ACLU In The News

[Soldier4Christ]

ACLU Looking to File Suit Over JHS Graduation "Altar Call"



November 21, 2005 – Posted at 6:03 p.m. CST

JONESBORO, AR – Religious expression in public schools is a hot-button topic that continues to be a frontline subject in culture wars. Extreme views on both sides often push the envelope, leaving the schools caught in the middle. And now, as the ACLU looks to wage a lawsuit against a Region 8 school, it may be an issue that hits close to home.

In May of this year, a Jonesboro student gave a prayer during a high school graduation ceremony at the Arkansas State University Convocation Center. During the prayer, which lasted four minutes, she gave an “altar call” to the community, asking those in the audience to come forward to accept Jesus Christ.

“In the closing moments of this service, if you would like to accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior, here's your chance,” said senior Jessica Reed in a May 20, 2005 taped video of JHS graduation ceremonies.

“We were contacted sometime after that by the American Civil Liberties Union that they felt like there had been a violation of the First Amendment, separation of church and state with regard to a prayer,” said Jonesboro Public Schools Attorney Donn Mixon.

And now the ACLU is looking for a plaintiff in a case against Jonesboro High School. In a letter written by the Arkansas ACLU executive director Rita Sklar, the event is described as a “blatant display of contempt for the First Amendment.”

“This is a tough area for schools to balance. People have a freedom of religion, but as a school district, we can not recognize a religion, and the balance between those two is where the rub comes,” said Mixon.

The Jonesboro Public School District does have a policy on religious beliefs and school ceremonies.

“Our policy is to not recognize any particular religion and not to recognize religion, period,” said Mixon, “In this case, the student was on the school program as giving a prayer, and that does go against our policies.”

“I'm here to tell you that God is someone, that he is amazing,” said Reed during her speech, “He will love you through everything. He will praise you when you are down. All you have to do is give your heart to Him. And before we leave, I want to give you that opportunity.”

But Mixon says it's a policy that will be enforced and a problem that won't happen again.

“It has occurred from time to time that students speak their mind about religion, or about prayer at graduation. The problem comes when the school recognizes that,” said Mixon, “And we had a lapse where our policy about prayer was apparently not followed that is still being investigated, but we can assure the ACLU and the public that that will not happen again.”

Mixon says he hopes there will not be a law suit regarding this incident, but he couldn't comment on whether or not the student who gave the speech had been punished by the school.


It is my hope and prayer that no "plaintiff" comes forward. The ACLU won't have a case then.

[Soldier4Christ]

Law firm finds no discrimination in NMSU football
Last Update: 11/22/2005 9:18:04 AM
By: Associated Press

LAS CRUCES, N.M. (AP) - The New Mexico State University football program did not engage in religious discrimination against three former student-athletes, according to a law firm commissioned by the university to investigate the allegations.

The American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico was seeking a public apology from head coach Hal Mumme and disciplinary action against him.

The investigation found that the players were released based on their performance and attitudes, not because of religion.

Peter Simonson, executive director of the ACLU, says the findings are disappointing.  He also questions the impartiality of the probe.

Simonson says he will speak with the players to see if they want to pursue legal action.

[Soldier4Christ]

ACLU Violating Students Free Speech

ACLU plans to sue over Jonesboro graduation speech

A graduation speech created an uproar, when the topic turned to God; the ACLU says it's a violation of the separation between church and state.

Before marching with the Jonesboro High class of 2005, Jessica Reed was president of fellowship of Christian Services.

"I'm here today to tell you that God is someone that he's amazing," said Reed in her May 20 speech.

But it wasn't until her final moments as a senior that Reed's religious convictions caused a legal controversy.

"If you would like to accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and saviour here's your chance," she said in that same speech.

Reed's altar call sparked outrage from the American Civil Liberties Union.

"They felt like there had been a violation of the first amendment separation of church and state with regard to a prayer," said Donn Mixon, the school district's attorney.

A letter from the Arkansas ACLU director urges parents to sue the school calling Reed's comments a blatant display of contempt for the first amendment.

Jonesboro's superintendent of schools admits Reed's comments violated separation of church and state guidelines but he also says schools cannot prohibit students from expressing their views solely because they're religious in nature.

"Our policy is not to recognize any particular religion or not to recognize religion period," Mixon said.

"All you have to do is give your heart to him and before we leave I want to give you all that opportunity," Reed said in her speech.

Reed now an ASU freshman says she can't comment on the matter.

Her former school district will have to clear up any confusion on the balance of civil rights in school.

