13 Responses to “The ACLU …”

1. Chris Wage says:

   September 5, 2003 at 12:03 am

   It does?
2. AlphaPatriot says:

   September 5, 2003 at 10:09 am

   Indeed, the precedents are an unmistakable indication of their agenda. Take, for instance, the attack on a cross maintained by San Diego on Mt. Soledad:
   http://www.godless.org/eth/Soledad.html
   And from the ACLU website at http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=8168&c=29

   The ACLU is committed to the rights of individuals to practice their religions, whether they do so on federal land, in their own back yard, or in a house of worship. Federal park land in the Grand Canyon, for instance, is used for services, but any religious symbols brought in for the service are removed when the service is done.
   “Leaving a cross standing on federal land when a service is over,” said Peter Eliasberg, staff attorney at the ACLU of Southern California, “promotes Christian beliefs over others, which is not the role of the government. Federal park land is for all of us, whether we are Jewish, Buddhist, Christian, Muslim, or none of the above.”

   Now having said that, I will admit to taking some liberties with the ACLU position. They are not opposed to crosses in federal cemetaries as long as “residents” of other religions are represented with symbols of their religion (e.g., Star of David) rather than a cross.
   I remain convinced, however, that the ACLU is contributing to the moral decay of this country through the gradual removal of God from our lives. As government expands into more and more portions of our lives, so does the “God-free zone” of the state. Belief systems are eroded gradually, just as our freedoms.
3. Chris Wage says:

   September 5, 2003 at 1:30 pm

   There’s only one person that can remove god from your life.
4. Dave says:

   September 6, 2003 at 2:13 am

   When are they going to remove the Goddess Athena from the Great Seal of the State of California? Damnit, I’m being oppressed here.
5. AlphaPatriot says:

   September 8, 2003 at 10:06 pm

   Now that’s funny!
6. Frd says:

   September 24, 2003 at 2:08 pm

   Morals should be learned through family value.
   Based on compassion. The removal of “God” (I assume you mean Christian), would only improve
   our situation by redirecting our attention
   away from a fictional heaven and allowing us
   to focus on the here and now, like this planet
   we’re destroying. We would be removing the
   great divider, and probably the greatest source
   of violence amongst us.
7. jk says:

   September 25, 2003 at 2:30 pm

   just because it says “GOD” doesnt mean its christian. there are plaenty of people who belive ina supreme being who dont subscribe to a particular religion.
8. BR says:

   October 1, 2003 at 7:05 am

   Frd – Maybe if everyone DIRECTED their attention to heaven and the positive values associated with Christianity, Judaism, Catholicism, even true Islam, vice the bullshit the ACLU is always pulling, you’d see a better America AND a better world!
9. Amanda says:

   October 4, 2003 at 6:50 pm

   if this country is free for fredom of religon then how can the aclu take out all r4elguis stuff away from us there away bashing religian if they realy wont to do somthing why they do somthing about people vidoe taping adults an posting it on the internet if some one dont wont to be on the internet then they should be abel to but instead of protecting us there taking away or freedom
10. Jayme says:

    November 4, 2003 at 3:02 pm

    I don’t believe the ACLU is a worthwhile organization. I know we’re talking about God here but I’ve heard of a case and a few others where the ACLU is representing free of charge NAMBLA (there was a man who killed a young boy and was a member of NAMBLA – for those of you who don’t know NAMBLA it’s North American Man Boy Love Association). NAMBLA encourages child rape and then will tell an individual how to avoid legal reprucussions. It’s sick. Anyway if the ACLU would defend NAMBLA in the name of free speech, I don’t understand how anyone could call this organization worthwhile or credible.
11. Mark says:

    November 16, 2003 at 3:08 pm

    In response to Jayme and the ACLU, here is a stament made by an ACLU official about the NANBLA case:
    NEW YORK–In the United States Supreme Court over the past few years, the American Civil Liberties Union has taken the side of a fundamentalist Christian church, a Santerian church, and the International Society for Krishna Consciousness. In celebrated cases, the ACLU has stood up for everyone from Oliver North to the National Socialist Party. In spite of all that, the ACLU has never advocated Christianity, ritual animal sacrifice, trading arms for hostages or genocide. In representing NAMBLA today, our Massachusetts affiliate does not advocate sexual relationships between adults and children.
    What the ACLU does advocate is robust freedom of speech for everyone. The lawsuit involved here, were it to succeed, would strike at the heart of freedom of speech. The case is based on a shocking murder. But the lawsuit says the crime is the responsibility not of those who committed the murder, but of someone who posted vile material on the Internet. The principle is as simple as it is central to true freedom of speech: those who do wrong are responsible for what they do; those who speak about it are not.
    It is easy to defend freedom of speech when the message is something many people find at least reasonable. But the defense of freedom of speech is most critical when the message is one most people find repulsive. That was true when the Nazis marched in Skokie. It remains true today.
12. joe says:

    November 17, 2003 at 11:32 am

    Snopes shoots down the rumor the ACLU wants the crosses in cemeteries removed:
    http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/cemetery.asp
13. Deanna says:

    December 11, 2003 at 9:24 pm

    Just wondering, when are we taking “In God We Trust” off of our money? Isn’t money something that more people see?
    Having those words inscribed upon our dollars (all of them, including coins) and I quote you, “promotes Christian beliefs over others, which is not the role of the government. Federal “currency” (improvised) is for all of us, Jewish, Buddhist, Christian, Muslim, or none of the above.
    Just wondering why that money hasn’t been a target. Considering how many people come in contact with it vs. the Grand Canyon.
    Sounds hypocrytical if you ask me. God forbid (hope I can say that without pushing religion on you) that anyone mess with money. Because that’s what it’s all about isn’t it, money? Never heard any of you complain about that. Of course that might inconvenience you. Hey, let’s burn it all, how dare the government put God on our money!
    Either decide you want all goverment property and institutions to have no signs of any religion, or shut your mouths! You can’t have it both ways.