ACLU: Theocrats?
Posted on September 3, 2006
I have heard the over exaggerated claims from liberals that they fear the Religious Right turning America into a Christian theocracy. They are devout disciples of the concept of “separation of church and state”. They are thankful for the ACLU keeping America from sliding down a slippery slope into the dreaded state of a Christian theocracy. Of course these fears are not based in reality.
While most Christians want to share their faith with others and hope to convert people, the modern practice of Christianity does not seek to force their religion on anyone. Inviting someone to church, or expressing the love of their religion in a public forum is a far cry from the fastest growing religion of Islam that does not condemn and has been seen forcing people to convert at gun point.
I don’t believe it is the actual religion of Christianity that theophobes fear being forced on them, but the morals and principles that stem from it influencing and incorporating itself into our laws. It seems to me that the term, theocracy, is being misused and has been redefined to mean imposing religious principles into the legal system. However, it seems that most of the time the accusations of this are targeting the Religious Right when it happens just as frequently from the other side of the political spectrum.
Eugene Volokh, whom I often disagree with, has illustrated this point very well in the past.
I like to ask these critics: What do you think about the abolitionist movement of the 1800s? As I understand it, many — perhaps most or nearly all — of its members were deeply religious people, who were trying to impose their religious dogma of liberty on the legal system that at the time legally protected slavery.
Or what do you think about the civil rights movement? The Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., after all, was one of its main leaders, and he supported and defended civil rights legislation as a matter of God’s will, often in overtly religious terms. He too tried to impose his religious dogma on the legal system, which at the time allowed private discrimination, and in practice allowed governmental discrimination as well.
Or how about religious opponents of the draft, opponents of the death penalty, supporters of labor unions, supporters of welfare programs, who were motivated by their religious beliefs — because deeply religious people’s moral beliefs are generally motivated by their religious beliefs — in trying to repeal the draft, abolish the death penalty, protect labor, or better the lot of the poor? Perhaps their actions were wrong on the merits; for instance, maybe some anti-poverty problems caused more problems than they solved, or wrongly took money from some to give to others. But would you condemn these people on the grounds that it was simply wrong for them to try to impose their religious beliefs on the legal system?
My sense is that the critics of the Religious Right would very rarely levy the same charges at the Religious Left. Rather, they’d acknowledge that religious people are entitled to try to enact their moral views (which stem from their religious views) into law, just as secular people are entitled to try to enact their moral views (which stem from their secular, but generally equally unprovable, moral axioms) into law.
Even libertarianism, that defines itself on not imposing morals on others, is based upon its own moral codes. The libertarian’s broad definition of liberty is limited within the moral boundaries of not harming others. Very few would argue that morals, religiously rooted or not, are not necessary for society to function successfully and sustain itself. I think the saying that “You can’t legislate morality” is quite misleading. Of course no one can be forced to adopt a moral just because it is the basis of a law; however the act of creating laws based upon moral standards happens all the time. In fact law is a moral concept in itself.
It is also rare that the Religious Right call out the left on their double standard. However, by redefining the word “theocracy” into a code word for legislating morality, the door is opened wide for one to take advantage of it. But this is how democracy works. Society elects people to enact laws that reflect the moral boundaries they want placed upon themselves. What most people on the right object to is undermining the will of the people through an unelected judge in the un-democratic process of judicial fights.
Pat Boone makes this argument in recent article at WND.
Think a relatively small, but highly organized group of lawyers, rather extravagantly funded by ultraliberal donors, overtly defending and promoting activities and “progressive” judges’ rulings that are very offensive to the majority of Americans. Think of a little group who portray themselves as “defenders” of civil liberties, who increasingly and arrogantly intimidate elected officials into defying the expressed wishes of the majority and thereby deprive them of civil liberties!
Think an elitist coterie who twist and redefine the expressed intentions of the framers of the Constitution in order to defend anarchists, pedophiles, sworn enemies of our nation, aberrant sexual practices, blasphemies of all kinds and attacks on our hallowed institutions – and who at the same time proceed against every kind of public expression of faith or religion, always misappropriating a phrase not even in our Constitution, “separation of church and state.”
Think an unregulated, self-appointed group who openly intend to control and dictate not only what individual citizens can do and say, whenever they choose, but who infiltrate our courts so they can legislate from the judicial bench – and even tell our democratically elected representatives what they must do! Think a renegade group openly hostile, not only to Christianity in particular, but to long cherished Judeo-Christian principles in general, unarguably principles on which our society was founded. Think a group determined to erase any and every reference to God, the Bible or Christian teaching – even voluntary public prayer in any non-church venue – from American life!
Think theocratic dictatorship.
