ChristiansUnite Forums

This story is straight from the ACLU's website.
ACLU Challenges Misuse of Taxpayer Dollars to Fund Religion in Nationwide Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Program
May 16, 2005
Contact: media@aclu.org

BOSTON -- The American Civil Liberties Union and Jenner & Block LLP today filed a lawsuit challenging the federal government's misuse of taxpayer dollars to fund religious activities in the "Silver Ring Thing," a nationwide ministry program that uses abstinence-only sex education as a means to bring "unchurched" students to Jesus Christ.
"Using public funds, the 'Silver Ring Thing' urges students to commit themselves to Christ," said Julie Sternberg, Senior Staff Attorney at the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project. "The courts have repeatedly said that taxpayer dollars cannot be used to promote religion. The 'Silver Ring Thing' blatantly violates this principle."

LEGAL COMPLAINT
ACLU of Massachusetts v. Mike Leavitt, Secretary of U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Over the past three years, the federal government has awarded more than one million dollars to the "Silver Ring Thing." According to legal papers filed by the ACLU today, the "Silver Ring Thing" describes its mission as "offering a personal relationship with Jesus Christ as the best way to live a sexually pure life." During the "Silver Ring Thing's" flagship three-hour program members testify about how accepting Jesus Christ improved their lives, quote Bible passages, and urge audience members to ask the Lord Jesus Christ to come into their lives. In addition, the official silver ring of the program is inscribed with a reference to the biblical verse "1 Thess. 4:3-4," which reads "God wants you to be holy, so you should keep clear of all sexual sin. Then each of you will control your body and live in holiness and honor."
The "Silver Ring Thing" has held events in Alabama, Connecticut, Florida, Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, West Virginia, and Wisconsin and is scheduled to visit Georgia, Ohio, and North Carolina, among other states, in the coming year. Since April 2003, it has held three events in the Boston area and is scheduled to hold a fourth in October of this year.
"The federal government should not underwrite the religious indoctrination of Massachusetts students," said Carol Rose, Executive Director of the ACLU of Massachusetts. "The 'Silver Ring Thing' is nothing more than a vehicle for converting young people to Christianity. Our taxpayer dollars should play no part in such a program."
Since 1997, the federal government has spent more than $700 million taxpayer dollars on abstinence-only-until-marriage programs. This year an additional $39 million was proposed for fiscal year 2006, which would bring the total federal dollars spent on these programs per year to $206 million.
There is no conclusive evidence that abstinence-only-until-marriage education reduces the rate of unintended pregnancy or sexually transmitted diseases. Moreover, research indicates that in addition to proselytizing, many of these programs do not help teens delay having sex, and some studies show evidence that these programs actually deter teens from protecting themselves from unintended pregnancy or disease when they become sexually active.
"It is alarming that the federal government pours so much money into ineffective and dangerous abstinence-only-until-marriage programs that promote religion," said Daniel Mach, a partner at Jenner & Block LLP. "This misuse of public funds not only harms young people but impermissibly constitutes government-funded religion."
In a related case, earlier this year, the ACLU asked a U.S. District Court in Louisiana to hold the Governor's Program on Abstinence in contempt of a 2002 order requiring it to keep religion out of the taxpayer funded sex education program. A decision is pending in that case.
Today's case is ACLU of Massachusetts v. Leavitt and was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Lawyers on the case include Sternberg and Caroline Mala Corbin of the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project, Mach, Victoria Jueds, Thomas Pulham, and Jessica Tillipman of Jenner & Block LLP, and Sarah Wunsch of the ACLU of Massachusetts.

Jail time for speaking the Truth?

ACLU asks jail for Tangipahoa school officials  
By ADAM NOSSITER
Associated Press writer
5/18/05

Teachers and administrators in Tangipahoa Parish (Louisiana) continue to violate a court-imposed school prayer ban, according to the ACLU, which Wednesday asked a federal judge to send them to jail.For the fourth time in less than two months, the ACLU has formally notified the judge that school officials are flouting the prayer ban, imposed to settle a lawsuit the civil liberties group filed for a parent in 2003.

This time, the group says, an elementary school teacher in Tangipahoa Parish repeatedly held prayers in her fourth grade class, encouraged students to bring their Bibles to school, held Bible study classes in the cafeteria of D.C. Reeves Elementary School and admonished students who didn't show up for the class.

In addition, the ACLU cites a prayer it says was recently given at Amite High School, over a loudspeaker, at an awards banquet. The prayer ended with the words "In Jesus' name we pray," violating the ban; the principal of the school sat silently by.

Wednesday's filing is the latest skirmish in a decade-long battle between the ACLU here and school authorities in the rural parish north of Lake Pontchartrain over the place of religion in the classroom. The group contends parish school officials systematically flout the Constitution's Establishment Clause forbidding the mixing of government and religion.

Court decisions have repeatedly favored the civil liberties group, including the two latest ones - a 2004 prayer ban in the schools and a February decision by U.S. District Judge Ginger Berrigan banning prayer before school board meetings. The school board Tuesday night pressed on with its appeal of that decision, announcing the addition of a national Christian-oriented legal group to its team, the Alliance Defense Fund.

At the same time it warned school employees against flouting the court prayer ban. That warning preceded by hours, however, the ACLU's latest contention that some in Tangipahoa continue to ignore the court's orders.

"The consent judgment is repeatedly violated by these individuals because they do not believe anything will happen to them," the ACLU said in its Wednesday court filing. "Their refusal to comply with the consent decree should and must result in their removal from society."

