Free speech for me but not for thee. ACLU busted!

I don't think the ACLU threatens all that I hold dear, nor have I ever seen that headline. But the Village of Tijeras eight miles east of Albuquerque has a population of maybe 500 people if you count all the chickens and dogs. It, like many New Mexico towns, was founded around an Old Spanish mission that provided the first medical care, first school, first lots of things. Among the various other objects on the Village seal that has been used for generations is a tiny cross symbolizing that Spanish mission influence of long ago. Other objects on the shield symbolize other non-religious components of the Village history and heritage.

But the ACLU filed suit just the same costing this tiny village made up of mostly lowwe income people to sustain considerable cost to defend its seal.

The County of Bernalillo, much larger and much more affluent, caved in under ACLU pressure re the tiny cross on their seal again representing the early mission around which the city was founded and grew. The County eliminated the cross from the seal rather than expend considerable time and money defending it.

There must be real inequities and injustices around the country that could benefit from ACLU assistance instead of creating an injustice in forcing towns and counties to defend a historical symbol.

But, as previously posted, the money is very very good, courtesy of the US taxpayer, every time they prevail in one of these suits.

0 Replies

-
Advocate wrote:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fox, would you feel differently were your small child in a public school subjected to a daily religious ceremony based on a religion not yours? I think most people would be upset. Moreover, telling the child he or she can leave the room tends to make the child a pariah. This is what the separation of church and state is all about.
end of quote

How would Advocate feel if his daughter was forced to sit in a class( given by an Anti-Aids group, as visiting teachers in a public school) viewing a demonstration of a weirdo putting a condom on a banana?

Advocate does not know that the ACLU, as Foxfure has pointed out again and again, his paid from taxpayer funds for their "services" Advocate does not know that the ACLU defended a meeing of the US Nazi Party in a park in Skokie, Illinois where the Nazis chanted their bile and the Jews( Skokie has a very large number of Jews) were forced to listen to that garbage in their community park.

But, what Advocate does NOT know is that the US Constitution is not completely inimical to religion in this country. Of course, Advoate would not know and would be completely ignorant of this. He shows his ignorance because he NEVER PROVIDES ANY EVIDENCE FOR THE ERRORS HE SPEWS.

In 2002, in Zelman V. Simmons-Harris, the Supreme Court rule that the state of Ohio could provide education vouchers to low-income parents so they could send their children to private secular or relibious schools.

Rhenquist wrote:

"The Religion Clauses of the First Amendment provide: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" These two clauses...are frequently in tension. Yet we have long said that 'THERE IS ROOM FOR PLAY IN THE JOINTS" between them. In other words, there are some state actions permitted by the Establishment clause but not required by the Free Exercise Clause.."

I am sure such subtlety in thinking will complete escape the hapless Advocate.

I am sure that Advocate never heard of

1940: Minersville vs. Gobitis. Ruled public schools may require students to salute the flag and pledge allegiance even if it violates their religious scruples.

0 Replies

Foxfyre:
Re: the Village of Tijeras and it's seal. Do you not see the difference between the right of an individual to hold certain beliefs (protected under the Constitution) and the implications of a government agency displaying
symbolic solidarity with one certain set of believers? (Not allowed)

(Of course, given the murderous conduct of some of the Mission padres and their cadres, it's a wonder why anyone would want to be associated with them or their history.)

Joe

0 Replies

Joe Nation, I don't even wear a cross symbol ever, nor do I even believe in it, and personally do not subscribe to the religious Catholic denomination, but common sense tells us communities like Tijeras were greatly influenced by early Catholics, Franciscan Friars that came to the area very early on, and its a part of their history. I have no objection whatsoever, but think it is perfectly proper for Tijeras to portray their historical beginnings. The ACLU, as I've asserted long ago on this thread and which is obvious to most people, carries some of these things to the utter ridiculous.

