Aclu Strikes Back

[alonesoldier]

I pulled this off Bill's website. Thought you guys would like to shake your fist at one of the two parties for awhile.
************************************************
The American Civil Liberties Union, in conjunction with four people, a lesbian couple, and an agnostic couple, have sued the city of San Diego because it leased a public park to the Boy Scouts for $1 a year. Incredibly, a federal judge named Napoleon Jones, appointed by Bill Clinton, ruled in favor of the ACLU and says San Diego cannot do business with the Scouts because they are a religious organization.

This is another insane ruling that will eventually be overturned as the Boy Scouts of America are certainly not a religious group. The Boy Scout oath only says, "to do my duty to God and my country and to obey Scout law."

The Boy Scout leadership says any spiritual belief, including a belief in nature, qualifies under the oath. The real story here is that the judge in the ACLU have teamed up to punish the Boy Scouts for winning a Supreme Court case that allows them to ban declared atheists and gays from membership.

So to get revenge, the ACLU is claiming the Scouts are violating separation of church and state. Ludicrous. Talking Points believes most Americans know exactly what's going on here. In 1991, The Los Angeles Times, a bastion of liberalism, actually labeled Judge Jones a judicial activist.

Of course he is. Jones is using his federal judgeship to pervert the Constitution and hurt the Scouts. The reason that San Diego allows the Scouts to use the city property in the first place is that its programs benefit young boys and help keep them away from destructive influences. But Judge Jones and the ACLU could not care less about that.

It is well past time for Americans to begin dealing with the insanity that is taking place in the courts, in the press, and in the schools. In recent weeks, we have been told by a city councilman who favors reparations that Abraham Lincoln didn't much care about freeing the slaves, by a Boston University professor that there was no rivalry between the radical preacher Jesus and some in the Jewish hierarchy, and by an Episcopal bishop that there is no tension between the gay bishop and some scriptural passages.

Come on. Denying the obvious is intellectually dishonest. We are now living in a time where facts and evidence no longer exist for agenda-driven fanatics. And few in the media are challenging the insanity.

Usually, we debate issues here on The Factor. Not tonight. This Boy Scout ruling by Judge Napoleon Jones in San Diego is simply dangerous and should be condemned by all fair-minded Americans. When judges have the power to subvert the Constitution, rather than uphold it, we are all in major trouble. And that's the situation we are facing with the ACLU, again leading the way.

And that's the Memo.

--You can watch Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points Memo and "Most Ridiculous Item" weeknights at 8 & 11p.m. ET on the Fox News Channel. Send your comments to: oreilly@foxnews.com

 

[Rae]

Good for Mr. Jones. Apparently, unlike the author of this article, he knows his constitutional law. The city government may not violate separation of church and state by giving access to city property to a group which discriminates on the basis of religious belief, even if it accommodates all people of theistic belief (because that discriminates against those with none).

Thank goodness for this judge! We need more like him.

 

[MichaelFJF]

O'Reilly is dead on. The judge is an idiot.M

 

[Totally Transformed]

Good for Mr. Jones. Apparently, unlike the author of this article, he knows his constitutional law. The city government may not violate separation of church and state by giving access to city property to a group which discriminates on the basis of religious belief, even if it accommodates all people of theistic belief (because that discriminates against those with none).

Your understanding of the "separation of church and state" as well as most of the secular worlds understanding is taken out of context. David Barton, a world reknown American historian clarifies:



The Separation of Church and State

by David Barton



In 1947, in the case Everson v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court declared, “The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.” The “separation of church and state” phrase which they invoked, and which has today become so familiar, was taken from an exchange of letters between President Thomas Jefferson and the Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut, shortly after Jefferson became President.

The election of Jefferson-America’s first Anti-Federalist President-elated many Baptists since that denomination, by-and-large, was also strongly Anti-Federalist. This political disposition of the Baptists was understandable, for from the early settlement of Rhode Island in the 1630s to the time of the federal Constitution in the 1780s, the Baptists had often found themselves suffering from the centralization of power.