Make sure to read the entire article by Mr. Boone to understand it in full. What it comes down to is that all of us should be sharing one basic moral principle in America for sure; that of freedom and liberty. Many of us on the right feel that the First Amendment that protects religious expression and gives us the freedom of speech is under attack by the very organization that claims to protect it. I’m not talking about imaginary rights that were never mentioned in the Constitution like the left believe of abortion. I’m talking about basic founding principles, regardless of what morals they were based on.
Issues outside of the Constitution are left for the people to decide through their individual states. Whether it is legalizing assisted suicide, legalizing prostitution, or banning gay marriages; once the people have spoken, unless it violates the current state or U.S. constitution, the ACLU and courts should stay out of it. If new rights are to be invented then it should be done through the democratic process our founders set up for such a thing; amend the Constitution.
I don’t believe anyone wants a theocracy and those that think it is a legitimate fear are over paranoid. If anyone is forcing their morals, or lack thereof, on the American peoples it is individuals and groups like the ACLU who force it on us through the courts. One thing is for sure, if the majority’s morals are in opposition to the agenda of such an organization, which has been shown to be true, we damn sure shouldn’t have to pay for them imposing their beliefs on us. Especially when many of us feel they are jeopardizing the very rights they claim to protect.
Sign Our Petition To Stop Taxpayer Funding of the ACLU.
Related: My friend Rick has a post explaining how the “International Human Rights” hippies, and yes this includes the ACLU, are trying to push their morals on us, and just what kind of dangerous thinking that is.
» Filed Under 1st Amendment, ACLU, Church And State, News
Trackback URL
Comments
59 Responses to “ACLU: Theocrats?”
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Advertise
Donate
Steal Me
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
More blogs about the ACLU
“If anyone is forcing their morals, or lack thereof, on the American peoples it is individuals and groups like the ACLU who force it on us through the courts.”
Name one moral viewpoint that you, personally have been forced to adopt by a court, Jay.
Just one.
Whenever people like meatbrain up there start asking questions like that, you know you’ve made a good point.
We, personally, probably haven’t been “forced to adopt” anything by a court. Changes brought about by court decisions don’t happen overnight. We, personally, may not even live to see the devastating effects of some of the court decisions we, personally, discuss and criticize.
Although, living in a society which is altered by unconstitutional court decisions does implicitly make us adopt those decisions against our will.
What a ridiculous thing to say, meatbrain.
“Although, living in a society which is altered by unconstitutional court decisions does implicitly make us adopt those decisions against our will.”
Which specific court decisions do you believe are “unconstitutional” — and why?
I would just criticize one thing in your post — that being that the ACLU is out to impose an ATHEOCRACY upon the people of the United States, not a theocracy.
Ha! It took me a minute to get your joke there. I was looking for a typo in my post.
Meatbrain are you blind or just dont get the truth. Everyday the courts are trying to change our moral outlook on life. Gay marriage, abortion, defending sex offenders. If that is not courts trying to force something down our throats I dont know what is. They are unconstitutional because Judges have forgotten part of the first which states that congress will make no laws preventing the free exercise of religion.
Who’s joking, Jay?
OK, took me a minute to understand your point.
The Author correctly identifies ACLU supporters dearing the Religious Right. Then he gives credit to Christians for Civil Rights, anti-death penality, and abolitionist as if they are on eand the same. They are not This is the work of liberal Christians, not the Religious right. and the ACLU supports these actions and supports liberal Christians and thier views. The Religious right is certainly pro-death penality. The Religious Right is anti-liberal Christianity and anti-Catholic. Do not confuse and credit the work of liberal Christians to the Religious right.
These are some good points. My feelings on this subject can best be summed up as follows: If a law is good for the country, it should be enacted, whether or not it is rooted in deeply held religous convictions. If a law is not good for the country, it should not be enacted, again whether or not it is rooted in deeply held religous convictions.
One thing is for certain, no religous group, or any other group, should have the right to enforce it’s beliefs on the people or the country against the wishes of the majority of the people, and even then the rights of the minority should still be protected. I think I am on pretty firm ground here on all these points.
Stedes, I think you should re-read the article more carefully. The point was that morals are enacted into law whether it comes from the left or right. The point was that the religious left did make these civil rights achievements, but the critics of the religious right who accuse the religious right of wanting theocracy because they try to create laws based on their morals don’t put the same criticism on the religious left when much of their laws were motivated by religious morals as well.