Under the agreement, no "invocations by students to the student body over the school's public address system, during assemblies or at any school sponsored event" are allowed.
A lawyer for the school board said the latest allegations would be "thoroughly investigated" and "disciplinary actions" would be taken if they hold up.

What the ACLU says and what the ACLU does are opposites.  The following is straight from the ACLU’s website.  It is one of the boldest lies I have ever read.  It makes it clear that the ACLU considers American people to be complete morons who will believe anything.  The statement is in direct contradiction of what the ACLU really stands for – as proven time and time and time again.  They claim they are “ensuring religious liberty” – someone needs to make it clear to them that liars who are unrepentant burn in hell.  

They say they want religion to be free of government interference - how about free from ACLU interference??!!!

How is having Christians jailed (see the last post) “ensuring religious liberty”??

RELIGIOUS LIBERTY
The right of each and every American to practice his or her own religion, or no religion at all, is among the most fundamental of the freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. The Constitution's framers understood very well that religious liberty can flourish only if the government leaves religion alone.
The free exercise clause of the First Amendment guarantees the right to practice one's religion free of government interference. The establishment clause requires the separation of church and state. Combined, they ensure religious liberty. Yet assaults on the freedom to believe continue, both in Washington and in state legislatures around the country.

The ACLU will continue working to ensure that religious liberty is protected by keeping the government out of the religion business.

My fist + the ACLUs face = all the countries problems solved ;D

;D

(http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:R2XPDFGWfwkJ:www.erealestatelajolla.com/images) The Mt. Soledad Cross

Voters to decide on historic cross
ACLU, atheist in 16-year battle to remove it
Posted: May 21, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern
By James Lambert
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

The San Diego City Council voted this week to allow voters to decide the fate of the historic Mt. Soledad Cross overlooking the Pacific Ocean in La Jolla.
The vote represented the newest chapter in a long line of legal battles to remove the cross, led by ACLU attorney James McElroy, who represents an atheist seeking to remove the Christian symbol from public lands.
The legal battles date back to 1989.
Essentially, the voters will decide whether they want to transfer the property to the National Park System as a war memorial.
For more than 50 years, the site has been recognized by the public as a place where war veterans are honored for their service to the United States.
The Mt. Soledad Association manages the site where plaques recognize war veterans who served in the last century. Most of the veterans recognized are from the greater San Diego area.
Last November, two Republican congressmen from San Diego County, Rep. Duncan Hunter and Rep. Randy Cunningham, added a provision to an appropriations bill to allow the city to designate the site as a national war memorial.
If the citizens of San Diego agree with this proposal, the site will be maintained by the National Park System. The bill was signed into law by President Bush in December.
Representatives from the Mt. Soledad Association and the park system were in Washington last week to discuss a working plan to manage the site.
Opponents of the transfer, including the ACLU, contend it is illegal and unconstitutional. However, a lawyer for the Thomas More Center, Charles LiMandri, contends there is legal precedent for protecting religious symbols that already are on federal land.
While the debate on religious symbols on public land slowly is working its way through the courts, the proposition to transfer city property to the federal government will be decided by San Diego voters July 26.
San Diego Mayor Dick Murphy, who is leaving office in July, says "it may provoke additional litigation, but some things are worth fighting for."
Murphy was a supporter of a referendum that forced the city council to revisit the issue. The referendum sparked a record 89,000 petitions to request that the cross not be dismantled from its present site.
The initiative rescinded an earlier vote by the council that would have removed it.
The referendum, put together in just a month, was widely supported by San Diego radio talk-show hosts Roger Hedgecock, Rick Roberts and Mark Larson and Los Angeles host Paul McGuire.
Slightly more than 33,000 verified signatures were required for the referendum to be successful, based on a registered voter base of approximately 650,000 voters.

From the ACLU Website (I feel like I need to take a shower everytime I log in to their site...) here's an update on the Silver Ring Thing (see the first post in this thread.)

In Light of ACLU Lawsuit Charging the Federal Government with Funding Religious Activities, the Silver Ring Thing Removes Religious Content from Website  
May 19, 2005
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Media@dcaclu.org

NEW YORK - In response to a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and Jenner & Block LLP against the federal government for funding religious activities in an abstinence-only program, the Silver Ring Thing today substantially altered and removed religious content from its website.

"The Silver Ring Thing is clearly worried about the content of its website," said Julie Sternberg, a senior staff attorney at the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project. "They are going to great lengths to paint a picture of an organization that does not use taxpayer dollars to promote religion. Unfortunately, altering their website will not be enough to hide the overtly religious message that they have been promoting for years on the public’s dime."
In the last 24 hours, www.silverringthing.com (http://www.silverringthing.com) has undergone a facelift, the ACLU said. Among the removed items are the organization’s newsletters, which contained a clear statement of the Silver Ring Thing’s religious purpose: "The mission is to saturate the United States with a generation of young people who have taken a vow of sexual abstinence until marriage and put on the silver ring. This mission can only be achieved by offering a personal relationship with Jesus Christ as the best way to live a sexually pure life."  
Additionally, the Silver Ring Thing’s original "12 Step Follow-Up Program" has been modified. Prior to the lawsuit, the website contained only one version of a follow-up program. Now, the site offers a "10 Step Secular Follow-Up Program" and has renamed its 12-step version to include the words "faith-centered" in the title. The new program removes step two, which encourages using the Abstinence Study Bible and step four, which asks students to understand that "God has a plan for his or her life, and a plan for his or her sexuality." And "Deb’s Diary," a section of the website that encouraged students to pursue faith and to find completion in Christ, has also been removed.

