Comments on: ACLJ Urges Appeals Court to Reject ACLU Interference in Local School Board Decision in Florida to Remove Communist Propaganda

By: JackLewis.net

JackLewis.net — Wed, 21 Nov 2007 11:51:54 +0000

Stop the ACLU Blogburst: ACLU Halts Bible Donations in North Carolina Elementary Schools

Reposted from Stop the ACLU… Gideons Keep Out of North Carolinaâ€™s Elementary Schools! A North Carolina school district is putting an end to the donations of Bibles to elementary school kids. The Cumberland County school system says state law limits…

By: Jeff Molby

Jeff Molby — Thu, 26 Oct 2006 21:06:26 +0000

They are simply stating they don’t want taxpayer money subsidizing a book full of errors and propaganda.

At the risk of repeating myself…

- The book was already purchased, so the taxpayer money argument is invalid. The district has the authority to buy whichever books it pleases (within limits of decency, of course). The question at stake here is: Does the district have the authority to pull a book that it has already purchased, and if so, under what conditions?

- Do you know for a fact that the book is “full of errors and propaganda” or are you taking the ACLJ’s word for it?

By: Jay

Jay — Tue, 24 Oct 2006 11:49:03 +0000

No one is saying not to publish or read the book. They are simply stating they don’t want taxpayer money subsidizing a book full of errors and propaganda. If someone wants to go buy the book to read, no one is stopping them.

By: kerwin_brown

kerwin_brown — Tue, 24 Oct 2006 10:59:55 +0000

I do not see how selecting not to stock the book is infringing on anyone’s First Amendment rights. That must require a warped viewpoint since there is no right to read in the First Amendment. The circuit judge was obviously an activist, a fool, or incompetent.

By: kerwin_brown

kerwin_brown — Tue, 24 Oct 2006 10:53:52 +0000

According to the right of property the school can do with its property what it sees fit as long as it does not harm itself or others.

The ACLU needs to sight some piece of legislation the school is violating by pulling the book.

I just can not see any that states the school can not select what book it wants and does not want to own.

By: Jeff Molby

Jeff Molby — Tue, 24 Oct 2006 01:58:22 +0000

It isn’t censorship when a school decides to no longer provide biased propaganda at the taxpayer’s expense.

I’m not familiar with the book. Are you sure it has significant factual inaccuracies or are you taking the ACLJ’s word for it?

Also, it is unlikely that the school received any refund by pulling the book, so the expense has already occurred. The school was certainly under no obligation to buy the book, but given that they did, do they have the right to pull it?

It’s hard to say. If the book does have significant factual inaccuracies, then they probably do based on the “harmful materials” clause of the federal law. But if it is simply a difference of interpretation, then it could be construed as censoring unpopular views.

By: Mick O

Mick O — Tue, 24 Oct 2006 01:44:23 +0000

I have always wondered how the ACLU has run roughshod over our Constitution for all these years without a real opponent. It is my opinion that we have lost more civil liberties with this bunch than they have saved.

Glenn Reynolds says, “I think that demonizing the ACLU is a bit silly.”

I say, “I think that the ACLU demonizing any expression of religion is a bit oppressive!”

It’s freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. And separation of church and state is a phrase they use that does not exist in the Constitution or its amendments. It was meant to keep the government from adopting a national religion. So the mention of “God” in the pledge of allegiance, for example; which religion is that? It’s the mention of a higher power, not any particular religion. Get a grip!!!