No More Tax Money For The ACLU
Posted on October 4, 2006
Judge Roy Moore explains very well why we need the Public Expression Of Religion Act passed in an article at WND.
The American Rule in lawsuits, which the United States Supreme Court stated in 1967, is that unless otherwise stated in the law or by contract, each party is responsible for paying its own attorneys’ fees regardless of who wins the case. The rationale behind the rule is simply that a person should not be discouraged from seeking redress for a perceived wrong in the courts because of the fear of having to pay the opposing party’s fee in addition to his or her own if he or she should lose the case.
Nevertheless, in 1976, Congress amended provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to allow a prevailing plaintiff in a case involving a violation of his or her constitutional rights to recover attorneys’ fees from the defendant. According to the Senate report on the amendment, Congress passed this legislation to encourage poor victims to seek vindication of their rights and to discourage federal, state and local governments from committing such violations.
However, the Public Expression of Religion Act now properly recognizes that this “loser pays” rule is antiquated in Establishment Clause challenges because nearly all of them are brought by wealthy public-interest law firms – such as the ACLU and Americans United for Separation of Church and State, or AU – that represent their clients for free. Instead of declining to accept these fees, these anti-Christian law firms use the fee awards as legal blackmail against small county and municipal defendants that do not have the tax revenue to cover such fees if they lose. Establishment Clause jurisprudence has become so antagonistic to expressions of our faith that many local governments are not willing to gamble with taxpayer money and therefore surrender to ACLU demands that every vestige of religion be removed from the public square. Often a threatening letter or phone call from the ACLU is all it takes for these governments to give up without a fight.
A survey of recent legal fee awards in these cases shows why governments are reluctant to defend the right to publicly acknowledge God. In San Diego, Calif., the ACLU received $940,000 for kicking the Boy Scouts out of Balboa Park. In Barrow County, Ga., the county paid the ACLU $150,000 to avoid a trial for its posting the Ten Commandments in the county courthouse. Not to be outdone, in Dover, Pa., the trial court ordered the district’s school board to pay the ACLU and AU $2 million for attempting to teach intelligent design in the schools.
Not surprisingly, Barry Lynn, the executive director of AU, expressed displeasure over the House’s approval of the proposed legislation, stating, “The bill seeks to slam the courthouse doors on citizens who challenge government-sponsored religious activities. It is a repugnant affront to the civil rights of all Americans.” The ACLU joined Lynn with a press release warning that passage of the Public Expression of Religion Act would “deter attorneys from taking cases in which the government has acted unconstitutionally.”
In essence, Mr. Lynn and the ACLU are admitting that if this bill passes, their “public interest” groups will no longer take these cases because they will not be able to recover attorneys’ fees from the government. But that is precisely the point! Attorneys for such groups are actually forbidden from charging their clients fees for their services because they are designated as nonprofit organizations. Thus, the fee awards they receive from these Establishment Clause cases amount to profiteering. The national ACLU takes in over $48 million per year and Barry Lynn’s group averages over $8 million annually. It is preposterous to claim that such wealthy and ideologically driven organizations would not be able to afford such lawsuits if they could not get their legal fees paid by the losing party.
What these organizations are really afraid of is that if the legislation passes, they will lose a valuable intimidation tool against state and local governments in these kinds of cases. Indeed, in the Dover intelligent design case, the school board settled with the ACLU and AU for $1 million in legal fees after the court had ordered them to pay a larger award. Upon reaching the legal fee settlement, AU assistant legal director Richard Katskee stated, “Any board thinking of trying to do what the Dover board did is going to have to look for a bill in excess of $2 million.” Could there be more blatant proof that such groups use the “loser pays” rule to bully and punish local governments?
» Filed Under ACLU, Church And State, News
Trackback URL
Comments
10 Responses to “No More Tax Money For The ACLU”
-
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
I would go along with this legislation if it include language to provide for punitive damages.
While you’re correct that the first goal is no longer applicable, the second goal is still very important.
