ACLU In The News

[Soldier4Christ]

Like usual the ACLU is doing just what they claim they are against. They have alsways claimed for equality now they want to set up voting districts based on peoples race.


ACLU Says African-Americans Can't Get Elected In Somerset County

African-Americans can't become elected officials in Somerset County. That's what the American Civil Liberties Union believes and now they're trying to figure out why.

The ACLU is investigating if the voting districting in Somerset County discriminates against African-American voters. The county is 43 percent African-American, but has zero African-American county officials.

Voting officials redrew district lines 20 years ago to make the vote more reflective of the population.

Meredith Curtis with the ACLU says her organization doesn't think it's working.

[Soldier4Christ]

State Library cancels ACLU film amid criticism


HELENA The Montana State Library has canceled a showing of a movie critical of the U-S Patriot Act, after people complained about the American Civil Liberties Union being involved.
The State Library says it originally thought the film, "The A-C-L-U Freedom Files," would be a good pick for its monthly seminar series.

But the library decided today that the presentation might be too one-sided, and canceled a viewing scheduled for Friday.

State Library spokeswoman Sara J. Groves says complaints came from people who didn't like the idea of the A-C-L-U getting a forum at a state agency.

Scott Crichton is executive director of the A-C-L-U Montana. He says his organization is disappointed in the decision.

Crichton says the government has a bully pulpit when it comes to privacy intrusions, and the video simply counters some of the government's assertions.

[Soldier4Christ]

ACLU Panel Urges Impeachment Over NSA Spying
By Monisha Bansal
CNSNews.com Staff Writer


(CNSNews.com) -- While White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan was asserting Monday that the National Security Agency's domestic surveillance program was a vital tool in the war against terrorism, a panel assembled by the American Civil Liberties Union was arguing that President Bush should be impeached over the spying program.

"If the political alignment in the country were otherwise, impeachment would be a no-brainer," said Laurence H. Tribe, professor of constitutional law at Harvard University.

In December, the New York Times disclosed that President Bush had authorized the NSA to tap international telephone calls that included one party suspected of terrorist activity.

Since that time the program's legality has been debated, especially over whether the president violated the law when he authorized the interception of electronic communications without first obtaining permission from the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Court.

Tribe added that wiretapping is not an inherent power of the presidency. "That free flowing inherent power is the very thing we fought a revolution against."

"It violates the basic rules of the road of how you operate," said Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the ACLU. "No judge, at any level has signed a warrant for this."

John Dean, a former White House counsel during the Nixon administration, compared the Bush administration's wiretapping to the Watergate scandal. "[Bush] has made such a radical reading of his powers, not unlike Nixon. And those who have operated under his behalf have pursued that policy, so it could well end up where we were at the Nixon White House.

"There is no question in my mind that this president has already committed one or more impeachable offenses. This is pretty serious stuff. It's worse than Watergate."

But the Bush administration has aggressively defended the surveillance program.

"The terrorist surveillance program helps us to connect the dots and save lives and prevent attacks," said McClellan.

"I think most leaders understand that this is not only a necessary tool, but a vital tool in our efforts to disrupt plots and prevent attacks here at home. We will continue to listen to ideas from members of Congress and we will continue to work with them on legislation that would protect this vital program and address some of the issues that have been raised."

[Soldier4Christ]

ACLU dismisses Sodrel prayer legislation as political ploy


INDIANAPOLIS - A proposal that would bar federal judges from ruling on the content of prayer in state legislatures is a political ploy and an attempt to end-run the Constitution, the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana said Tuesday.

U.S. Rep. Mike Sodrel, a Republican, has introduced legislation he said would prevent federal courts from ruling on the content of speech in legislatures.

The proposal is a response to a November ruling by U.S. District Judge David Hamilton, who said the official Indiana House proceedings could not begin with prayers that mention Jesus Christ or endorse any particular religion.

