• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

ACLU, Defending Religious Freedoms?

Discussion in 'American Politics' started by Truth7t7, Mar 13, 2018.

  1. Truth7t7

    Truth7t7 Newbie

    +779
    Christian
    Married
    I'm a staunch conservative, and oppose many things the ACLU does, but you can't deny that the ACLU is representing Christian religious freedoms also?

    ACLU Website:

    The ACLU of Virginia (2012 and 2010) opposed bans on students' right to wear rosary beads at two public middle schools. The schools dropped the bans after receiving letters from the ACLU.

    The ACLU of Utah (2012) filed a lawsuit on behalf of members of the Main Street Church, a non-denominational Christian church in Brigham City, who were denied access to certain city streets for the purpose of handing out religious literature. An agreement was reached with the city allowing church members to distribute their literature.

    The ACLU of New Mexico (2012) filed a lawsuit on behalf of two Christian street preachers who were arrested multiple times for exercising their First Amendment rights by preaching in public.

    The ACLU of North Carolina (2012) advocated for allowing a 6-year-old to read aloud a poem with the word "God" in it at her school's Veterans Day assembly, in response to school officials' decision to remove the word.

    The ACLU of Pennsylvania (2012) filed a brief in support of a fifth grader's right to share her religious beliefs with classmates by distributing invitations to a Christmas party hosted by a local church.

    The ACLU of Louisiana (2012) filed a lawsuit on behalf of a member of Raven Ministries, a Christian congregation that regularly preaches the Gospel in New Orleans's French Quarter. The lawsuit challenged a city ordinance that restricts religious speech on Bourbon Street after dark. As a result of the lawsuit, a federal judge issued an order that blocks enforcement of the law.

    The ACLU and ACLU of Eastern Missouri (2013) sought access to religious websites that had been blocked at the public library.

    The ACLU of Alabama (2013) represented a prisoner seeking to wear his hair unshorn in accordance with his Native American faith.

    The ACLU of Nebraska (2014) supported a man’s right to hand out the gospel of Jesus Christ outside an arena.

    The ACLU of Virginia (2014) decried the state’s denial of a permit for a National Day of Prayer event on Capitol Square.

    The ACLU of Tennessee (2014) defended an elementary-school student’s right to read his Bible during a free-reading period.

    The ACLU of Virginia (2014) supported the right of Christian students to proselytize on a community college campus.

    The ACLU of Virginia (2015) defended students’ right to wear rosary beads in a public high school.

    The ACLU of Michigan (2015) backed Christian evangelists’ right to protest at a street festival.

    The ACLU and ACLU of Minnesota (2017) joined a friend-of-the-court brief supporting a Seventh-day Adventist whose employer revoked her job offer after she asked for a religious accommodation.

    The ACLU and ACLU of Georgia (2017) advocated for the rights of a Christian woman who was forced to remove her religiously motivated head covering when she visited her brother in prison. An officer told her that only Jews and Muslims would be allowed to enter with a head covering worn for religious reasons.
     
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2018
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
    We teamed up with Faith Counseling. Can they help you today?
  2. Belk

    Belk Senior Member

    +5,254
    Agnostic
    Married
    I have never understood why conservatives oppose the ACLU. I would think they would support a group who make it their mission to uphold the constitution.
     
  3. variant

    variant Happy Cat

    +3,259
    Agnostic
    Single
    It's because this (and similar issues) aren't good enough (for some people):
    Engel v. Vitale

    See also:
    McCollum v. Board of Education District 71
    Abington School District v. Schempp
    Wallace v. Jaffree
    Lee v. Weisman
    Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe

    Prayer in School: 6 Cases Supreme Court Has Ruled On

     
    Last edited: Mar 14, 2018
  4. Tanj

    Tanj Redefined comfortable middle class

    +2,129
    Australia
    Atheist
    Married
    I echo the sentiment of other posters here, I don't think anyone has ever denied that the ACLU has represented Christian religious freedoms, and it's only (some) conservatives that oppose the bits they don't like.
     
