Hellewell Blasts ACLU And The Heathen Masses
Posted on July 21, 2005
Republican Senator Parley Hellewell from Utah is taking the kidd gloves off. He is calling upon the religious of Utah to get behind him and support a new bill he is planning on introducing to bypass the First Amendment rulings of the Supreme Court dating back to the 1960’s that set up the separation of church and state and began the removal of religion from schools and government.
In 1962 in Engel v. Vitale, the Supreme Court sided with the New York ACLU and found “the nondenominational prayer a religious activity ‘wholly inconsistent’ with the First Amendment.” It held that “the decision did not imply hostility to religion and that it specifically exempted from the decision references to God in government ceremonies.” (In Defense of American Liberties – A History of the ACLU, Samuel Walker, p. 224, Southern Illinois University Press (2nd ed. 1999.)
The first of many rulings that the ACLU (the leader of the heathen masses in Sen. Hellewell’s opinion) incurred upon the American religious. This was followed quickly by
Abington School District v. Schempp and Murray v. Curlett in 1963, when the ACLU challenged the Bible reading law. The Supreme Court ruled the law unconstitutional and “reaffirmed its view that the government” should be “firmly committed to a position of neutrality.” “The Court’s decisions also encouraged more activity by the ACLU and its allies. (…) [I]n a subtle but important shift the ACLU’s role increasingly became that of a watchdog fighting for implementation of civil liberties principles that were now a matter of law.” (In Defense of American Liberties – A History of the ACLU, Samuel Walker, pp. 224, 226, Southern Illinois University Press (2nd ed. 1999.) “As a result, according to Richard and Susan Vigilante, they have effectively reduced ‘the place of religion in American life’ and have restricted religious speech ‘in a way they would never allow other forms of speech to be restricted.’” (Trial and Error – The American Civil Liberties Union and its Impact on Your Family, George Grant, p.70, Wolgemuth & Hyatt, Publishers, Inc. (1st. ed. 1989)
To those add the recent rulings on the Ten Commandments in which Barrow County lost against the ACLU in its’ attempt to hold on to the document that hung in a breezeway of the Courthouse complex. (Did I mention that the ACLU is being rewarded $150,000 for their efforts in that case?) And then you have the hypocritical rulings to teach Islam in the schools of California. No wonder Sen. Hellewell, ” plans to introduce legislation to take back control for the majority he insists wants God in government meetings and public schools. ”
Quoting from the book Original Intent, Hellewell argued that religion infused American life until the Supreme Court interpreted the First Amendment’s establishment clause 40 years ago to block prayer in public schools. He held up a copy of his sister’s tiny New Testament, passed out in school, and The Primer, a religiously-tinged schoolbook he said was the basis of American education for 200 years. He quoted the Founding Fathers speaking about God and religion. And Hellewell cited apocryphal stories of school administrators pulling the Bible off school library shelves, prohibiting the display of the word “Christmas” and blocking religious artwork.
“I don’t think we’re doing what the Founding Fathers of our country intended. The first 50 to 200 years of our country, we had a lot more religious freedom than we have now,” Hellewell said. “The Supreme Court is doing what we call ‘legislating from the bench.’ There’s one heck of a lot of prohibiting. There’s a movement out there saying you can’t practice your religion. We’re living by the atheist religion.”
Hellewel intends to write state legislation that would allow the Pledge of Allegiance, prayer at high school graduations and student blessings of their lunch, all of which are allowed under specific circumstances, but Hellewell wants more protection for such shows of devotion.
The response from the heathens was swift. “When the good legislators pass that law, they should also budget $100,000 for attorneys’ fees”, said civil rights attorney Brian Barnard. (Now we have an idea of the average cost of litigation when the ACLU gets involved).
Was Hellewel worried? Hellsfire no. His reply to that was, “I don’t care if it starts a lawsuit,” he said. “We have to defend our freedom”.
Amen to that, Senator Hellewel.
» Filed Under 1st Amendment, Church And State
Trackback URL
Comments
15 Responses to “Hellewell Blasts ACLU And The Heathen Masses”
-
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Advertise
Donate
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
Stop the ACLU blogburst
-
More blogs about the ACLU
Syndicate Me
We need people like this standing up in every State.