The point was that there is a double standard. Both, the religious left and right should try to incorporate their morals into our laws. This is what they are elected for. The main thing we are against is pushing it through courts to overturn the will of the people. Do it the right way, through the democratic process.
meatbrain,
You want me to provide a list. In 1965 Griswold v Connecticut legal contraception was forced on the people. In 1973 Roe v. Wade The court redefined what it means to be human according to their philosophical/theological viewpoint. In 2003 Lawrence v Texas The Court forced homosexuality on the people. There has been success forcing adultery, cohabitation, and other forms of liberal morality on the people.
I almost forgot to mention the ACLU’s support of pedophilia and statutory rape.
Stedes,
Have you ever heard of the Reagan Democrats. Guess what. The religious right used to be liberals but they were alienated by the left. Christians tend to fluxuate back and forth but the left has embraced Atheism and immorality and forced sincere Christens to abandon them. The center has moved right over the years. What is considered left now is an extremist view that barely existed at the time the U.S. Constitution became law.
“In 1965 Griswold v Connecticut legal contraception was forced on the people.”
Which specific people were forced to take contraceptives, Kerwin?
“In 1973 Roe v. Wade The court redefined what it means to be human according to their philosophical/theological viewpoint.”
Where in Roe v. Wade does the court define “what it means to be human”, Kerwin?
“In 2003 Lawrence v Texas The Court forced homosexuality on the People.”
Which specific people were forced to be homosexual, Kerwin?
“There has been success forcing adultery, cohabitation, and other forms of liberal morality on the people.”
Who has been forced into adultery and cohabitation, Kerwin?
I know you don’t (and never will be able to) see the pattern in your errors, but it is there nonetheless, Kerwin. None of these decisions forced anyone to do anything. All of them affirm the rights of Americans to do things you don’t approve of. Oh, the horror! Someone somewhere might be living their life in a way that offends Kerwin Brown! Oh, bring the smelling salts!
This is why the American Civil Liberties Union enrages you and your fellow wingers so much, Kerwin. Many of the cases it takes on involve people doing things you don’t like. You’ve mistaken your distaste at the actions of some of your fellow Americans for an imagined right to a stop them from doing whatever it is you object to.
Get over your bad self, sparky. You and your winger buddies just are not important enough. No one is required to rearrange their lives to suit your tastes.
“Everyday the courts are trying to change our moral outlook on life.”
Complete malarkey. No US court has ever tried to change your moral outlook on life, nor anyone else’s. No court can.
What a court can do is ensure that the laws passed by congress are consonant with the principles outlined in the Constitution. You and I may disagree on exactly what those principles are, and how they are to be applied… but kindly forego this idiotic tactic of claiming that the court is trying to “change our moral outlook”. It’s horsecrap, and you know that it’s horsecrap.
Meatbrain, you are correct in saying no one has been forced to adopt these morals. I stated above that, “Of course no one can be forced to adopt a moral just because it is the basis of a law; however the act of creating laws based upon moral standards happens all the time.”
Even when the law is created by the courts instead of the proper means of legislation, no one is forced to adopt it as their morals. I poorly worded it at the end of my article in stating they were forcing morals on others. What is happening is that they are forcing their laws on us, undermining what the will of the people is.
Even when the law is created by the courts instead of the proper means of legislation, no one is forced to adopt it as their morals. I poorly worded it at the end of my article in stating they were forcing morals on others. What is happening is that they are forcing their laws on us, undermining what the will of the people is.
Name a specific statute in US law that was “created by the courts”, Jay.
And then explain when, exactly, you fell prey to the delusion that the “will of the people” somehow trumps the rule of law.
meatbrain,
You are asking if the court forced anyone to commit such actions.
That was not the point. The point is the court forced their religion (moral code) on the people of the United States.
The Courts moral code came from the anarchistic movement of the 19th Century and not from natural law of the 17th and 18th Centuries.
The moral code of the 17th and 18th Centuries is addressed in the U.S. Declaration of Independence as in the U.S. Constitution while the anarchist moral code is not. That is why those judges are considered activist.
The two moral codes are in conflict which is why the courts have overturned laws that are as old or nearly as old as the United States.
You wrote:
“Many of the cases it takes on involve people doing things you don’t like.”
That is a straw man argument since it is not my argument. My argument is those cases have all damaged the culture of the United States. The Sexual Revolution led to the increased spread of STD’s and with Roe v. Wade to more children being killed in the womb. Roe v. Wade led to 1 out of every 5 children conceived in the U.S. being murdered in the womb. Both contraception and abortion lead to the depopulation of the U.S. European whites are dying out and blacks have been stabilized. Our growth comes from immigrants and their children as well as native Hispanics. Homosexuality causes the spread of HIV/Aids. Cohabitation leads to increase in single parents and domestic abuse.
“You are asking if the court forced anyone to commit such actions.”
