ACLU PROTECTING FUNERAL PROTESTERS
Posted on February 2, 2006
Hat tip to Patriotic Mom
The Washington Post reported on Monday about five States that wanting to ban funeral protests.
At least five Midwestern states are considering legislation to ban protests at funerals in response to demonstrations by the Rev. Fred Phelps and members of his Topeka, Kan.-based Westboro Baptist Church, who have been protesting at funerals of Iraq war casualties because they say the deaths are God’s punishment for U.S. tolerance toward gays.
Though the soldiers were not gay, the protesters say the deaths, as well as Hurricane Katrina, recent mining disasters and other tragedies are God’s signs of displeasure. They also protested at the memorial service for the 12 West Virginia miners who died in the Sago Mine.
They have been known to yell things at the memorial services such as, “Thank God for dead Soldiers” and “Thank God for Body Bags”.
Legislators in Illinois, Indiana, Missouri and Oklahoma are looking at similar bills. Proposed legislation in Indiana would keep protesters 500 feet from funerals, and make a violation a felony punishable by a three-year prison term and a $10,000 fine.
State Sen. Anita Bowser said she thinks the demonstrators are hoping to provoke a physical attack so they can file a lawsuit.
“These people are not gainfully employed, so they’re waiting for someone to do battle with them so they can go to court and win,” said Bowser. “They want a big liability case to pursue. I don’t think they actually give a diddly wink about the arguments they’re making, but they’re clever individuals trying to make a fast buck.”
Did I hear a fast buck? ….In walk the ACLU…
Ed Yohnka, communications director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois, said the bills are troubling from a free speech perspective. “We have some concerns about the vagueness of the language,” Yohnka said about the proposed Illinois bill. “. . . One of the things that concerns us very much is the degree to which the bill blocks access to people engaged in political expression on public sidewalks. We think a 300-foot bubble is excessive.”
Once again the ACLU is standing on the wrong side of the fence. What about the rights of those attending the funerals? Do they not have a right to have bury their loved one with the peace and respect our fallen heroes deserve?
Very good question. It would seem so to me, however the ACLU seem to to be leaning more towards the right to a fast buck. She then tells us about a motorcycle group called the Patriot Guard who attend veterans funerals, acting as a buffer zone between the protesters and those attending the funeral services.
It’s a sad state of affairs when our Soldiers families and loved ones need civilians in order to allow them the right to mourn their loss. I’m grateful to the Patriot Guards for quietly standing in order to protect these families. Although it shouldn’t be this way. Rev. Phelps (and I don’t even wish to address this man as a Rev.) is hiding under the guise of saying these Soldiers were gay and deserved to die. He obviously doesn’t know the rules of the military. Even if he does, why is the ACLU helping this radical group?
Indeed, it is sad. But hey! If it is anti-American, you can count on the ACLU to protect it. The question is not whether or not anti-American protesters should be protected, it would be un-American to think other wise. But how far does it go? Most reasonable people say that one person’s rights end when the infringe upon the rights of another. The ACLU would argue this if it were a religious liberty issue. They have argued before that a valivictorian doing a prayer call at a graduation infringed upon the rights of those that did not share the same beliefs. I would think that these protesters infringing upon the rights of those that mourn our fallen heroes not to be any different.
The States are not seeking to stop the protesters from expressing themselves, they are asking for a reasonable 300 ft buffer zone, in order for those mourning can do so in peace.
We all believe in freedom, but for most Americans there is a moral line we don’t cross. For absolutists there is no line.
Linked at Wizbang
» Filed Under 1st Amendment, ACLU, Homosexual Agenda, News, War On Terror
Trackback URL
Comments
21 Responses to “ACLU PROTECTING FUNERAL PROTESTERS”
-
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Donate
Steal Me
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
More blogs about the ACLU
Those people are sick, sick, SICK - both the protestors for what they’re doing and the ACLU for attemtpting to give them the right to continue assaulting the grieving families of our heros.
For SHAME!
“They have argued before that a valivictorian doing a prayer call at a graduation infringed upon the rights of those that did not share the same beliefs. I would think that these protesters infringing upon the rights of those that mourn our fallen heroes not to be any different.”
Except for the wee little difference of the establishment clause of the constitution. Makes a bit of a difference what’s in that document.
They had better not come to the National Cemetery in my town during a funeral, they would learn quickly about gods tolerance, or lack thereof. Can’t say Sitka has much use for the ACLU either, since they all lost their minds.