My only concern here is the same as always: How far will this legislation go? Almost every law or amendment that gets passed ends up being used in ways not intended so how far will this go?
In short, I have nothing wrong with prayers in school (as long as not mandatory), prayers at graduation or even school picnics or at government offices. I WOULD have a problem however if the law were written in a way that allowed a more direct influence OF a specific religion on government affairs. How would that be prevented? If language were included that could guarantee no such abuses of the law, I would support the bill. Just because I’m a Christian doesn’t mean I want to make everyone else do what I think is best. I would hope that is the true American way.
Yeah guys, it looks like I don’t need to change my links. Hey that is a great article and if I were in politics I would be backing him all the way. Keep up the good work guys!
Threatening to sue about thinking of praying at a graduation ceremony, taking God out of the Pledge of Allegience, and disallowing moments of silence due to the religious conotation it invokes is where Hellewel is going with this. I hope it is well written and loophole free.
I agree. It will depend a lot on the careful wording of the bill. Joseph is correct that if not careful it could be used in an extremist fashion. I doubt that it would, but it could. It should be worded very carefully.
Knowing they will be fighting the ACLU, I’m sure they will have the best lawyers helping them craft the legislation. One would at least hope so. But Joseph, I wouldn’t worry…cause if they don’t have the best lawyers helping them to word the legislation carefully….they will lose in court against the ACLU.
This is not about imposing religion on anyone – it is about the free exercise of religion guaranteed by the First Amendment. Christians have been losing ground since 1947 because of individuals and groups like the ACLU who want us to check our religion at the door whenever we go to school or work or wherever. We are free to be religious and equally as free to be non-religious. It is written into the law of the land, and I will fight until my dying breath to tell Americans and people everywhere that America was founded on Christian principles, and these principles have made us the great and benevolent nation we are.
God save us from interference with our religious liberties, imposed on us by those radical activist judges like Clarence Thomas. In Elk Grove Unified School Dist. v. Newdow, the Supreme Court declined to address the Constitutionality of a school policy requiring the Pledge of Allegiance to be recited. But Thomas dissented as follows (citations omitted):
In Lee [v. Weisman], the Court held that invocations and benedictions could not, consistent with the Establishment Clause, be given at public secondary school graduations…. Adherence to Lee would require us to strike down the Pledge policy…. [And i]t is true that since this Court decided West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, States cannot compel (in the traditional sense) students to pledge their allegiance…. The “coercion” here, however, results in unwilling children actually pledging their allegiance.
In Barnette, the Court addressed a state law that compelled students to salute and pledge allegiance to the flag. The Court described this as “compulsion of students to declare a belief.” The Pledge “require[d] affirmation of a belief and an attitude of mind.” In its current form, reciting the Pledge entails pledging allegiance to “the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God.” Under Barnette, pledging allegiance is “to declare a belief ” that now includes that this is “one Nation under God.” It is difficult to see how this does not entail an affirmation that God exists. Whether or not we classify affirming the existence of God as a “formal religious exercise” akin to prayer, it must present the same or similar constitutional problems.
To be sure, such an affirmation is not a prayer, and I admit that this might be a significant distinction. But the Court has squarely held that the government cannot require a person to “declare his belief in God.” Torcaso v. Watkins (“We repeat and again reaffirm that neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person ‘‘to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion’ ”); see also Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Ore. v. Smith (“The government may not compel affirmation of religious belief”); Widmar v. Vincent (rejecting attempt to distinguish worship from other forms of religious speech)….
I conclude that, as a matter of our precedent, the Pledge policy is unconstitutional.
[But Thomas then concludes that schools may recite the Pledge because precedent is wrong: The 1st Amendment bars only the feds from establishing an official religion, not the states. According to Thomas, each state should be free to establish its own state religion and to incorporate the rituals of that religion into the state’s public schools, among other things.
Talk about activism. Take a moment to pray for the non-Mormans in Utah, among others....]