You made the claims, Kerwin. I’m chellenging you to back them up with facts.
Which specific people were forced to take contraceptives?
Where in Roe v. Wade does the court define “what it means to be human”?
Which specific people were forced to be homosexual?
Who has been forced into adultery and cohabitation?
“The point is the court forced their religion (moral code) on the people of the United States.”
Reword it as often as you like, Kerwin. Now can you show me one citizen of the US who has had a religion forced upon them by any court?
Roe vs. Wade is a good example of what I am trying to say. It is judicial activism because it took away from States Rights. They invented a right which did not exist in the Constitution.
Before Roe vs. Wade many states had laws against abortion. If the State allowed abortion that was their right also, because what was not prohibited or specifically granted in the Constitution was left for the state to decide. By the Roe vs. Wade decision the right of the state to decide its own moral boundaries was taken away.
Still waiting, Jay: Name a specific statute in US law that was “created by the courts”.
Your claim. You back it up.
Meatbrain,
Apart from your amusing “professor handing out homework assignments” schtict, You are typical of leftist gadflies. Your same words that you aimed at kerwin can be thrown back in your face:
“Reword it as often as you like…”
Apart from doling out homework assignments, you are just stubbornly insisting that you are right and every one else is wrong.
I have yet to hear you make an argument defending the ACLU and those judges who legislate from the bench. You just keep stating your right, and demanding detailed essays be submitted to you, as if this was an on-line college course and you were the professor.
That’s ridiculous. This is a comments section to a blog. Nobody owes you any of that. Let’s see you put aside such nonsense and start providing some points that back up your defense of the ACLU and legislation from the bench by liberal judges.
The bottom line that I believe Jay is trying to get at, along with the rest of conservatives regarding the ACLU and progressive judges is that it is wrong for a judge to legislate from the bench.
It is not the judge’s lane in the road to legislate, it is the job of the legislature, who are elected by the people, to represent the will of the people. Judges are not elected and therefor restricted to issues of constitutionality of laws enacted by congress. Part of a check and balance system.
When a judge legislates from the bench, he is forcing his views, his wishes upon the entire citizens of America, without their say.
The last time I checked, meatbrain,
this country is a country “by the people and for the people”. The ACLU and liberal judges have severly violated the restrictions that the Constitution places on government and the fact that it exists to serve the people, not the other way around.
Adam/Meatbrain - The point I was trying to make is that the ACLU is in agreement with Christians. There is a gross misunderstanding of liberalism in this blog. Liberals are not anti-christian and anti-God. Many Liberals believe in God. Liberals are anti-Religious Conservative. But Liberals also respect one’s right to be an atheist. The atheist and believer are equals. There is also this belief that one cannot have morality if one is an atheist. That is false. Is the Dali-Lama immoral? I consider myself athesitic, but I feel I have higher morals than many self-proclaimed Christians I have met.
The problem with Religious Conservatives is that you cannot negotiate. There is no middle ground. How Can you negotiate and comprimise God’s laws? Thus they are anti-pluralistic, anti-secular and anti-democratic. They view America as a Christian country granting Christians special privilage based on their view of history. This is what liberals are really fighting.
If you want to oppose Liberals and the ACLU, by all means do so. But I think you need to first really understand the liberal perspective. Instead of stereotypes (atheists and immoral)
There are numerous cases of the ACLU supporting Christians and their right to free exercise of religion. It seems to be one of those inconvenient facts that do not support the stereotype of the ACLU as anti-christian or anti-god. And if you are not familiar with these case, then you really shouldn’t be critizing the ACLU.
Stedes,
Talk about stereotyping, you said:
“The problem with Religious Conservatives is that you cannot negotiate. There is no middle ground. How Can you negotiate and comprimise God’s laws? Thus they are anti-pluralistic, anti-secular and anti-democratic. They view America as a Christian country granting Christians special privilage based on their view of history. This is what liberals are really fighting.”
You might want to understand the religious right a little better before you hypocritcally make such stereotypes about them.
I am a conservative and I am all for pluralism, and democracy and secularism has its place. I would *never* support any move to form a “Christian nation” via overthrowing the Constitution and creating a Christian dictatorship. I’ve never met a Christian who would.
You may or may not have “higher morals” than the many “self proclaimed” (funny choice of words you use, are you trying to be sarcastic and cynical, or are you just being arrogant?) Christians that you’ve met, but, you might want to practice what you preach when it comes to stereotying those whom you disagree with.
“Get over your bad self, sparky. You and your winger buddies just are not important enough. No one is required to rearrange their lives to suit your tastes.”