"A sanitized version of the website does not change the fact that the Silver Ring Thing in its core programming is nothing more than a vehicle for converting young people to Christianity," said Sarah Wunsch, a staff attorney at the ACLU of Massachusetts. "Taxpayer dollars should play no part in such a program."

"The Silver Ring Thing has long been quite open about the religious content in its abstinence-only sex education program," said Daniel Mach, a partner at Jenner & Block LLP. "The federal government had ample time to look into the program and see whether or not taxpayer dollars were being funneled into religious activities. It should not have taken a lawsuit for the Silver Ring Thing to scramble in an attempt to clean up its act."

The case at issue, ACLU of Massachusetts v. Leavitt, was filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on Monday. Lawyers on the case include Sternberg and Caroline Mala Corbin of the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project, Mach, Victoria Jueds, Thomas Pulham, and Jessica Tillipman of Jenner & Block LLP, and Sarah Wunsch of the ACLU of Massachusetts.

The ACLU’s Complaint is available online at: http://www.aclu.org/ReproductiveRights/ReproductiveRights.cfm?ID=18242&c=147 (http://www.aclu.org/ReproductiveRights/ReproductiveRights.cfm?ID=18242&c=147).

It is a dirty messy buisness, isn't it?

Unfortunate, another group that is willing to compromise just in order to attempt to satisfy an evil group that will never be satisfied until all Christianity is fully wiped out.

There is no compromising with the Devil.

The ACLU is determined to make child killing a "legally" secret activity for children.

ACLU Confident the U.S. Supreme Court Will Uphold Lower Court Decision Striking New Hampshire Law Restricting Teenagers’ Access to Abortion
May 23, 2005
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: media@aclu.org

WASHINGTON -- The American Civil Liberties Union today welcomed the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to review a lower court ruling striking down a New Hampshire law restricting teenagers’ access to abortion.
"A Supreme Court ruling in this case will put to rest any lingering question about whether a woman’s right to abortion is entitled to full Constitutional protection," said Jennifer Dalven, Deputy Director of the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project. "We are confident that the Court will uphold the lower court’s ruling and ensure that women will continue to be able to access the health care they need."
The law in question requires health care providers to notify a parent at least 48 hours before providing an abortion to a woman under the age of 18, unless the young woman obtained a court waiver of this requirement. The law contains no exception for circumstances in which the delay would seriously threaten a young woman’s health. Instead the law forces physicians to delay emergency medical care until a young woman is facing imminent death.
"The main question in this case is how many women facing medical emergencies have to have their abortions delayed and health put at risk before the Court holds a law unconstitutional," Dalven said. "As a matter of public health, clearly the answer is one woman is one woman too many."
The state of New Hampshire argued before the lower court that the law in question should stand unless it put the health of all young women at risk. But even if only a few young women face medical emergences and are harmed by this law, the law must have an exception to protect those young women, the ACLU said.
The plaintiffs in the case are Planned Parenthood of Northern New England, the Concord Feminist Health Center, the Feminist Health Center of Portsmouth, and Wayne Goldner, M.D.
In November 2004, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit upheld a district court decision striking down the law, noting that the Act forces physicians to "gamble with their patients’ lives... [or] risk criminal and civil liability."

The case is Planned Parenthood of Northern New England v. Ayotte, Case No. 04-1161. Lawyers on the case include Dalven and Corinne Schiff of the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project; Dara Klassel of PPFA; Martin P. Honigberg of Sulloway & Hollis, PLLC; and Lawrence Vogelman, of Nixon Raiche Manning Vogelman & Leach, PA and Legal Director of the New Hampshire Civil Liberties Union.

To read the ACLU's brief in opposition, please go to: http://www.aclu.org/ReproductiveRights/ReproductiveRights.cfm?ID=18296&c=143.

The following is an editorial from the New Hampshire Union Leader that gives a little explaination to better understand the BILL O'REILLY article that follows it.
 

ACCORDING TO Amnesty International, China continues to operate a system of forced labor camps in which political prisoners are tortured under the name of "re-education." Yet the human rights organization refrains from calling these prisons "gulags," reserving the term for the U.S. Naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where some abuses have happened, but where detainees suspected of trying to kill Americans are treated with far greater restraint and respect than the Chinese apply to their own citizens.

The word "gulag" derives from the acronym for the Soviet Union's Chief Administration of Correctional Labor Camps. Like their Chinese copies, these camps were prisons where political prisoners were systematically forced into years of hard labor, tortured and murdered. That Amnesty International chooses to label Guantanamo Bay, but not China's labor camps, a gulag reveals a severe anti-American bias and loss of perspective.

A week after Amnesty inaccurately and irresponsibly used that inflammatory term, the ACLU won a lawsuit in which it requested the release of videos and photos that recorded how prisoners were treated at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. After the original Abu Ghraib photos were released, Americans died at the hands of terrorists seeking revenge.

"These images may be ugly and shocking . . . (but) the American public deserves to know what is being done in our name," ACLU executive director Anthony D. Romero said. That is true. But do our troops deserve to die for the ACLU's anti-Bush lust?






Monday, June 6, 2005
Story last updated at 12:20 AM on June 6, 2005
Hurting Your Country

By: BY BILL O'REILLY
Creators Syndicate

So how did the USA go from being a beacon of freedom to a champion of the gulag? How exactly did that happen? Well, pull up a chair, here's what happened.

After President Bush won reelection last November, there was much consternation among some powerful anti-Bush Americans. They were stunned that John Kerry lost and feared that if Bush succeeds in his second term, the Democrats would lose again in 2008.

