Quoting:
Recently in an Oklahoma school, an 11 yr old Muslim girl was suspended for wearing her head scarf.

Please note:  the school has had a rule banning all head-wear of all kinds.  

When the girl refused to removed the scarf, she is suspended and surprise suprise, the ACLU steps in and defends her. ::)  They claim it violates her religious freedom.  But wait a minute, the ACLU is always right on the spot when theres any sign of Christianity in a public building to remove it, claiming it violates "Seperation of Church and State" (which, by the way, doesn't even exist in the Constitution and has been bastardised by the liberals).

Is it just me, or is the ACLU a modern "anti-Christian" form of the mafia?

They are right there to defend anything to do with Islam, etc. but at the same time want to remove all signs of Christianity from America.  
End Quote

Let's hear about some examples of the ACLU wanting to remove all signs of Christianity from America.  Let's also be careful to separate Chrisitanity, originally a very "Eastern religion" with the White Anglo Western culture.  Whether you want to admit or not, I think a lot of this has to do with some kind of percieved cultural threat.  

Most people that dislike or hate the ACLU because of this example use Christianity and public prayer for intimidation tactics, veiled under the excuse of "serving God".  

By the way that school in Oklahoma is WAY behind the times.  I remember Muslim girls wearing their traditional head scarfs in American schools back in the 80's.  I also remember Sikh boys wearing their turbans in American schools back in the 80's too.  I also knew a kid that would wear a t-shirt everyday that had a different Bible scripture verse quoted.  No one did anything to any of those kids.  It's when people use intimidation tactics, or blatanly break the law does it become an issue.  

Quoting:


Let's hear about some examples of the ACLU wanting to remove all signs of Christianity from America.  End Quote

well most recently this summer:  The case of the the 10 Commandements being removed from the Courthouse in a souhtern state that escapes my memory.  The ACLU was 100% behind removing them from there citing it was a violation of the "seperation of church and state" (which again I remind you does not exist in the Constitution)

They are also on record as supporting the removal of the phrase "Under God" from the Pledge of allegiance.  Again for what they claim as vialotaion of "seperation of Church and State".  (again, doesn't exist)


Lets face it.  The ACLU claims to be for all freedoms an so forth, but there record speaks for itself.  I will forever be convinced they have an agenda of their own, simply based on their record.

Quoting:   It's when people use intimidation tactics, or blatanly break the law does it become an issue.  
End Quote

When I was growing up in a small Indiana town of about 2500 people, they proudly displayed te Nitivity Secene every year on the Courthouse Lawn.  

But when I moved to my current residence, a much much larger city, there is no sign of Chrisitanity anywhwere in town during Christmas.  Why?  Because a few people complained and the ACLU stepped in about 10 years ago and removed it all.  

I guess my old hometown hasn't been put on the ACLU hitlist yet, as they are still displaying the Nativity Scene on the Courthouse lawn every Christmas.

The ACLU has an agenda.  Its blatant.



PS-  before you ask, No I am NOT a Bible-thumper.

Quoting:
"separation of church and state" (which again I remind you does not exist in the Constitution)

They are also on record as supporting the removal of the phrase "Under God" from the Pledge of allegiance.  Again for what they claim as vialotaion of "seperation of Church and State".  (again, doesn't exist)
End Quote

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the constitution state:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
..i.e. although the phrase "separation of Church and State" does not appear explicitly, surely the implication of the above statement is that the state shall not frame any legislation which affects any religion either benignly or otherwise.  ISTM that "separation of church and state" is a subset of the above: after all, the constitution talks about religion in general rather than any specific one.

A question for you: would you have any objection to people who believe in God to be allowed to use the words "under God" in their pledge of allegiance, but atheists (or followers of a different deity), for whom the clause is meaningless,  should be able to leave it out?

Phil
PS Having said that, ISTM that using a "civil liberties" argument to stop a community celebrating their own religious festivals is seriously bloody stupid... I thought that's what "Freedom of religion" was supposed to mean :-/

Quoting:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the constitution state:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
..i.e. although the phrase "separation of Church and State" does not appear explicitly, surely the implication of the above statement is that the state shall not frame any legislation which affects any religion either benignly or otherwise.  ISTM that "separation of church and state" is a subset of the above: after all, the constitution talks about religion in general rather than any specific one.
End Quote

Actually, for something like this you need to consider the INTENT of the makers of the Constitution.  If you read "The Federalist Papers" and "The Anti-Federalist Papers", you see that the intent was mostly to prevent an Established State religion, and to allow free practice of ANY religion.

Considering they were less then a decade seperated from the Church Of England, the one thing they wanted to avoid was an official state religion.  The prevelence of "God" in the founding documents of this country show that religion was very important to both the writers and the community.