But the right is expected to tolerate attacks on core issues that “meatball” blithely downgrades to a matter of “taste”? For the left, fundamental, seismic societal changes are simply a matter of taste? Killing children, redefining gender, normalizing pedophilia, and interfering with the defense of this country all comes down to taste?
I’m not a legal nor constitutional expert so I can not argue the niceties and the nuances that the left masturbates with but I can damn well attest to the deleterious effects of ACLU’s incessant social engineering as administered by their selected priests on the courts. But meathead’s “you’re not important enough” rhetoric is telling . It is the clumsy sneer of an inept elitist and I am damn sick of it.
“Apart from doling out homework assignments, you are just stubbornly insisting that you are right and every one else is wrong.”
Really? Show me the comment in which I “[insist] that [I am] right and every one else is wrong”.
I am challenging Jay et al to back up their claims with facts. They can either do this, or they can’t.
“The bottom line that I believe Jay is trying to get at, along with the rest of conservatives regarding the ACLU and progressive judges is that it is wrong for a judge to legislate from the bench.”
And the bottom line is that Jay can’t show any evidence that judges do “legislate from the bench”. That’s a code phrase: it means nothing more than that the judge made a decision someone (Jay, in this case) doesn’t like. Since Jay is unable to construct a rational argument against the decision per se, he tries to declare it illegitimate by calling it “legislating from the bench”
“The ACLU and liberal judges have severly violated the restrictions that the Constitution places on government…”
Which restrictions, exactly? Where are these restrictions found in the Constitution?
Meatbrain,
You said:
“And the bottom line is that Jay can’t show any evidence that judges do “legislate from the bench”. That’s a code phrase: it means nothing more than that the judge made a decision someone (Jay, in this case) doesn’t like. Since Jay is unable to construct a rational argument against the decision per se, he tries to declare it illegitimate by calling it “legislating from the bench”
The phrase “legislation from the bench” is not what you call a “code phrase” that you try to boil down to “nothing more than that the judge makes a decision someone…doesn’t like”.
Once more, “legislating from the bench” means just what it says. A judge legislating (passing laws) from the bench.
That is *not* his onus nor his right to do so. Legislation takes place in Congress by *elected* politicians who are there to represent the people and can be ousted if they fail to represent the will of the people at the polls.
Supreme Court Judges are appointed, not elected and serve for life. If they were allowed by the Constitution to legislate from the bench then they could pass laws that would make the will of the people irrelevant, and thus, rising government up above the people it was designed to serve.
As for Jay not providing you proof of this sort of activity happening, he and alot of other people already have. *Roe vs Wade” is a good example.
Enough said. The ball is still in your court and you can’t seem to return any sort of volley defending legislation from the bench.
“The ACLU and liberal judges have severly violated the restrictions that the Constitution places on government…”
“Which restrictions, exactly? Where are these restrictions found in the Constitution?”
The restrictions I’m refering to are the provisions that the framers made for a system of checks and balances (ie. Executive Branch can be challenged by the Legislatve Branch, and or The Judicial Branch etc.)
The framers did that so that they could keep the government in check from ceasing to serve the people. One branch can not rise above any of the others and note that two of those branches contain members who are elected by the people. The Judicial Branch is the only one that is not elected, and so, was restricted to ensuring the Constitution was adhered to with respect to any legislation that the legislative branch produces.
If you are unfamiliar with these checks and balances then, I suggest you read the Constitution for yourself. I’m not going to do your homework for you and spell them out. Do your own work.
I believe the mistake many in this forum are making is in assuming that laws are created to enforce morality. If that were true that adultery, blasphemy, and other sins would be illegal. This detachment is also illustrated in our immigration laws which define illegal behavior but have little to do with morals. The truth is that morality and law, while often in accord, are not synonymous.
Instead, the law seeks to define our rights as laid out in the Constitution and proscribe rules for when these rights are in conflict. Murder is illegal, not because it is immoral, but because it impedes the victims right to life. This concept can be summarized with the simple statement “my rights end where your rights begin.” The function of our courts is to resolve conflicts between differing rights when our legislatures have not done so.
In all of the examples Jay presented here, the rights of a minority were expanded to match rights the majority already had. Jay is correct when he says it is “about basic founding principles, regardless of what morals they were based on.” He then falsely claims it is groups like the ACLU that force their morals on others but, as meatbrain points out, he gives no examples of such actions. On the other hand, the religious right has promoted several causes, such as mandatory school prayer and banning gay marriages, where the rights of some would be restricted just to appease the morality of others.
Let’s offer you a different view of things.
Every law enforces a moral stance. Not every moral stance is enforced by law.
Thus, laws against racial discrimination enforce the moral view that such discrimination is wrong and that all people are entitled to equal dignity, regardless of race.
