ACLU: Anti-Religion or Anti-Christian?
Posted on September 30, 2006
Cross Posted from Revealing the ACLU: When can a faith based organization get involved in the public school? If you ask the ACLU, that answer would be never.
This from UPI:
In legal papers, the ACLU says Lakeview Elementary School in Mount Juliet also marked National Day of Prayer by getting students to design posters and pick prayer buddies, and gave stickers that said “I prayed” to those who participated, the Nashville Tennessean reported. Non-praying students were left feeling “disfavored and isolated,” the suit said.
The ACLU filed its suit representing the parents of a boy who attended kindergarten at the school last year. The group says the school not only endorses Christianity but a particular variety of Christianity.
According to the Lakeview Elementary webpage, this group is a parent organized and driven initiative. The meetings of this group do not appear on the school calendar, and the group claims no association with any specific group or religion. So what is the issue?
Is the ACLU, as they say, protecting freedom of religion or pursuing an anti-Christian agenda? I cannot see how limiting any expression of religion is “protecting freedom of religion” it seems a cross purposes to me.
We are all well aware of the many examples of the ACLU blocking the public expression of Christianity, the removal of Christian Symbols from our state seals, courthouses and schools. Not getting as much press is the flip side, when the ACLU supported non-Christian religious expression. Here are just a few:
- In July 2000 the ACLU supported a movement to remove a schoolboard ban on Wiccan religious expression.
- In June 2002 the N. Carolina ACLU went to court to support the mandatory reading by UNC freshmen of a pro-Islam book and portions of the Quran. Can you imagine the response if UNC had assigned students readings from the Old Testament?
- In July 2005 the ACLU, who had been fighting to remove the tax exempt status of Christian Churches comes out in support of such status for Satanic Churches.
- In August 2006 the ACLU supported the rights of a Wiccan Priestess to pray at Richmond Public Board Meetings.
- Earlier this week the ACLU fought to force the federal government to allow Wiccan Religious symbols on headstones in federal cemetaries.
There are plenty more examples easily found at the search engine of your choice. ACLU Hypocrisy at its finest.
This paints a clear picture of the intent of the ACLU. It is not about freedom of religion or the separation of Church and State – it is about freedom from Christianity or anything close to it.
The ACLU has been against Christianity from the beginning as it is the single biggest and most vocal threat to everything the ACLU believes in; from abortion, to homosexuality, to limitless sexual deviancy.
This attack by the ACLU is the clearest sign that the Praying Parents at Lakeview School are doing the right thing. I hope this attention will only strengthen there resolve, and call more people to there group.
I, for one, will be praying for them.
» Filed Under ACLU, Church And State, News
Trackback URL
Comments
20 Responses to “ACLU: Anti-Religion or Anti-Christian?”
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Advertise
Donate
Steal Me
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
More blogs about the ACLU
Yeah, but it sounds like they were welcomed with open arms. Somehow, I doubt they would have been as open had a group of Muslim parents wanted to run around passing out stickers.
I’ll be the first to admit that the opinion of a parent carries very little legal weight, but it does speak to the environment that has been fostered in that particular school.
It sounds like the ACLU has grounds to bring the lawsuit. It’ll be interesting to hear the details as this plays out. I hope you post a follow-ups as the details come to light.
See, freedom of religious expression means different things, depending on whether the party in question is the majority or the minority.
This story is an example of a majority using its prominent position to express its belief in a way that alienated a minority who was legally obligated (truancy laws) to sit through it. The ACLU is well within its mission to defend the minority. Whether or not they win will depend upon the details, but they took the appropriate stance.
Examples 1, 4, and 5 are all examples of a majority attempting to silence the expression of a minority. The ACLU is well within it’s mission to defend the minority in these cases. Again, the details will determine whether or not the minority was actually harmed in these cases.
Examples 2 and 3 are less clear to me, so I will have to research them before I can comment intelligently.
New ACLU Slogan: We Don’t Hate Religion; We Just Hate Christianity.
You know what Jeff, the point is not that he would be against defending the minority or that any of those cases where a minority religion is protected by the ACLU. Those examples are not something we would be against. I’m glad that they are defending Wiccans to put their religious symbols on their graves.