Jonesboro Public School Administrators say there was a lapse in policy that won't happen again.  The district is also putting a review committee together to study current policies related to the first amendment.

[Soldier4Christ]

The ACLU is now taking on private school in an attempt to control it's policies. The following article taken from ACLU's own web site:

______________________________


NYCLU Defends Pregnant School Teacher Fired By School (11/21/2005)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: media@aclu.org
 
NEW YORK -- The New York Civil Liberties Union today charged a private Catholic school with discriminating against an unmarried Catholic schoolteacher by firing her because she became pregnant.
 
Michelle McCusker’s employment was terminated even as school officials praised her teaching ability and her “high degree of professionalism.” The NYCLU’s Reproductive Rights Project has filed a complaint on McCusker’s behalf with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
 
“Michelle McCusker was fired because she chose to have a child,” said Donna Lieberman, Executive Director of the NYCLU.  “This is blatant pregnancy discrimination, which is both wrong and illegal. The NYCLU believes that all women like Ms. McCusker should have the right to choose to bring their pregnancies to term without being fired for it.”
 
McCusker was hired to teach pre-kindergartners at the St. Rose of Lima School in Queens in September 2005. Her teaching contract was to last for one year.  A month after school began, McCusker, who is single, informed the school’s principal that she was pregnant and planned to have the child.  Two days later, the principal told McCusker that she was being terminated because she violated the school’s religious principles by becoming pregnant while unmarried.  The school principal said she could work only until the end of October.
 
After the NYCLU wrote the school’s principal on McCusker’s behalf, urging her reinstatement, the school moved up the termination by a week and rescinded permission for McCusker to say good-bye to her students.
 
“I have been devastated over this incident,” said Michelle McCusker. “This was my first teaching position and I was excited and looking forward to the school year with my young students.  I don’t understand how a religion that prides itself on being forgiving could terminate me because I am unmarried and choose to have a baby.”
 
The NYCLU complaint charges that the school’s decision to fire McCusker was intentional and unlawful discrimination based on her gender and pregnancy.  The school enforced its policy of prohibiting sex outside of marriage only after learning that McCusker was pregnant.  Because only women can become pregnant, the school enforced the policy in a way that has a disproportionate impact on women and therefore is illegal, the NYCLU said in legal papers.    
 
“The school fired Ms. McCusker ostensibly for engaging in non-marital sex, but neither the school nor the Diocese that runs the school enforces this policy against men,” said Anna Schissel, Acting Director of NYCLU’s Reproductive Rights Project.  “Applying different policies to men and women employees is classic sex discrimination.”
 
McCusker’s case is similar to a complaint filed by the NYCLU in 2003 on behalf of the director of an after-school program employed by a religious charity.  When the unmarried program director became pregnant, the charity demoted her to a position that involved no student contact. The NYCLU's Reproductive Rights Project filed an EEOC complaint against the charity alleging sex and pregnancy discrimination.  The EEOC found that the religious charity violated federal anti-discrimination laws by demoting the teacher because of her pregnancy.  The NYCLU secured a favorable settlement that included the adoption by the charity of an employment policy that prohibits discrimination on the basis of marital status or pregnancy.
 
“The federal law against pregnancy discrimination was passed in 1978,” said ACLU Reproductive Rights Project staff attorney Cassandra Stubbs. “Ms. McCusker’s case, unfortunately, demonstrates the gap between the promise of the law and what is happening in the workplace today.  After more than 25 years there is still much work to be done to ensure that women who decide to become pregnant and have children can go to work in an environment free of discrimination.”
   
In addition to losing her job while pregnant, McCusker is facing difficulties finding full-time employment, as the school year has begun and most institutions are no longer hiring, Stubbs noted.

The NYCLU is asking the school to adopt a non-discrimination policy similar to the policy adopted in the 2003 case.
 
 

[Soldier4Christ]

Barry Lynn

"There is clearly a distinction made between religious speech and activity and any other speech and activity." (Former ACLU's Legislative Director; now President of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State. Policy Review . September 1988.)

[Soldier4Christ]

                
Texas-Like Commandments Monument Under Attack in Sooner State

By Allie Martin
November 28, 2005

(AgapePress) - The ACLU has filed a lawsuit against another city over a public display of the Ten Commandments as part of a historical exhibit.