Legal fees can get astronomical in a hurry, but punitive awards could be structured in a more reasonable way. They can be geared proportionally to the means of the relevant government entity.
I don’t know how anyone can say such a thing with a straight face. Our governments have absolutely no “right” to publicly acknowledge God. We created our governments to handle a limited set of responsibilities. None of them have anything to do with religion.
Our governments have absolutely no “right” to publicly acknowledge God. We created our governments to handle a limited set of responsibilities. None of them have anything to do with religion.
There is a plethora of evidence and proof to the contrary. Wade through it and show me what you have to support your position.
Hey just a thought here- while it would be real nice for this legislation to stop the ACLU from extorting money from people that can’t afford it, I’m afraid we’re going to see a shift in congress and the house toward a more democratic one which I fear will repeal any such bill should it pass. The ACLU has a real cash cow going on, and they won’t idly accept this bill. With a democratic congress inplace, they know they can intimidate the congress into repealing any such bills
Make sure you vote.
I have appropriately rearranged two of your sentences JM:
“Our governments have absolutely no “right” to publicly acknowledge God.”
“I don’t know how anyone can say such a thing with a straight face.”
Ever read the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution (shut up…the Constitution DOES acknowledge God…something about “blessing of liberty” — you can’t have a “blessing” without a God), every state constitution but one, the Northwest Ordinance (where it was REQUIRED — ART. 3. Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.)? Every hear of a national day of thanksgiving and prayer…a National Day of Prayer…the last thing said when a president is sworn in…
You’re SO far off here man. Are you conscious?
The oath
makes no reference to God or any religion. The fact that most (all?) presidents have added a religious statement at the end has no legal bearing on anything.
That’s a stretch. The original meaning of the word “bless” was religious, although not Christian, but in current usage it has common secular uses as well.
The Declaration of Independence makes frequent references to religion, but always in relation to individuals, not the government.
1. This piece of legislation does not say anything about the role of government in religion or vice-versa. In fact, that article is almost entirely focused on education and morality in dealing with the Indians. It simply says that
2. Notwithstanding point 1, this legislation has absolutely no bearing on us. It was written and passed by a completely different government, which lacked a Bill of Rights. My understanding is that this legislation was the basis for similar legislation under our current government, but you would have to cite that legislation if you wish to support your assertion.
Others have discussed these issues in depth, so I will simply refer you to them. Personally, I don’t care about these days one way or another, especially when they are advocated in a non-denominational way. I think it’s accurate to say that they are an “indication that imperfect humans have thus far failed to completely implement such separation.”
Our governments have absolutely no “right” to publicly acknowledge God. We created our governments to handle a limited set of responsibilities. None of them have anything to do with religion.
If I post this acouple more times, I will be able to post it from memory.
The cornerstone of the Capitol was laid by President George Washington in 1793., but it was not until the end of 1800 that Congress actually moved into the building. According to the congressional records for late November of 1800, Congress spent the first few weeks organizing the Capitol rooms, committees, locations, etc. Then, on December 4, 1800, Congress approved the use of the Capitol building as a church building.
The approval of the Capitol for church was given by both the House and the Senate, with House approval being given by Speaker of the House, Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg, and Senate approval being given by the President of the Senate, Thomas Jefferson. Interestingly, Jefferson’s approval came while he was still officially the Vice- President but after he had just been elected President.
Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States (Washington: Gales and Seaton, 1853), p. 797, Sixth Congress, December 4, 1800.
______________________________
With so many services occurring, the Hall of the House was not the only location in the Capitol where church services were conducted. John Quincy Adams, in his February 2, 1806, diary entry, describes an overflow service held in the Supreme Court Chamber, and Congressman Manasseh Cutler describes a similar service in 1804. (At that time, the Supreme Court Chamber was located on the first floor of the Capitol.) Services were also held in the Senate Chamber as well as on the first floor of the south wing.
Hutson, Religion and the Founding of the American Republic, p. 90.
From the Library of Congress, at http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06-2.html.