  5. Truth7t7

    Truth7t7 Newbie

    +779
    Christian
    Married
    Engel V. Vitale

    I enjoyed reading the "disent" of Justice Stewart below.

    I believe his disent is correct, and school prayer does not establish "An Official Religion"

    This is why it's critical in appointment of "conservative" Supreme court justices, who will interpret in light of the forefathers who maintained the word "God" in their lives and belief.

    There is a possibility Justice Kennedy will retire soon?

    One more conservative Justice appointment in his retirement, and conservative Christian America can revisit Roe V. Wade and same sex marriage!

    STEWART, J., Dissenting Opinion

    MR. JUSTICE STEWART, dissenting.

    A local school board in New York has provided that those pupils who wish to do so may join in a brief prayer at the beginning of each school day, acknowledging their dependence upon God and asking His blessing upon them319 U.S. 624. But the Court says that, in permitting school children to say this simple prayer, the New York authorities have established "an official religion."

    With all respect, I think the Court has misapplied a great constitutional principle. I cannot see how an "official religion" is established by letting those who want to say a prayer say it. On the contrary, I think that to deny the wish of these school children to join in reciting this prayer is to deny them the opportunity of sharing in the spiritual heritage of our Nation.

    The Court's historical review of the quarrels over the Book of Common Prayer in England throws no light for me on the issue before us in this case. England had then and has now an established church. Equally unenlightening, I think, is the history of the early establishment and later rejection of an official church in our own States. For we deal here not with the establishment of a state church, which would, of course, be constitutionally impermissible, but with whether school children who want to begin their day by joining in prayer must be prohibited from doing so. Moreover, I think that the Court's task, in this as in all areas of constitutional adjudication is not responsibly aided by the uncritical invocation of metaphors like the "wall of separation," a phrase nowhere to[n1] Both the Senate and the House of Representatives open their daily Sessions with prayer.[n2] Each of our Presidents, from George Washington to John F. Kennedy, has, upon assuming his Office, asked the protection and help of God.[n3][n4] One of the stanzas of "The Star-Spangled Banner " made our National Anthem by Act of Congress in 1931,[n5] contains these verses:

    Blest with victory and peace, may the heav'n rescued land

    Praise the Pow'r that hath made and preserved us a nation,

    Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just.

    And this be our motto "In God is our Trust."

    In 1954, Congress added a phrase to the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag so that it now contains the words "one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."[n6] In 1952, Congress enacted legislation calling upon the President each year to proclaim a National Day of Prayer.[n7] Since 1865, the words "IN GOD WE TRUST" have been impressed on our coins.[n8][n9] It was all summed up by this Court just ten years ago in a single sentence: "We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being." Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306, 313.


    I do not believe that this Court, or the Congress, or the President has, by the actions and practices I have mentioned, established an "official religion" in violation of the Constitution. And I do not believe the State of New York has done so in this case. What each has done has been to recognize and to follow the deeply entrenched and highly cherished spiritual traditions of our Nation -- traditions which come down to us from those who almost two hundred years ago avowed their "firm Reliance on the Protection of divine Providence" when they proclaimed the freedom and independence of this brave new world.[n10]

    I dissent.

     
    Last edited: Mar 14, 2018
  6. TLK Valentine

    TLK Valentine You will be who you will be. We are our choices.

    +13,942
    Agnostic
    Single
    And Stewart certainly has every right to his dissent, just as you have every right to agree with him.

    Although I would suggest that he's misread the First Amendment. It says that Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion, not the establishment of a specific religion.

    Anything a school does in its official capacity, the students are expected to follow -- dissent is seldom encouraged. The notion of "anyone in school can pray if they want to," is naive when the principal and teachers bow their heads -- and expect you to do likewise.

    And then, you go off about Roe V Wade and SSM... what that has to do with God or religion is a bit of a mystery.
     
