Petition congress

[LovetoCamp 9]

http://www.ipetitions.com/campaigns/ACLU/

 

I sent one, the blonde sent one, all the kids sent one, even all the grandparents sent one!!! Put the heat on!!!

[SR540Beaver 116]

ACLU of Nebraska Defends Church Facing Eviction by the City of Lincoln

 

August 11, 2004

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

 

LINCOLN --The American Civil Liberties Union of Nebraska today announced that it would defend a Presbyterian church from a forced eviction by the city.

 

"There's no reason for the city to force the Church of the Awesome God from its home, and the city is violating both the First Amendment and federal law in doing so," said Tim Butz, Executive Director of the ACLU of Nebraska.

 

http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=16295&c=142

 

Following Threat of ACLU of Virginia Lawsuit, Officials to Agree Not to Ban Baptisms in Public Parks

 

June 3, 2004

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

 

RICHMOND, VA -- Under pressure from the American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia, Falmouth Waterside Park Manager Brian Robinson has agreed not to prohibit baptisms in Stafford County, the ACLU announced today.

 

Robinson also told the ACLU that the Fredericksburg-Stafford Park Authority, which controls access to the public park, expects to issue written policies making it clear that religious groups have the same right to use the park as all other groups.

 

This kind of confusion over religious expression in public places is not uncommon, said ACLU of Virginia Executive Director Kent Willis. Government officials often seem not to understand that private religious expression is protected in public forums. Afraid of violating separation of church and state by permitting religious activities, they end up obstructing freedom of religion.

 

http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=15897&c=141

 

After ACLU Intervention on Behalf of Christian Valedictorian, Michigan High School Agrees to Stop Censoring Religious Yearbook Entries

 

May 11, 2004

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

 

DETROIT The American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan today announced an out-of-court settlement between the Utica Community School District and a local student over the censorship of her 2001 yearbook entry. The students entry had been deleted from the yearbook because it contained a passage from the Bible.

 

While it is true that the Constitution forbids public schools to promote religion, schools must be careful not to suppress the private religious expression of students, said ACLU of Michigan Legal Director Michael J. Steinberg, who represented the student. In this case, a high school purported to create an open forum for student expression, yet censored a students speech because it was religious in nature.

 

http://www.aclu.org/StudentsRights/StudentsRights.cfm?ID=15680&c=159

 

In Win for Rev. Falwell (and the ACLU), Judge Rules VA Must Allow Churches to Incorporate

 

April 17, 2002

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

 

RICHMOND, VA--A federal judge has struck down a provision of the Virginia Constitution that bans religious organizations from incorporating, in a challenge filed by the Rev. Jerry Falwell and joined by the American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia, the group announced today.

 

"The judge applied well established constitutional principles to reach the conclusion that Virginia's archaic ban on church incorporation cannot pass constitutional muster," said Rebecca Glenberg, Legal Director of the ACLU of Virginia.

 

The ACLU joined the lawsuit as a "friend of the court" last fall, challenging the ban on the grounds that it violates the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of free exercise of religion.

 

http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=10147&c=142

 

[9muckraker7 11]

I've noticed that many times these lawsuits are brought up when the US government submits to the arguments of disingenuous citizens with nothing better to do who feel like their beliefs are being trampled on by the US government.

[LovetoCamp 9]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41667

 

Why is sodomy being taught to a generation who can't read and write?(This message has been edited by Trail Pounder)

[9muckraker7 11]

This reminds me of an episode of South Park...

 

The moral of that episode was that TOLERANCE does not mean ACCEPTANCE or AGREEING WITH someone's lifestyle, but rather simply PUTTING UP with it. Such "tolerance videos" are geared towards completely changing our views towards a group of people and by doing so make us feel guilty for not agreeing with their lifestyle. This is wrong, and no one should be forced to agree with a lifestyle they already disagree with.

 

I feel that forcing an institution to agree with and "cater to" the minority is actually an act of discrimination against the majority. If the tolerance videos are to be shown so as to respect the rights of those who wish to show it (the minority), then there should be absolutely NOTHING preventing the majority from showing their own versions of "anti-tolerance" type videos; for every view expressed there must be allowed an opposing view.

[firstpusk 10]

The ACLU is not responsible for the predicament of the Boyd County Schools. The World-Nut-Daily is not exactly a reliable source, but even they did not claim the district was "teaching sodomy".

 

There are more than a few ommissions in the article you linked.

 

>The students themselves sought to start the Gay Straight Alliance (GSA) after classmates unanimously passed a resolution favoring an open hunt on gay students during a mock legislature session. In another incident, a student in an english class said that they should, "...take all the (an extreme profanity describing homosexual students) out in the back woods and kill them."

 

>The students were repeatedly turned down by the school when they sought the aid of the ACLU.

 

>The school repeatedly tried to evade the requirements of federal law that many Christain students have used to allow religious association in the public schools such as Bible Clubs.