On the other hand, the view that adultery is wrong is a moral stance that is taken without the sanction of law.
So someone please name me a right or a law that is not based on someone’s moral principle.
I gave an example with Roe vs. Wade. Also the Kelo decision is another example.
I also named examples in the post. I even gave an example from the liberal viewpoint. The case where the people voted on assisted suicide being legal. The court overturned this even though the people voted for it.
Zee - The point I was trying to make (maybe not well) is that you do not need God to be moral. Many people believe in God and do evil things. We need to separate God from morality. Atheism is not immoral.
I take exception to your statement of not practicing what I preach. was rasied Chriatian and study Christian doctrine. I also understand quite well (from personal experience)the basic tennets of and differences between Fundelmentalist Christians and Evengelicals. I These are the conservative Christians I refer to. My “Stereotype” is targeted at the politically active and the movement and of course does not reflect individuals. There is a good article in the Current Issue of Foriegn Policy Magazine that discusses in detail Conservative Christians, their diferences, believes and their impact on American Foriegn Policy. I am referring to an active political movement. With clearly stated goals, objectives and beliefs.
Stedes, you are correct that you don’t have to be Christian to have morals. The point of the post is that regardless of whether they are religiously rooted or not, morals are the basis of laws and for one group to accuse such outlandish accusations such as wanting a theocracy onto the Christian right just because they are trying to legislate their particular morals is wrong and ridiculous. The majority of America claims to be Christian and it is just as much their right to try legislating their morals as it is for the minority to legislate theirs. The problem is not legislating through the proper means, no matter which side does it. The problem is undermining the democratic process through judicial fiat.
camanintx,
you said:
“the religious right has promoted several causes, such as mandatory school prayer…”
I have never heard of any movement by the religious right to legislate “mandatory prayer”, only the freedom of those who wish to pray be allowed to do so.
Nice try, but that is an obvious lie regarding the religious right.
stedes,
I presume you were addressing me and not zee when you said you took exception to my statement “practice what you preach”, since zee never used that phraase.
I stand firm in my assertion of hypocrisy aimed at you. Your attempt to demonize conservative Christians is wrong irregardless of the “experience” you claim to have.
Have you attended every Christian church in the U.S. and the world? I think not.
Even if I were to grant the veracity of your “experience”, your experience is limited to where you lived at that time and in no way can be said to be representative of all conservative Christians in the world, nor the majority.
I left out your “anti-Catholic” label earlier when I first responded to you. That too is rubbish. I am in no way anti-Catholic. I don’t believe as they do in many things, but I am certainly not for shutting them down. And, again, I don’t know any conservative Christians who do?
You seem to have an ill-informed view of conservative Christians that is causing your hatred of them, at least at the ideaological level.
You need to get over that, if you want to continue to maintain your superior moral standards over conservative Christians that you have known. Don’t you think?
Stedes
You have mistakenly directed #33 to me. I only commented on meatball’s verbiage.
Yes there is a difference, but it is still based on someone’s morals. Being against discrimination is based on a moral viewpoint. And why should we care about the environment or public safety if not for some moral reason? You are confused. You have stated that just because a law is not based in religion means that it is not based in morals.
Whether they are rooted from religion (left or right interpretations) or secularism, if you do away with morals there is no basis to even have laws.
While I would oppose banning smoking in restaraunts and requiring motorcycle helmets as restricting individual freedom, these are all examples restricting things out of concern for public health, safety, and welfare. In a society without morals these restrictions would not even be considered. You would have to look out for yourself. However, these are based on the morals of society taking care of one another. The same morals that welfare and food stamps are based on. And regardless of whether we agree with them or not, they are based on a moral standpoint.
Jay,
How about traffic laws that say you cannot exceed a posted speed limit or double park in the street? Or SEC laws that prohibit selling stock based on insider information? While many laws are based on respect and courtesy, that does not make them moral issues?
Clay,
Republican Representative Ernest Istook Jr. of Oklahoma pushed for a constitutional amendment in 1994 that would let local school authorities require the saying of a prayer at the beginning of each class day. While the wording of his amendment didn’t specifically state this, from his speeches it was clearly his intention. Students who do not wish to participate could sit silently or leave the room, its prime House sponsor says.
Well if a student that wished not to particpate could sit silently or leave the room then that would not be mandatory now would it?
As for speed laws, these too are based on safety and general welfare which is based on morals in my opinion. Perhaps there are some laws that are not. I don’t think you guys have named any yet, but perhaps. If so, I will stand corrected and only say that most are and it does not take away from the point of my post.
camanintx,
I think Jay has done an admirable job of putting you in your place.