Consequently, now having a President who not only had championed the rights of Baptists in Virginia but who also had advocated clear limits on the centralization of government powers, the Danbury Baptists wrote Jefferson a letter of praise on October 7, 1801, telling him:

Among the many millions in America and Europe who rejoice in your election to office, we embrace the first opportunity . . . to express our great satisfaction in your appointment to the Chief Magistracy in the United States. . . . [W]e have reason to believe that America’s God has raised you up to fill the Chair of State out of that goodwill which He bears to the millions which you preside over. May God strengthen you for the arduous task which providence and the voice of the people have called you. . . . And may the Lord preserve you safe from every evil and bring you at last to his Heavenly Kingdom through Jesus Christ our Glorious Mediator.1

However, in that same letter of congratulations, the Baptists also expressed to Jefferson their grave concern over the entire concept of the First Amendment, including of its guarantee for “the free exercise of religion”:

Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty: that religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals, that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions, [and] that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor. But sir, our constitution of government is not specific. . . . [T]herefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights. 2

In short, the inclusion of protection for the “free exercise of religion” in the constitution suggested to the Danbury Baptists that the right of religious expression was government-given (thus alienable) rather than God-given (hence inalienable), and that therefore the government might someday attempt to regulate religious expression. This was a possibility to which they strenuously objected-unless, as they had explained, someone’s religious practice caused him to “work ill to his neighbor.”

Jefferson understood their concern; it was also his own. In fact, he made numerous declarations about the constitutional inability of the federal government to regulate, restrict, or interfere with religious expression. For example:

[N]o power over the freedom of religion . . . [is] delegated to the United States by the Constitution.Kentucky Resolution, 1798 3

In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the general [federal] government. Second Inaugural Address, 1805 4

[O]ur excellent Constitution . . . has not placed our religious rights under the power of any public functionary. Letter to the Methodist Episcopal Church, 1808 5

I consider the government of the United States as interdicted [prohibited] by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions . . . or exercises. Letter to Samuel Millar, 1808 6

Jefferson believed that the government was to be powerless to interfere with religious expressions for a very simple reason: he had long witnessed the unhealthy tendency of government to encroach upon the free exercise of religion. As he explained to Noah Webster:

It had become an universal and almost uncontroverted position in the several States that the purposes of society do not require a surrender of all our rights to our ordinary governors . . . and which experience has nevertheless proved they [the government] will be constantly encroaching on if submitted to them; that there are also certain fences which experience has proved peculiarly efficacious [effective] against wrong and rarely obstructive of right, which yet the governing powers have ever shown a disposition to weaken and remove. Of the first kind, for instance, is freedom of religion. 7

Thomas Jefferson had no intention of allowing the government to limit, restrict, regulate, or interfere with public religious practices. He believed, along with the other Founders, that the First Amendment had been enacted only to prevent the federal establishment of a national denomination-a fact he made clear in a letter to fellow-signer of the Declaration of Independence Benjamin Rush:

[T]he clause of the Constitution which, while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom of religion, had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity through the United States; and as every sect believes its own form the true one, every one perhaps hoped for his own, but especially the Episcopalians and Congregationalists. The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes and they believe that any portion of power confided to me will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly. 8

Jefferson had committed himself as President to pursuing the purpose of the First Amendment: preventing the “establishment of a particular form of Christianity” by the Episcopalians, Congregationalists, or any other denomination.

Since this was Jefferson’s view concerning religious expression, in his short and polite reply to the Danbury Baptists on January 1, 1802, he assured them that they need not fear; that the free exercise of religion would never be interfered with by the federal government. As he explained:

Gentlemen,-The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association give me the highest satisfaction. . . . Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties. I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association assurances of my high respect and esteem. 9

Jefferson’s reference to “natural rights” invoked an important legal phrase which was part of the rhetoric of that day and which reaffirmed his belief that religious liberties were inalienable rights. While the phrase “natural rights” communicated much to people then, to most citizens today those words mean little.

By definition, “natural rights” included “that which the Books of the Law and the Gospel do contain.” 10 That is, “natural rights” incorporated what God Himself had guaranteed to man in the Scriptures. Thus, when Jefferson assured the Baptists that by following their “natural rights” they would violate no social duty, he was affirming to them that the free exercise of religion was their inalienable God-given right and therefore was protected from federal regulation or interference.