Last November officials in Haskell County, Oklahoma, erected a marble monument depicting the Ten Commandments on one side, with the Mayflower Compact on the other. The monument sits in Stigler, Oklahoma, the seat of Haskell County. Now the American Civil Liberties Union has filed a lawsuit seeking removal of the monument. The suit, Green v. Haskell County, was filed on behalf of Stigler resident Jim Green, a disabled 68-year-old veteran, who claims the monument constitutes government interference in individuals' religious freedoms.

"[W]hen the government starts dictating what religious ideas are 'right,' it interferes with a person's choice," Green said in a statement released in connection with the lawsuit. He contends that placement of the monument near the courthouse "sends the message that if you don't subscribe to this specific thought, you will have no access to the government."

The Ten Commandments display sits on county grounds along with other memorials dedicated to those who died in the Civil War, World War I, and World War II.

Erik Stanley is with Liberty Counsel, which is representing the county. He says the ACLU is fighting a tough battle in light of last summer's Supreme Court ruling over a similar monument on the Texas State Capitol grounds in Austin.

"The ACLU is going to argue that because the [Haskell County] monument was erected only a year ago that it's different than Texas because Texas's monument has been on the Texas state capitol grounds for about 40 years," the Liberty Counsel attorney says.

According to Stanely, Supreme Court Associate" Justice John Paul Stevens provided the swing vote in the Texas case. "[Stevens said] that basically because the monument had been there for 40 years it was constitutional -- that was really the only ground that he decided the case on," Stanley explains. "So that's going to be the battle."

But the lawyer insists that Haskell County's public display of the Decalogue will be defended.

"We are going to argue that this Ten Commandments is constitutional," he says. "That if Texas is allowed to have on its state capitol grounds a monument that is essentially identical to what Haskell County has, then Haskell County should be able to have the exact same monument on its grounds."

Stanley contends that there should be no "constitutional distinction" between the two monuments. "We're going to take this case up," he adds, "and if we have to, we'll take it to the U.S. Supreme Court in order to clarify this issue."

Liberty Counsel represents more than a dozen governmental displays that include the Ten Commandments.

(My Note: Congress needs to get the Ten Commandments bill passed and fast to squelch the ACLU on this once and for all.)

[nChrist]

Hello Pastor Roger,

This one is in my own back yard, and I haven't heard about it yet. I'm glad that they already have some help since most cities and counties all over the country already have unfunded priority items. Of course, the same is true for many other organizations, and this is one reason why the ACLU wins so many cases. It simply takes considerable money to fight the ACLU, and it's sickening when you find out that the money rolling out the pockets of the ACLU came from taxpayers.

Love In Christ,
Tom

Psalms 111:3 NASB  Splendid and majestic is His work, And His righteousness endures forever.

[Soldier4Christ]

it's sickening when you find out that the money rolling out the pockets of the ACLU came from taxpayers.

It is one of the many ways of fleecing America.

Many liberals complain about taxes being so high yet they still support the ACLU who ends up costing our taxpayers more than any other organization around. It cost one small city over $400,000.00 just to remove a small barely legible cross from their city emblem and this did not include court costs, etc. It bankrupted the city. The ACLU is destroying our economy as well as destroying our history and Christian heritage.

[Soldier4Christ]

Legislators leery of ruling about prayer; Conservatives, liberals say court decision raises questions

By Kurt Van der Dussen, Hoosier Times
Sunday, December 4, 2005 6:08 AM CST

The federal court ruling ordering the Indiana General Assembly not to allow invocations to be given in the name of Jesus Christ got a leery eye from area lawmakers.

Those who are devout Christians voiced emotions from disappointment to anger.

"This is the first (court ruling) that singles out any particular religion or any religious figure that specifically," said Rep. Eric Koch, R-Bedford.

He also noted that several patriotic songs, such as "God Bless America" and "America the Beautiful" contain religious lyrics.

"This ruling raises the question of whether those songs can even be sung in the House chambers," he said.

The ruling, Koch said, "runs counter to the First Amendment" in the limits it puts on speech.

Legislative liberals concerned about the preponderance of Christian prayer in the Legislature wondered if it went too far.

Sen. Vi Simpson, D-Ellettsville, has observed the Senate's prayer practices for 21 years now.

"I was never disturbed by the process because everyone is welcome to invite anyone to lead the prayer," she said. She thinks "the issue has been overblown" by the Indiana Civil Liberties Union and others.

"Honestly, I think this is going a bit too far," she said. "As long as the prayers are varied and represent various faiths, I think it should be allowed."

Simpson said the Senate's practice has been that clergy most often are invited by members, with senators sometimes giving the prayer themselves. A United Methodist who has taught Sunday school and sung in the choir, Simpson said she has not led prayer herself.