“Except for the wee little difference of the establishment clause of the constitution. Makes a bit of a difference what’s in that document”
Except the establishment clause doesn’t prevent someone from doing an altar call, as no one is forcing faith or religion on anyone else. They are forced to shut up and tolerate it. To prevent someone from doing an altar call (a voluntary ritual) at graduation is to violate their freedom of religious expression. The establishment clause is to protect us from the government making any religion a law. Period. Also, there is no “right to not be offended” in the Constitution, so whether prayer in school offends someone or not is irrelevant if one follows the law. Jay’s point is a valid one: if you are going to prevent one group’s freedom of speech, freedom of protest, and freedom of expression, than the ACLU better get on the other side of this case. And the next time I see a parade of homosexuals marching with Gay-Pride up 5th avenue, the ACLU had better shut them down. They offend me, as my public prayer offends others.
“Except the establishment clause doesn’t prevent someone from doing an altar call, as no one is forcing faith or religion on anyone else”
Establishment isn’t about ‘forcing.’
“Establishment isn’t about ‘forcing.’”
Yes, it is. The clause does not say “endorse”, like the left wants people to believe. It says “establishment”. As in, establishing Christianity or any other religion as law. If it means anything other than that, than it would violate the freedom of religious expression clause, which does not stop at public school.
“And the next time I see a parade of homosexuals marching with Gay-Pride up 5th avenue, the ACLU had better shut them down. They offend me, as my public prayer offends others.”
Public prayer isn’t a problem. Its when it uses govt resources in a way that establishes religion. Pro-lifers can march down the street just like gays can.
“It says “establishment”. As in, establishing Christianity or any other religion as law.”
Actually its says ‘respecting an establishment.’
“Actually its says ‘respecting an establishment.’”
It also says “will not establish.” The whole clause does not prevent government endorsement of religion. A student is within his right under our Constitution to pray all he wants at graduation, out loud and with a microphone. The only way it would break the law is if the school forced students to pray.
“will not establish”
No it doesn’t.
“The only way it would break the law is if the school forced students to pray. ”
That’s if it said ‘forced.’ But it says ‘respect an establishment.’
The ACLU doesn’t give a damn about the Constitution, to them the 2nd Ammendment doesn’t exist and Marx’s Bill of Rights does.
People who have bought into the American Civil Liberties Union, that they are a Union bent on protecting the Constitutional civil liberties of all unions and Americans, should pay attention to the Transit Union Strike in New York, should pay attention to the real Constitution, and not the phony one they are trying to sell to other Americans. The ACLU is not American, they fire and purge anyone that they find politically disagreeable from their ranks, and the ACLU is neither “Civil” nor about “liberty. What they are however, is a union. And like all Unions, they are dependent upon the government because they are the ones paying the government for privileges that nobody else has.
That is the whole point to a union, to create your own laws that everyone has to join your union, to benefit from.
The coal miners might have a justifiable reason why they need special laws and benefits, the Transit Authority Workers and the ACLU do not.
The ACLU are not the above the law, but when they are the ones making law, then they are above the law and anyone they side with is also above the law. Because the law is whatever the ACLU says it is in court. There are no inconsistencies and if the Constitution cannot stop the government and their paid special interests from precedenting the Kilo Act of private property theft, then the ACLU has no trobule at all in rewriting the Constitution to suit their personal whims. After all, the supreme judge of all their court decisions is the SUpreme Court, and we saw whose side they were on when they had to choose between individual liberty and private between or the government, power, and money.
Buying into the ACLU’s propaganda of Constitutional Law is a violation of all the oaths the Founding Fathers took and paid for with their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor. And any American should be ashamed that they can freeload off of good people, and still think they have a right to take credit for those sacrifices.
Because it was never Jefferson’s first Ammendment that kept alive the Constitution, it was the 2nd Ammendment. Without the 2nd Ammendment, the ACLU and their Supreme Court browncoats would have far more Liberty to gain more money, more powerful, and more of a hold on American power.
If people want to live in a nation that is ruled by whimsical and arbitrary judges, lawyers, and Union activists, they should go to Europe and not pollute American shores with their vindictive ideology. People that want to live in a nation ruled by law, should not have their funerals disrupted by the activists of tyranny and judicial corruption.
It isn’t the courts holding this nation together as the ACLU wants everyone to believe, it isn’t the ACLU on the front lines of protecting people’s interests. It is our military, it is the 2nd Ammendment, it is the force of arms and individual self-sufficiency and protections, that are the first line of defense.
The ACLU seeks to destroy that individualism, by taking people’s homes away so that their business clients can make more money and give more of it in lawyer’s fees. The ACLU seeks to diminish Christianity and impose Atheism on everybody, because they don’t really care about freedom of expression. Freedom of expression to the ACLU sickens them. Freedom of expression is whatever the ACLU thinks should be expressed. If they want gays to express themselves, they will persecute anyone who objects.