The point is that they treat Christianity differently than other religions. It deserves equal treatment. It would be a lot harder to criticize the ACLU for trying to get Christian teachins out of schools, if we could expect them to also try to get Muslim teachings out when they are around in the same context as well.
The ACLU were no where to be found when the 9th Circuit said it was ok for a school in California to make its students take Muslim names, bow to Mecca, and play “jihad games” to better understand tolerance of Muslim culture. They had to memorize passages of the Koran and recite them. Was this actual worship, no…but can you imagine the outcry if you substituted this situation with Christianity? A school can’t even have a Christmas play that mentions the birth of Christ in it without the ACLU freaking out! Can you imagine the outrage if Muslim students were forced to take Christian names, act out the crucifixtion and ressurection, recite Bible verses and say the Lord’s prayer?
If Muslims wanted to participate in their own peaceful expressions, and no one was “forced” to join them. Even if they were encouraged to join them but allowed the option to opt out…I wouldn’t have any more of a problem with it than I do with this. It would be the same thing. As long as it is voluntary I have no problem..as others have said here…not allowing freedom of expression is a violation of the First Amendment.
“Freedom of religious expression and the ACLU’s interpretation of the establishment clause obviously cannot co-exist.”
What so many of you ignore or forget is that even if the ACLU had a unique interpretation of the First Amendment, when they bring a lawsuit, they still have to prove their case in court just like all other plaintiffs’ attorneys. The judge renders the final decision, not the ACLU. So basically you’re complaining that the ACLU has not only reinterpreted the Constitution, but brainwashed judges across America as well. That may make you feel better about Christianity not being granted special privileges, but it’s an awfully far-fetched scenario. Conservative judges have been interpreting the First Amendment in the same way liberal judges have for a long time — doesn’t that tell you something?
If you are actually aware of the facts of the Tennessee case and still asserting that there was no obvious attempt to “Christianize” the children, you’re either deluded or simply lying.
The only picture these examples paint is the ACLU’s insistence that the rules be applied equally to all religions.
The Tazewell County School Board cannot selective ban religious symbols.
The state cannot reject reading assignments just because they contain religious materials. Had they chosen Evangelical Christianity as a topic and assigned the New Testament, the ACLU’s position would have been the same. Besides, the “mandatory” reading you described was completely voluntary and not even graded.
While the ACLU may oppose the tax exempt status of churches, as long as it is the law, it must be applied equally.
If the Chesterfield Board of Supervisors is going to allow religious invocations in their meetings, they have to allow all faiths equal access.
Once again, as long as the Federal government allows families to incorporate religious symbols on headstones in a federal cemetery, they cannot be selective.
I don’t think they ever are in the same context, specifically because of the minority/majority relationship. A peaceful minority can never be intimidating. A peaceful, but vocal, majority can be very intimidating.
Try to picture it from a 5th grade muslim child’s perspective. Imagine that a handful of parents enter the school and pass out stickers to most of the christians. How is he going to feel? Probably a swirl of different emotions, but the most obvious is that he will feel singled out.
Now let’s flip the situation as you proposed. Say a handful of muslim parents enter the school and pass out stickers to most of the muslims. How is the muslim going to feel now? Maybe some pride, but it’ll still be a swirl of emotions. And again, he’ll feel singled out. Again, the other children will be talking (and probably making jokes) about him.
Freedom of expression isn’t being disallowed. No one would stop a child from bowing his head and saying The Lord’s Prayer before every test he takes. But a teacher/administrator cannot lead the prayer and a teacher/administrator cannot invite a parent in to lead it either.
Why not? Why would allowing a parent to express their religion in a way they feel positive towards the community children in a school environment not be allowed? Wouldn’t you be prohibiting the free exercise by not allowing something like this?
I didn’t read that the parents were invited, only allowed.
Anyway, there are a lot of sticky details in this case and perhaps it should be in the courts. But we can not go by the minority/majority standard you speak of in treatment of religion. It has to be equal…all or nothing.
We don’t have to imagine. Just look what happened in Delaware when a Jewish family complained about proselytizing to the Indian River School District and were promptly run out of town.