______________________________
History of the Aitken Bible
On January 21, 1781, Robert Aitken presented a “memorial” [petition] to Congress offering to print “a neat Edition of the Holy Scriptures for the use of schools.” This is the text of that memorial:
To the Honourable The Congress
of the United States of America
The Memorial of Robert Aitken
of the City of Philadelphia, Printer
Humbly Sheweth
That in every well regulated Government in Christendom The Sacred Books of the Old and New Testament, commonly called the Holy Bible, are printed and published under the Authority of the Sovereign Powers, in order to prevent the fatal confusion that would arise, and the alarming Injuries the Christian Faith might suffer from the Spurious and erroneous Editions of Divine Revelation. That your Memorialist has no doubt but this work is an Object worthy the attention of the Congress of the United States of America, who will not neglect spiritual security, while they are virtuously contending for temporal blessings. Under this persuasion your Memorialist begs leave to, inform your Honours That he both begun and made considerable progress in a neat Edition of the Holy Scriptures for the use of schools, But being cautious of suffering his copy of the Bible to Issue forth without the sanction of Congress, Humbly prays that your Honours would take this important matter into serious consideration & would be pleased to appoint one Member or Members of your Honourable Body to inspect his work so that the same may be published under the Authority of Congress. And further, your Memorialist prays, that he may be commissioned or otherwise appointed & Authorized to print and vend Editions of, the Sacred Scriptures, in such manner and form as may best suit the wants and demands of the good people of these States, provided the same be in all things perfectly consonant to the Scriptures as heretofore Established and received amongst us.
Philadelphia, September 10th, 1782.
Honble James Duane, Esq. Chairman, and the other
Honble Gentlemen of the Committee of Congress on
Mr. Aitken’s Memorial.”
Whereupon,
RESOLVED,
THAT the United States in Congress assembled highly approve the pious and laudable undertaking of Mr. Aitken, as subservient to the interest of religion, as well as an instance of the progress of arts in this country, and being satisfied from the above report of his care and accuracy in the execution of the work, they recommend this edition of the Bible to the inhabitants of the United States, and hereby authorize him to publish this Recommendation in the manner he shall think proper.
CHA. THOMSON, Sec’ry.
___________________________
In consequence of the separation of what is now the State of Maine from Massachusetts in the year 1820, it became necessary to make some change in the constitution of the Commonwealth.
Daniel Webster’s remarks regarding the committee’s report provides compelling reasoning which should be considered by every American voter today. Webster’s comments emphasize the importance of Christian leaders and Christian principles in civil government. In the report, delivered on December 4th, 1820, Webster explained:
It is obvious that the principal alteration proposed by the first resolution is the omission of the declaration of belief in the Christian religion as a qualification for office in the cases of the governor, lieutenant-governor, councillors, and members of the legislature. I shall content myself on this occasion with stating, shortly and generally, the sentiments of the select committee, as I understand them, on the subject of this resolution.
Two questions naturally present themselves. In the first place, Have the people a right, if in their judgment the security of their government and its due administration demand it, to require a declaration of belief in the Christian religion as a qualification or condition of office? On this question, a majority of the committee held a decided opinion. They thought the people had such a right. By the fundamental principle of popular and elective governments, all office is in the free gift of the people. They may grant or they may withhold it at pleasure; and if it be for them, and them only, to decide whether they will grant office, it is for them to decide, also, on what terms and what conditions they will grant it. Nothing is more unfounded than the notion that any man has a right to an office. This must depend on the choice of others, and consequently upon the opinions of others, in relation to his fitness and qualification for office. No man can be said to have a right to that which others may withhold from him at pleasure.