I am sure that most of them would be turning in their graves if they saw how their words are being interpreted today.  Instead of being a nation "endowed by the Creator", we are now an athiest nation.  This is possibly one reason why so many groups (fundamentalist Muslims for one) choose us to pick on.  To Muslims, Christians are still "people of the book", while Athiests are an abomination.  Just my 2 cents here.

Quoting:
Actually, for something like this you need to consider the INTENT of the makers of the Constitution.  If you read "The Federalist Papers" and "The Anti-Federalist Papers", you see that the intent was mostly to prevent an Established State religion, and to allow free practice of ANY religion.
End Quote

I agree... surely that's "separation of church and state", though?

Quoting:
I am sure that most of them would be turning in their graves if they saw how their words are being interpreted today.  Instead of being a nation "endowed by the Creator", we are now an athiest nation.  This is possibly one reason why so many groups (fundamentalist Muslims for one) choose us to pick on.  To Muslims, Christians are still "people of the book", while Athiests are an abomination.  Just my 2 cents here.
End Quote

Oh, come now... I can't think of anyone who'd describe the US as "an atheist state" - it's secular just like Iraq and Israel... OK, so maybe those are not the best of comparators, but to think that the US is being picked on for not being holy enough is a wonderful piece of head-in-the-sand ostrichicity (a made-up word I like so much, I'm going to leave it in ;-))

Quoting:
I'll keep this simple...the school had a rule that stated NO headwear of ANY kind. That's IT :o
End Quote

Did they have any Jewish students?

Quoting:
Actually, for something like this you need to consider the INTENT of the makers of the Constitution.  If you read "The Federalist Papers" and "The Anti-Federalist Papers", you see that the intent was mostly to prevent an Established State religion, and to allow free practice of ANY religion.End Quote

Exactly.

Congress cannot say one day that the official religion of America is, say Judeism, Christianity, Islam, or etc. etc...and therefore cannot officially endorse them because they didn't want us to be like England, ie the "Church of England".   Many people confuse the word "endorse" with the word "display", (as in "endorising" religion, and "displaying" religion.  Not the same thing.)

And, like you said, they cannot prevent anyone from practicing their releigion.  

Quoting:I am sure that most of them would be turning in their graves if they saw how their words are being interpreted today.  Instead of being a nation "endowed by the Creator", we are now an athiest nation.End Quote

Right again.

There is nothing in the Establishment Clause that calls for the removal of all religious phrases or symbols from all public buildings.  That part has all been made up in the last few decades by a faction of our society that like you said, wants to make this an "athiest" nation, and unfortunately many people have just "accepted" it assuming thats the way it was meant to be.  Which is wrong.  

Ask the average person what the Establishment Clause is, and they will porbably have no clue.  But ask them what "Seperation of Church and State" is, and they will peobably say "oh yea thats the thing in the Constitution that says no religion in public".  Many people have no idea that it doesn't even exist in the Constitution.




Heres how I see it.  If the Esablishment Clause really meant for us to remove all religion from public life, then what good is freedom of speech?  Or better yet, freedom of religion, freedom of expression, etc etc.?  After all, freedom of speech doesn't mean "all speech, unless it has a picture of Jesus on it or even worse says the word God on it" ::).   So when a group, such as the ACLU, marches into a courthouse and demands the removal of the Ten Commandments for violation of a "law" that doesn't even exist, isn't that removal alone in turn violating freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc...

It makes no sense.

Quoting:
Heres how I see it.  If the Esablishment Clause really meant for us to remove all religion from public life, then what good is freedom of speech?  Or better yet, freedom of religion, freedom of expression, etc etc.?  After all, freedom of speech doesn't mean "all speech, unless it has a picture of Jesus on it or even worse says the word God on it" ::).   So when a group, such as the ACLU, marches into a courthouse and demands the removal of the Ten Commandments for violation of a "law" that doesn't even exist, isn't that removal alone in turn violating freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc...

It makes no sense.
End Quote

Well summarized - I agree wholeheartedly.

Quoting:I certainly don't think any kind of "separation of church and state" enters into it.
End Quote

of course not. Why?  Because "Seperation of Church and State" does not exist.  :)

It all comes down to whehter or not somebody complains to a group like the ACLU or not about it.

Quoting:If it something as innocuous as headgear and required by their religion, they really should be allowed to wear their scarves over their head.End Quote

But that is what is so vexing about the ACLU! :(

They would probably agree with that statment, but, in the same breath, they would then turn around and say "no prayer in school", or "no 'Under God' in the 'Pledge of Allegience'" because it isn't Constitutional   ::) .

They are so inconsistant.  If they are going to spend the time and money to protect a Muslim's right to wear her head-gear in the name of Islam in school, then why are they so hell-bent on removing the "Under God" from the Pledge of Allegience in fear school-kids might be traumitized by hearing that dreaded word "God" in school?  Or better yet, removing all signs of Christianity from public view?

I'm seeing a trend here... :(