Full Version: ACLU Back-Fire?
Demonstrations in Los Angeles Against Changing the County Seal
Topics:
Will the counter-suit work?
Is Muise correct?
Is there merit to this case?
QUOTE
ROBERT MUISE, THOMAS MORE LAW CENTER: Well, on June 1, the county supervisors originally voted to remove the seal to cave in to the ACLU demands. And people obviously were very irate by that. We are contacted by many people.
In fact, we did your radio show last week. And an individual who listened to it contacted us and he wanted us to bring an action on his behalf, which we did on Friday. We actually sued the Los Angeles County and the supervisors because the seal, as adopted in 1957, does not convey a religious message. It conveys the culture and social significance of many of those symbols, including the cross, the influence of Christianity in California.
But now by the county supervisors removing that cross, singling it out for disfavored treatment, they are conveying an impermissible message of hostility towards Christianity, which the establishment clause forbids.
O'REILLY: OK...
MUISE: And we have taken positive action.
O'REILLY: Let me stop you there. So somebody heard "The Factor" radio program about this when you were on. They called your office in Michigan. You said, we'll take the case. You're filing suit against Los Angeles County and who else?
MUISE: And the board of supervisors, which is the governing body.
O'REILLY: OK, -- all right, themselves. And you're saying, look, you are being prejudicial against what?
MUISE: Against Christianity, because the symbol itself does not convey a message, despite what the ACLU claims. That symbol is completely defensible. And as you stated, we made a public statements that we would represent the county against the ACLU.
.........
O'REILLY: All right, are you going to get an injunction to prevent them from doing anything to remove the cross. Is that your first step?
MUISE: We're asking the court to declare first that the seal as adopted in 1957 is constitutional. We want them to declare that they have policy that was adopted June 1 to remove the seal and now reaffirm today is unconstitutional. And we're going to seek an injunction to prevent them from removing the cross from the seal.
In fact, we did your radio show last week. And an individual who listened to it contacted us and he wanted us to bring an action on his behalf, which we did on Friday. We actually sued the Los Angeles County and the supervisors because the seal, as adopted in 1957, does not convey a religious message. It conveys the culture and social significance of many of those symbols, including the cross, the influence of Christianity in California.
But now by the county supervisors removing that cross, singling it out for disfavored treatment, they are conveying an impermissible message of hostility towards Christianity, which the establishment clause forbids.
O'REILLY: OK...
MUISE: And we have taken positive action.
O'REILLY: Let me stop you there. So somebody heard "The Factor" radio program about this when you were on. They called your office in Michigan. You said, we'll take the case. You're filing suit against Los Angeles County and who else?
MUISE: And the board of supervisors, which is the governing body.
O'REILLY: OK, -- all right, themselves. And you're saying, look, you are being prejudicial against what?
MUISE: Against Christianity, because the symbol itself does not convey a message, despite what the ACLU claims. That symbol is completely defensible. And as you stated, we made a public statements that we would represent the county against the ACLU.
.........
O'REILLY: All right, are you going to get an injunction to prevent them from doing anything to remove the cross. Is that your first step?
MUISE: We're asking the court to declare first that the seal as adopted in 1957 is constitutional. We want them to declare that they have policy that was adopted June 1 to remove the seal and now reaffirm today is unconstitutional. And we're going to seek an injunction to prevent them from removing the cross from the seal.
Topics:
Will the counter-suit work?
Is Muise correct?
Is there merit to this case?
Will the counter-suit work?
No. It will, however, compound the troubles of the LA County government as they find themselves trapped in the middle. Time spent by government officials embroiled in the matter equates to man-hours lost, which in turn translates to taxpayer dollars lost.
Is Muise correct?
No.
Is there merit to this case?
Ultimately, no. The basic thrust of Mr. Muise's argument is that if the government removes the cross, they are conveying an impermissible message of hostility towards Christianity, which the establishment clause forbids. Mr. Muise is framing LA County as the "government" in this interpretation. However, he is forgetting that the Courts are also the "government," and the Courts will probably rule against the Christian Cross being on the county government seal based on the evidence surrounding its adoption in recognition of the "religious life" of the area and the fact that at the time of its adoption in 1957, some local residents complained that they perceived it to be an endorsement of Christianity; there are no major symbols from any of the other major religious faiths on the seal. It is not the LA County government that will ultimately remove the seal, but the order of the Courts.