Then came the successful election in Iraq, and the fear on the Left multiplied. If Iraq turned out to be a success, Mr. Bush would become a hero. So the need to undermine the Bush administration became more intense than ever. But how to do it? Social Security wasn't emotional enough, particularly for young voters. What could be done to hurt Bush?

Then came the revelation: Let's torture the president.

The New York Times had already primed the pump, running more than 50 front-page stories on the abuses at Abu Ghraib. Then came reports from the International Red Cross that more abuse was happening at Guantanamo. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) was already challenging detentions there, and so a strategy was sealed: The Bush administration was full of torturers and human rights violators. It was ruining America's reputation throughout the world. Bush was a villain.

It was easy to get that thesis out. The left-wing Web sites fed anti-Bush columnists like Bob Herbert and Richard Cohen information, and the drumbeat intensified. There was torture and abuse and murder all sanctioned by the evil Bush administration. Article after article appeared, and soon, some TV people followed along. It didn't take long before the torture seed was fully sown.

The Newsweek debacle slowed things down a little, but the anti-Bush press quickly banded together and pronounced Newsweek's mistake would never have happened if Bush weren't torturing everybody. I'm sure you read those opinion pieces as they appeared in liberal newspapers all over the country. The theme and wording were so similar that one person could have written all of those articles. And that was no accident.

All the while this was happening, the president and his crew were doing what they usually do when the press pounds them: nothing. They did not engage the abuse propaganda until it was obvious Newsweek had screwed up. But even that effort was derided by many in The White House press corps, who chided the administration for scolding Newsweek.

Now the torture theme has new momentum. A liberal federal judge in New York City has ruled the Defense Department must release more photos and videos of Abu Ghraib to the ACLU. Of course, that will incite even more hatred against the USA and put our soldiers in more danger, but, hey, politics comes before protecting the troops. The anti-Bush people want those pictures almost as badly as Al Jazeera wants them. Another nail in the president's coffin is more important than bodies in real coffins.

If you think I am exaggerating, I assure you I am not. This torture campaign is being run brilliantly, and if Mr. Bush doesn't wise up soon, he will be bloodied just as Lyndon Johnson was in the Vietnam debacle.

The truth is that abuse has occurred but on a relatively small scale. According to General Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the United States has detained about 68,000 people since 9/11 (most have been released), and there have been 325 investigations into alleged abuse. At this writing, about 100 cases of wrongdoing have been substantiated.

That's not a big number, but it doesn't matter to the anti-Bush cabal, which understands that perception is reality in a nation where "reality programming" is the rage of the day. If you can sell the nation that America is now a war criminal, President Hillary Clinton is a real possibility.

So there you have it. For the anti-Bush folks it is simple: no pain, no gain. Torture is selling, and the media is buying. For those of you who are appalled by this analysis, I can only say one thing: Sometimes the truth, like torture, hurts.

Veteran TV news anchor Bill O'Reilly is host of the Fox News show "The O'Reilly Factor" and author of the book "Who's Looking Out For You?"

Pastor Roger - here's the ACLU 'spin' on your post (of course, in their minds they are doing a great service):

From the ACLU Website (I don't suggest going there - if you raise their 'hit' count it could encourage them):

Federal Court Orders Government to Turn Over Videos and Photos Showing Detainee Abuse
June 2, 2005
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: media@aclu.org

NEW YORK -- A federal judge has ordered the Defense Department to turn over dozens of photographs and four movies depicting detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq as part of an ongoing lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union.

"These images may be ugly and shocking, but they depict how the torture was more than the actions of a few rogue soldiers," said Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU. "The American public deserves to know what is being done in our name. Perhaps after these and other photos are forced into the light of day, the government will at long last appoint an outside special counsel to investigate the torture and abuse of detainees."
The court order came in response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the ACLU, the New York Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights to obtain documents and materials pertaining to the treatment of detainees held by American forces in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantánamo Bay.

Attorneys for the government had argued that turning over visual evidence of abuse would violate the United States’ obligations under the Geneva Conventions, but the ACLU said that obscuring the faces and identifiable features of the detainees would erase any potential privacy concerns. The court agreed.

"It is indeed ironic that the government invoked the Geneva Conventions as a basis for withholding these photographs," said Amrit Singh, a staff attorney at the ACLU. "Had the government genuinely adhered to its obligations under these Conventions, it could have prevented the widespread abuse of detainees held in its custody in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantánamo Bay."

The court order filed late yesterday requires the government by June 30 to reprocess and redact 144 detainee abuse photographs provided by Sergeant Joseph Darby to the Army’s Criminal Investigation Command. The order also requires the government to provide the court with an estimate of the length of time it will take to reprocess and redact four movies included as part of the Darby collection by June 10. The decision comes after the court privately viewed eight of the images from the Darby collection to determine whether the photographs should be released under the FOIA. The ACLU expects redacted versions of the photographs to be released within the next six weeks.

To date, more than 35,000 pages of documents have been released in response to the FOIA lawsuit. The ACLU has been posting these documents online at www.aclu.org/torturefoia.

The FOIA lawsuit is being handled by Lawrence Lustberg and Megan Lewis of the New Jersey-based law firm Gibbons, Del Deo, Dolan, Griffinger & Vecchione, P.C. Other attorneys in the case are Amrit Singh, Jameel Jaffer and Judy Rabinovitz of the ACLU; Arthur N. Eisenberg and Beth Haroules of the NYCLU; and Barbara Olshansky of the Center for Constitutional Rights.