Sodrel, joined at a Statehouse news conference Tuesday by U.S. Rep. Dan Burton, called Hamilton's ruling "a clear example of judicial activism."

"It threatens to spread across the nation," Sodrel said.

Sodrel said his bill would provide immunity for content of speech for lawmakers or their guests during a legislative session, excluding witnesses and excluding speech that constitutes treason, an admission of a crime or a breach of the peace. The bill would also prohibit the use of federal funds to enforce a decision like Hamilton's.

Ken Falk, the ACLU of Indiana's legal director, said many court decisions have been unpopular at the time they are issued, including the Brown v. Board of Education 1954 court decision that banned "separate but equal" schools.

He said Congress should not restrict the jurisdiction of federal courts just because some people disagree with Hamilton's ruling.

"If you disagree with a court decision, you appeal the case," Falk said. "I've lost lots of cases, but I've never yet questioned the validity of the American system of justice."

House Speaker Brian Bosma has already begun to fight Hamilton's ruling. He has filed a request for a stay with the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago. Bosma, R-Indianapolis, said he will be filing a full appeals brief before the April 10 deadline.

Sodrel said he didn't want to wait to file his bill until the appeals court makes a decision on the matter.

"We can spend a lot of time waiting, and that's, in my mind, wasting time," he said.

But Falk said Sodrel's proposal was a political ploy. Sodrel and Burton are both up for re-election this year.

"It's a transparent political move," Falk said. "I have nothing against a transparent political move. What bothers me, as someone who has spent my lifetime being a lawyer, is the immense disrespect that is shown to the judicial branch."

While Bosma awaits an appeals court decision on a possible stay, House members have been complying with Hamilton's order by meeting for informal prayers in the back of their chambers before official business begins.

"It's just unseemly," Burton said of the practice. "It looks like we're putting the things that gave us our moral foundation in this country on the back of the bus."

[Soldier4Christ]

State library cancels ACLU film amid criticism
By MATT GOURAS - Associated Press Writer - 02/22/06

HELENA — The Montana State Library has canceled a showing of a movie critical of the U.S. Patriot Act after people complained about the American Civil Liberties Union being involved.

The State Library said it originally thought the film, ‘‘The ACLU Freedom Files,’’ would be a good pick for its monthly seminar series because parts of the Patriot Act affects libraries.

But the library decided Tuesday the presentation might be one-sided in its criticism of the Patriot Act and canceled a viewing scheduled for Friday.

A State Library spokeswoman said complaints came from residents and state employees who didn’t like the idea of the ACLU getting a forum.

‘‘They weren’t really protesting the video; they were protesting the ACLU being at a state agency,’’ said Sara J. Groves. ‘‘That was the majority of the complaints.’’

The library considered finding someone to counter the ACLU’s position on the Patriot Act but couldn’t on short notice. They might try such an event at a later date, Groves said.

‘‘It’s very possible we will do something that will present all sides of this issue,’’ she said.

The ACLU of Montana, which was scheduled to moderate Friday’s forum, said it was disappointed in the State Library’s decision.

The ACLU has been a staunch critic of the Patriot Act.

‘‘I think the government has a bully pulpit day in and day out about why intrusions into our privacy are warranted,’’ said Scott Crichton, executive director of the ACLU Montana. ‘‘All the video does is counter some of the assertions the government continues to make, and helps people to understand why the Patriot Act is a threat to people’s privacy.’’

Crichton said it is hard to find someone in Montana who supports the Patriot Act and doesn’t work for the federal government.

‘‘As we have made clear, since its passage, any time, any place the government wants to make their case, we are happy to engage in principled debate with them,’’ Crichton said.

Crichton said the film on the Patriot Act is one segment in a series produced by the ACLU on people whose civil liberties have been threatened. The Patriot Act piece was mailed to about 150 Montana libraries.

Part of the film centers on an Arab American ACLU client who Crichton says was illegally pulled off a train while passing through Montana.

