Author Topic: WTG to the ACLU  (Read 4217 times)

Offline lukster

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2581
WTG to the ACLU
« Reply #60 on: July 24, 2006, 11:01:46 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Thrawn
What a long way of saying, "I can't support my assertations.".


I made my point several times over in thread I referred to. It seemed to cause little concern then. I guess that so long as it isn't my rights being trampled we just don't care.

The ACLU sues schools that allow freedom of speech if it is religious speech involved. They have a long and on going history of doing this. If you will clearly state that you think this isn't true then I will go to the trouble of proving it. If you don't really care and will just sweep it aside like Midnight Target did with his statement about if they did then it was to protect freedom of religion, then why should I bother?

Offline Charon

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3705
WTG to the ACLU
« Reply #61 on: July 24, 2006, 11:20:09 PM »
Quote
I made my point several times over in thread I referred to. It seemed to cause little concern then. I guess that so long as it isn't my rights being trampled we just don't care.

The ACLU sues schools that allow freedom of speech if it is religious speech involved. They have a long and on going history of doing this. If you will clearly state that you think this isn't true then I will go to the trouble of proving it. If you don't really care and will just sweep it aside like Midnight Target did with his statement about if they did then it was to protect freedom of religion, then why should I bother?


I want to hear specifics.

Here's one lawsuit:

Quote
The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey today filed a friend-of-the-court brief in a case seeking to uphold an elementary school student's right to religious expression.  
 
The Frenchtown Elementary School student, whose initials are O.T., wanted to sing the song "Awesome God" in a voluntary, after-school talent show. School officials refused to allow the student to sing her song, saying it would give the impression that the school favored religion.  “O.T.” remains anonymous to protect her privacy.
 
"There is a distinction between religious expression initiated or endorsed by school personnel, and speech initiated by individual students," said ACLU of New Jersey cooperating attorney Jennifer Klear of Drinker, Biddle & Reath in New York. "The Constitution protects a student's individual right to express herself, including religious expression."
 
In its brief, the ACLU argued that no reasonable observer would have believed that the school endorsed the religious message behind the student's song, and that the school therefore had no right to deny her choice of song.  
 
The talent show was open for anyone from the 1st through 8th grades who wished to play a solo instrument, dance, perform a skit or sing karaoke. Students were permitted to select their own songs or skits.
 
"We are dedicated to protecting the right of individual religious expression," said ACLU of New Jersey Legal Director Ed Barocas. "O.T. has our full support in defense of her right to sing a religious song in the talent show."  
 
The ACLU of New Jersey has participated in other cases involving the right of individual religious expression, including recently helping to ensure that jurors are not removed from jury pools for wearing religious clothing and that prisoners are able to obtain religious literature.  
 
The case, O.T. v. Frenchtown Elementary School, was filed in federal court in Trenton.


And here's another one:

Quote
The American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky announced today that U.S. District Judge Joseph H. McKinley, Jr. has issued a temporary restraining order to prevent Russell County High School from including prayer during its graduation ceremony tonight.
 
“This case is not about whether people can or should pray; it’s about families and individuals deciding for themselves whether, when, and how to pray,” said Lili S. Lutgens, a staff attorney at the ACLU of Kentucky.  “Our founders intended that these religious decisions be made by individuals and families, not the government.”
 
The ACLU of Kentucky sought the order Tuesday on behalf of a Russell County senior who believes that the planned prayers would have been an unconstitutional endorsement of religion and of specific religious views by the school.
 
Students who want to pray are free to organize a private, religious baccalaureate service before or after graduation, Lutgens said, but including prayers in the official graduation ceremony is a violation of the First Amendment’s prohibition against government-sponsored religion.
 
The U.S. Supreme Court has struck down the inclusion of clergy-led prayer at public school graduations and student-led prayer at school sporting events.  “The Constitution forbids the state to exact religious conformity from a student as the price of attending her own high school graduation,” the Court wrote in its 1992 Lee v. Weisman decision.