So clearly did Jefferson understand the Source of America’s inalienable rights that he even doubted whether America could survive if we ever lost that knowledge. He queried:

And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure if we have lost the only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? 11

Jefferson believed that God, not government, was the Author and Source of our rights and that the government, therefore, was to be prevented from interference with those rights. Very simply, the “fence” of the Webster letter and the “wall” of the Danbury letter were not to limit religious activities in public; rather they were to limit the power of the government to prohibit or interfere with those expressions.

Earlier courts long understood Jefferson’s intent. In fact, when Jefferson’s letter was invoked by the Supreme Court (only once prior to the 1947 Everson case-the Reynolds v. United States case in 1878), unlike today’s Courts which publish only his eight-word separation phrase, that earlier Court published Jefferson’s entire letter and then concluded:

Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it [Jefferson’s letter] may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the Amendment thus secured. Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere [religious] opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order. (emphasis added) 12

That Court then succinctly summarized Jefferson’s intent for “separation of church and state”:

[T]he rightful purposes of civil government are for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order. In th[is] . . . is found the true distinction between what properly belongs to the church and what to the State. 13

With this even the Baptists had agreed; for while wanting to see the government prohibited from interfering with or limiting religious activities, they also had declared it a legitimate function of government “to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor.”

That Court, therefore, and others (for example, Commonwealth v. Nesbit and Lindenmuller v. The People ), identified actions into which-if perpetrated in the name of religion-the government did have legitimate reason to intrude. Those activities included human sacrifice, polygamy, bigamy, concubinage, incest, infanticide, parricide, advocation and promotion of immorality, etc.

Such acts, even if perpetrated in the name of religion, would be stopped by the government since, as the Court had explained, they were “subversive of good order” and were “overt acts against peace.” However, the government was never to interfere with traditional religious practices outlined in “the Books of the Law and the Gospel”-whether public prayer, the use of the Scriptures, public acknowledgements of God, etc.

Therefore, if Jefferson’s letter is to be used today, let its context be clearly given-as in previous years. Furthermore, earlier Courts had always viewed Jefferson’s Danbury letter for just what it was: a personal, private letter to a specific group. There is probably no other instance in America’s history where words spoken by a single individual in a private letter-words clearly divorced from their context-have become the sole authorization for a national policy. Finally, Jefferson’s Danbury letter should never be invoked as a stand-alone document. A proper analysis of Jefferson’s views must include his numerous other statements on the First Amendment.

For example, in addition to his other statements previously noted, Jefferson also declared that the “power to prescribe any religious exercise. . . . must rest with the States” (emphasis added). Nevertheless, the federal courts ignore this succinct declaration and choose rather to misuse his separation phrase to strike down scores of State laws which encourage or facilitate public religious expressions. Such rulings against State laws are a direct violation of the words and intent of the very one from whom the courts claim to derive their policy.

One further note should be made about the now infamous “separation” dogma. The Congressional Records from June 7 to September 25, 1789, record the months of discussions and debates of the ninety Founding Fathers who framed the First Amendment. Significantly, not only was Thomas Jefferson not one of those ninety who framed the First Amendment, but also, during those debates not one of those ninety Framers ever mentioned the phrase “separation of church and state.” It seems logical that if this had been the intent for the First Amendment-as is so frequently asserted-then at least one of those ninety who framed the Amendment would have mentioned that phrase; none did.

In summary, the “separation” phrase so frequently invoked today was rarely mentioned by any of the Founders; and even Jefferson’s explanation of his phrase is diametrically opposed to the manner in which courts apply it today. “Separation of church and state” currently means almost exactly the opposite of what it originally meant.

Thank goodness for this judge! We need more like him.

On the contrary. This country does not need more liberal judges legislating from the bench. Get rid of him!

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

The BSA openly discriminates against the non-religious and homosexuals, so they're just going to have to deal with the ramifications of that choice to discriminate.

 

[alonesoldier]

Even if you took church and state to the extreme. the only way the law would apply is if you convicted the Boy Scouts of America of being a religious group... a church.

The Supreme Court recently sided with them, this will be turned over, not because you have to agree or disagree with their view of homosexuals, but to deny someone access to anything public because of their view on homosexuality is illegal. It is so illegal they are looking for a way to get the judge impeached.