An ecumenical soul, Simpson said her hope had been that allowing a variety of religious representatives to pray would introduce senators to other beliefs. "But in practice it has never worked out that way," she said. "It has been almost entirely Christian prayer."

Associated Press reported this week that of 53 opening prayers in the House during the 2005 General Assembly, 41 were given by clergy identified with Christian churches and nine were delivered by representatives themselves. A lay person, a Muslim imam and a Jewish Rabbi each delivered one prayer.

In terms of prayer's benefits, Simpson said, "I've always found it sets the tone, that it helps restore civility." She said she can't recall any non-Christian members being offended by the prayers in the Senate.

Sen. Brent Steele, R-Bedford, said he hadn't read the ruling yet, but did have a specific question he wants answered.

"I want to know if it rules out Muslims saying the name of Allah," he said. "I'd be interested in seeing if the judge said that. And if it didn't, if it's an example of the secular jihad that's going on."

He said the Legislature has been inclusive with invocations and so have individual invocators. He specifically recalled one who prayed "in the name of Allah and in the name of Jehovah God."

"It's not a one-way street," he said. In his view, "we've had tolerance and now we've had judicial intolerance imposed on us."

Steele wondered what the future holds for invocations.

"A milquetoast prayer where we pray to what? It's just neutered," he charged. "And how is it enforceable?"

Rep. Matt Pierce, D-Bloomington, predicted partisan politics will enter the issue.

"Speaker Bosma and his caucus realize this is a golden opportunity for them to energize their base" for the 2006 election, he said.

Simpson said Bosma has politicized religious issues more than most. But she said "I really don't" see this becoming a partisan issue.

"I don't see the Republicans and the Democrats differing very much on this issue," she said. "The Republicans don't own faith, and they don't own patriotism."

Rep. Peggy Welch, D-Bloomington, said Welch, an evangelical Christian who has belonged to bipartisan Statehouse Bible study and prayer groups, said what produced the issue was the day Bedford's Clarence Brown led the invocation, then sang.

Welch said sometimes people sing for the House and that this song was more "entertainment" than worship. To her, the adverse reaction "went way overboard.

"Everybody is eligible to invite whoever they want to come," she said of House practice for inviting people to give invocations or sing.

"I'm disappointed because it's restricting the ability to pray in one's own faith," she said. She noted that when she prays in a gathering that includes non-Christians, "I try to be sensitive and I say, 'I pray in the name of Jesus'," instead of 'we.'"

Rep. Matt Pierce was still rolling the ruling around in his mind. "I'm not sure what I think about it," he said. "I kind of have two opinions about it.

"I do think prayers were becoming too denominational," he said, clarifying he meant Christian as opposed to being too many Baptists or Catholics, etc.

He said of non-Christian prayers in the House that "it's a rare occasion but from time to time they do have" a prayer by a Jewish rabbi, Muslim cleric or Native American spiritual leader.

"On the other hand, I can understand how Speaker Bosma feels about asking a clergyman to pray and then giving them a bunch of rules they have to follow," he said, referring to House Speaker Brian Bosma, R-Beech Grove, who has fiercely criticized the ruling.

[Soldier4Christ]

Musclehead Coalition to Flood ACLU With Merry Christmas

n response to war on Christmas being waged by ACLU

NEW YORK, Dec. 2 /Christian Wire Service/ -- In light of the growing "War on Christmas" that the ACLU is continuing to wage against Americans and with no adequate response yet formed to combat the effort, the MuscleHead Revolution is announcing its call for 100,000 people to send "Merry Christmas" cards to the national offices of the ACLU before Christmas 2005.

"From now until December 25th a coalition made up of leading media/talk-radio personalities, bloggers, and journalists are calling on the ninety-six percent of Americans who celebrate Christmas in some fashion to speak up, with a grin on their face, and wish the American Civil Liberties Union a 'Merry Christmas' it won't soon forget," said Kevin McCullough, the organizer of the Merry Christmas ACLU Network. "We want the cards to be in good taste, MuscleHead guidelines apply. They can be witty, and sharp. They must at the very least say 'Merry Christmas', and faith based people are fully encouraged to go for cards that say 'Joy To The World' etc."

Leading Bloggers such as Hugh Hewitt, Michelle Malkin, Captain's Quarters and others have also led the way with extensive promotion throughout the blogosphere.