From what I have seen the ACLU is a supporter of the anarchist movement. The anarchist are usally opposed to organized religion. With 80% of the U.S. claiming to be Christian and 10% atheist the non Christians are not viewed as a target but can be used as tools to attack the major religion of the United States.
Anarchist ally with socialist and communist but turn against them once they get into power. That is the way they operate.
I don’t remember, but you’re probably right. Poor choice of words on my part.
However, I think my point remains valid, even if you substitute the word “allowed”. Most schools have pretty tight policies on visitors these days. Somehow, I doubt this school would have allowed a group of Wiccan parents to roam the halls.
You’re right. We lack most of the details, so it would impossible for us to draw an intelligent conclusion. Please keep us posted on any developments.
But what is “equal” when you’re talking about groups with vastly different memberships? Clearly, a 125lb man can glare at a 250lb man without intimidating him. The reverse is simply not true.
“Somehow, I doubt this school would have allowed a group of Wiccan parents to roam the halls.”
And somehow I know the ACLU would defend these Wiccans against that discrimination, whereas they’ll oppose the Christians. But we can speculate all night.
If the ACLU wins this case, the precedent is set and the Wiccans would be out of line.
But if the ACLU loses this case, I sure hope some minority group tests this school district. If the district prevents the minority from doing something that the majority was allowed to do, you’d better believe the ACLU would jump right back in.
This blog loves to make big issues out of very esoteric cases.
The common thread to most of these cases is that the ACLU and church state separation organizations is, that you cross the line when the religious act takes place in a public school, court room, or other entity where the government is in sponsorship. Those same individuals would be able to pass out leaflets in their own neighborhoods, churches or the streets of New York City to their hearts content, even though passing out leaflets could be condidered intimidating and coercive to those who recieve them.
What goes on a persons grave stone has been interpreted repeatedly as PRIVATE expresion of religion and has been allowed.
I’m sure that if a Muslim football coach (of a public school) wanted his team to pray to Allah before each football game that would be opposed by the ACLU and others even if the team were 80% and tha majority of the players wanted to have the prayers.
Here is the clause we are speaking of.
“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.
The coach is an employee of the school. The school receives virtually all of its funding from local, state, and federal governments. This makes the school an agent of the various governments. The courts have ruled time and again that freedom of religion clause is applicable.
And even if the feds didn’t give any money to the school, the Bill of Rights apply to the states too. See Everson v. Board of Education for more details.
This is from last weeks blogs but fits here.
One of the basic intentions of the founders of our country was that the Constitution would be interpreted by the courts over time, making the Constitution actually a framework for present US laws. This has evolved into a strong and lasting custom of separation between the church and state in our country. The writings and opinions of early US statesmen have been used by the Supreme Court and other courts to formulate their decisions. Statements such as “…the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting the establishing of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.” by Thomas Jefferson and “The Constitution of the U.S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion.” by James Madison have been even more influential than the Constitution itself. These ideas clearly show an intention by the founders of the US to maintain people’s individual rights to practice the religion they choose, or to have no religion at all, while preventing the Federal Government or any other US governmental agency from sponsoring a particular religion over others.
Case law over years then becomes the law of the land. The principal of “stare decisis” was created and requires courts to respect precedents established be previous court decisions. This will make it harder for right-leaning courts to overturn church state separation achievements as well as other important protections such as found in Roe v Wade
Crosses and Ten Commandments displays placed on public lands are a government sponsorship of religion, they are perfectly acceptable being displayed in private locations, just not on government property.
Forcing school children to pray in public is coercive. Even the Christian prophet mentioned:
“Thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men…
“But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret.” - Matt. 6:5-6 Implying that even the Bible itself favors people praying in private rather than in public.
Teaching of religion in any form such as Creationism in public schools is a form of government sponsorship of religion and is coercive, therefore not allowed by our Constitution or its long legacy of decisions.
Another way to look at the ACLU is to look at who opposes them. The Thomas More Law Center is one of their chief opponents. They support causes exclusively that advance the Christian (Right Wingers)agenda, which they euphemistically call Christian rights. Would you have no advocacy for Americans who differ in opinion from Thomas More? opinions