 

[ACougar]

The boy scouts discrimate against a group of people because of their religious beliefs. While they have every right to conduct bussiness in this manner, the state shouldn't afford them any special rights or privaleges beyond those normally granted to non-profit organizations.

All this talk of impeachig judges who stand up for the constitution, praying that supreme court justices retire so that more right wing judges can be appointed. Scary stuff, almost like were in some sort of Civil Cold War.

 

[crazyfingers]

Your understanding of the "separation of church and state" as well as most of the secular worlds understanding is taken out of context. David Barton, a world reknown American historian clarifies:



The Separation of Church and State


by David Barton

* snip *

Barton has been discredited.



If one accepts that the author of the first amendment, James Madison, had some idea what it mean't, one would have to conclude that it is being interpreted correctly.

Madison was against the president calling for a national day of thanksgiving and fasting on the grounds that it went against the 1st amendment and has the effect of establishing religion. He wrote this in the "Detatched Memoranda"

Religious proclamations by the Executive recommending thanksgivings & fasts are shoots from the same root with the legislative acts reviewed.
Altho’ recommendations only, they imply a religious agency, making no part of the trust delegated to political rulers.

The objections to them are 1. that Govts ought not to interpose in relation to those subject to their authority but in cases where they can do it with effect. An advisory Govt is a contradiction in terms. 2. The members of a Govt as such can in no sense, be regarded as possessing an advisory trust from their Constituents in their religious capacities. They cannot form an ecclesiastical Assembly, Convocation, Council, or Synod, and as such issue decrees or injunctions addressed to the faith or the Consciences of the people. In their individual capacities, as distinct from their official station, they might unite in recommendations of any sort whatever, in the same manner as any other individuals might do. But then their recommendations ought to express the true character from which they emanate. 3. They seem to imply and certainly nourish the erronious idea of a national religion.

He is saying that the president has no business calling for a national day of prayer.

Madison was also against having congressional chaplains.

Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom?
In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the U.S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion. The law appointing Chaplains establishes a religious worship for the national representatives, to be performed by Ministers of religion, elected by a majority of them; and these are to be paid out of the national taxes. Does not this involve the principle of a national establishment, applicable to a provision for a religious worship for the Constituent as well as of the representative Body, approved by the majority, and conducted by Ministers of religion paid by the entire nation.


The establishment of the chaplainship to Congress is a palpable violation of equal rights, as well as of Constitutional principles: The tenets of the chaplains elected [by the majority] shut the door of worship against the members whose creeds & consciences forbid a participation in that of the majority. To say nothing of other sects, this is the case with that of Roman Catholics & Quakers who have always had members in one or both of the Legislative branches. Could a Catholic clergyman ever hope to be appointed a Chaplain? To say that his religious principles are obnoxious or that his sect is small, is to lift the evil at once and exhibit in its naked deformity the doctrine that religious truth is to be tested by numbers. or that the major sects have a right to govern the minor.

Given that James Madison wrote the 1st Amendment, and would therefore presumably know what it means, I think that it's obsurd to suggest the intent would be different than how he has described it. And the examples above are clearly in line with the trend of Supreme Court rulings over the last century.

He is not talking about the 1st amendment mearly prohibiting the establishment of a national church, but "everything like" an establishment of a national religion. And paying for chaplains of congress he categorized as "like" the establishment of religion.

This is in agreement with Thomas Jefferson's famous "Separation between Church and State" phrase. Jefferson was Madison's mentor and they were in agreement on the meaning of the first amendment. The Supreme Court has rightly recognized Jefferson's view of Separation between Church and State as the authoritative view on it's meaning.

It's difficult for me to imagine anyone taking an honest look at the facts above and not coming to the conclusion that our current interpretation is in line with original intent.

Link to Detatched Memoranda

 

[crazyfingers]

O'Reilly is dead on. The judge is an idiot.M

I'd say that the reverse is true.

 

[Truncate]

A win for Seperation of Church and State.

Now if we could only get churches/religious groups to pay taxes like the rest of us have to.