The court order is available at: http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=18395&c=206  


Of course - if human rights violations actually are taking place, as Christians we want that to end.  However, one must carefully weigh the term "human rights" against the terrorist's deepest desire to kill anyone non-muslim.  

The ACLU has every Christian in the USA in a mental "gulag".  Where do they come off being the hero of anyone but Satan's worshipers?

I am more convinced everyday that the ACLU has an agenda to destroy the U. S. and to construct a new nation that is anti-christian and completely communistic. Just exactly the kind of nation that Satan would approve of.

Lawmaker sued over use of 'Jesus'
Civil-liberties group: Opening prayers at House offend non-Christians
Posted: June 7, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern

A civil-liberties group has sued the speaker of the Indiana House of Representatives, claiming the use of the name of Jesus in prayers to open the body's daily sessions is unconstitutional.
The federal lawsuit by the Indiana Civil Liberties Union says including such phrases as "In the strong name of Jesus our savior," "We pray this in Christ's name," and "I appeal to our Lord and savior, Jesus Christ" exclude people who aren't Christians.
The legal action targets House Speaker Brian Bosma, a Republican and a Christian.
"The suit does not seek to prevent opening the House session with prayers," ICLU Legal Director Ken Falk said in a statement, but asks that such prayers show "respect for the beliefs of all Indiana residents and the constitutional guarantee of religious freedom for all."
The House invites clergy from around the state to open sessions in prayer. Those offering prayers have included a Muslim imam and Jewish rabbi. When a member of the clergy is not available, a House member will pray instead.
Christians have criticized the ICLU, saying it is attempting to restrict free-speech rights.
"This is a further outrage from the Indiana Civil Liberties Union as it continues an unrelenting attack on people of faith in the public square," Curt Smith, president of the Indiana Family Institute, told the Indianapolis Star. "I am confident that every court in the land will reject this crass ploy."
According to the ICLU, on April 5, when the Rev. Clarence Brown of Second Baptist Church of Bedford, Ind., encouraged lawmakers to stand and clap as he sang "Just a Little Talk with Jesus," several lawmakers walked out in protest.
Bosma was resolute in his prayer policy.
"The day the Indiana Civil Liberties Union dictates free speech on the floor of the Indiana House is the day that democracy begins to decline," Bosma told the Star.
"This is an important right that we need to preserve."
The speaker said the tradition of opening the House sessions with prayer dates back to 1826.
The Rev. Henry Gerner, one of four plaintiffs identified in the lawsuit, said the prayers are offensive to Muslims, Sikhs, Jews and anyone who does not share the Christian faith.
"I have no problem in a general kind of gathering with persons reflecting on their own beliefs," Gerner is quoted as saying. "For it to be trumpeted from the podium in the chambers of the House, I think it makes it abhorrent."
Anthony Hinrichs, another plaintiff, told the Indianapolis paper: "Our legislators, regardless of their good intentions, have created a culture of religious bigotry. Our lawmakers are asked to rise, clapping and swaying to Gospel songs as if it were an old-time tent revival. Such behavior can only codify a particular religious belief and create a policy of exclusion. It has no place in our Legislature."

Luke Messer is the executive director of the Indiana Republican Party.

"The Indiana Civil Liberties Union should be embarrassed for filing its preposterous lawsuit against Speaker of the House Brian Bosma," Messer said in a statement. "There is absolutely nothing wrong with allowing local religious leaders to recite a prayer at the opening of daily legislative sessions in the House Chambers. I applaud the speaker for encouraging free speech and the principles upon which our nation was founded. We stand around the American flag as a state and nation reciting the words 'one nation under God' and our currency has a daily reminder with 'In God We Trust.'"

Messer says he believes most Hoosiers would stand behind Bosma and his prayer practices.

I noticed nothing was said about the Muslims praying to Allah as being offensive to anyone.

I am adding this one to my prayer list and hoping the Hoosiers do stand up against the ICLU.

Here's a link to a well written piece concerning the ACLU posted on IntellectualConservative.com.  It's worth the few minutes it takes to read.

http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article4392.html (http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article4392.html)

I couldn't stand to finish reading this article. It is right on the spot though, it is just that it angers me to see communism of this nature slowly taking over our nation when so many people have fought and died for the freedoms that this nation has enjoyed for so many years.

I made a statement in the early 1970's that if this nation were to fall to communism it would have to be from the inside and not due to being beat by another country. This is exactly what the ACLU is doing, turning this nation into communism.

I remember "krew chef"  (sorry about the spelling) pounding with his shoe saying "we will bury you"  He meant from the inside .....

The folks in DC are cowards....

I just read that article and had a thought.  OK guys, so you smelled somethin' smokin' ;D ;D.

Does anyone know how big the ACLU is?  If they aren't a large group, then how are they doing so much damage?  I understand the pro bono's but that isn't the answer.  Why is it, well, I'll just wait until someone answers this post.





 

This is some outdated information that was obtained just after 9-11. The ACLU has 330,000 dues-paying members. These dues help support the ACLU in its agenda. In 2003, the ACLU received $470,000 in such contributions. These were donations that were received through the federal donation program (Individual Income Tax Forms). There actual donations received are private but considerably more than what they used to receive through the federal donation program.

There is not only the National ACLU there individual state branches none of which are lacking in funds.

The ACLU is a rather large group.

I had no idea they were so large.  My original thought was if they were a relatively small group, how could they be so powerful?  Wish they'd all gather together in one place...........like Mt. St. Helen's.  I know that wasn't a very Christian-like statement.