The State Library said it usually has a small crowd at its monthly seminars and was hoping the ACLU film would draw a bigger audience. The agency didn’t anticipate the level of criticism against the ACLU, though.

‘‘It was something that really got people’s attention,’’ said Groves. ‘‘I just think it’s been an interesting experience. We just thought we were going to host an interesting event that would generate a lot of discussion.’’

[Soldier4Christ]

ACLU, People for the American Way Join Forces to Oppose Rutherford Institute Lawsuit Over City Council Member’s Right to Pray ‘in Jesus’ Name’

FREDERICKSBURG, Va. — The Fredericksburg (VA) City Council has announced its decision to accept an offer from the Richmond-based law firm Hunton & Williams and the People for the American Way Foundation to defend the city against a Rutherford Institute lawsuit that challenges the city council’s ban on sectarian prayer at meetings. The American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia has also announced its intention to weigh in on the matter with a friend-of-the-court brief in support of the ban on sectarian prayers. The announcements came in response to a lawsuit filed in January 2006 by attorneys for The Rutherford Institute against the City Council of Fredericksburg, Va., for adopting a prayer policy that discriminates against city council member Hashmel Turner because of his Christian beliefs and prevents him from praying at council meetings according to his conscience and religious beliefs. The Fredericksburg City Council’s policy prohibiting sectarian prayers was adopted after the American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia threatened them with a lawsuit if they did not take steps to pressure or force Turner to stop praying in Jesus Christ’s name. In their complaint, which was filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Institute attorneys charge that the Fredericksburg City Council’s policy regarding prayers at the start of council meetings violates Turner’s constitutional rights to free speech, to freely exercise his religious beliefs and to equal protection of the law.

There has been increasing confusion over the issue of prayer and/or invocations at City Council meetings since the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its 2004 decision in Wynne v. Town of Great Falls, South Carolina, in which the court held that City Council members in Great Falls violated the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause by engaging in prayers that contained explicit references to a deity of one specific faith. A subsequent ruling in Simpson v. Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors added to the confusion when the court rejected a challenge to a county board’s practice of opening board public meetings with a prayer. For years, the Fredericksburg City Council has allowed its council members on a rotating basis to open meetings with a prayer without placing any restrictions on the nature of that prayer. On those occasions when it has been his turn to offer a prayer, city councilman Hashmel Turner, in keeping with his Christian beliefs, has ended his prayers by briefly invoking the name of Jesus Christ. However, on two separate occasions over the past several years, the Virginia ACLU has raised objections to Turner’s prayers and has threatened to sue the City for allowing the sectarian prayers. In its most recent letter, the ACLU demanded that the Fredericksburg City Council take official action to prevent Turner from offering a prayer according to his religious beliefs and conscience. Turner, who also serves as acting pastor for First Baptist Church of Love in Fredericksburg, has refused to compromise his religious beliefs by allowing others to dictate how he prays. On November 8, 2005, the Fredericksburg City Council acceded to the ACLU’s demands and adopted a prayer policy that could make Turner’s sectarian prayers “disorderly conduct,” subjecting him to punishment and fines. In filing suit against the City of Fredericksburg’s City Council for its discriminatory policy, Institute attorneys are asking the court to declare that the Council’s prayer policy is an unconstitutional violation of Turner’s free speech rights and allow Turner to pray in accordance with his conscience and his religious beliefs.

[Soldier4Christ]

KENTUCKY GENERAL ASSEMBLY
Commandments marker may return
Panel approves bill putting monument on Capitol grounds

By Peter Smith
psmith@courier-journal.com
The Courier-Journal

A Ten Commandments monument would return to the Capitol grounds in Frankfort under a bill passed by a Senate committee yesterday -- six years after a federal judge barred a previous display.

The measure was approved unanimously as part of the latest expansion of a bill that passed the Kentucky House of Representatives 91-3 earlier this month.

The bill now heads for a full Senate vote with the endorsement of Senate Republican leaders and of its Democratic sponsor in the House, where the revised bill would also need to be approved.