 

>The school's site based decision council allowed the GSA to form.

 

>The school board overturned this decision because they did not agree with the point of view of the club members.

 

>When it was pointed out that the district had to allow the GSA to form if it allowed other non-academic clubs, the superintendent banned all the clubs. He still allowed the others to meet but continued to ban the GSA.

 

>When faced with a lawsuit, the district finally accepted the consent decree that required the senitivity training that you described so inaccurately.

 

Trail Pounder, what is the first point of the Scout Law?

[LovetoCamp 9]

Just thinking that a number of Scout leaders here favor the low-life aclu, creeps me out.

[NWScouter 9]

Trail Pounder, if you were to seek to serve on any of the scouting activities that I have leadership, your sexist, homophobic, and general intolerant attitudes and comments would cause me to exclude you. If my children were younger I would not have them in any unit you had leadership in and I would ask my CO not approve you for leadership. In other words your attitude creeps me out.

[SR540Beaver 116]

Just thinking that a Scout leader here ignores the oath and law creeps me out.

 

Pounder, you never responded to the cases listed above where the ACLU championed the civil rights of religious organizations. I'm sure there were people who were just as angry over the ACLU defending religious organizations as there are people who get angry over cases like these. Like them or not, the ACLU's purpose is to defend the civil rights guaranteed to all Americans thru the Constitution regardless of who the group is or how popular or socially acceptable they are. While I dislike many of the cases they take on, they serve a needed purpose and I'd sure be glad that they are around if my civil rights are ever endangered. I'd suggest that you set your bias aside for a minute and honestly analyze the ACLU's purpose. It is not to undermine society, it is to defend guaranteed civil rights.

[firstpusk 10]

"Just thinking..." This was refuted by the rest of your sentence.

 

I've worked with scouters of all political stripes. For me the important thing is the delivery of the program. Setting the example is the key leadership skill I seek when I am recruiting. You don't seem to be ready to set the example on the first point of the Scout Law. For the good of the youth you are working with please resign. We can do better than you.

[LovetoCamp 9]

KOJA(This message has been edited by Trail Pounder)

[LovetoCamp 9]

Sure, we can do better than me. Tens of thousands of better men than me. But you ain't it pusk!!!

 

You sure are a bunch of nasty little intolerant defenders of the aclu. Typical liberal hypocrites!!!(This message has been edited by Trail Pounder)

[evmori 11]

The ACLU defends their interpretations of the Constitution. Nothing more.

 

Now a public park funded with government money must allow baptisms in their park because they were stomping on religious freedom! And that differs from letting the military charter BSA units how???????

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

 

(This message has been edited by evmori)

[SR540Beaver 116]

TP,

 

Liberal? Nah, guess again. I like to call it fair and balanced. Reasonable comes to mind too.

 

Ed,

 

You said, "The ACLU defends their interpretations of the Constitution. Nothing more."

 

As do you. They think they are just as right as you do.

 

Thinks about it. Expressing your religious beliefs in a public park is allowed under freedom of religion and freedom of speech in the constitution. A government entity sponsoring a religious organization (which BSA lawyers have called the BSA in court proceedings before) who has discrimnatory joining requirements goes against the constitution on both church and state issues and equal opportunity legislation. The fact that you and I don't like it doesn't really count for much.

[NJCubScouter 1389]

Ed says:

 

Now a public park funded with government money must allow baptisms in their park because they were stomping on religious freedom! And that differs from letting the military charter BSA units how???????

 

Ed, it's completely different. In one case you have a unit "owned" by an arm of the government, discriminating on the basis of religious beliefs. This amounts to the government itself doing the discriminating. In the case of the park with a river running along it, what was apparently happening was that the government was saying it's ok to come into the park and go down to the river to fish, or swim (maybe), or canoe, or just stand knee deep in the water and talk to someone else, or whatever, as long as you are not engaging in a religious ritual. There is nothing in the story to indicate that the baptisms were interfering with anyone else's use of the park, any more than the person fishing or paddling down the river or whatever. If the pastor were trying to "reserve" the park or a portion of it so that only his baptisms could take place there within a given time frame, that might be a different story -- though it might not, it would still depend on the circumstances.

 

In other words, the government can't single out religious expression and behavior from all the other kinds of expression and behavior, and disallow it for no other reason than its religious nature. That violates the Free Exercise Clause. But the the government also cannot (generally) be the ones DOING the religious expression or behavior, either directly or indirectly, such as owning a group that excludes atheists. (I say "generally" because I am well aware there are some things that fall on or near the "line" of the broad statement I have made, such as the military having chaplains, the money saying "In God We Trust" or Congress starting its session with a prayer, but I think these things can be distinguished, and in any event as I have said before, the fact that something on or even over the line is allowed, does not mean that some other thing that is over the line can be permitted.)