here is what it should have said.."As a President, I should have been focused on preventing attacks from Muslim terrorists, not getting sex from a White House intern."
I know this is off the subject..but I could not resist. Sorry.

ACLU is a DONE organization....anyone who pays dues to belong are fools...but then again, it would take a fool to join them in the first place.

THE COMMUNIST
Are alive and kicking in our country masquerading as the ACLU. Goshawk and Maverick opinions are right on, and in the best interest of this country, this anti American organization needs to be either dismantled or relocated to another part of the world. WELL, NOW do you have a link to provide us with regarding the house bill that aims at stopping tax payer funding of the ACLU? If this is true, and there is such a bill, it needs to be plastered all over the Internet and through as many avenues of the media as possible so the American voter can apply as much pressure as possible to assure the bill is passed. Visit http://www.headsneedtoroll.org and post your views and opinions.
Heads Need To Roll

Dissolve the ACLU
Imprison them too. Everyone sees the picking and choosing of lawsuits. I guess they think we don't notice. If it is anti-Christian they will pursue it like good little Lenin-ites but if it is a liberal person or organization that is infringing rights as they always do they ignore that. Adios ACLU, good night and good riddance.

excuse me, but....
THe ACLU worries about the Christian belief all the while not giving thought to the Muslim Radicals who will saw your head off if you do not declare Allah as your true deity. If the Muslim world gets it way, where does the ACLU stand with that thought...??
Hold on here, folks..I am watching the VP along with his wife and !!Margaret Thatcher!!...what a moment to see a true leader..Mrs Thatcher has the soul of a patriotic American....God Bless Her and our President and Vice President!

So as I understand this...
I have to have that part of me that is religious surgically removed before I can even consider entering the "public sector?" What part of me is Christian? Catholic? What do I remove to meet the ACLU's expressed and implicit desire to remove MY religious beliefs, MY values, MY moral compass? So that I may become as amoral, and with the exact same non-values that they have?

I once heard a very stirring line of speech in support of the ACLU in a movie once (The American President) too bad that the ACLU of that movie has NO ROOTS or commonality with the organization that wishes to “destroy” our common culture by the “death of a thousand cuts.”

No thanks, I love my faith, I love G-d, I shall pray for you.

Leftovers From the Cold War
What we are seeing in the ACLU, Hollywood, the Universities, and the Media are Marxist leftovers planted during the cold war to undermine us as a society. Most of these ideas originated from Marcuse. Unfortunately, these Solviet sponsored termites have managed to acheive critical mass and have become self sustaining. Check out "Intellectual Morons: How Ideology Makes Smart People Fall for Stupid Ideas" by Daniel J. Flynn, for a very good in depth treatise on this. The Marcuse chapter lays it out pretty clearly.

Read an article about a (House bill?)
That would STOP taxpayer funding of the AntiChristianLawyersUnion. THAT would clip their wings quite a bit. And would allow cities and counties to stand up to them.

That's what has always bothered me the most- WE PAY to have them tell us what we ARE ALLOWED TO DO.

And think about this.........
When the ACLU prosecutes a case, we the taxpayers, pay their attorney fees! So we end up paying for the destruction of our culture and our way of life. Nice!

They Want Separation
They don't want just separation of Church and State; what they want is the separation of the Church.

Too Much Government
The ACLU has been a thorn in the side of the U.S. for many years. But heir power was handed to them by at least two things: 1) an ever expanding federal government (FG). When originally designed, the FG did not intrude into much of a man's daily life. Now it has infiltrated nearly evey aspect of our lives. For example, the FG did not originally fund schools, therefore, it had no authoity over them. It was no breach of the 1st Amendment for a school to promote the Christian religion, for congress had no connection to the school system. In fact, early schools were funded locally, so not even state govt's had any jurisdiction over them - THEREFORE, THE PEOPLE WHO PAID FOR THE SCHOOLS DECIDED HOW THEY WOULD BE RUN - (what a novel idea). But the case is different now. By accepting the "gift" of federal dollars, the public school system has come under the jurisdiction of the FG and must abide by its decisions. One wonders how long it will be before we see our right to freedom of religion curtailed in public because the local sidewalk was paid for with fedral grant money! 2) the equal protection clause of the 14th(?) ammendment which (as I understand it)has been interpreted to make the Federal Constitution the de facto constitution of each state. Consequently, the ACLU can over-ride the wishes of the citizens of any state by an appeal to the constitution of the FG.