[snip]
There is one other consideration to which I will allude, although it was not urged in committee. It is this. This qualification is made applicable only to the executive and the members of the legislature. It would not be easy, perhaps, to say why it should not be extended to the judiciary if it were thought necessary for any office. There can be no office in which the sense of religious responsibility is more necessary than in that of a judge; especially of those judges who pass, in the last resort, on the lives, liberty, and property of every man. There may be among legislators strong passions and bad passions. There may be party heats and personal bitterness. But legislation is in its nature general: laws usually affect the whole society; and if mischievous or unjust, the whole society is alarmed and seeks their repeal. The judiciary power, on the other hand, acts directly on individuals. The injured may suffer without sympathy or the hope of redress. The last hope of the innocent, under accusation and in distress, is in the integrity of his judges. If this fail, all fails; and there is no remedy on this side the bar of Heaven. Of all places, therefore, there is none which so imperatively demands that he who occupies it should be under the fear of God, and above all other fear, as the situation of a judge. For these reasons, perhaps, it might be thought that the constitution has not gone far enough if the provisions already in it were deemed necessary to the public security.
[snip]
I believe I have stated the substance of the reasons which appeared to have weight with the committee. For my own part, finding this declaration in the constitution and hearing of no practical evil resulting from it, I should have been willing to retain it unless considerable objection had been expressed to it. If others were satisfied with it, I should be. I do not consider it, however, essential to retain it as there is another part of the constitution which recognizes, in the fullest manner, the benefits which civil society derives from those Christian institutions which cherish piety, morality, and religion. I am clearly of opinion that we should not strike out of the constitution all recognition of the Christian religion. I am desirous, in so solemn a transaction as the establishment of a constitution, that we should keep in it an expression of our respect and attachment to Christianity – not, indeed, to any of its peculiar forms but to its general principles.
___________________________
John Adams
Signer of the Declaration of Independence and Second President of the United States
[I]t is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue.
(Source: John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown, 1854), Vol. IX, p. 401, to Zabdiel Adams on June 21, 1776.)
[W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. . . . Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
(Source: John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown, and Co. 1854), Vol. IX, p. 229, October 11, 1798.)
John Quincy Adams
Sixth President of the United States
The law given from Sinai was a civil and municipal as well as a moral and religious code; it contained many statutes . . . of universal application-laws essential to the existence of men in society, and most of which have been enacted by every nation which ever professed any code of laws.
(Source: John Quincy Adams, Letters of John Quincy Adams, to His Son, on the Bible and Its Teachings (Auburn: James M. Alden, 1850), p. 61.)
Fisher Ames
Framer of the First Amendment
Our liberty depends on our education, our laws, and habits . . . it is founded on morals and religion, whose authority reigns in the heart, and on the influence all these produce on public opinion before that opinion governs rulers.
(Source: Fisher Ames, An Oration on the Sublime Virtues of General George Washington (Boston: Young & Minns, 1800), p. 23.)
Benjamin Franklin
Signer of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence
[O]nly a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.
(Source: Benjamin Franklin, The Writings of Benjamin Franklin, Jared Sparks, editor (Boston: Tappan, Whittemore and Mason, 1840), Vol. X, p. 297, April 17, 1787. )
I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings, that “except the Lord build the House, they labor in vain that build it.” I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without His concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better, than the Builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and bye word down to future ages. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing governments by human wisdom and leave it to chance, war and conquest.
I therefore beg leave to move that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the clergy of this city be requested to officiate in that service.
(Source: James Madison, The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, Max Farrand, editor (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1911), Vol. I, pp. 450-452,
James McHenry
Signer of the Constitution
[P]ublic utility pleads most forcibly for the general distribution of the Holy Scriptures. The doctrine they preach, the obligations they impose, the punishment they threaten, the rewards they promise, the stamp and image of divinity they bear, which produces a conviction of their truths, can alone secure to society, order and peace, and to our courts of justice and constitutions of government, purity, stability and usefulness. In vain, without the Bible, we increase penal laws and draw entrenchments around our institutions. Bibles are strong entrenchments. Where they abound, men cannot pursue wicked courses, and at the same time enjoy quiet conscience.
(Source: Bernard C. Steiner, One Hundred and Ten Years of Bible Society Work in Maryland, 1810-1920 (Maryland Bible Society, 1921), p. 14.)
Pennsylvania Supreme Court
No free government now exists in the world, unless where Christianity is acknowledged, and is the religion of the country.