Republican Gov. Ernie Fletcher supports the bill, including the marker provision, and "would sign it if the bill came to his desk," spokesman Brett Hall said.

The original House bill allowed for religious documents to be posted as part of historical displays on public property -- it didn't mention any text by name, but supporters said it could include the Ten Commandments.

The House then amended the bill to add a requirement that the national motto, "In God We Trust," be displayed above the speaker's dais in the House.

Yesterday, the Senate Committee on State and Local Government added language stating that a Ten Commandments monument would be restored to the Capitol -- accompanied by a marker "detailing aspects of the legislative and judicial history" of the monument.

Senate President David Williams believes that would meet the latest U.S. Supreme Court criteria on such displays, and he doesn't fear a court challenge.

"I can't think of anything else I'd rather be sued about than having the Ten Commandments on the Capitol grounds," Williams said. He added that he is among those who believe "it's important to note in a historical context the importance of the Ten Commandments and other Judeo-Christian documents in the formation of this country."

But Beth Wilson, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, which successfully sued to prevent the monument's installation in 2000, said that if the bill passes, the group would be watching how a new display is handled.

"The Supreme Court has been very clear that governments cannot promote religion," she said. "What's going to matter in this case is purpose and context."

Hall said Fletcher wasn't worried about an ACLU lawsuit. "There'll be court challenges if you do the right thing," he said. "Let 'em come on."

Last year, the Supreme Court ruled that commandments displays in two Kentucky county courthouses were illegal because they had a clear religious purpose, as evidenced by county officials' statements and actions.

But in the same ruling, the court allowed a commandments monument on the grounds of the Texas Capitol, where it sits among historical markers.

Kentucky Rep. Rick Nelson, D-Middlesboro, who sponsored the original bill, said he believes the revised bill is constitutional. "I don't see that it will be any problem," he said.

At issue is a 6-foot-2-inch granite monument of the commandments that had been donated to the state by the Fraternal Order of Eagles in 1971 and displayed on the Capitol grounds. It was put in storage during a construction project, but in 2000, the General Assembly passed a resolution calling for its return to the Capitol grounds.

A federal judge later barred the display, and the commonwealth had to pay $121,524 to the ACLU for its legal expenses in challenging it.

"It's frustrating that legislators are spending their time on this sort of stuff when there are so many important issues that need to be dealt with," Wilson said.

[Soldier4Christ]

 Bush to Rebuild Mosque in Iraq. Where Is the ACLU?


When President Bush announced that U.S. funds would be used to help rebuild a mosque damaged in Iraq this week, one would have expected an immediate firestorm of outrage from the ACLU and other liberal extremists.
 
A "Violation of separation of church and state!" they would have been expected to argue in typical knee-jerk reaction.  But, oddly enough, not a peep out of the ACLU, or the other usual suspects on the loony left.
 
How to explain this indifference?  After all, Bush's proposal involves an assault on the constitutionally-required separation of church and state, which, although it does not actually exist, is nevertheless revered as holy by liberals.
 
Then I remembered.  Liberals pursue church-state arguments only when it concerns Christian symbols and values.  And they do so to advance their "Tear America Down" agenda.
 
In other words, its perfectly fine to spend scores of millions of U.S. taxpayer dollars to rebuild a Mosque in Iraq, but not OK to display a cross or nativity scene in a public park at Christmas, or to delineate the Ten Commandments in a court house or other government building in America.
 
Once again, liberal hypocrisy proves very vexing.  One is at a loss to explain how such misguided and harmful thinking is able to survive in a sophisticated, modern society like America.
 

[Soldier4Christ]

ACLU Settles Abstinence Education Suit


The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has reached a settlement with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) regarding the abstinence education program known as the Silver Ring Thing, which was receiving government funding despite the religious content of its materials. As part of the settlement, HHS will not fund the current version of the Silver Ring Thing, all possible future grants will require the program become fully compliant with federal law prohibiting the use of federal funds for religious activities, and HHS will closely monitor any future grants to the Silver Ring Thing.