Many historical sites in the Southwest are old Spanish missions established by early Catholics, and many of these are State Parks and National Monuments. Should the government cede these parks back to private property holders because of separation of church and state, because after all, the whole theme of these parks have a religious heritage slant, and many religiously slanted books and brochures are published and sold in these government parks, on your tax dollars Joe Nation. Maybe you need to contact the ACLU to get them working on this terrible practice?

Furthermore, how many indian ruins in numerous parks celebrate the spiritual beliefs of Native Americans. Get the ACLU to work on that too, Joe Nation.

This whole discussion portrays the insanity of the ACLU beyond a shadow of a doubt.

0 Replies

Whoa!

What was the question I asked and when did you miss it?

Do you not see the difference between the right of an individual to hold certain beliefs (protected under the Constitution) and the implications of a government agency displaying
symbolic solidarity with one certain set of believers? (Not allowed)

Okay?

And besides I am NOT for removing every mention of religious activity from the face of the earth. In fact, in the case of the good fathers I would hope that the Park Service relate the actual history of that era including the tale of one Juan de Onate. (Okay, he was not a friar, he was just a completely brutal oppressor of the native population. What would Jesus say about enslaving people into love?)

The good fathers helped out a great deal, forcing the local Indians into farming the mission's crops and holding them in involuntary servitude for decades. Maybe, in the interest of accuracy, instead of the little cross, they should put in a whip.

Joe(yes, let's look at the real picture)Nation

0 Replies

Joe Nation wrote:

Whoa!

What was the question I asked and when did you miss it?

Do you not see the difference between the right of an individual to hold certain beliefs (protected under the Constitution) and the implications of a government agency displaying
symbolic solidarity with one certain set of believers? (Not allowed)

Okay?

And besides I am NOT for removing every mention of religious activity from the face of the earth. In fact, in the case of the good fathers I would hope that the Park Service relate the actual history of that era including the tale of one Juan de Onate. (Okay, he was not a friar, he was just a completely brutal oppressor of the native population. What would Jesus say about enslaving people into love?)

The good fathers helped out a great deal, forcing the local Indians into farming the mission's crops and holding them in involuntary servitude for decades. Maybe, in the interest of accuracy, instead of the little cross, they should put in a whip.

Joe(yes, let's look at the real picture)Nation

You must have mis-interpreted what I wrote. I am not sticking up for the friars and the Catholics. I am simply pointing out they are a part of the history of some of these places, such as Tijeras. I do not interpret the government as showing solidarity with a religion by simply showing a symbol that depicts the history. Why are you so all fired up about eliminating everything that offends you? And why does it offend you so severely? I am no Catholic, and it does not offend me. Hey, how about Utah? Some of the history and symbology is intimately tied to the Mormons. I am no Mormon, but it does not offend me, and if I lived there, I would not be suing the state to remove some of the stuff or eliminate state parks and monuments that have to do with the Mormons. Its part of the history of the state. Good grief, Joe Nation, you cannot control everything your way. What is your problem? Live and let live.

Your arguments contradict each other. On the one hand, you say you are not in favor of eliminating historical references, but why do you object then to Tijeras? And about your opinion of the friars, yes one slant has it they abused the Indians, but I think there are contadictory spins on history, and some may have been better than others. I do not think it is appropriate for historians at parks to take a bias position too far one way or the other. It is currently politically correct to portray the Indians as being totally innocent, but true history paints a bit different picture with tribes killing each other willy nilly when we got here. Human nature is human nature, whether it was Indians or Franciscan friars.

0 Replies

Joe Nation wrote:

Foxfyre:
Re: the Village of Tijeras and it's seal. Do you not see the difference between the right of an individual to hold certain beliefs (protected under the Constitution) and the implications of a government agency displaying
symbolic solidarity with one certain set of believers? (Not allowed)

(Of course, given the murderous conduct of some of the Mission padres and their cadres, it's a wonder why anyone would want to be associated with them or their history.)

