ACLU brings another superfluous lawsuit
Posted on August 27, 2006
This was a nation founded on Christian principles. According to research conducted by my senior editor, Rosemary (at Bosuns original weblogs. Rosemary is not affiliated with Stop the ACLU, I am a contributor here), the very first document, the Mayflower Compact, that was signed and witnessed in the United States. So, if anyone tries to tell you this is NOT a Christian nation, refer them to the Mayflower Compact:
“In the name of God, Amen. We, whose names are underwritten, the Loyal Subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord, King James, by the Grace of God, of England, France and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, e&. Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith, and the Honour of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia; do by these presents, solemnly and mutually in the Presence of God and one of another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil Body Politick, for our better Ordering and Preservation, and Furtherance of the Ends aforesaid; And by Virtue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame, such just and equal Laws, Ordinances, Acts, Constitutions and Offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the General good of the Colony; unto which we promise all due submission and obedience. In Witness whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names at Cape Cod the eleventh of November, in the Reign of our Sovereign Lord, King James of England, France and Ireland, the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth. Anno Domini, 1620.”
There followed the signatures of 41 of the 102 passengers, 37 of whom were Separatists fleeing religious persecution in Europe. This compact established the first basis in the new world for written laws. Half of the colony failed to survive the first winter, but the remainder lived on and prospered.
Wish the ACLU would get with the program instead of challenging America with the superfluous “Freedom from Religion” lawsuits.
According the KFMB San Diego, the ACLU has just filed a lawsuit against the federal government in regards to Mt Soledad Cross located in San Diego County, California (on behalf of a Jewish Veterans Organization). The ACLU lost the chance to sue the City of San Diego when President Bush signed the bill transferring Mt Soledad to the Federal Government.
So, now the ACLU is mounting a campaign against the Feds to forcibly remove the cross: ACLU Files New Lawsuit over Soledad Cross
“The controversy over the Mount Soledad cross continues to grow Friday, with the American Civil Liberties Union now suing the federal government over some newly signed legislation.”
You may find additional information about the Mt Soledad controversy as it becomes available at KFMB Channel 8, San Diego.
» Filed Under 1st Amendment, ACLU, Activist Judges, News, Supreme Court
Trackback URL
Comments
22 Responses to “ACLU brings another superfluous lawsuit”
-
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
The compact was signed well before the United States was formed or even thought of, therefore the compact was not signed and witnessed in the United States.
Now that fact has nothing to do with the merits of the ACLU case. I hav been trying to get the local township to allow me to erect a Satanic Memorial on government land right next to a big cross they already have there. They won’t consider it. I wonder why.
ACLU membership requires allegiance only to -Fonda Savantum- not the Flag, Family, God, Duty, or Logic…futile to try and grasp their syllogism.
Definition: “Fonda Savant” is a bewildered human being who possesses some remarkable special aptitude to choose the wrong side of societal ethical and moral issues. Fonda Savants often incite rage amongst Veterans who proudly served their country and they have the ability to corrupt the judicial system and tie up the courts at great taxpayer expense.
Bravo, des heize. Your analogy of Fonda Savant was good.
R/ Bosun
Miller,
Our country was founded on freedom of religion, AND, Christian beliefs. The Mayflower Compact was the first “PACT” signed in the Americas when those who were escaping persecution landed. There is a difference between a LAW and a PACT.
To me, the pact shows the intent of the founding of America. I realize it was not until 1776 that America declared its independence. The Mayflower Compact established the first basis in the “New World” for written laws.
Miller, we are not trying to go back to the Salem witch hunts that came 72 after the pact was signed. ((Salem witch trials, which began in 1692 (also known as the Salem witch hunt and the Salem witchcraft episode), resulted in a number of convictions and executions for witchcraft in both Salem Village and Salem Town, Massachusetts. It was the result of a period of factional infighting and Puritan witch hysteria which led to the death of 20 people (14 women, 6 men) and the imprisonment of scores more.))
In 1776, when we formed our nation, we were given the right of Freedom of Religion, not the perverted viewpoint of Freedom from Religion. The 1st amendment does not say freedom from religion, what the leftists and social engineers try to push down our throats.