Last August, as a result of the ACLU lawsuit, HHS withheld a $75,000 grant to the program because it “includes both secular and religious components that are not adequately safeguarded,” and the group was told submit a “corrective action plan” before receiving funds. The ACLU considers these actions and the recent settlement to be positive steps toward reevaluating government support of abstinence-only education programs. Daniel Mach, attorney with the ACLU on this case, said, “Today’s settlement should serve as a wake-up call for HHS to better monitor the abstinence-only-until-marriage organizations they fund… We will continue to fight any violations we may find.”

[Soldier4Christ]

ACLU seeks end to Bible distribution in school
JIM SALTER


ST. LOUIS - A southeast Missouri school district should be barred from allowing a Bible giveaway program to fifth-graders, the American Civil Liberties Union said in a lawsuit filed Tuesday.

The complaint filed in U.S. District Court in St. Louis seeks an injunction prohibiting South Iron Elementary School in Annapolis, Mo., from allowing Gideons International into the classroom to distribute the Bibles. ACLU of Eastern Missouri Legal Director Tony Rothert said the suit was filed on behalf of two sets of parents from the district.

"The primary objection here is the Bibles are presented during class time in a public school," Rothert said. "It was presented as part of class, which makes it appear the school is endorsing it."

School board president Jim Scaggs said he was unaware of the lawsuit and declined comment. Superintendent Homer Lewis did not return phone calls. A spokesman for Gideons International declined comment.

For years, the school in the town of 300 residents quietly allowed the Gideons to hand out Bibles to children in the fifth grade. A year ago, concerns were raised about the practice, leading to months of discussion among school board members.

Last fall, the school board voted 4-3 to allow the Bible distribution practice to continue. Minutes from the board meeting indicated Lewis and an attorney for the district had urged the board to discontinue the practice, Rothert said.

"Unfortunately, by one vote, the board has decided to thumb its nose at the Bill of Rights," Rothert said.

The small district in Iron County, about 120 miles southwest of St. Louis, has fewer than 500 students and just two schools - the grade school and South Iron High School, which includes grades seven through 12. The rural county sits in the heart of the nation's so-called Bible Belt and includes dozens of churches.

Gideons International, based in Nashville, Tenn., distributes more than 63 million Bibles worldwide each year, according to the organization's Web site.

[Soldier4Christ]

ACLU sues Indiana scholarship program
State group says rules exclude students because of their parents

