Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Indeed, but your are missing the point, or else avoiding it.
The ACLU defends people regardless of what their religion is - because they are defending the right itself. Due to Christians being a dominant demographic in this country, the ACLU spends more time defending Christians than it does any other religious group.
But the ADF only defends Christians. Why is that? Don't they believe other religious groups deserve to have their rights defended as well?
The ADF doesn't care about the Constitution. It only cares about maintaining the cultural influence of fundamentalist Christianity, and doing everything it can to erode the Establishment clause.
Some people are very worried about Sharia law taking hold in the US. The one and only way that is going to happen is if people like the ADF get their way, and erode the protections our founders built into our system.
Why anyone would support this group is quite beyond my understanding.
Here is a quote from the Executive Director of the ACLU Anthony Romero
"It is clear we can no longer count on the constitution alone to protect fundamental freedoms in the United States. We must emphasize the positive face of globalism."
And WHO is it that doesn't care about the constitution? Maybe you need to expand your understanding!!!
Here is a quote from the Executive Director of the ACLU Anthony Romero
"It is clear we can no longer count on the constitution alone to protect fundamental freedoms in the United States. We must emphasize the positive face of globalism."
And WHO is it that doesn't care about the constitution? Maybe you need to expand your understanding!!!
Anthony Romero's statements have nothing whatsoever to do with my post.
The Los Angeles Unified School District has changed a controversial policy after it tried to prevent a disabled boy from dancing to a Christian song at a school talent show.
In early February, Superior Street Elementary School principal Jerilyn Shubert told one fifth grader and his parents that the boy’s planned performance was too “offensive” because of its Christian elements. The principal said the boy’s dance performance to the song “We Shine” was violation of the “separation of church and state” and asked why he couldn’t “pick a song that does not say Jesus so many times.”
This crap is being taken to the extreme, how does a boy singing in a talent contest equate to the federal government establishing a religion? and where is “separation of church and state” in our constitution or our laws?
Here is a quote from the Executive Director of the ACLU Anthony Romero
"It is clear we can no longer count on the constitution alone to protect fundamental freedoms in the United States. We must emphasize the positive face of globalism."
And WHO is it that doesn't care about the constitution? Maybe you need to expand your understanding!!!
Gee, I wonder why you only quoted that one sentence from Romero and did not put it in any sort of context?
Quote:
It is clear that we can no longer count on the Constitution alone to protect fundamental freedoms in the United States - let alone the freedoms of those affected by our government's actions abroad. Increasingly, our government refuses to comply not just with international human rights norms but also with the Constitution, even in the treatment of its own citizens. The government's actions here and abroad inevitably encourage other governments to violate human rights. Our response as social justice advocates must be swift and multifaceted. We must combine grassroots advocacy, documentation, policy work, public education and litigation. We must work with young people to spread the work about human rights. They understand the inextricable links between globalism, poverty, and racism. We must emphasize the positive face of globalization, the globalization of freedom and democracy. We must use human rights documentation to hold our government accountable for its actions here and abroad. We must raise human rights arguments more frequently in our domestic litigation, and provide the courts with more opportunities to - at least - reference international human rights. We must persuade more cities and towns to adopt human rights conventions like CEDAW and CERD locally. All of these actions would add fuel to a grassroots movement to ratify and implement human rights treaties. In short, we must stop at nothing to ensure that every human being - citizen or non-citizen, black or white, Muslim or Christian, rich or poor - has the fundamental rights enshrined in both the United States Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
First of all, putting those parts of two sentences together without an ellipses is very bad form - bordering on intellectual dishonesty. At least it would be if I wasn't quite sure the only thing you did here was copy that from your favorite anti-ACLU blog and post it here without trying to find the context yourself.
Secondly, the context here makes it clear that Romero was not saying that the Constitution is worthless or not fundamental, but that in promoting fundamental freedoms we should also look to human rights documents to which the United States is a party, and encourage the Senate to ratify those treaties to which we're not.
This crap is being taken to the extreme, how does a boy singing in a talent contest equate to the federal government establishing a religion? and where is “separation of church and state” in our constitution or our laws?
School officials are notoriously inept at interpreting constitutional law.
That doesn't mean there is some kind of conspiracy going on.
Your last sentence evidences a serious misunderstanding of how our legal system works.
You won't find "privacy" in the Constitution either, do you think that means you have no constitutional privacy rights under the 4th and 5th amendments?
This crap is being taken to the extreme, how does a boy singing in a talent contest equate to the federal government establishing a religion?
You're absolutely right, and the principal was wrong here. A kid should be allowed to sing almost whatever song they want during a talent show.
Quote:
and where is “separation of church and state” in our constitution or our laws?
The Supreme Court has endorsed the language of separation between church and state for over 60 years.
Quote:
"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.'"
Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1, 15-16 (1947).
I couldn't agree more. I don't know what's going on lately, nearly every thread from the right are going off of "the blaze" Looks like Beck has done his propaganda programming well,..
Attacking a source for running a scoop, that your information source failed to notify you about, sounds like jealously.
When the Progressive news feeds don't have a rebuttal link, it is propaganda.
Principal got it wrong. School officials cannot be promoting religion, but they also cannot be preventing students from practicing their own religion on their own. No establishment and no interference with free exercise. It's sad that so few people get that.
As for The Blaze, I would be perfectly happy if we had a temporary ban on both far left and far right sites. No KOS, no Blaze, no Alternet, no WorldNetDaily. How would that sound?
Then start the thread with one of those three more credible sources, not Glenn Beck's website.
Very true. Although the most common clients the ACLU defends are Christians whose free speech is being threatened.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