  7. Truth7t7

    Truth7t7 Newbie

    +779
    Christian
    Married
    I believe we are currently discussing Supreme court justices and their interpretation of the constitution.

    Im one of many conservative Christians that look forward to the revisiting of Roe V. Wade & Same Sex Marriage, are you offended?

    This is why it's critical in appointment of "conservative" Supreme court justices, who will interpret in light of the forefathers who maintained the word "God" in their lives and belief.

    There is a possibility Justice Kennedy will retire soon?

    One more conservative Justice appointment in his retirement, and conservative Christian America can revisit Roe V. Wade and same sex marriage!

    P.S. The 1st amendment states "respecting" an establishment of religion.

    As the forefathers referred to example in "The Church of England" and the Church State.

    As Justice Stewart stated, the simple use of the word "God" is not "an official religion", and is a part of American historical culture.

    1st Amendment US Constitution

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
     
    Last edited: Mar 14, 2018
  8. TLK Valentine

    TLK Valentine You will be who you will be. We are our choices.

    +13,942
    Agnostic
    Single
    Indeed -- and while I respect Stewart, I have to respectfully suggest that he's off-base on this one. Fortunately, his was the dissenting, not the majority opinion, so clearly I am far from alone in that regard.

    Not at all -- I'm interested in your legal arguments against these things.

    I, personally, would prefer justices (conservative or liberal, although I obviously have a preference for liberal) Who live in the present, not the past.

    Our forefathers were great and wise men -- wise enough to know that they didn't have all the answers, and humble enough to be willing to pass the torch.

    Why should it just be the Conservative Christians? Any issue which affects all of America should be revisited -- and revisited often -- by all of America, should it not?
     
  9. Hank77

    Hank77 Well-Known Member Supporter

    +8,047
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Others
    That part of the American historical culture of religion.
    The minute the word 'God' is spoken religion is being invoked no matter if one is Christian, Muslim, Hindi, etc.
    When God is spoken in prayer that is establishing that there is a God and therefore religion is established.
    I came from a home without religion, any religion, but every morning in school we prayed the Lord's Prayer. That told me that there was a God and that I could pray to Him. Atheists do not want their children to be told that there is a God. They don't want God/religion established in their children's minds.
     
  10. Truth7t7

    Truth7t7 Newbie

    +779
    Christian
    Married
    You identified yourself as liberal, I identify as a conservative.

    You desire a liberal Supreme court appointment, I desire a conservative.

    You desire a liberal interpretation of the US constitution, I desire a conservative.

    I look forward to the appointment of conservative Supreme court Justices, I look forward to seeing Justice Kennedy retiring soon, and the Appointment of another conservative Justice.

    Roe V. Wade and Same Sex Marriage can be revisited with a conservative majority sitting on the bench.

    The Supreme court represents "All Of America" This is why Justice Appointments are crucial.

    I oppose the liberal agenda, and support the conservative.

    Pretty straight forward, dont ya think?
     
    Last edited: Mar 14, 2018
  11. Truth7t7

    Truth7t7 Newbie

    +779
    Christian
    Married
    1st Amendment US Constitution

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    Hank congress has not made a law stating the use of the word "God" is established religion.

    No more than "In God We Trust" is established religion.

    The word "God" is part of American cultural.

    The forefathers delivered the first Amendment in light of the established religion in "England", the constitution is not a living document, and must be interpreted as the forefathers intended it be.

    The liberals believe in a living document interpretation.

    Conservatives believe in a historical interpretation.

    Hank the answer to the school problem is monetary "Vouchers" for education of choice.

    This will allow the parent to choose their preference.

    The Athiest's, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, LGBT, etc will have a choice.

    The current system of education is liberal secularism in my opinion, I live in California.

    Should conservative Hindus, Muslims, Christians, be required to pay property taxes in support of sex education on campus, liberal teachers and commentary in text books?

    The reason why the "Voucher" has not been instituted nation wide is because the liberal secular left desires to maintain control of education, as this is the means in supporting the agenda, my opinion.