For a moment, recall every other major establishment case where a Court has ordered Government to cease and desist, or remove religious symbols from official seals or public places. In each of those cases, how would the argument "the symbol can not be removed because that conveys an impermissible message of hostility towards Christianity" fare in stopping the Court from ordering a first amendment remedy?
The afforementioned article is apparently a discussion from the "The O'Reilly Factor" on June 8, 2004 between Mr. Muise and Bill O'Reilly. Ostensibly Fair and balanced, it would be interesting to learn what Mr. Muise and Mr. O'Reilly would think of the ACLU's actions in the cases previously mentioned in other threads, like the one where the ACLU defended a high school students right to inscribe a personal Christian prayer in the official school yearbook. Or the one where the ACLU defended a Christian Church's right to place religious advertisements on the City Transit Authoritys billboards. Or this case:
http://archive.aclu.org/news/1999/n032299c.html
Some of the graves contained Christian Crosses and the ACLU intervened, fighting against the City's plan to remove them. However, Mr. Muise persists in his belief that the ACLU only attacks religion.
No. It will, however, compound the troubles of the LA County government as they find themselves trapped in the middle. Time spent by government officials embroiled in the matter equates to man-hours lost, which in turn translates to taxpayer dollars lost.
Is Muise correct?
No.
Is there merit to this case?
Ultimately, no. The basic thrust of Mr. Muise's argument is that if the government removes the cross, they are conveying an impermissible message of hostility towards Christianity, which the establishment clause forbids. Mr. Muise is framing LA County as the "government" in this interpretation. However, he is forgetting that the Courts are also the "government," and the Courts will probably rule against the Christian Cross being on the county government seal based on the evidence surrounding its adoption in recognition of the "religious life" of the area and the fact that at the time of its adoption in 1957, some local residents complained that they perceived it to be an endorsement of Christianity; there are no major symbols from any of the other major religious faiths on the seal. It is not the LA County government that will ultimately remove the seal, but the order of the Courts.
For a moment, recall every other major establishment case where a Court has ordered Government to cease and desist, or remove religious symbols from official seals or public places. In each of those cases, how would the argument "the symbol can not be removed because that conveys an impermissible message of hostility towards Christianity" fare in stopping the Court from ordering a first amendment remedy?
The afforementioned article is apparently a discussion from the "The O'Reilly Factor" on June 8, 2004 between Mr. Muise and Bill O'Reilly. Ostensibly Fair and balanced, it would be interesting to learn what Mr. Muise and Mr. O'Reilly would think of the ACLU's actions in the cases previously mentioned in other threads, like the one where the ACLU defended a high school students right to inscribe a personal Christian prayer in the official school yearbook. Or the one where the ACLU defended a Christian Church's right to place religious advertisements on the City Transit Authoritys billboards. Or this case:
http://archive.aclu.org/news/1999/n032299c.html
QUOTE
ACLU Defends Families Fighting Removal Of Religious Symbols from Florida Cemetery (March 22, 1999)
WEST PALM BEACH, FL -- In the first case to be filed under Florida's new Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida goes to trial today on behalf of seven families seeking to prevent the removal and destruction of religious symbols placed at the gravesites of their loved ones.
WEST PALM BEACH, FL -- In the first case to be filed under Florida's new Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida goes to trial today on behalf of seven families seeking to prevent the removal and destruction of religious symbols placed at the gravesites of their loved ones.
Some of the graves contained Christian Crosses and the ACLU intervened, fighting against the City's plan to remove them. However, Mr. Muise persists in his belief that the ACLU only attacks religion.
No, no, and hell no.
This isn't a counter-suit of any sort, because there is no suit to counter. The county supervisors voted to changed the seal, which, if I am not mistaken, is fully in their power to do. There is nothing unconstitutional about removing a cross from the county seal, because there is nothing in the Constitution that says county seals are required to have crosses.
Good try, though, Bobby, good try.