As far as you wanting to share a satanic memorial with a cross memorial, sounds to me that you are trying to push the issue. The two do not theologically mix well. You apparently do not understand time, place, and occasion (TPO). Do you enjoy being out of step?
I do not know about zoning or legal requirements in your town, but, I suppose you could erect a memorial on your own property if you wanted to or you could tattoo a memorial on your forehead.
Bosun, please explain how you reconcile your concept of Freedom of Religion with a memorial erected on public land featuring a blatantly Christian symbol? Can you understand how veterans of other religions might feel excluded by such a display?
Camanintx,
The social engineers have moved the goal posts a few yards since the cross was erected in I believe 1954.
I would not object to veterans of other religions having symbols of their faith displayed on public land. We were predominantly a Christian country from the foundation of America and opened our arms to all faiths races and creeds. Now the ACLU is trying to strip Religion from America through their lawsuits.
Camanintx, you may think I am insensitive when I say this, but, I do not really care how others feel about the cross being displayed.
According the an ABC article in 2002, Eighty-three percent of Americans identify themselves as Christians. Most of the rest, 13 percent, have no religion. That leaves just 4 percent as adherents of all non-Christian religions combined — Jews, Muslims, Buddhists and a smattering of individual mentions.
Wikipedia claims 79.8% in a survey conducted in 2001.
America still is a Christian country. Saying that, I would not discriminate against other faiths and do respect them to practice their religions and display their symbols, even on public land. So, I would hope that they would respect ours.
You on the other hand appear to be hung up on the public land - separation of church and state argument that I do not support.
Public land is OK. For that matter, the Boy Scouts are OK. American values are OK. But, then again it is not the opinion of the splitting hairs politically correct leftists and socialists who are destroying America.
It is my belief that the ACLU and politically correct are fundamentally incorrect.
Freedom of religion is not freedom from religion. We should not mix sensitivity with freedom, or we will split hairs and dilute freedom because others might not agree with us?
41 of 102 people signing something hundreds of years ago which doesn’t even govern us anymore? That doesn’t really decide much.
The idea that the United States was established as a secular atheist nation is ludicrous since natural law which is mentioned in the United States Declaration and also in the Ninth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is a Christian philosophy. The only reason people believe otherwise is they are ignorant, incompetent, or corrupt. The evidence showed the people at the time wanted to back a generic version of Christianity because it was considered a civilizing influences. Since we are now practicing what Charles Darwin referred to as the barbarian custom of infanticide and replacing our numbers by captured members of other tribes, I tend to agree with them. We abandoned general Christianity and embraced Secular Atheism in the 1947 Case of Everson v. The Board of Education.
The Mt Soledad Cross is a symbol and means what the person that views it wants it to mean. I doubt very much if many people are tempted to convert to Christianity because they see it. I always heard it was necessary to hear the word before you believed the word.
The argument is can the government endorse religion. It is a foolish argument as there are plenty of endorsements of religion in the U.S. government that stem from the period of time the First Amendment was written and most are endorsements of the Christian religion. There are exceptions such as Lady Justice and Lady Liberty. I do not see a bunch of idol worshipers in the U.S. because the government chose to endorse those two deities.
gfactor,
You seem a bit on the ignorant side. The United States is a constitutional republic. That means that if we are following the rule of law we are governed by a constitution that was written over two hundred years ago based on ideas written in the Declaration of Independence and other documents including the Christian bible that are even older.
Freedom of religion is an ideal that is written in the Christian bible in that it states reasoning and not force is to be used to convert unbelievers to the Christian faith.
Well said, Kerwin!
Ok, the other side repond and offer your views.
gfactor, I do not agree with your point of view. You and Miller Smith sound like you have like opinions.
But, that is your opinion and you can have it.
I still believe in America’s borders, language, and culture; America, the land of the free and the home of the brave with opportunities for everyone who enters. And, Freedom of Religion, not, the perverted freedom from religion.