(Source: Pennsylvania Supreme Court, 1824. Updegraph v. Cmmonwealth; 11 Serg. & R. 393, 406 (Sup.Ct. Penn. 1824).)
Benjamin Rush
Signer of the Declaration of Independence
The only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be laid in religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments.
(Source: Benjamin Rush, Essays, Literary, Moral and Philosophical (Philadelphia: Thomas and William Bradford, 1806), p. 8.)
We profess to be republicans, and yet we neglect the only means of establishing and perpetuating our republican forms of government, that is, the universal education of our youth in the principles of Christianity by the means of the Bible. For this Divine Book, above all others, favors that equality among mankind, that respect for just laws, and those sober and frugal virtues, which constitute the soul of republicanism.
(Source: Benjamin Rush, Essays, Literary, Moral and Philosophical (Philadelphia: Printed by Thomas and William Bradford, 1806), pp. 93-94.)
By renouncing the Bible, philosophers swing from their moorings upon all moral subjects. . . . It is the only correct map of the human heart that ever has been published. . . . All systems of religion, morals, and government not founded upon it [the Bible] must perish, and how consoling the thought, it will not only survive the wreck of these systems but the world itself. “The Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.” [Matthew 1:18]
(Source: Benjamin Rush, Letters of Benjamin Rush, L. H. Butterfield, editor (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1951), p. 936, to John Adams, January 23, 1807.)
George Washington
“Father of Our Country”
While just government protects all in their religious rights, true religion affords to government its surest support.
(Source: George Washington, The Writings of George Washington, John C. Fitzpatrick, editor (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1932), Vol. XXX, p. 432 n., from his address to the Synod of the Dutch Reformed Church in North America, October 9, 1789.)
Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of man and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice?
And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. It is substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who, that is a sincere friend to it, can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?
(Source: George Washington, Address of George Washington, President of the United States . . . Preparatory to His Declination (Baltimore: George and Henry S. Keatinge), pp. 22-23. In his Farewell Address to the United States in 1796.)
[T]he [federal] government . . . can never be in danger of degenerating into a monarchy, and oligarchy, an aristocracy, or any other despotic or oppressive form so long as there shall remain any virtue in the body of the people.
(Source: George Washington, The Writings of George Washington, John C. Fitzpatrick, editor (Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1939), Vol. XXIX, p. 410. In a letter to Marquis De Lafayette, February 7, 1788.)
____________________________
Response to a objection to legislative chaplains lodged with the U. S. Congress in 1852. In that challenge, the Committees on the Judiciary in both the House and the Senate each delivered a report on March 27, 1854, it noted:
There certainly can be no doubt as to the practice of employing chaplains in deliberative bodies previous to the adoption of the Constitution. We are, then, prepared to see if any change was made in that respect in the new order of affairs. . . . On the 1st day of May [1789], Washington’s first speech was read to the House, and the first business after that speech was the appointment of Dr. Linn as chaplain. By whom was this plan made? Three out of six of that joint committee were members of the Convention that framed the Constitution. Madison, Ellsworth, and Sherman passed directly from the hall of the [Constitutional] Convention to the hall of Congress. Did they not know what was constitutional? . . . It seems to us that the men who would raise the cry of danger in this state of things would cry fire on the 39th day of a general deluge. . . . But we beg leave to rescue ourselves from the imputation of asserting that religion is not needed to the safety of civil society. It must be considered as the foundation on which the whole structure rests. Laws will not have permanence or power without the sanction of religious sentiment—without a firm belief that there is a Power above us that will reward our virtues and punish our vices. [1]
The House Judiciary Committee therefore concluded:
Whereas, the people of these United States, from their earliest history to the present time, have been led by the hand of a kind Providence and are indebted for the countless blessings of the past and present, and dependent for continued prosperity in the future upon Almighty God; and whereas the great vital and conservative element in our system is the belief of our people in the pure doctrines and divine truths of the gospel of Jesus Christ, it eminently becomes the representatives of a people so highly favored to acknowledge in the most public manner their reverence for God: therefore, Resolved, That the daily sessions of this body be opened with prayer and that the ministers of the Gospel in this city are hereby requested to attend and alternately perform this solemn duty. [2]