The only thing I can add is that your statement regarding Sen. Istook Jr.’s bill: “While the wording of his amendment didn’t specifically state this, from his speeches it was clearly his intention.” clearly leaves a whole lot of room for doubt with regards to your speculation.
It may just as well be wishful thinking on your part.
I’m sorry but there has never been any move by the religious right in modern times to require “mandatory prayer”.
There has been, on the part of the left, a constant movement for mandatory denial of prayer.
Is that which side your on?
Sorry Jay, but the courts have already ruled that, as long as students are told they have to attend school, participation in “voluntary” school prayers is coerced and therefore unconstitutional.
As for the claim that laws have a moral basis, just one example would prove this wrong. Since the whole point of your post was that the ACLU is trying to force their moral views on others, this would certainly take away from it. Besides, you still haven’t provided any examples of how the ACLU is forcing anyone to do anything.
camanintx,
You said:
“Besides, you still haven’t provided any examples of how the ACLU is forcing anyone to do anything.”
How about the fact that the ACLU is trying to force those who wish to pray in public to not pray in public?
Your turn.
Sorry Clay, but there is not a single court ruling prohibiting students from praying in school. The question before the court has always been can the school, as a government entity, endorse or participate in any way.
camanintx,
Sorry, but the abolition of public prayer in schools since the 80’s serves to dispute your assertion. Unless, of course, you are trying to peddle the nuance that, it’s not so much that schools want to ban prayer but rather they can not be allowed to permit it because they would be guilty of association with that instance of prayer; hence no prayer allowed. If that is your game, then it is clear that beyond all of the fancy maneuvering, the bottom line is that schools are being directed to deny public prayer.
Your move.
Clay, this is what camanintx is saying. It is the common screwed up view that too many courts also believe in. They can’t tell the difference between “allowing” and “endorsing”. Even though the First Amendment only prohibits “Congress” from creating a “law” that respects an establishment of religion. They ignore the part that says “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”.
Somehow they have convinced themselves and the courts of the lie that “allowing” individuals time to express their religion in a public school is actually “endorsing” it.
Clay,
Didn’t the ACLU just file a friend-of-the-court brief supporting a second grader’s right to sing “Awesome God” in a voluntary, after-school talent show? If you are having problems understanding their position on religion in public schools, may I point you to their statement of current law:
“Students have the right to pray individually or in groups or to discuss their religious views with their peers so long as they are not disruptive. Because the Establishment Clause does not apply to purely private speech, students enjoy the right to read their Bibles or other scriptures, say grace before meals, pray before tests, and discuss religion with other willing student listeners. In the classroom students have the right to pray quietly except when required to be actively engaged in school activities (e.g., students may not decide to pray just as a teacher calls on them). In informal settings, such as the cafeteria or in the halls, students may pray either audibly or silently, subject to the same rules of order as apply to other speech in these locations. However, the right to engage in voluntary prayer does not include, for example, the right to have a captive audience listen or to compel other students to participate.”
Now, tell me again how schools are being directed to deny public prayer.
and meatbrain continues to ignore my question…….
Typical meathead…..
Meathead? Why can’t you answer one simple question?
How amusing, Meat(less)brain(or lack thereof) once again uses questions to argue. How socratic (and no, that is not a compliment). One fact that the courts have “interpreted” law (even if they had to use penumbra’s) such as privacy had the effect of legislation in that it became the “law of the land.” I am anti-abortion as I am anti-death penalty. The court’s interpretation of the “right to privacy” thus establishing “with the force of law” the right to an abortion is anathama to ME! Thus meaty old boy, a court interpretation has the force of law that indirectly affects my daily life. Thank God it has not affected me directly.
Ahhh, meaty old top, you are so amusing! You just haven’t learned have you? Well, I’m an optimist, so I think that some day, some-how, perhaps by the Grace of God, you will.
camanintx,
Nice try, but, we have heard of countless occasion where the student is suspended because his/her t-shirt has some religious statement on it, or some student wishes to thank God in their validictorian class speech, or there exists a school club of Christians who are all violating the mythical “separation of Church and State” claptrap with their very alliance with Christianity.
So, again, the ball is in your court. (psst! there wouldn’t be any controversy if there wasn’t any attempt to deny the civil rights of Christians to express themselves in public).
Meatbrain wrote:
“Reword it as often as you like, Kerwin. Now can you show me one citizen of the US who has had a religion forced upon them by any court? “
I have already showed how the anarchist code of ethics favored by Secular Humanist has been forced on the people even if the majority voted against it. The Indiana legislature was forbidden to use the name of Jesus in their prayers before sessions. A valedictorian who credited Jesus with her achievements had her mike cut off. A chaplain in the Navy was forbidden to say Jesus in his prayers, and many other cases where the free expression of liberty was infringed upon by the courts themselves or because of the unconstitutional ruling of the courts. It almost sounds like the courts and pushing the Unitarian Universalist religion down our throats. That makes sense since they have an office at the United Nations and the federal courts have admitted to ruling by international law.
