“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”

Is the football teem Congress or even the federal government? The answer is no so we have already in territory untouched by the first Amendment so violating it is really not the question.

If you are going to lie to apply the First Amendment in the first place then what is going to stop you from lying again to achieve whatever gain you are after.

So why argue about a point that is very plain. The ACLU and anyone else attacking religions on public property is a liar.

If they attack legislation passed by Congress that they believe supports and establishment of religion then we possibly have an honest debate.

Marx actually disagreed with Rousseau and Locke on the right to property and probably on other things as their basic ideas actually seem opposed.

Right now, the only thing I see is that they are a politically active non-profit legal team that disagrees with you.

This will get you started.

Lynn Stewart is traitorous scum.

I’m not familiar with the case. Was she convicted of anything?

Even if we assume she is “traitorous scum”, you can’t apply that label to the whole organization simply because of the act(s) of a member of that organization.

Foley is a pervert, but I would be a fool to assume that a significant portion of the other Republicans are too.

Defending someone’s “rights” and lying about them to get them off the hook for their crimes are too different things.

They certainly are, but you’re alleging a severe ethical violation. Do you have any evidence of such?

But what is most galling to me is CCR’s continuing defense of the convicted terrorist conspirator Lynne Stewart. Stewart was the lawyer for the blind sheik, Omar Abdel Rahman (now a permanent guest in a U.S. Supermax facility), head of an Egyptian Islamist terrorist group called al-Gama’a al-Islamiyya. Members of that group killed 62 people in Luxor, Egypt in 1997, in an effort to put pressure on the U.S. to free the sheik. Egyptian President Anwar Sadat was assassinated after the sheik issued a fatwa calling on Muslims to kill him.

Stewart did NOT, as CCR and her other supporters claim, merely do her job as a lawyer. After President Bill Clinton’s attorney general, Janet Reno, made Stewart sign an agreement in which she agreed not to pass on her dangerous terrorist client’s messages to the outside world, she ignored it. Stewart passed on the sheik’s message to reporters who wrote news stories indicating that the sheik wanted his group to call off a ceasefire it had with the government of Egypt. In other words, Lynne Stewart told al-Gama’a al-Islamiyya it’s OK to start killing people again, you have the sheik’s blessing, so get on with it.

Lynn Stewart is traitorous scum. Defending someone’s “rights” and lying about them to get them off the hook for their crimes are too different things.

The Center for Constitutional Rights is openly anti-American and pro-terrorist. Groups suspected of ties to terrorism give money to CCR.

What’s the connection between Communism and Islamism? CCR hates America so it decided to align itself with terrorists who hate America. It seems CCR and its supporters believe that Islamic Fascist terrorists are freedom fighters and spokesmen for legitimate national liberation movements.

CCR has enjoyed much success in its legal fight against the U.S. government’s War on Terror, most notably in Rasul v. Bush in which the firm was counsel. (It filed “amicus curiae” briefs in other WOT cases as well.) Rasul is the infamous 2004 case in which the Supreme Court ruled (6 to 3) that CCR’s clients, 16 foreign nationals captured during U.S. hostilities with the Taliban in Afghanistan, had the legal right to challenge their detentions in U.S. civilian courts.

C’mon… representing suspected terrorists doesn’t make them “pro-terrorist”. While I know nothing about this organization (and I suspect few people here knew about them either until today), I think it is quite likely that they are simply pro-Constitution.

It used to be considered a noble thing to defend an important principle, even if the short-term outcome was undesirable.