MERRY CHRISTMAS ACLU - FOX NEWS VIDEO

An interesting side note, after the segment - by which they put the ACLU guy in another studio far away from the host and I - I passed E. Christopher Murray in the hallway, stopped and shook his hand. I told I appreciated him being so good natured on the air and wished him a "Merry Christmas". He responded by saying that he would be on the lookout for my Christmas card...(it made me chuckle out loud.)

As I was walking away I offered, "You can count on it!"

By the way - have you sent yours yet?

ACLU
125 Broad Street
18th Floor
New York, NY. 10004

MuscleHead Revolution staffers will be sending one daily between now and Christmas Day!

[Soldier4Christ]

Zell Miller’s Spitballs Increasingly Likely
December 05, 2005 10:10 AM EST


As the leftist Democrat leaders continue their drumbeat and mantra of “Pull out the troops—pull out the troops”, they are joined by their mainstream media and ACLU. Unlike the non-covert-CIA-agent Valerie Plame scenario, the mainstream press continues to report on actual covert CIA information—putting American citizens in jeopardy—and they get away with it. The ACLU is, again, using the court system to undermine the country. It has now filed a lawsuit against the CIA for interrogating terrorists out of country—in time of war.

Despite the fact that pulling our troops out of Iraq now would cause chaos in that country and place the United States at greater risk, the Democrats persist in their madness—with increasing help from their above-mentioned leftist friends. Although new schools have been built in Iraq (attended by both boys and girls), trained Iraqi police and military personnel are being turned out as quickly as humanly possible, the Kurdish area of the country is stable and humming economically (to the point that coalition troops often take R&R there), women’s rights are increasing in the country and much—much more, the Left continues to ignore any progress made. It suits their agenda to only report negative news regarding Iraq.

The Left also perseveres in its efforts to weaken the US with any and all ways possible. As the leftist ACLU continues to purport its “human rights” issues, it has become inordinately evident that those rights pertain only to the terrorists and other enemies of our country. If these rights are attempted to be attributed to US Christians or any US citizens who want our country to succeed—or even to remain as a sovereign country—the ACLU is either against or ignores them.

Note: The ACLU recently turned down $1.5M from two of its largest contributors—the Ford Foundation and Rockefeller Foundation. The reason? Language added to both of these foundation charters were phrases stating that no organization can receive funding if it either “promotes violence, terrorism, bigotry, or the destruction of any state” or “directly or indirectly engages in, promotes, or supports other organizations or individuals who engage in or promote terrorist activity.” These are the phraseologies to which the ACLU objected. If the ACLU’s mission was not clear before—there should be no further doubt.

Leftist Democrats who voted for no immediate withdrawal from Iraq are now verbally pounding the American people that we do so. As an example, House Minority leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi voted against the immediate withdrawal (and encouraged others to do so) but, now says we should immediately withdraw. Even failed presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry has chimed in and stepped up his rhetoric, as he said on Sunday’s Face the Nation that if the upcoming elections in Iraq are successful we should immediately withdraw 20,000 troops. Kerry also said that US troops are going door to door terrorizing Iraqi citizens! This is yet another indication of the Democrat Left making insane comments and siding with the enemy. For Mr. Kerry, of course, this is nothing new. He said much the same things about US soldiers in Viet Nam. That’s why the Communists love this guy! Kerry further outlined his cut-and-run policy by reiterating his comment “success begins with withdrawal.” Note: President Bush has already said repeatedly that ‘as the Iraqis step up, US troops will step down.’ But, when it occurs, Kerry wants to ensure that there’s a possibility he may gain some ‘credit for it’.

As the leftist Dems and their comrades continue to work toward emasculating the US military and the USA, in general, we may soon be in the position of having nothing with which to defend ourselves. The enemies from within our country are proving to be as deadly as those from without. The stark and unequivocal fact is that if we don’t vote these people out of power, we won’t have a country left to defend. Then, Senator Zell Miller’s prophetic words, at the 2004 GOP Convention, concerning candidate John Kerry, may come true for all of us: “This is the man who wants to be the Commander in Chief of our U.S. Armed Forces? U.S. forces armed with what? Spitballs?” This is the promise of and from the Left.

[Soldier4Christ]

The Jewish grinch
who stole Christmas
Posted: December 7, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

I never thought I'd live to see the day that Christmas would become a dirty word. You think it hasn't? Then why is it that people are being prevented from saying it in polite society for fear it will offend?