 

   

Mexicos volcano of Fire would be a better place.  :D It is in the process of erupting many times in the last week. If the ACLU doesn't change their ways they will be facing much greater heat than that.

 ;D

This is a real stomach turner.  Get control of your gag reflex before reading.

ACLU and Planned Parenthood Ask Court to Block Idaho’s Third Attempt at Restricting Teenagers’ Access to Abortion
June 15, 2005
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: media@aclu.org

BOISE, ID -- The American Civil Liberties Union and Planned Parenthood Federation of America argued in court today that Idaho’s third attempt at enforcing a dangerous measure restricting teenagers’ access to abortion should be enjoined.

"The safety of Idaho’s most vulnerable teens should be our first concern," said Rebecca Poedy, President of Planned Parenthood of Idaho. "Putting politics before health care, the state persists in its efforts to enforce a law that would harm teenagers, especially those in need of emergency abortions."

The law in question prevents teens under 18 from having an abortion unless they receive the written consent of a parent or a court waiver of that requirement. Although slightly modified from two earlier versions already struck down by the courts, the law at issue in today’s case suffers from two flaws previously declared unconstitutional: It compromises the confidentiality of teens who need emergency abortions, and of teens seeking waiver of the parental consent requirement.

"Three times is not the charm when it comes to Idaho’s attempts at restricting teens’ access to abortion," said Louise Melling, Director of the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project. "We are confident the court will once again block a law that puts Idaho teens at risk."

In March, the U.S. Supreme Court denied Idaho’s request to review a lower court’s ruling striking down an earlier version of the law because it endangered teenagers’ health. The legislature responded by enacting yet another law, one that incorporates provisions nearly identical to those previously declared unconstitutional. Planned Parenthood and the ACLU filed suit against the new measure in April.

"It is mind boggling that the state is indifferent to the fact that this law is unconstitutional and dangerous," said Alan Herzfeld, cooperating counsel for the ACLU of Idaho. "The state cannot force teens seeking an abortion to obtain written consent from a parent without providing a confidential alternative to protect teens who can’t involve a parent in their decision. This law does not provide that protection."

Today’s case is Planned Parenthood of Idaho v. Wasden, Case No. CV05-148-S-BLW. Lawyers on the case include Melling and Chakshu Patel of the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project, Helene Krasnoff and Roger Evans of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, and Herzfeld for the ACLU of Idaho Foundation.

The ACLU and Planned Parenthood brief in the case is available online at: http://www.aclu.org/ReproductiveRights/ReproductiveRights.cfm?ID=18033&c=143.

This law is not what is dangerous, the ACLU and Planned Parenthood is what is dangerous not only to the health of these teens but to their very souls.

The latest anti-God news, straight from the 'other side', clearly hypocritical, promoting 'civil rights' with one hand and squashing human rights with the other:

ACLU Calls on Congress to Reject Funding of Religious Activities, Says Faith Based Initiative Goes Too Far and Threatens Civil Rights
   
June 21, 2005

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Media@dcaclu.org

WASHINGTON - The American Civil Liberties Union today urged lawmakers not to give the green light to the president’s plan to funnel taxpayer dollars to faith-based organizations to provide social services. Without the proper safeguards, the president’s "Faith-Based Initiative" will amount to little more than "government funded religion."

"The government can - and has - provided assistance to faith-based and secular organizations to run social service programs so long as they all abide by the same rules," said Terri Ann Schroeder, Senior Lobbyist with the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. "The White House seeks to give religious organizations a special right to run publicly funded programs and to ignore the civil rights laws that apply to all other recipients of federal dollars. Religious organizations have the right to promote their religious views and run their operations as they see fit when using their own money, but not on the taxpayers’ dime."

The House Government Reform Subcommittee on Federalism and the Census met today to consider the relationship between government and faith-based organizations to provide social services. Unable to gain the support of Congress for its plan, the Bush Administration has advanced its government funded religion plan through executive orders and regulatory changes. Under the guidelines promoted by the Bush Administration, faith-based social service providers would be given the right to discriminate in their hiring for federally funded jobs, preach to service recipients, and generally play by a different set of rules than their secular counterparts. Under the Bush plan, the neediest among us could find themselves offered salvation and not treatment.

At today’s hearing, witnesses in support of the faith based-initiative offered truly startling policy suggestions regarding pre-emption of state and local civil rights laws. The vast majority of federal funding for social service programs is administered through state and local governments, many of which offer greater civil rights protections. Lawmakers heard suggestions that such locally enacted protections be cast aside. Also suggested was an exemption for faith-based providers from the standard licensing and certification requirements in substance abuse and other treatment programs.

The ACLU noted that if the president’s push for government funded religion succeeds, social workers, psychologists, counselors and others seeking work in social service programs could be denied jobs solely because of their faith, gender, marital status of sexual orientation.

"The greatest irony here is that the current civil rights protections against discrimination in many federal programs date back to federal job-training legislation adopted 23 years ago - passed by a Republican Senate and signed by a Republican president," Schroeder said. "Congress must not reverse our long-held belief that faith-based groups that receive federal funds must abide by non-discrimination laws."

Squash that prayer!!!  It could be 'hurtful' to the enemies of God!