The ACLU of Indiana filed a lawsuit Thursday against a popular Indiana scholarship program, claiming it rejects children whose parents are not U.S. citizens or legal residents.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana contends the 21st Century Scholars program is unconstitutional because its eligibility requirements exclude American-born students based on the status of their parents.
The eligibility requirements violate federal immigration law and the U.S. Constitution's equal protection clause, turning the students into "second-class citizens," said Ken Falk, the ACLU of Indiana's legal director.
"People are being discriminated against who are U.S. citizens," he said Thursday night.
Dennis Obergfell, acting executive director of the State Student Assistance Commission of Indiana, which administers the program, declined to comment Thursday.
The suit brings rare criticism to a program that has helped 25,000 students attend college since it was proposed by then-Gov. Evan Bayh in 1990. He has been touting the program's success as he considers running for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008.
Megan Keck, a spokeswoman for Bayh, said Thursday night she could not comment on the lawsuit because she had not seen it. She said Bayh was not available for comment.
The ACLU filed the case in U.S. District Court in Indianapolis on behalf of a girl identified as "E.C.," a senior at a high school in Northern Indiana's Elkhart County, Falk said. He said the girl is a U.S. citizen, but her parents are not legal residents. She is in the process of graduating and being accepted to colleges but will be denied the scholarship because of her parents' status, he said.
The girl applied for the program as a seventh-grader and was not asked about her parents' legal status at the time, Falk said. He said she was able to prove her parents' low-income eligibility because they have federal tax identification numbers.
The girl and her family have declined to be identified or talk with the media, Falk said. He declined to say who contacted the ACLU about the girl's case.
Falk is requesting class-action status for the suit because he said he has estimated that 10,000 American-born, lower-income students in Indiana have parents who are not citizens or legal residents, keeping them from being eligible for the scholarship funds. He said he had heard of students who could not attend college because of the restrictions.
The 21st Century Scholars program is open to seventh- and eighth-graders who qualify for free or reduced-price lunches and pledge to stay drug-free and maintain a high school grade-point average of at least 2.0. In exchange, the students will receive four years of tuition at a participating Indiana public college or university. Students also can attend private school and receive a scholarship equal to tuition at a public school.
Indiana spends about $19 million a year on the program.
Josh Bernstein, director of federal policy for the National Immigration Law Center in Washington, said he was not familiar with any other state whose low-income scholarship programs included restrictions based on parents' legal status.
"Under our Constitution, we treat all citizens the same -- we don't look at ancestry," he said. "This policy doesn't do that."
Falk said he does not know when the case will be heard in court, but he said the ACLU of Indiana is prepared to file an injunction to get the case heard in time for the girl to go to college in the fall.
The lawsuit also asks a federal judge to allow American-born students who did not apply for scholarships or were denied to have a chance to reapply.

[Soldier4Christ]

School district blames ACLU for student's defamation claim

© 2006 Student Press Law Center

March 3, 2006

PENNSYLVANIA — In a move that legal experts say “turns libel law on its head,” a school district has sought permission to sue the attorneys representing a high school student who sued the district after he was disciplined for posting an online parody profile of his principal on MySpace.com.

Attorneys for the Hermitage School District in Hermitage, Pa., filed a motion last week to lodge a third party complaint against the American Civil Liberties Union attorneys who are representing 18-year-old Justin Layshock in his lawsuit against the school district.

Layshock was disciplined in December by administrators at Hickory High School for creating a MySpace profile of principal Eric Trosch on his grandmother’s computer. Among other comments, under “birthday” the profile said, “too drunk to remember.” In response to the question, “in the past month have you smoked?” the profile said, “big blunt.”

MySpace.com is a social networking site that allows people to post personal profiles, share music and videos and maintain online journals.

When administrators discovered the online profile, they suspended Layshock for 10 days, placed him in an alternative learning program at school, barred him from participating in school events or activities and said he could not attend his graduation.

Layshock has since been allowed to return to his regular classes and can attend his June graduation, according to Donald Layshock, his father.

Karen Ionta, superintendent for the Heritage School District, declined to comment.

The motion filed by the school district Feb. 23 against Layshock’s attorneys said the ACLU contributed to Layshock’s damaged reputation because of the publicity the lawsuit elicited.

A draft of the complaint asks that if the school district loses the case, attorneys for the school district have the opportunity to sue the ACLU and order the organization to pay a percentage of the monetary damages awarded to the defendant.

In other words, if Layshock wins his case, his own attorneys may have to pay a portion of his damages, said Adam Goldstein, a legal fellow at the Student Press Law Center.

“In theory, the third party complaint creates financial pressure for the ACLU attorneys to lose the case,” he said.

Goldstein said the filing of the third party complaint “turns libel law on its head” by holding Layshock and his attorneys responsible for the publicity that followed their filing of the lawsuit against the school district.

“It’s like the school is saying, ‘Why should we pay for the damages — you’re the one who made it a news item,’” Goldstein said.

If the motion is granted, it “creates a conflict between the Layshocks and their attorneys,” said Vic Walczak, one of the ACLU attorneys representing the family.

At the end of January, a district court judge denied Layshock’s request for a temporary restraining order against the school district. The decision was preliminary, according to Walczak, and the trial is moving forward in the discovery process.