Schools are being forced to replace "Christmas vacation" with "winter break" in their printed schedules. At Macy's, the word is verboten even though they've made untold millions of dollars from their sympathetic portrayal in the Christmas classic, "Miracle on 34th Street." Carols, even instrumental versions, are banned in certain places. A major postal delivery service has not only made their drivers doff their Santa caps, but ordered them not to decorate their trucks with Christmas wreaths.

How is it, one well might ask, that in a Christian nation this is happening? And in case you find that designation objectionable, would you deny that India is a Hindu country, that Pakistan is Muslim, that Poland is Catholic? That doesn't mean those nations are theocracies. But when the overwhelming majority of a country's population is of one religion, and roughly 90 percent of Americans happen to be one sort of Christian or another, only a damn fool would deny the obvious.

Although it seems a long time ago, it really wasn't, that people who came here from other places made every attempt to fit in. Assimilation wasn't a threat to anyone – it was what the Statue of Liberty represented. E pluribus unum, one out of many, was our motto. The world's melting pot was our nickname. It didn't mean that any group of people had to check their customs, culture or cuisine, at the door. It did mean that they, and especially their children, learned English, and that they learned to live and let live.

That has changed, you may have noticed. And I blame my fellow Jews. When it comes to pushing the multicultural, anti-Christian agenda, you find Jewish judges, Jewish journalists, and the American Civil Liberties Union, at the forefront.

Being Jewish, I should report, Christmas was never celebrated by my family. But what was there not to like about the holiday? To begin with, it provided a welcome two-week break from school. The decorated trees were nice, the lights were beautiful, "It's a Wonderful Life" was a great movie, and some of the best Christmas songs were even written by Jews.

But the dirty little secret in America is that anti-Semitism is no longer a problem in society – it's been replaced by a rampant anti-Christianity. For example, the hatred spewed toward George W. Bush has far less to do with his policies than it does with his religion. The Jews voice no concern when a Bill Clinton or a John Kerry makes a big production out of showing up at black Baptist churches or posing with Rev. Jesse Jackson because they understand that's just politics. They only object to politicians attending church for religious reasons.

My fellow Jews, who often have the survival of Israel heading the list of their concerns when it comes to electing a president, only gave 26 percent of their vote to Bush, even though he is clearly the most pro-Israel president we've ever had in the Oval Office.

It is the ACLU, which is overwhelmingly Jewish in terms of membership and funding, that is leading the attack against Christianity in America. It is they who have conned far too many people into believing that the phrase "separation of church and state" actually exists somewhere in the Constitution.

You may have noticed, though, that the ACLU is highly selective when it comes to religious intolerance. The same group of self-righteous shysters who, at the drop of a "Merry Christmas" will slap you with an injunction, will fight for the right of an American Indian to ingest peyote and a devout Islamic woman to be veiled on her driver's license.

I happen to despise bullies and bigots. I hate them when they represent the majority, but no less when, like Jews in America, they represent an infinitesimal minority. I am getting the idea that too many Jews won't be happy until they pull off their own version of the Spanish Inquisition, forcing Christians to either deny their faith and convert to agnosticism or suffer the consequences.

I should point out that many of these people abhor Judaism every bit as much as they do Christianity. They're the ones who behave as if atheism were a calling. They're the nutcakes who go berserk if anyone even says, "In God we trust" or mentions that the Declaration of Independence refers to a Creator with a capital "C." By this time, I'm only surprised that they haven't begun a campaign to do away with Sunday as a day of rest. After all, it's only for religious reasons – Christian reasons – that Sunday, and not Tuesday or Wednesday, is so designated.

This is a Christian nation, my friends. And all of us are fortunate it is one, and that so many Americans have seen fit to live up to the highest precepts of their religion. Speaking as a member of a minority group – and one of the smaller ones at that – I say it behooves those of us who don't accept Jesus Christ as our savior to show some gratitude to those who do, and to start respecting the values and traditions of the overwhelming majority of our fellow citizens, just as we keep insisting that they respect ours.

Merry Christmas.

[Soldier4Christ]

Decision expected today in Quran controversy

Dec 6, 2005

RALEIGH -- A Superior Court judge today is expected to decide whether people can give a courtroom oath on a non-Christian text, an issue that spurred national debate this summer.

The anticipated decision comes about four months after the American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina filed a lawsuit asking a judge to clarify that state law allows people to swear on religious texts other than the Christian Bible.

The lawsuit followed an outcry this summer over the inability of Muslims to be sworn in Guilford County courts using the Quran. The matter surfaced when the county's two top judges turned down a gift of Qurans from a Greensboro Islamic center after deciding that an oath on the Quran is not a legal oath. State law refers to someone laying his hand on the "Holy Scriptures," which they interpret to mean the Christian Bible. The law also allows someone to affirm to tell the truth while holding their hand upraised.