ACLU fights school board's prayers
Panel has been invoking God before meetings for 30 years
Posted: June 23, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern
WorldNetDaily.com

A school board is battling the ACLU in court for the right to open its meetings with prayers that invoke "God," "Heavenly Father" and "Jesus."
The Tangipahoa Parish School Board in Louisiana is appealing a federal judge's ruling that such prayers violated the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution, which says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."
The Thomas More Law Center, a public-interest law firm, has submitted a friend-of-the-court brief with the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in support of the school district.
Richard Thompson, the Law Center's chief counsel, said the case is "just another example of the concerted effort to destroy the religious foundations of our nation."
"Acknowledging beliefs that are widely held among the American people is not a violation of the Constitution," he said.
The school board -- which has opened each of its meetings with a prayer, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance, for more than 30 years -- argues the invocations impose no restriction on any religious viewpoint, and any person who wants to lead the prayer may do so regardless of his religious beliefs.
In 2003, however, a parent of two high school students in the district, represented by the ACLU, filed a lawsuit claiming the invocations were unconstitutional.
The trial judge recognized it is constitutional for legislative or deliberative bodies to begin meetings with prayer, but she ruled the principle did not apply to the school board.
The Thomas More Law Center argues that the school board is a deliberative body under Louisiana law; its meetings are held separately from classroom and school-related activities; and students are not required to attend the meetings.
In its brief, the law firm pointed out that sessions of the U. S. House of Representatives begin with prayers making reference to "God," "Heavenly Father" and "Jesus." The prayers also offer thanksgiving and seek wisdom, guidance, forgiveness and protection.
The school board's prayers are not different in any material respect, the brief asserts.
Edward L. White III, an attorney with the Law Center who drafted the brief, argued the "prayers said to start Tangipahoa Parish School Board meetings are as constitutional as those said to start any other meeting of a legislative or deliberative body, including the House of Representatives."
"It is a deeply embedded part of the history and tradition of this country for deliberative bodies to open their sessions with prayer," he said.
Last week, a state Senate panel approved a resolution expressing support of the Legislature for prayer at school board meetings.
The resolution says prayer is protected and follows the country's founding principles.

"It is a deeply embedded part of the history and tradition of this country for deliberative bodies to open their sessions with prayer."

My first thought about the above quotation is how the catholics are bashed for their "traditions", but here, because of the prayer problem in schools, tradition is OK in this sense.  It just hit me about double standards. I know I'll get some disagreement on this.  It's OK, though.


 

cris - "tradition" definity goes many ways.  It's tradition for some 'tribes' in Malasia to eat their dead family members.
 :)

Okay - I guess that may not be quite parallel to your point. :)  

(Ha-ha - I kill me!)

ACLU Now Defends Polygamy, Further Eroding Traditional Marriage

By James L. Lambert
June 24, 2005

(AgapePress) - In comments at an Ivy League school, the president of the American Civil Liberties Union has indicated that among the "fundamental rights" of people is the right to polygamous relationships -- and that the ACLU has defended and will continue to defend that right.

In a little-reported speech offered at Yale University earlier this year, ACLU president Nadine Strossen stated that her organization has "defended the right of individuals to engage in polygamy." Yale Daily News says Strossen was responding to a "student's question about gay marriage, bigamy, and polygamy." She continued, saying that her legal organization "defend the freedom of choice for mature, consenting individuals," making the ACLU "the guardian of liberty ... defend[ing] the fundamental rights of all people."

The ACLU's newly revealed defense of polygamy may weaken the pro-homosexual argument for changing the traditional definition of marriage. Proponents of same-sex "marriage" have long insisted that their effort to include homosexual couples in that definition would only be that. However, conservative and traditional marriage advocates predict "other shoes will drop" if homosexual marriage is legalized -- perhaps including attempts to legalize polygamy and to changed current legal definitions of child-adult relationships.

Crawford Broadcasting radio talk-show host Paul McGuire concurs. He says in his opinion, the ACLU "has declared legal war on the traditional family."

"Now the ACLU is defending polygamy," he continues, in response to Strossen's comments. "You know, there are male and female lawyers who wake up in the morning and are actually proud of being ACLU lawyers. But I think the majority of Americans view ACLU lawyers as people who hate America and who want to destroy all Judeo-Christian values and beliefs."

McGuire summarizes by saying that Strossen's organization seems "to only defend things that tear down the fabric of society."

National Review correspondent Ramesh Ponnuru provides some additional insight. "It could be that the ACLU has defended a right for people to set up households in this way without necessarily fighting for governmental recognition of polygamous 'marriages,'" he says.

"Even if so," Ponnuru concludes, "it is hard to see how the ACLU, on its own principles, could stop short of demanding a change to the marriage laws to allow for polygamy."

Strossen has been president of the ACLU since 1991. She is also an acting professor of law at New York Law School and the author of the book, Defending Pornography: Free Speech, Sex & the Fight for Women's Rights (Scriber).

I think we all saw this one coming.

How can any Christian - or any American for that matter, support an organization who does this?

Cross-hating lawyer part of border-ranch grab
ACLU attorney working to oust memorial chairs group that helped illegals
Posted: August 25, 2005, 1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Allyson Smith, WorldNetDaily.com

San Diego attorney James McElroy – known for his iconoclastic quest to help an atheist remove the Mt. Soledad War Veterans Memorial cross overlooking the Pacific Ocean and his litigious attacks on pro-lifers – is also board chairman of the Montgomery, Ala.-based Southern Poverty Law Center, which recently won a lawsuit resulting in the transfer of an Arizona ranch from its American owner to two Salvadoran illegal aliens.

Camp Thunderbird, a 70-acre ranch located in Douglas, Ariz., about two miles from the Mexican border and formerly owned by Ranch Rescue as a training ground for Americans to help provide security for border-area ranchers, was turned over last week to trespassers Fatima Leiva and Edwin Mancía.