I agree fully with both positions. I bet if the prayer in the second case involved Satanism of Islamic Jihad then it wouldn't be such an OUTRAGE to many people who dislike the ACLU's meddling with their ability to overtly, or by implication, proselytize the "one true religion" at government funded events.  See, you get the real strong impression where such outrage is concerned that it's not religion in general at the core, but resistance to the open acknowledgment that there is one true religion in America under Christ.

like this suit:

Quote
The American Civil Liberties Union of West Virginia and Americans United for Separation of Church and State today asked a court to order the removal of a large portrait of Jesus prominently displayed outside the principal's office at Bridgeport High School, saying that the display is an unconstitutional endorsement of religion.

"The Constitution's ban on government endorsement of religion is good for both government and religion. It keeps religion free and allows government to represent us all," said Andrew Schneider, Executive Director of the ACLU of West Virginia. "In violating that ban, Bridgeport High School is interfering with the right of all students to freely express their religious beliefs."

The current debate dates to a March meeting of the Harrison County Board of Education, when a local resident, Harold Sklar, submitted a formal request that the portrait be taken down. However, this is not the first time the display has been questioned. Sklar had asked for the portrait's removal several times over a 10 year period, but his requests were ignored.

Schneider noted that even if the portrait reflected the beliefs of a majority of individuals, the United States Supreme Court ruled unequivocally in 1943 in a landmark West Virginia case that the purpose of the Bill of Rights was to ensure that fundamental liberties like freedom of religion are not subject to the whims of a majority.
"School officials are flouting the First Amendment principle of church-state separation and in the process providing students a shoddy civics lesson," said Richard Katskee, Assistant Legal Director of Americans United.

The lawsuit, filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, seeks to remove the portrait and obtain damages as well as reasonable attorneys' fees.


I somehow don't think that portrait, outside the principal's office, is meant as a private expression of his faith. Seems more like a "get with the program" kind of thing to me. But again, substitute a pentagram for the Jesus portrait and the outrage over the suit vanishes, I imagine.
« Last Edit: July 24, 2006, 11:27:01 PM by Charon »

Offline lukster

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2581
WTG to the ACLU
« Reply #62 on: July 24, 2006, 11:25:58 PM »

Offline Charon

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3705
WTG to the ACLU
« Reply #63 on: July 24, 2006, 11:33:56 PM »
Kind of sounds like a he said/she said case.

Quote
District lawyer Bill Hoffman said the regulation allows students to talk about religion, but speeches can't cross the line into the realm of preaching.

"We encourage people to talk about religion and the impact on their lives. But when that discussion crosses over to become proselytizing, then we to tell students they can't do that," Hoffman said.

McComb, who said she plans to study journalism at Biola University, a private Christian school in La Mirada, Calif., doesn't believe she was preaching.

"People aren't stupid and they know we have freedom of speech and the district wasn't advocating my ideas," McComb said. "Those are my opinions. It's what I believe."


Of course, her speech featured ... six references to God or Christ, two biblical references and a detailed reference to the crucifixion of Christ. Sounds more in line with "preaching/proselytizing" than the impact of religion on her life (I've heard both preaching and people talking generally about the value of religion in their lives and detailed biblical references usually accompany the former) but I would have to see the full transcript to have a better foundation for that position.

Charon
« Last Edit: July 24, 2006, 11:38:51 PM by Charon »

Offline lukster

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2581
WTG to the ACLU
« Reply #64 on: July 24, 2006, 11:38:41 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Charon
Kind of sounds like a he said/she said case.



Of course, her speech featured ... six references to God or Christ, two biblical references and a detailed reference to the crucifixion of Christ. Sounds more in line with "preaching/proselytizing" than the impact of religion on her life, but I would have to see the full transcript to have a better foundation for that position.

Charon


Sounds like the ACLU is deciding what is and isn't appropriate speech to me. Guess she was free to say what she wanted so long as it was approved by the state and endorsed by the ACLU. With that sort of first amendment protection I really, really, don't want them "defending" my rights.

Offline Sandman

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17620
WTG to the ACLU
« Reply #65 on: July 24, 2006, 11:43:14 PM »
Sounds like it was the Clark County School District's decision. My version of the story doesn't mention that the ACLU was there at all. Go figure.
sand

Offline lukster

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2581
WTG to the ACLU
« Reply #66 on: July 24, 2006, 11:47:22 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Sandman
Sounds like it was the Clark County School District's decision. My version of the story doesn't mention that the ACLU was there at all. Go figure.