When the state Administrative Office of the Courts declined to intervene, the ACLU took the issue to court, arguing that the term "Holy Scriptures" is broad enough to include many religious texts.

Initially, the state attorney general's office argued in court papers that the ACLU lacked the right to sue because there is no controversy to settle between the parties.

That led the ACLU to add Greensboro Muslim Syidah Mateen as a plaintiff. In 2003, the 41-year-old appeared as a witness in a domestic violence protection order hearing but was not allowed to take an oath on the Quran as she preferred.

Afterward, she decided someone should donate copies of the Quran to the courthouse, an idea that led to the present controversy.

During a brief hearing in Wake County Superior Court on Monday, Assistant Attorney General Grady L. Balentine Jr. didn't argue that the plaintiffs lacked the right to sue. Instead, he argued solely that state oath-taking law is constitutional because it allows people to affirm if they don't wish to swear on the Christian Bible.

"No one is required to do that," he told Superior Court Judge Donald L. Smith. "That's our only position in this case."

During the hearing, ACLU attorney Seth Cohen told the judge that if he doesn't interpret "Holy Scriptures" to includes non-Christian texts, then the law is unconstitutional. The ACLU maintains that the exclusive use of the Christian Bible for courtroom oaths violates the First Amendment's Establishment Clause in the U.S. Constitution. The clause says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

When asked by the judge, the lawyers confirmed a longstanding legal tradition: When a law is susceptible to multiple interpretations, a judge should always rely on the interpretation that makes the law constitutional.

In this case, that could mean "Holy Scriptures" is broad enough to include non-Christian texts.

The lawyers were each given seven and one-half minutes to make their case Monday. No one testified.

The hearing lasted less than a half hour.

Smith, who serves as an emergency judge, told the lawyers he expected to call them with a decision this morning.

[Soldier4Christ]

Oaths suit by ACLU dismissed by judge
Rights group seeks use of other texts in courtroom setting

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

CHARLOTTE

A judge threw out an ACLU lawsuit aimed at allowing the use of non-Christian religious texts in courtroom oaths, saying that the civil-liberties group had no active case to argue.

Judge Donald Smith of Superior Court, who is based in Raleigh, released his decision to lawyers in the case yesterday. A written ruling was to follow.

The North Carolina chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union sued in Guilford County in July, saying it was acting on behalf of members statewide who prefer to swear courtroom oaths on religious texts other than the Bible.

No specific plaintiff was named in the original filing, and the ACLU added the name of Syidah Mateen, a Muslim from Greensboro, only after the suit had been filed, saying that she was blocked from swearing an oath on the Quran during a 2003 court hearing.

Smith tossed the case because there is no active controversy involving someone prohibited from using a text other than a Bible, Seth Cohen, a lawyer with the ACLU, said yesterday. "Of course, we're very disappointed the judge did not reach the merits," he said. "We do believe there's a case."

Cohen said he would consult with the state ACLU and its board about whether to appeal the decision or await a future opportunity to bring a fresh suit.

Noelle Talley, a spokeswoman for N.C. Attorney General Roy Cooper, declined to comment because the department had not received a signed order from Smith.

At issue is a state law that allows witnesses preparing to testify in court to take their oath either by laying a hand over a "Holy Scripture," by saying "so help me God" without the use of a religious book or by using no religious symbols.

Asked to clarify whether Muslims could swear on the Quran, two top Guilford County judges said earlier this year that only the Bible could be used.

The ACLU's suit argued that allowing Christians to swear on a Bible while denying Muslims, Jews, Hindus and others an opportunity to use their religious texts violates the First Amendment.

[Soldier4Christ]

Did the ACLU Lie to the Federal Courts in the Cobb County Evolution Sticker Case?

Reports out of Georgia about this morning’s arguments in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals is really interesting as the three Judge panel jumped all over the ACLU attorney.

First the Atlanta Journal Constitution leads with this:

    Three federal appeals court judges today indicated a lower court judge got key facts wrong in declaring unconstitutional an evolution disclaimer sticker put in Cobb County science books.

    During oral arguments, all members of the federal appeals court panel noted that U.S. District Court Judge Clarence Cooper made incorrect findings as the basis for his decision that the stickers violated the First Amendment by endorsing a religious viewpoint.