The ACLU uses the courts and corrupts the courts, but the ACLU can never gain hold of the weapons as they would like to, as the terroists have. They will never infiltrate the military simply because the military competes directly with the ACLU. The military protects and the ACLU persecutes. The ACLU is protected from the military, by laws, and laws are the weapons by which the ACLU seeks to gain ultimate power over anybody and anything they wish.
But the ACLU is not protected from the citizens of America, and that is their only weak spot. Their funding, unlike terroist organizations, is not liable for raids given the billionares backing them.
The ACLU has already degraded the Constitution to the point where private property is gone. This sets the first attack in motion, eventually the rest of everyone’s liberties will only be what the American Civil Liberties Union thinks is civil. Any uncivil or ununified expressions, like patriotism or self-sufficiency or private property or freedom not to under an established atheism government, will be outlawed by the ACLU.
People should speak about the Constitution and how the ACLU protects it, needs to stop wearing other people’s prescription classes.
Wow, Yamarsak. I can’t decide if your rant is funny or just sad. Maybe if I read it backwards….
…In any event, the ACLU gets no government money. Period. The only benefits they get is through the nature of being a 501(c)3 non-profit and therefore tax-exempt. They share this status with *many* other organizations, including such lefty bastions as the Catholic Church and Focus on the Family.
If you think there should be no tax exemptions, then fine. If you disagree with the ACLU’s positions, that’s fine too. But at least get your facts straight.
“the ACLU gets no government money”
Yes, they do.
” But it says ‘respect an establishment”
Which clearly does not mean that the government cannot endorse a religion since the guys who wrote the clause endoresed religion to no end, whether they were Christians themselves or not. (Thomas Jefferson using government funds to convert Indians to Christianity for example.) The establishment clause protects all civillians’ right to pray, worship, preach, anywhere they want. “…free exercise thereof…”
“Which clearly does not mean that the government cannot endorse a religion since the guys who wrote the clause endoresed religion to no end, whether they were Christians themselves or not.”
We have to follow what they did 200 years ago to have freedom today.
What do you base that on, apostle? Where in the federal budget should I go to find their line item? I’m willing to believe you, but something more than a bald assertion would be nice.
The ACLU makes its money by suing the federal government. Every time the ACLU sues the federal government their legal fees are paid by the federal government. That is why the ACLU takes on all these ridiculous lawsuits. That is what gets them the money they are no longer pulling in from donations.
Whenever they win a case, there is a clause in the Civil Rights Act, that gives the Judge the right to grant the payment of attorney’s fees via our tax dollars. They almost always grant this.
“The ACLU makes its money by suing the federal government. Every time the ACLU sues the federal government their legal fees are paid by the federal government. That is why the ACLU takes on all these ridiculous lawsuits.”
Makes sense that civil rights not be just for the rich.
“What do you base that on, apostle? Where in the federal budget should I go to find their line item? I’m willing to believe you, but something more than a bald assertion would be nice.”
I’m basing that on acts performed by guys like Jefferson, one of the key founders of the Constitution, who was NOT a Christian by the way.
“We have to follow what they did 200 years ago to have freedom today.”
You’re unbelievable. What is your definition of freedom? Should there be no rules, no authority of any kind at school? No respect? A student having to stand while others say the pledge is not the removal of nor is it an impingment on his freedom. Keeping your mouth shut while students say a prayer is not a violation of anyone’s civil liberties. Preventing it is. You act as if the establishment clause is there to protect you from things that offend you and you’re wrong. What about the liberty of free speech? A teacher praying in front of class is an exercise of free speech. Teachers aren’t in the military, government or no, so they have the same freedom of speech and religion we do. Kids do not have to actually pray with the teacher. They have to TOLERATE it.
I am tired of the ACLU, we need to band together and HIRE BETTER LAWYERS.
Just a note to clarify, that picture is of the Patriot Guard Riders, and not the whacko protestors.
actus, it actually says “respecting an establishment of religion”…in it’s entirety it says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
“Make no law”: Congress CANNOT create a law;
“respecting an establishment of religion”: that ESTABLISHES a religion.
Even taken wrongfully but literally like the left desires it, such as “congress shall make no law that shows deference to a religion” would mean that prayer is NOT against the constitution at a school function, since CONGRESS HAS NOT MADE A LAW SAYING YOU MUST PRAY!!!!!!!!!
What part of this do you morons on the left NOT UNDERSTAND????