The ACLU has too much power because the FG has too much power. Only when we as a people vote out every politician who approves of and promotes our ever-expanding FG and set in power those who will actually DECREASE the scope and influence of the FG in our daily lives will we see such organizations s the ACLU robbed of its power to meddle in our affairs. And make no mistake: and "R" after a politician's name is no guarantee that he supports a less-intrusive FG.

Las Cruces???
...attacking Las Cruces, NM? Guess they decided to pick on somebody smaller than "CORPUS CHRISTI, TX." The ACLU are tyrants... and all tyrants are cowards.

Eagle
I have to disagree about the influence of the ACLU. While they may be small in number, the influence they exert is enormous! Their ability to wage legal warfare on their opponents is well known, and with the number of left leaning judges hearing their cases, they win a lot more than they lose. In many instances the threat of ACLU lawsuits is enough to make knees weak and resolve crumble, so the ACLU wins many a battle without ever having to fight. They have done a few good things in their existence, but they are dangerous. Don't fool yourself into thinking that they aren't.

IEagle: Irrelevant...?
You need to pull your head from the sand,'Eagle', if you think the ACLU has been in any way irrelevant! They have almost single-handedly turned the 3rd branch of gov't (the judicial branch) into sheer tyranny - gov't by the few instead of of, for and by the people!
By using our own laws against us, and by turning 'precedents' into law themselves, thus robbing Congress of that right protected by the Constitution.

And only Congress can reign in an aberrant judicial system, per Article 3...May they have the moxy/grit/courage to do so! Wake up, Eagle, for you and others so naive may be devoured.

ACLU
I agree with Goshawk,the ACLU is a communist organization.I also believe this organization would be a perfect front for isamofacists to infiltrate.Fortunately,the ACLU,I believe,represents only a small percent of the wacko left and remains largely irrelevant.

Anti-Partisan_Righty
OK, yes - Lincoln's actual assassin, Booth, was shot, it was the other conpirators who were executed, but the point Mountain Rose was trying to make was correct - we have gone so far towards protecting a person's rights that murderers can escape final retribution for as many as 20 years after being sentenced to death on the flimsy excuses espoused by the ACLU, so I'd say Mountain Rose's judgement was just fine, as anyone with common sense would know. And, I think you knew that when you made the post.

ACLU
A-TTACKING C-HRISTIANS L-IVES U-NION

An Higher Law
The Commodore & his Lady unto Townhall: greetings in the Name of Jesus on this, the fifth anniversary of the day "when the world stopped turning".

When the Federal Troops surrounded the barn where Booth lay, he was offered the opportunity to "face the music" in Court, but he chose to resist arrest and "faced the music" that way. But the Commodore digresses.

What the ACLUless want is for a strict interpretation of the Constitution when it comes to the First Amendment, but a loose interpretation in other areas thereof.

When Seward was told that the Constitution protected Slavery, he responded to the interrogater a phrase that still rings true nearly 150 years on: "There is AN HIGHER LAW than the Constitution!!"

And a greater than Seward told us: "For we ALL must appear before the Judgment Seat of Christ." No execptions.

Poor ACLUless. Legal standards are one thing; Culture is another. And Paul still stands, 2000 years on.

Mountain Rose
Mountain Rose writes: Monday, September, 11, 2006 2:35 AM
"....Did you know that Lincoln's assasin was executed within a matter of weeks after the crime was committed?"