    Hopefully the "Voucher" will be visited in a conservative Supreme Court soon, that will give all Americans freedom of choice.
     
    Last edited: Mar 14, 2018
  12. Speedwell

    Speedwell Well-Known Member

    +5,251
    Anglican
    Married
    It is all but impossible to mention "God" or to pray without putting a sectarian spin on it. There is no such thing as "non-denominational." The generic Evangelical Protestantism which usually passes by that name would not be acceptable to many religious parents. It's not just atheists, nor even mostly atheists who don't want prayer in the public schools.
     
  13. TLK Valentine

    TLK Valentine You will be who you will be. We are our choices.

    +13,942
    Agnostic
    Single
    So far, so obvious.

    Not true -- they can be revisited at any time... but you only want them to be revisited when there is a Conservative majority who is likely to give you the results you want.

    In fact, they have been revisited, and the justices have found that the original decision stands, and needs to be applied to whichever case caused them to revisit it in the first place.

    Except you've offered up no legal argument against Roe v Wade or SSM -- you're rooting strictly for ideology, not the law. Why is that?

    Roe v Wade was judged, in part, based on Griswold v Connecticut, in which SCOTUS determined that the 14th Amendment includes (albeit not explicitly) a "right to privacy" which rendered the state's prohibition against discussing birth control to married couples unConstitutional. Roe v Wade took that ruling and ran with it, stating (logically so), that if the right to privacy extends to one's bedroom, it necessarily extends to one's uterus.

    Obergefell v Hodges once again invoked the 14th Amendment's (long a thorn in the Conservative side, I know) due process and equal protection clauses to say that the state could not deny the right of marriage to people based on their genders.

    I'm not yet seeing a convincing legal argument against either of those decisions. Perhaps you have one?
     
  14. Hank77

    Hank77 Well-Known Member Supporter

    +8,047
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Others
    That is true, didn't say they had.
    Agree.
    You cannot invoke the word 'God' without establishing religion. Not 'A' religion, but religion.
    Yup, the Church of England, chosen by the government of England.

    When I attempt to interpret what the authors of the Constitution intended I have to think that Thomas Jefferson made it clear, in his letter to the Danbury Baptist church, that the church and the state should be kept separated.
    Once the government made it a law that all children Must attend school then the public school system became a mandate of the government that cannot make any law establishing religion, therefore the public school cannot be involved in practicing any form of any religion if anyone attending that school, or the parents, have an objection.
     
  15. Truth7t7

    Truth7t7 Newbie

    +779
    Christian
    Married
    Your arguments are based upon a liberal interpretation of the constitutional law, The four liberals Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Breyer, and Kagan, will fully agree, and Kennedy the moderate could be added to the number.

    The conservative laws are in place to revist and to overturn Roe V. Wade

    Paul Ryan's Personhood Amendment Threatens the Constitutional Rights of Women Across America
     
    Last edited: Mar 14, 2018
  16. Hank77

    Hank77 Well-Known Member Supporter

    +8,047
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Others
    Trying to insult me will get you no where. I would suggest that you repent.
     
  17. Speedwell

    Speedwell Well-Known Member

    +5,251
    Anglican
    Married
    Why do you see my post as an insult? I certainly did not intend it to be. What do I need to repent of in your opinion?
     
  18. Arcangl86

    Arcangl86 Newbie

    +1,938
    Anglican
    Single
    US-Green
    Do you have an actual conservative interpretation to counter it?
     
  19. Hank77

    Hank77 Well-Known Member Supporter

    +8,047
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Others
    Any further discussion about this would derail the thread, which I will not do.
     
  20. Speedwell

    Speedwell Well-Known Member

    +5,251
    Anglican
    Married
    I have no idea what you are talking about. The part of my post that you quoted is a straight statement of unarguable fact.
    Your objection to it may indeed be on topic for this thread, as it bears on the subject of religious expression in the public schools.
     
Loading...