On January 19, 1853, the Senate Judiciary Committee delivered its report:
The whole view of the petitioners seems founded upon mistaken conceptions of the meaning of the Constitution. . . . If [the use of chaplains] had been a violation of the Constitution, why was not its character seen by the great and good men who were coeval with the government, who were in Congress and in the Presidency when this constitutional amendment was adopted? They, if any one did, understood the true purport of the amendment, and were bound, by their duty and their oath, to resist the introduction or continuance of chaplains, if the views of the petitioners were correct. But they did no such thing; and therefore we have the strongest reason to suppose the notion of the petitioner to be unfounded. . . . They had no fear or jealousy of religion itself, nor did they wish to see us an irreligious people; they did not intend to prohibit a just expression of religious devotion by the legislators of the nation, even in their public character as legislators; they did not intend to spread over all the public authorities and the whole public action of the nation the dead and revolting spectacle of atheistical apathy. [3] (emphasis added)
Interestingly, a century later, the U. S. Supreme Court reached a similar conclusion, declaring:
We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being. . . . When the State encourages religious instruction or cooperates with religious authorities by adjusting the schedule of public events to sectarian needs, it follows the best of our traditions. For it then respects the religious nature of our people and accommodates the public service to their spiritual needs. To hold that it may not would be to find in the Constitution a requirement that the government show a callous indifference to religious groups. That would be preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe. [4]
[1] Reports of Committees of the House of Representatives Made During the First Session of the Thirty-Third Congress (Washington: A. O. P. Nicholson, 1854).
[2] Id.
[3] The Reports of the Committees of the Senate of the United States for the Second Session of the Thirty-Second Congress, 1852-53 (Washington: Robert Armstrong, 1853).
[4] Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U. S. 306, 312-314 (1952).
I listed a reference or two to state government. If that isn’t sufficient, checkout the acknowledgment to God in all 50 State’s Constitutions.
Jeff Molby,
“Our governments have absolutely no “right” to publicly acknowledge God.”
You are either lying or you have been greatly misinformed. The U.S. Constitution states in the year of our Lord when it was speaking for the people. You do know who our Lord is. If you read George Washington confirms this in his first inaugural speech when he states “it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official act my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils of nations”. George Washington presided over the formation of the U.S. Constitution.
Nazi Germany is one of the first countries I’ve heard of instituting secularism, by making a compact with the Catholic Church that Hitler would not interfere with them, if they did not interfere with the Nazi Government. Russia had previously established Atheism as its official religion. It was not until 1947 that the Supreme Court established Secular Atheism as the official religion of the U.S. and the Christian religion has been under attack since then. All 9 Justices were appointed by a Democrat president at that time.
JM–
Admit you are wrong.
You wrote, “Our governments have absolutely no “RIGHT” to publicly acknowledge God.” Your claim has been so thoroughly discredited that you look as silly as the kid with chocolate on his face claiming he didn’t eat the brownies. The attempt you made to pick apart the obvious examples that I presented that the government has a RIGHT to acknowledge God is so utterly pathetic and filled with errors that it’s not even worth answering back point by point as you’ve shown yourself incapable of mustering any intellectual integrity or indication of even cursory knowledge of the country’s history or CURRENT events.
Link to atheists.org…yeah, that bolsters your credibility by referring to such an agenda-free, objective source.
Glib,
To date, I have only read about 25% of loboinok’s. I have net yet read anything that has changed my position, but I will give him/her the proper respect by reading it in its entirety before commenting on it.
I am confident that any observers of this exchange, regardless of their opinion on the topic, can identify your ad hominem attacks as such and it will not be my maturity that is questioned.
I made no attempt to portray them as unbiased. In fact, I linked to them specifically because of their viewpoint. They wrote two thorough essays which accurately represented my opinion, so I merely pointed to them rather than reinventing the wheel. If there are holes in their logic, feel free to point them out, but you have no basis to dismiss them simply because they hold an opposing viewpoint.