By the way. Sincere Christians will violate the rules the court puts down if the court continues to push them to forsake their God. What do you think will happen if firing them, kicking them out of school, and whatever other coercion methods used by the government does not work?
The government is not happy with the ones that can afford to flee the public schools. The U.N. has moved to make home schooling illegal.
Meatbrain is in denial, and I don’t mean a river in Egypt.
Isn’t it funny that they demand names and examples of how Christians have been targeted by the ACLU? Yet, when it comes to some imaginary right of privacy not mentioned in the Constitution, they think it is just fine to sue the NSA over hypotheticals. They can’t name one person that can show they were directly affected by the NSA. Not one.
Clay,
You picked poor examples to make your point since the ACLU has consistantly supported student speach through their choice of clothing and the right of christian clubs to meet on school property. Do you think you could produce a single court case to support your position or are vague references to what you have heard in the news all you can come up with?
Check and your move.
Jay,
You have hit the proverbial nail squarely on the head.
Therein lies the hypocrisy of the left.
They come straight at you demanding detailed facts for proof and then hide behind their request, providing no argument of their own. And, of course, they never provide the same granularity of details that they demand from you.
But, it’s kind of fun watching them spin and tout their arrogant rejoinders.
camanintx,
Poor examples? Why? Because, you can’t refute them? I guess I have to say it again: there wouldn’t be any controversy if there wasn’t any attempt to deny the civil rights of Christians to express themselves in public.
The ACLU has consistently taken a stance against the public display of religion. No, I’m not going to cite any of those cases for you. You look them up yourself.
If the ACLU and liberals weren’t trying to squelch religion in the public square, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. That is, unless you have an aluminum hat on your head and think this is all some giant right wing conspiracy of deceitful, nasty Christians picking on the ACLU and liberals for no good reason.
Check and mate, Clay. Apparently you didn’t read my post clearly because I did refute your examples. I and others have provided several clear examples supporting our position and all you make are vague claims with no supporting facts.
You guys are forgetting one of the most useful examples of Christians trying to impose their views on other Americans. That is the attempt to introduce the teaching of Christian Creation mythology ( the latest form of this being Intelligent Design) into public schools; as recently happened in Dover, PA and is ongoing in places like Kansas etc.
Not only is intelligent design (or Creation for that matter) baseless as science it has no foundation even in the realm of philosophy. Yet the majority of Americans think it should be taught in our public schools (you seem to love putting opinion polls in your blog)even to the level of our poor misinformed president George Bush. Christians should look around at the bigger world. The truth is the same in Japan as it is in the United States why aren’t the Japanese demanding Creation be taught in their public schools?
Thankfully the ACLU and Americans for the Separation of Church and State are around to prevent Christianization of our schools science curriculums
The ACLU backed a lawsuit against Yeshiva University, an Orthodox Jewish school, because the university would not allow two lesbians to live in married student housing. The school holds the traditional Jewish position that homosexual behavior is a violation of God’s law. The school lost, and the ACLU crowed about how it had forced a private faith-based organization to violate its core beliefs. ACLU attorney Matthew Coles said, “It’s a fabulous ruling.”
In Oklahoma, a thirty-year veteran school teacher had been teaching Bible lessons to his students during non-school time. The students voluntarily participated. The ACLU filed a lawsuit against the teacher and the curriculum publisher, stating that they were “co-conspirators to establish religion.” The case went to a jury, which found against the teacher and publisher, but only awarded the plaintiffs $251 – an indication of how they really felt about the ACLU lawsuit. But the story does not end there. ACLU backed attorneys turned around and sought more than eighty thousand dollars from the teacher for their legal fees and costs. The Alliance Defense Fund stepped in, free of charge, to help him. The ACLU-backed attorneys eventually received only a fraction of their original demand.
In Louisiana, the ACLU filed a lawsuit challenging a voluntary prayer group of Christian teachers. The teachers met on their own time, during recess, and not during instructional time. 7 In addition, the ACLU’s executive director has compared school officials who allowed a public prayer to the terrorists who attacked the World Trade Center and the London subway, 8 as well as calling for jail, stating that individuals that pray publicly “should be removed from society.”
More Here:
The ACLU has filed lawsuits and threatened cities and schools all across the country to prevent Christmas from being openly celebrated in public fora.