There are at least two references to the ACLU speaking on behalf of the school in that article. If that's too vague then read the follow-up on that page:

"Proselytizing is improper in school-sponsored speech at valedictorian graduations, he said, adding the ACLU had sued in the past to ensure proselytizing was prevented at school-sponsored events."

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=17162

Offline Sandman

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17620
WTG to the ACLU
« Reply #67 on: July 24, 2006, 11:51:07 PM »
Oh... so the ACLU wasn't there after all. Excellent.
sand

Offline lukster

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2581
WTG to the ACLU
« Reply #68 on: July 24, 2006, 11:54:16 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Sandman
Oh... so the ACLU wasn't there after all. Excellent.


The ACLU has sued this school and others. They had a pending suit which they agreed to drop providing the school toes their line. Is this really ok with you? If so then here's another example of my previous comment about it being ok to trample "other" peoples rights.

Offline Sandman

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17620
WTG to the ACLU
« Reply #69 on: July 24, 2006, 11:58:07 PM »
People do not have the right to proselytize on public property.
sand

Offline lukster

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2581
WTG to the ACLU
« Reply #70 on: July 24, 2006, 11:59:20 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Sandman
People do not have the right to proselytize on public property.


Since when? I don't recall that the constitution provides for freedom of speech unless it's religious.

Offline Charon

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3705
WTG to the ACLU
« Reply #71 on: July 25, 2006, 12:01:52 AM »
Well, sounds like a state endorsement of a particular religion otherwise. Taxpayer dollars funding a public sermon to a captive audience. Especially so, since we know her preaching about the joys of free sex and hedonism through the mystery of satanic ritual wouldn't fly. What about using the alloted time to support her beliefs and justifications for not believing in God. Would you honestly support that expression of free speech? What if your's was one of a handful of families in a Muslim school district where there were daily prayers to Mecca (your child doesn't have to pray, just stand out as the only one in class not following their peers) or listen to a valedictorian preach the power of Jihad against the infidels on your tax dollars?

Separation of Church and State is fairly clear, and helps there actually be a freedom of religion and freedom from religion in our private lives. As I noted in the earlier post, if you want to teach you children to worship dancing garden gnomes that's your deal -- go for it. But don't start pushing that crap on me or my children at a government funded event or as part of the daily school experience.

Charon

Offline Sandman

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17620
WTG to the ACLU
« Reply #72 on: July 25, 2006, 12:06:00 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by lukster
Since when?


1947
sand

Offline lukster

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2581
WTG to the ACLU
« Reply #73 on: July 25, 2006, 12:09:34 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Charon
Well, sounds like a state endorsement of a particular religion otherwise. Taxpayer dollars funding a public sermon to a captive audience. Especially so, since we know her preaching about the joys of free sex and hedonism through the mystery of satanic ritual wouldn't fly. What about using the alloted time to support her beliefs and justifications for not believing in God. Would you honestly support that expression of free speech? What if your's was one of a handful of families in a Muslim school district where there were daily prayers to Mecca (your child doesn't have to pray, just stand out as the only one in class not following their peers) or listen to a valedictorian preach the power of Jihad against the infidels on your tax dollars?

Separation of Church and State is fairly clear, and helps there actually be a freedom of religion and freedom from religion in our private lives. As I noted in the earlier post, if you want to teach you children to worship dancing garden gnomes that's your deal -- go for it. But don't start pushing that crap on me or my children at a government funded event or as part of the daily school experience.

Charon


First of all I'd like to know where you find that there is a clear requirement for separation of church and state in the constitution. Even without that however I will agree that it is inappropriate for a principal or other school official to preach a sermon at a mandatory school event. This was not the case here however. This student was a private citizen clearly acting on her own behalf. She was undoubtedly denied her first amendment rights and I hope she is able to take it to the supreme court.

Offline lukster

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2581
WTG to the ACLU
« Reply #74 on: July 25, 2006, 12:10:17 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Sandman
1947


Proof?