Joe

I see that all other aspects of society is allowed to have its history and heritage represented. When religion has been such a large part of that history and heritage, it is not only discriminatory, but it is ludicrous to exclude religion in that representation. I only hope I live long enough to see us return to a rational court system that understands the difference between recognition of an aspect of American culture and the government establishment of religion. They are not one and the same.

0 Replies

Well summarized, Foxfyre. To follow up on my mention of Mormons in Utah, the seal for the state of Utah includes the beehive, which I believe is an emblem adopted by Joseph Smith as a symbol of the church and community. So, Joe Nation, this should be thrown out I suppose because it denotes a symbol with religious connections to the Mormons, and all non-Mormons in Utah would of course be offended. You need to call the ACLU and get them started on that problem, Joe.

0 Replies

Joe Notion and the rest of the left on this thread involving the ACLU obviously have not followed the court activities involving religion.

Mark Tushnet in his book, "A Court Divided" wrote:

The court took up two cases involving public displays on religious symbols in 2005. Both involved the Ten Commandments...The Court held that displays posted at courthouses in Kentucky WERE UNCONSTITUTIONAL BUT THAT TEXAS DID NOT HAVE TO TAKE DOWN A LARGE STONE MONUMENT ON ITS STATEHOUSE GROUNDS.

Leftists, of course, do not understand the Court's reasoning in these cases but the simple fact is that the displays in the courthouse in Texas remain but the one in Texas was removed.

The left wing secularist quasi-Communist ACLU has not always won regarding religious symbols ,but of course, Joe Notion does not know that!

0 Replies

BernardR wrote:

Leftists, of course, do not understand the Court's reasoning in these cases but the simple fact is that the displays in the courthouse in Texas remain but the one in Texas was removed.

That sounds fairly counter-productive.

What did they do, keep taking the same display down then putting it back up? Does the Texas Governor have a brother-in-law who owns the Texas Mayflower Moving Van franchise?

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Well summarized, Foxfyre. To follow up on my mention of Mormons in Utah, the seal for the state of Utah includes the beehive, which I believe is an emblem adopted by Joseph Smith as a symbol of the church and community. So, Joe Nation, this should be thrown out I suppose because it denotes a symbol with religious connections to the Mormons, and all non-Mormons in Utah would of course be offended. You need to call the ACLU and get them started on that problem, Joe.

Yes, and while they're at it they might as well go after Los Angeles, San Francisco, Corpus Christi, San Diego, Saint Louis, Saint Paul, Santa Fe, Las Cruces, etc. all with relgion based names.

It is ludicrous to think that a generic motto or phrase or slogan or object d art or historical symbol could in any way require or coerce or even influence anybody into believing anything or doing anything religious. To equate these with an establishment of religion is no different than saying that seeing an emblem of an American Eagle requires somebody to be a bird watcher.

So long as nobody is required to believe or profess or admit or act out or accept any manner of religious belief, and so long as there is no positive or negative consequence to what one does or does not believe or profess, and so long as nobody's person, property, livelihood, opportunities, relationships, legal, civil, or unalienable rights are compromised in any way by the presence of a religious object, symbol, phrase, motto, etc. there is no infringement of the First Amendment nor any other point of the Constitution.

Religion has had a huge role in the founding, devleopment, expansion, music, art, culture, history, and laws of the United States and integrity requires that this be acknowledged along with all other components of the founding , devleopment, expansion, music, art, culture, history, and laws of the land.

At least some in the ACLU almost certainly know this. Everybody in that organization isn't stupid. So we have to conclude that they aren't going after that tiny historical cross on the Village of Tijeras seal because it poses any threat to the Constitution or anybody's civil rights.

They're obviously going after it hoping to be able to collect several hundred thousand dollars of taxpayer money as a reward for their efforts. And they apparently don't really care who gets hurt in the process.

You'll understand if I don't quite see that as a noble undertaking.