Jefferson’s letter was 1) a piece of historical obscurity for a century and a half until KKK Klansman Hugo Black resurrected it in 1947 2) the letter was a diplomatically-worded REJECTION of the Danbury Baptists’ request that the Establishment Clause be applied to the states (as eight of the original colonies in our “non-Christian” nation still maintained “established” religions long after the ratification of the Constitution and Bill of Rights). The Left, as is standard, took seven words that were convenient to their worldview, stripped their meaning from all context and VOILA, a nation becomes something it never was — a secular atheist tyranny. That the Left relies on a peripheral piece of presidential correspondence that holds NO binding weight above the very words of our Constitution shows that they have no interest in facing an issue based first on a foundation of truth, but would rather make it up as they go along. Even if you incline toward a secular worldview, why deny very basic facts, those facts being that this country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles, end of story. To answer the above inanity(”If America were…”), it is precisely BECAUSE we were founded on Christian principles that we have the option of Free Will and choice of our own destiny. The Founders clearly adopted the posture that since GOD endowed EVERY person with inalienable rights (the Founders recognized that God, in the highest demonstration of love and freedom, even allows His Creations the right to choose whether or not to believe in Him!), that no government could either “give” or “take away” those rights. Purely secular philosophies of government can never boast of such a thing, because without any Higher Law, the governed are perpetually under the yoke of the fad of the day, which may drift this way or that, but will never guarantee freedom for all time BECAUSE there is no Higher Law to dictate the inalienable status of this True Freedom.
“You seem a bit on the ignorant side. The United States is a constitutional republic.”
We’re governed by the constitution, not the mayflower compact.
Exposer,
I beg to differ with you. Sounds to me that you are a little out in left field and may have slightly exaggerated the facts. But, of course liberal tolerance is known for that.
I still believe that the founding fathers said that we have freedom of religion, not your viewpoint of freedom from religion.
Gfactor,
You appear to be hung up on the Mayflower Compact, because it really happened and apparently cannot be spun.
How about if we put it to a vote of the people and the majority voted for freedom of religion, not your expressed desire of freedom from religion?
Would you then accept it, or, would you cry sour grapes?
“How about if we put it to a vote of the people and the majority voted for freedom of religion, not your expressed desire of freedom from religion?”
The entire reason we have a constitution is to prevent the tyranny of the majority.
“Would you then accept it, or, would you cry sour grapes?”
I don’t accept unconstitutional majoritarianism.
gfactor,
You are in rare form today. So, the majority will force the minority to do something it does not want to to. Sounds like my sons moaning and groaning when they were growing up.
Perhaps we should scuttle the whole election process and appoint left wingers to run the government for us.
How about freedom of religion vs freedom from religion. I suppose you would be happier for the latter. The constitution that you claim to support says the former.
Sorry that I cannot accept a thing that you have said so far. However, it makes good reading.
“Sounds like my sons moaning and groaning when they were growing up.”
well. too bad thats how you understand our rights.
gfactor,
“The entire reason we have a constitution is to prevent the tyranny of the majority”
Who told you that half truth. We fought a war against Great Britain and it was not because of the tyranny of the majority but rather against the tyranny of the central government.
The U.S. Constitution was created to limit the power of the central government by a series of checks and balances. The Bill of Rights was put in place to limit the government. The final check to controlling the government is the majority of we the people. The judicial branch violates it regularly because the people allowed our government to remove state control from the Senate.
There were three parts that would limit the power of the majority. The republican form of government as opposed to a democratic form. The state legislative control of the Senate (since removed), and the electoral system of electing Presidents (attempts are being made undermine it).
The main purpose was to prevent the majority of the people from being oppressed by a corrupt government.
“Who told you that half truth”
You’re right. That should have read ‘the bill of rights,’ not the constitution.
“The final check to controlling the government is the majority of we the people.”
Some of founders thought so. Others also liked rights and judicial review.
Our safety, our liberty, depends upon preserving the Constitution of the United States as our fathers made it inviolate. The people of the United States are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.
Ironic even back in the mid 1800’s Abraham Lincoln used the word “pervert” to describe the actions taken by membership composition of the ACLU.
Gfactor,
Judicial Review is a power the courts took upon themselves in the 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison. Thomas Jefferson refered to them as a despotic branch for doing so.
—Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1804. ME 11:51
“The Constitution . . . meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.”
The Federalist probably like the idea of judicial review as they were loosing the political battle against the Democratic Republican party at that point and they still held the federal courts.
The U.S. Constitution was amended with the Bill of Rights because the people feared the tyranny of the Central government and wanted limits on it. Here is a government site that tells the story.
http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/bill_of_rights.html