The lawsuit was originally filed against the school district because Layshock’s free speech rights were violated, Walczak said.

Layshock did not use school computers to post the content, and created the profile during non-school hours, he said.

The Jan. 31 decision that denied the restraining order said that after the MySpace profile was posted, the student body at Hickory High School was “abuzz about the profiles, who created them and how they could be accessed,” and that Layshock’s actions apparently “substantially disrupted school operations.”

But Walczak said the school district “greatly exaggerated” its claims of disruption.

“School officials need to understand there are limits on their authority,” Walczak said. “They may not like something students say on their home computers and post on the Internet, but it’s for the parents to decide what, if any, discipline is appropriate.”

Goldstein said a decision on the school district’s motion to file a third party complaint may not be decided for another month.

[Soldier4Christ]

Legion campaign backs anti-ACLU bill
Opposes lawyers taking taxpayer funds in church-state cases


The American Legion, with 2.7-million members the largest veterans organization in the world, has launched a nationwide grass-roots campaign to support a bill in Congress that would stop the ACLU from receiving taxpayer-paid attorney fees in the many religious-establishment cases against the Boy Scouts, the public display of the Ten Commandments and other symbols of America's religious history and heritage.

The Public Expression of Religion Act, or PERA, would amend the Civil Rights Attorney Fees Act to withdraw the authority of courts to award attorney fees, or damages, to the American Civil Liberties Union, or anyone else, in lawsuits brought under the Establishment of Religion clause in the First Amendment.

Generally unknown to the public, the ACLU has received enormous attorney fee awards from judges in Establishment Clause cases.

The American Legion argues that not a single judge, as far as is known, has exercised the court's discretion to deny the ACLU's motions for attorney fees – usually at $350 an hour – to be paid by taxpayers.

This has been done in spite of the fact that the ACLU has incurred no actual attorney expenses, because its lawsuits are handled by staff or volunteer lawyers.

The Legion says the ACLU has used the threat of attorney fees to intimidate cities, counties, school boards and other locally elected bodies into surrendering to its demands to remove religion from the public square.

The ACLU recently has engaged in many lawsuits against the Boy Scouts' usage of public property, arguing the organization is religious because its Scout Oath includes a pledge of duty to God.

The American Legion, whose creed has been "For God And Country" since its founding by GIs during World War I, stepped up its campaign of support for the congressional bill with the release of "In The Footsteps Of The Founders – A Guide To Defending American Values " at its conference last week in the nation's capitol.

Legionnaires distributed copies of the guide, available by request at this e-mail address to every member of the House and Senate during the conference. Members reported that many legislators expressed surprise at the size of attorney fees sought and gained by the ACLU and indicated support for the bill.

"There simply is no reasonable basis to support the profiteering in attorney fee awards ordered by judges in these cases," the Legion's grassroots guide states. "The very threat of such fees has made elected bodies, large and small, surrender to the ACLU's demands to secularly cleanse the public square."

American Legion National Commander Thomas Bock vowed the Legion "will stand with the Boy Scouts all the way to the Supreme Court, as long as it takes, and whatever it takes."

The bill's sponsor, Rep, John Hostettler, R-Ind., said PERA is "gaining recognition as an important piece of legislation both among members of Congress and constituents."

"It is encouraging that the American Legion has voiced strong support for this legislation and it is critical that we pass PERA in the 109th Congress so that freedom of religious expression under the First Amendment can be restored and protected," he said.

________________________________

My membership dues pays off again. 

[Soldier4Christ]

Company-paid chaplains face challenge in some state legislatures

By Stephen Singer, AP Business Writer  |  March 5, 2006

HARTFORD, Conn. --For more than two years, company-paid chaplains have comforted a grieving Kris Woltz during their visits to the western New York lumber company where she works.

Woltz's husband, Michael, died in 2003 after being diagnosed with a brain tumor, leaving her to raise their two young children.