And if that isn’t interesting enough for you, here are a few comments from the Judges themselves:

    "The court gives two bases for its findings and they're absolutely wrong," [Judge] Carnes told Atlanta lawyer Jeffrey Bramlett, who argued on behalf of five parents who sued the school board to get the stickers removed.

And:

    Judge Frank Hull also noted that Cooper said the sticker misleads students even though there was no evidence to support that position.

    "The order's problematic, you'd agree with that, in the way that it was written?" Hull asked Bramlett, who had little time to argue his position.

    Judge Bill Pryor also noted that Cooper relied on facts that "are just contradicted by the record."

Meanwhile, the Associated Press is reporting:

    "I don't think y'all can contest any of the sentences," Carnes said to an attorney for parents who sued challenging the stickers during a hearing on the case. "It is a theory, not a fact; the book supports that."

At the end of the session the Judges called the ACLU on the carpet about their legal briefs:

    At the end of the arguments, Carnes took the highly unusual step of calling Bramlett back up to the podium and suggested he may have mislead the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in his legal brief filed with the court.





Appeals judges see errors in evolution sticker ruling

By BILL RANKIN
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 12/15/05

Three federal appeals court judges today indicated a lower court judge got key facts wrong in declaring unconstitutional an evolution disclaimer sticker put in Cobb County science books.

During oral arguments, all members of the federal appeals court panel noted that U.S. District Court Judge Clarence Cooper made incorrect findings as the basis for his decision that the stickers violated the First Amendment by endorsing a religious viewpoint.

Judge Ed Carnes dominated much of the 40-minute arguments by tearing apart sections of Cooper's January ruling that ordered the stickers, which declared evolution "a theory, not a fact," removed from almost 35,000 middle- and high-school science textbooks.

"The court gives two bases for its findings and they're absolutely wrong," Carnes told Atlanta lawyer Jeffrey Bramlett, who argued on behalf of five parents who sued the school board to get the stickers removed.

At the end of the arguments, Carnes took the highly unusual step of calling Bramlett back up to the podium and suggested he may have mislead the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in his legal brief filed with the court.

Judge Frank Hull also noted that Cooper said the sticker misleads students even though there was no evidence to support that position.

"The order's problematic, you'd agree with that, in the way that it was written?" Hull asked Bramlett, who had little time to argue his position.

Judge Bill Pryor also noted that Cooper relied on facts that "are just contradicted by the record."

Carnes asserted that Cooper made major mistakes in crafting his order. In one mistake, Carnes said, Cooper indicated that a petition with about 2,300 signatures that called on the board to place a sticker in the textbooks was issued prior to the board's decision in March 2002 to affix the stickers on the textbooks. The petition, Carnes noted, was turned over to the school board six months after it made the decision to place stickers on the schoolbooks.

Even though Carnes said the evidentiary record in the case indicates the petitions were given to the school board in September 2002, the school board knew about the petition before it decided to affix the stickers to science textbooks six months earlier.

On March 29, 2002, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported that Marjorie Rogers, whose child attended a Cobb middle school, told the school board the previous day that she had collected petitions signed by 2,300 people who were dissatisfied with the science textbooks.

Also, Cooper, when writing his decision last January, said he "did not rely on communications from these individuals" to determine whether the school board sought to advance religion when it voted to place the sticker in science textbooks.

The stickers, placed inside the front pages of Cobb science textbooks in the fall of 2002, read: "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."

In his ruling, Cooper found that the school board adopted a distinction that "religiously motivated individuals have specifically asked school boards to make in the most recent anti-evolutionary movement."

The sticker conveys "an impermissible message of endorsement and tells some citizens that they are political outsiders while telling others they are political insiders," Cooper wrote. This spring, following Cooper's orders, the school board removed the stickers from all science textbooks.

In his argument, Gunn, the school's attorney, asked the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to look at the stickers in the context of the board's plan to strengthen its teaching of evolution. In the past, Gunn noted, Cobb curtailed evolution instruction. In 2002, the board agreed to use a new textbook with chapters devoted to evolution.

"If they wanted to restrict evolution instruction, they would have done nothing," Gunn said. "They would have maintained the status quo.....All they did was improve evolution instruction."

After the hearing, Gerry Weber, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union office in Atlanta, which represents the plaintiffs, said there is plenty of evidence in the case to support the argument that Cobb's school board placed the stickers inside textbooks to endorse the religious views of some parents.

"There are letters and e-mails from citizens who are asking the school board to protect their faith and discount evolution," Weber said.

A decision is not expected until next year.