0 Replies

Bernard characterizes the Zelman decision rather broadly. The 5-4 decision does rule that a particular voucher program was "neutral" relative to the establishment clause. Here is some commentary on the case.

The heart of Zelman is the Constitutional First Amendment. Journalist Nat Hentoff has described one Cleveland voucher school that requires its students to, "pledge allegiance to the Christian flag and to the Savior for whose Kingdom it stands. One Savior crucified, risen, and coming again with life and liberty for all who believe." More than ninety-nine percent of participating children in Cleveland use their vouchers at parochial schools, many of which have made no attempt to hide that the children are required to participate in the schools?s religious instruction, whatever their own family?s faith.

This case will not itself have the effect of establishing voucher schools anywhere else in the United States; rather it outlines the design by which a voucher program can meet the test for constitutionality. A program must offer "true private choice" by "permitting the participation of all schools in a district, religious and nonreligious." The decision to use the voucher at a religious school must be "reasonably attributable to the individual recipient, not to the government, whose role ends with the disbursement of benefits." Participation must be "available to families on neutral terms, with no reference to religion,"and there must be secular options for parents as well.

0 Replies

That reminds me, Foxfyre, the "Sangre de Christo" mountains is a very significant range in the Rockies that stretches from New Mexico into Southern Colorado. I understand the name means in Spanish, "Blood of Christ." Now, how in the world does the U. S. Geological Survey get by with carrying this name on their official registry of geographic names? Don't they know that anyone looking at a map realizes tax dollars are being spent to print this religious terminology? Don't they realize someone visiting these mountains might be influenced by this religious connotation, or worse yet, be offended by it? Don't they realize this country was not founded on any religious connections, so how do they get away with this?

0 Replies

okie wrote:

That reminds me, Foxfyre, the "Sangre de Christo" mountains is a very significant range in the Rockies that stretches from New Mexico into Southern Colorado. I understand the name means in Spanish, "Blood of Christ." Now, how in the world does the U. S. Geological Survey get by with carrying this name on their official registry of geographic names? Don't they know that anyone looking at a map realizes tax dollars are being spent to print this religious terminology? Don't they realize someone visiting these mountains might be influenced by this religious connotation, or worse yet, be offended by it? Don't they realize this country was not founded on any religious connections, so how do they get away with this?

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

Bernard characterizes the Zelman decision rather broadly. The 5-4 decision does rule that a particular voucher program was "neutral" relative to the establishment clause. Here is some commentary on the case.

The heart of Zelman is the Constitutional First Amendment. Journalist Nat Hentoff has described one Cleveland voucher school that requires its students to, "pledge allegiance to the Christian flag and to the Savior for whose Kingdom it stands. One Savior crucified, risen, and coming again with life and liberty for all who believe." More than ninety-nine percent of participating children in Cleveland use their vouchers at parochial schools, many of which have made no attempt to hide that the children are required to participate in the schools?s religious instruction, whatever their own family?s faith.

This case will not itself have the effect of establishing voucher schools anywhere else in the United States; rather it outlines the design by which a voucher program can meet the test for constitutionality. A program must offer "true private choice" by "permitting the participation of all schools in a district, religious and nonreligious." The decision to use the voucher at a religious school must be "reasonably attributable to the individual recipient, not to the government, whose role ends with the disbursement of benefits." Participation must be "available to families on neutral terms, with no reference to religion,"and there must be secular options for parents as well.

My view of this is that if government is going to fund schools at all, the voucher program is the best way to encourage the schools to provide the best possible education for their kids. And this is because the parents will have more choice to put their kids in the best possible schools. And who cares if the best school happens to be a Christian school that has mandatory Christian exercises? Nobody has to put their kid there. Those who do will do so with full knowledge of what their kids will be getting.