"It was a hard time going through everything and wondering what the outcome would be," said Woltz, of Angola, N.Y. "The chaplains were wonderful. They just went out of their way."

Baillie Lumber Co. of Hamburg, N.Y., is one of hundreds of U.S. companies that pay chaplains to work with their employees. But lawmakers in several states, concerned that chaplains will evangelize on the factory floor or open the door to political and anti-union campaigns, are considering legislation banning the practice.

Connecticut is the first battleground between labor unions who support the proposals, and business and industry groups that are lining up in opposition. Legislation in Hawaii has been deferred in a legislative committee and a bill in Colorado has yet to find a Senate sponsor.

Naomi Walker, director of state legislative programs at the AFL-CIO in Washington D.C., said the national labor federation has drafted a model bill based on Connecticut's legislation.

Backers of so-called "captive audience" laws are seeking states where there's a good chance legislation will be enacted, said Lewis Maltby, president of the National Workrights Institute in Princeton, N.J..

The law is needed to rein in employers that impose their religious beliefs at the workplace, including the use of corporate chaplains, he said. "Their job is to convert the unconverted," Maltby said.

Gil Stricklin, founder and president of Marketplace Ministries Inc. in Dallas, said his company does not evangelize. Marketplace Ministries has been hired by 300 companies in 38 states, but by none in Connecticut.

"We're not there to proselytize," he said. "I don't take my faith to harass you or hurt you or make you feel inferior."

Connecticut lawmakers said they've not seen a sudden burst of religious zeal at the workplace, but are taking action before problems arise.

"I guess it can happen, especially if you have people who are very passionate about their beliefs," said Connecticut state Rep. Kevin Ryan, D-Montville, who is shepherding the bill through the state House of Representatives.

The proposed legislation, which is backed by the state and national AFL-CIO, also would bar union-bashing at meetings that workers are compelled to attend.

Workers who believe they are disciplined for refusing to attend meetings intended as a platform for management's views could sue to overturn the discipline.

Lori Pelletier, secretary-treasurer of the Connecticut AFL-CIO, said Connecticut's legislation would give workers "freedom in the workplace."

Business groups have promised a fight.

"It's an extremely broad bill," said Bonnie Stewart, lobbyist for the Connecticut Business and Industry Association. "When talking about political activity, it would prohibit us from talking to employees about government contracts and actions at the state, federal and local levels."

Roger Vann, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Connecticut, said the group "understands the spirit" of the proposed legislation, but would prefer a different approach.

If an employer requires a worker to attend a meeting where the boss speaks against the union, management should be required to provide equal time, he said.

"We believe strongly that the answer to objectionable speech is not less speech but more speech," Vann said.

In New York, Baillie Lumber spokeswoman Jill Meyer said the company's chaplain program, operated through Marketplace Ministries, is voluntary.

"Each chaplain comes in once a week, makes the rounds to people and says hi to them," she said. "If people want to talk to them, that's fine. If not, that's fine, too."

Woltz said she doesn't understand the fuss.

"The whole process is totally voluntary," she said. "There has never been a meeting that we had to go through."

[Soldier4Christ]

Church group surveys whether legislators are Christians

GLASGOW, Ky. A Glasgow church has received more than 30 responses to a survey of Kentucky legislators and legislative candidates asking them if they are Christians.
Barren County Attorney Jeff Sharp is conducting the survey with members of his youth group at Gethsemane Baptist Church in Glasgow. Sharp says he sent 161 surveys and has received 35 responses.

The survey consisted of a single question: "Have you accepted Jesus Christ as your lord and savior?" Along with the boxes for checking "yes" or "no," the survey also included a space for personal testimony.

But Representative Kathy Stein of Lexington has filed a resolution asking her House colleagues to disregard the survey and all "theocratic tendencies." Stein is Jewish and calls the survey an "intimidating, bullying letter."

Beth Wilson of the American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky says the survey is constitutional as long as it's not done with public time or funds.