Nobody – this isn’t about being a Morman. If you want to talk about the resistance of children to pledging an allegience that is really an entirely different subject. Especially, when you point out that this “results in unwilling children actually pledging their allegiance”. That would fall under a topic of how poor parenting that doesn’t foster a deep belief system in both God and country, will eventually be the ruination of this country. If those children, who are evidently so poorly taught to be ungrateful to both God (for those who came before them to fight and die for the freedoms they have) and for the country they live in (with all the freedoms and opportunities they have), grow up and retain the same stunted attitudes towards the real values in life (outside of the mall and mtv) this country will go to pot quickly in the future with the likes of them leading it.
This isn’t about being Morman per se; it’s about not being Morman in a state that very much wishes to change that. (No offence to Mormans.)
Do not confuse cause and effect. The fact that our country is virtuous may make people feel an allegiance toward it; but the fact that people pledge their allegiance does not make the nation virtuous.
American patriotism is a paradox. Every one of our nation’s founders was a traitor to his country. Why should a country conceived in liberty, not patriotism, betray its founders by promoting patriotism over liberty?
The great majority of our founders were men of faith. Yet rather than impose their religious views on the nation, they expressly limited the power of government to do so. Why should a country conceived in liberty, not a particular religion, betray its founders by promoting religion over liberty?
Down through the years, Quakers, Johova’s Witnesses and the Amish have been persecuted for their believe that they should not pledge allegiance to any authority than god. I have difficulty dismissing their faiths as being the result of too much mall and MTV. Anyway, the ACLU didn’t, and neither did the courts.
Doubtless, you and I would conclude that many people have raised their children poorly. And doubtless, many people would reach the same conclusion about you and me. For me, the question is not who is right, but how do we live in a society where people disagree. For people who know that they are right, I guess there’s no problem in imposing their views on others. Osama bin Laden holds this view; do you?
I don’t. I and a small number of others follow the teachings of a man called Christ. Christ taught us to love our neighbors and to “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Because I would not like to have others impose their religious practices on me, I resist imposing my religious practices on others. But we are a small minority. The great majority of people where I live call themselves Christians, which apparently involves wearing a big cross on their sleeves and chanting “We’re No. 1! We’re No. 1!” The fact that Christ himself was a member of an oppressed minority does not seem to influence them, and “doing unto others” is not a big part of their world view.
I am deeply grateful for our nation, and the liberties and opportunities it affords. I hope it continues to afford those liberties and opportunities to minorities as well as majorities, and therefore I cherish the civil liberties that preserve them.
The Christians died for their beliefs in Rome, nobody. “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” We’ve been done unto. Where have you been the last few years since 911? If you would like to take a pacifist role, take it. You can earn your martyrs wings that way. Some of us are more proactive and don’t buy into the lay-down and turn the other cheek approach. Jesus tore apart the temple to decry the false. WWJD now? Would he be rooting for a group of attorneys who litigate conflicting cases across the nation just because 1)they can do it; 2)it earns them money; 3)they don’t care if those cases are damaging in the long run to a majority of people. Christians will create their own undoing, if they don’t stand up for what is right. It is funny how people can lift a saying out of the Bible to suit their own needs and use that as a credo to forget about their other responsibilities in life to their country.
“The Christians died for their beliefs in Rome, nobody. ‘Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.’ We’’ve been done unto. Where have you been the last few years since 911?”
You’re quite right, Christians were persecuted in Rome. And the US was attacked on 9/11. We’ve been wronged, we feel under siege. I absolutely agree.
But does that justify committing wrongs against others, especially our fellow citizens who are unrelated to the war? I, for one, have not been wronged by a member of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. The events of 9/11 do nothing to persuade me that we should ignore their legitimate stand of conscience against pledging allegiance to some power other than god. And now that we are at war, this seems like a particularly bad time to provoke sectarian battles here at home.
The guys who attacked us are the forces of intolerance, and on 9/11 they killed people of many races, faiths, and nations. We are the forces of liberty, diverse in perspective but united in the mission of tolerance. That’s a mission I hope we can all get behind.
You are the best. Thank you http://www.bignews.com
Lovely, informative site, thanks
The stuff on this web site is really witty and cool wise
Congratulations on finally setting up your site. I am sure the website will become a internet legend