 

[Rae]

Totally Transformed:
Your understanding of the "separation of church and state" as well as most of the secular worlds understanding is taken out of context.

Rae:
That's not what my law professors said when they taught me this in law school. But maybe you're right. Where did you go to law school, again?

TT:
David Barton, a world reknown American historian clarifies:

Rae:
David Barton is well known for falsifying quotes and attributing them to the Founding Fathers to give the false impression that they believed there should be no separation of church and state. If you want to rely on someone like him, go ahead, but I think my "secular world understanding" is far better than is Mr. Barton's, which is based on lies and deceit.

Whether you wish to believe it or not, this judge is upholding American constitutional law. If you dislike the law, change it. Don't say that he isn't following the law. He is.

 

[crazyfingers]

David Barton, a world reknown American historian clarifies:

David Barton has been discredited

To call him a world renown historian is laughable.

Here is a lot of info on the fabricated quotes by Barton at this site.

But you should know that already.

 

[Megachihuahua]

Wow, these pagans are way off their game!
Let's kick the gay kids out of Milk High. They discriminate against non-queers and use city property.
(the BSA did pay for use of the park! People get worse penalties for setting up a nativity scene on public property than for armed robbery; there's something wrong here)

 

[crazyfingers]

Wow, these pagans are way off their game!
Let's kick the gay kids out of Milk High. They discriminate against non-queers and use city property.
(the BSA did pay for use of the park! People get worse penalties for setting up a nativity scene on public property than for armed robbery; there's something wrong here)

The BSA discriminates on the basis of religion and still got preferential treatment from the government by paying rent of only $1 when any other group would have to pay the market rate.

Disagreeing with the above will prove your stupidity.

Your saying so does not make it so.

 

[Rae]

Hm. Let's see here. The two Pagans on this thread have correctly stated that constitutional law forbids the government from leasing public property to groups like the Boy Scouts which discriminate on the basis of RELIGION...so I'd like Mega to please point out where we said it was on the basis of SEXUAL ORIENTATION or correct his post above.

Unfortunately, sexual orientation to this date has not been given protected status under the Constitution.

Also, was the BSA stripped of its citizenship and locked up in a prison with vicious criminals? If not, I think your claim above is refuted.

 

[crazyfingers]

Hm. Let's see here. The two Pagans on this thread have correctly stated that constitutional law forbids the government from leasing public property to groups like the Boy Scouts which discriminate on the basis of RELIGION...so I'd like Mega to please point out where we said it was on the basis of SEXUAL ORIENTATION or correct his post above.

Unfortunately, sexual orientation to this date has not been given protected status under the Constitution.

Also, was the BSA stripped of its citizenship and locked up in a prison with vicious criminals? If not, I think your claim above is refuted.

No kidding. While BSA discrimination against gays is horrible and gets all the press, it is equally horrible that they discriminate on the basis of religion and so few people pay any attention to that.

 

[SqueezetheShaman]

O'Reilly is dead on. The judge is an idiot.M

If this was a racially exclusive club, would you then see it as wrong???

I am a supporter of the BSA. my husband and I were leaders in our sons' group. I disagree with their views, and i questioned whether or not i would allow my son to be involved in them, but they do so much good...and they are evolving. The have made some significant changes recently. Besides, i think it is good for my son to be around people with views we find disrespectful. It will teach him to be tolerant. Anyway, i am a supporter, and yet I agree with the ruling.

 

[alonesoldier]

Look, you can Hate BSA all you want, Ive seen several judges on the news today talking about how this ruling doesnt stand a chance because it is blatantly unconstitutional.

And for the tax response. If churches paid taxes it would make them the only non profit organization to do so.

 

[crazyfingers]

Look, you can Hate BSA all you want, Ive seen several judges on the news today talking about how this ruling doesnt stand a chance because it is blatantly unconstitutional.

I would certainly like to see their arguments as I know of no basis for such a claim and a great deal for the reverse: that the government can't be giving special benefits to orgaizations that discriminate on the basis of religion. Doing so would be extablishment of religion.

And equal access does not apply given that the BSA was being given special preferred access.

 

[SqueezetheShaman]

what he said^^
and i love BSA but I still know it would be wrong for our government to give them special treatment