Never happened.

Booth was shot in the process of being captured, resisting arrest.

What does that say about your judgment regarding the ACLU?



Face it, ACLU hates God and America
Lets start recognizing these orgainizations for what they really are. The ACLU is antiAmerican period. God and patriotism just happens to be more apparent in the Republican party. The antiwar protester, the antiAmericans, the Democrats and the Media falls into the camp of being antiAmerican. God just so happens to be the conscience of patriotic Americans so the ACLU has to be against it. If your a patriot it must be because your from the religious right and thats wrong. Whereas if your from the far left and believe Christians and President Bush are worst then the terrorist, then you fit into the camp of the Democrats. The terrorists also believes these things about Christians and President Bush. The first thing the Democrats and the Media harped on was President Bush speaks to God. Can you believe it. After all of the harassing by the ACLU, the Democrats and the Media, someone has the nerve to speak to God. What must President Bush be thinking. Hasn't the ACLU, Democrats and our beloved Media made God an enemy of the people. Haven't we learned yet that God only exist in our minds and not out in the open. If God gets out in the open then someones offended and it's mostly the ACLU, Democrats and the Media. It's funny to see how many things the ACLU, Democrats, and the Media has in common with the terrorists who wants to kill us as this war on terrorism goes on. Hiding your hatred for God and this country used to be behind closed doors, now the ACLU, the Democrats, and the Media wears their hatred of God and America as a badge of pride. How many more God given rights must we give up to organizations and people who don't believe God has any place in our lives, because it doesn't fit their agenda.

We all know
that the ACLU is a communist organization founded by a communist. For the sole purpose of infiltrating and undermining our Republic! And with the help of the Liberal enablers they're doing a good job of it. This outfit needs to be destroyed along with all anti-American groups!

Sorry
I started to identify Antonio Gramsci, and changed my mind. I should have deleted his first name. I apologize.

A menace to society.
The ACLU is, and has been working to destroy the culture of this country. At the beginning of the twentieth century Antonio Marxist theorists identified Christianity as the glue that held Western culture together. They viewed Christianity as the first target to be destroyed on the way to destroying the culture of America, Britain, France and any other nation that had not embraced Marxism.


They also targeted the family unit, with its patriarhal structure, and morality in general, with particular attention to sexual mores. Look at the filth portrayed in movies and on TV. Thank uninhibited leftists for that degenerate reality.


All anyone has to do is look around to see how effective they have been. The ACLU is one of the major engineers in the attempt to destroy America. They operate with impunity. How long they will be permitted to engage in their traitorous activities is an open question. If they are not stopped this nation will in fact cease to exist. There isn't much time left.


How do we rid ourselves of these traitors? I remember a slogan from a black activist during the struggle for civil rights. I can't remember whether it was Malcom X or one of the Panthers. "By any means necessary" was the declaration. It is more true today than it was then. Oops! I had better be careful. I don't want to have my post removed.

Looks like George Orwell
Missed it by about 25 years or so, but the premise he advanced certainly rings truer and truer.

Topsy Turvy
Mr. Sears writes: "What if the picture was of George Washington or Abraham Lincoln? Would we really have to order the paintings removed.."

Actually, yes, Leftists have attempted (in some cases successfully) to have those removed from schools, too.


Good article Mr Sears, you nailed it
Seems like the NRA and the ACLU are pretty good barometers for conservatives. If the NRA is for it and the ACLU is againt it, I'm for it, and vise versa. If the ACLU is for something that, at first sounds reasonable (if there ever should be such an instance) that issue probabbly needs further scrutiny.

What is next for the leftist org.? Are we going to melt down the Liberty Bell. You know it has the G word on it right? What about the Washington Monument? Shall we climb to the top and scratch out the inscription "Laus Deo"?

It seems that almost every issue facing this polarized country today eventually boils down to the issue of secular humanism vs. faith in something higher.
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.