According to a press release on the Southern Poverty Law Center website, "In April the Center obtained a pair of judgments totaling $1 million against [Casey] Nethercott and Torre John 'Jack' Foote, another Ranch Rescue member. Those awards came six months after a $350,000 judgment in the same case and coincide with a $100,000 out-of-court settlement with Texas rancher Joe Sutton. Sutton had invited the anti-immigration group to his property to repel Latinos who regularly cross his land."

According to the New York Times, Mancía and Leiva were caught on Sutton's Hebbronville, Tex., ranch "in March 2003 by Mr. Nethercott and other members of Ranch Rescue. The two immigrants later accused Mr. Nethercott of threatening them and of hitting Mr. Mancía with a pistol, charges that Mr. Nethercott denied. The immigrants also said the group gave them cookies, water and a blanket and let them go after an hour or so.

"The Salvadorans testified against Mr. Nethercott when he was tried by Texas prosecutors. The jury deadlocked on a charge of pistol-whipping but convicted Mr. Nethercott, who had previously served time in California for assault, of gun possession, which is illegal for a felon. He is now serving a five-year sentence in a Texas prison."

The article quotes Southern Poverty Law Center co-founder Morris Dees as saying, "Certainly it's poetic justice that these undocumented workers own this land." The case has sparked outrage throughout the United States, including recent tirades by nationally syndicated radio talk-show host Michael Savage and others.

McElroy has chaired the SPLC board since 2003. He describes his initial meeting with Dees this way:

    "By sheer coincidence, Morris Dees was in San Diego working on the Tom Metzger case," recalls McElroy, referring to the Center's landmark lawsuit against Metzger and his hate group, White Aryan Resistance (WAR). "I heard he was in the same office building where I was working. I wanted to introduce myself to him, so I strolled down and said hello. I told him, 'I know this is a Portland case, but if you need any help in San Diego, let me know.'"

McElroy's bio on the SPLC website continues:

    Dees was in San Diego to take Metzger's deposition in the case that ultimately resulted in a $12.5 million judgment against Metzger and WAR. The Center filed the suit on behalf of the family of Mulugeta Seraw, an Ethiopian student killed in 1988 by a Portland, Ore., skinhead gang trained in WAR's methods. …

    In the weeks and years after that meeting, McElroy's role in the Metzger case grew. When the case was over, he assumed responsibility for seizing Metzger's assets and making sure they got to Seraw's family, including his son, Henock, in Ethiopia. In the end, the funds from the settlement ensured Henock would have an American education, paid for by Tom Metzger.

    In 1996, McElroy joined the Center's board of directors. Four years later, he assisted the Center in Keenan vs. Aryan Nations in Idaho, which resulted in a $6.3 million judgment against the Aryan Nations and its founder, Richard Butler. In 2003, he was elected board chairman."

An Illinois native and graduate of the Catholic University of San Diego Law School, McElroy is well-known in San Diego pro-life circles for targeting Christians who minister to abortion-minded women in front of Planned Parenthood abortion clinics, for thwarting efforts to compel the abortion giant to report suspected cases of child sexual molestation and for threatening to financially bankrupt pro-life attorneys.

During an April 1999 speech at the University of San Diego, Dees praised McElroy, calling him "a very courageous lawyer here in this town." Dees also recalled his receipt of an honorary doctorate of law from the school a few years earlier and praised the university for its "strong religious base." USD permits "gay pride" groups on campus and regularly hosts heterodox pro-homosexual and pro-abortion-rights speakers.

McElroy's Southern Poverty Law Center biography states he "has also worked with Planned Parenthood and other family planning clinics to protect patients, staff and doctors from violence. In 1994, Lt. Governor Leo McCarthy appointed McElroy to the State Commission on the Prevention of Hate Violence. He has testified before various congressional committees on hate-crimes legislation, taught courses to lawyers on how to prosecute civil hate-crimes cases and has published a collection of judgments in civil rights cases.

"McElroy has received many awards for his work. In 1994, the Anti-Defamation League recognized his pro bono work by giving him its National Civil Rights Achievement Award. In 1995, he received the Margaret Sanger Award given by Planned Parenthood for his work on behalf of women's rights."

Another San Diego abortion provider, the now-defunct Womancare Health Center, "recognized McElroy in 1996 for 'outstanding work in protecting the rights of women,' and in 2004, the San Diego County Bar Association recognized McElroy as its Outstanding Attorney of the Year."

More recently, McElroy has gained national attention by assisting atheist Philip Paulson in his lawsuit to remove the Mt. Soledad Cross, a 43-foot high, 52-year-old cross overlooking the Pacific Ocean dedicated to American soldiers who fought and died for the United States during the Korean War.

After 15 years of adverse court rulings, more than 75 percent of San Diegans who came to the polls last month voted to keep the Mt. Soledad Cross as it is, where it is. Yet, before and since that vote, McElroy has made several attempts to thwart the will of the people. In June, he filed a lawsuit against five San Diego-area personalities and backers of the cross initiative, including well-known radio talk-show hosts Roger Hedgecock and Rick Roberts, over the proposed wording of the ballot initiative.

Just days before the historical vote, McElroy also sought – and won – a judicial decision to change the ballot majority from a simple majority to a super two-thirds majority. The voters passed the initiative overwhelmingly, exceeding the higher threshold sought by McElroy. Despite this victory, additional state and federal court cases brought by the ACLU attorney challenging the constitutionality of the cross and the July 26 ballot measure are scheduled to be heard in October.