I think the government should require any school eligible to accept vouchers to provide a specified core curriculum to ensure that the kids will receive a basic education. For instance, a fundamentalist Christian school who teaches only Creationism and not the Theory of Evolution would not be eligible to receive vouchers because the kids would not be receiving a complete science education.

Otherwise, whatever peripherals are expected and/or mandated by a private school should be nobody's business but the parents who put their kids there.

0 Replies

A major problem with vouchers is that they take money from public schools. Moreover, the vouchers are usually for just a couple of thousand dollars, insufficient for poor people to utilize. But the program is a bonanza for the well-to-do, and those already planning on private schooling.

0 Replies

I like the idea of vouchers, but my problem with it is if the money is funneled from taxes through the government and back to the people choosing their own schools, given the court system we have, the government will mandate all of their silly regulations on all the private schools. So what will we have gained?

I think a different, yet unworked out mechanism needs to be devised other than vouchers so that the money going to private schools is not considered to have come from government. Perhaps tax deductions from the taxing entities or something? I haven't yet figured out the solution to this problem, but now we see the cost of educating children is what, close to $10,000 per year per child? It is bordering on ridiculous. The schools have grown into an albatross, an almost unmanageable bureaucracy. The cost of learning is inflated big time because of the lack of competition in the market.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

A major problem with vouchers is that they take money from public schools. Moreover, the vouchers are usually for just a couple of thousand dollars, insufficient for poor people to utilize. But the program is a bonanza for the well-to-do, and those already planning on private schooling.

Well look at it this way. Parents can use their voucher to put their kid in a private school and cough up the considerable additional tuition to do that, or parents can put their kid in a public school and pay nothing additional.

If the public school is closer to home, provides a safe environment, discipline, and a solid education on par with the private school, it then becomes a no brainer. Most parents will opt for the public school where they wouldn't have a lot of extra out of pocket expense.

As principals and teachers won't have their jobs if enough kids don't sign up for their school, I'm pretty darn sure they would do whatever is necessary to ensure that their school is as good or better than the other schools. That might mean they would have to violate a few sacred cows and they almost certainly would have tell the ACLU and teachers' unions to go take a flying leap, but they would create a school that anybody would be happy to attend. Result? Win-win for everybody, especially the kids.

(Disclaimer: Making necessary changes in timeworn old policies and procedures is never an easy thing to do, and during the transition there will certainly be fits, starts, missteps, backsliding, errors, and failures among the successes. But very few things worth accomplishing are easy to do.)

Those that can't or don't do that should close anyway because the kids are very definitely being shortchanged on their education.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

okie wrote:
That reminds me, Foxfyre, the "Sangre de Christo" mountains is a very significant range in the Rockies that stretches from New Mexico into Southern Colorado. I understand the name means in Spanish, "Blood of Christ." Now, how in the world does the U. S. Geological Survey get by with carrying this name on their official registry of geographic names? Don't they know that anyone looking at a map realizes tax dollars are being spent to print this religious terminology? Don't they realize someone visiting these mountains might be influenced by this religious connotation, or worse yet, be offended by it? Don't they realize this country was not founded on any religious connections, so how do they get away with this?

I thought this was funny too. Laughing

0 Replies

Okie writes

Quote:

I like the idea of vouchers, but my problem with it is if the money is funneled from taxes through the government and back to the people choosing their own schools, given the court system we have, the government will mandate all of their silly regulations on all the private schools. So what will we have gained?

Well, this will be a long process, so I think we just need to be sure that we're electing people who will appoint and confirm judges who actually do understand the purpose and the intent of Constitutional law and who will not impose their own personal ideology into it.

Its high time we reined in an out of control judiciary who considers its role to do the job of the President and/or Congress, and corrupts the job it was appointed/elected to do.

And I certainly think we should have laws making it illegal for Congress to encourage, with our tax money, organizations like the ACLU who are encouraging judges to corrupt the intent and purpose of Constitutional law.

0 Replies

Free speech for me but not for thee. ACLU busted!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know