This isn't a counter-suit of any sort, because there is no suit to counter. The county supervisors voted to changed the seal, which, if I am not mistaken, is fully in their power to do. There is nothing unconstitutional about removing a cross from the county seal, because there is nothing in the Constitution that says county seals are required to have crosses.
Good try, though, Bobby, good try.
I am no legal expert, so take whatever I say with a very large grain of salt.
Without considering whether Muise is right or wrong, I don't think he has much of a legal case. As I understand it, he is taking the county to court to try to force them to confront the ACLU in a court battle. I don't see why he would be able to force them to do this, if they have chosen not to. Maybe someone can explain a legal reason why he would be able to do this.
As a supporter of absolute separation of church and state, I don't think Muise is right. His contention that "The symbol itself does not convey a message" seems odd to me. You can't have it both ways. If the cross is not a symbol of Christianity (a contention I find hard to accept) than it is not a "message of hostility to Christianity" to remove it. If it is a symbol of Christianity, than it does not belong on a government seal.
Obviously, I don't think this case has merit. I have to admit that this particular issue is not the most important violation of the separation of church and state in the nation, and if I were the head of the ACLU I would concentrate on more blatant violations. However, I think the ACLU is on the right side of the question.
Without considering whether Muise is right or wrong, I don't think he has much of a legal case. As I understand it, he is taking the county to court to try to force them to confront the ACLU in a court battle. I don't see why he would be able to force them to do this, if they have chosen not to. Maybe someone can explain a legal reason why he would be able to do this.
As a supporter of absolute separation of church and state, I don't think Muise is right. His contention that "The symbol itself does not convey a message" seems odd to me. You can't have it both ways. If the cross is not a symbol of Christianity (a contention I find hard to accept) than it is not a "message of hostility to Christianity" to remove it. If it is a symbol of Christianity, than it does not belong on a government seal.
Obviously, I don't think this case has merit. I have to admit that this particular issue is not the most important violation of the separation of church and state in the nation, and if I were the head of the ACLU I would concentrate on more blatant violations. However, I think the ACLU is on the right side of the question.
I'm in agreement that Mr. Muise has no case and would like to point out that he refutes his own argument in the small transcript we have of him and O'Reilly. First Muise suggests the ACLU and county supervisors are wrong in removing the seal because "the seal, as adopted in 1957, does not convey a religious message." Of course, right after that he goes on to say "It conveys the culture and social significance of many of those symbols, including the cross, the influence of Christianity in California." What is a symbol of Christian influence in California if not a religious message? Mr. Muise knows why the ACLU and county supervisors took the action that they did, whether he can admit it to himself or not.
He's also rather confused about the course of action he's going to take, stating toward the end of the transcript:
Either way, Mr. Muise is left with no case.
He's also rather confused about the course of action he's going to take, stating toward the end of the transcript:
QUOTE
O'REILLY: OK, -- all right, themselves. And you're saying, look, you are being prejudicial against what?
MUISE: Against Christianity, because the symbol itself does not convey a message, despite what the ACLU claims. That symbol is completely defensible. And as you stated, we made a public statements that we would represent the county against the ACLU.
So... the cross does not convey a religious message, but somehow seeking to remove it would demonstrate prejudice against Christianity? As much as he may like, Mr. Muise cannot have it both ways. Either it is a religious symbol that the ACLU and county supervisors are justified in having removed or it is not, and Mr. Muise would have no place to claim religious persecution.MUISE: Against Christianity, because the symbol itself does not convey a message, despite what the ACLU claims. That symbol is completely defensible. And as you stated, we made a public statements that we would represent the county against the ACLU.
Either way, Mr. Muise is left with no case.
Will the counter-suit work?
Absolutely not. It seems almost ridiculously ludicrous and juvenile, actually. Almost like a prank. I really am confused.
For a number of reasons.
First, taking a cross off of a seal violates absolutely no constitutional protections of any kind, nor does it injure anybody in any case.
Second, that taking such action would be in any way sending a "hostile message to Christianity" really makes no sense.
If the cross is not symbolic of Christianity, then how can its removal send a hostile message to Christianity?
Is Muise correct?
Does not seem like it. But I doubt the court will even get past standing issues.
I am actually not sure what point he is trying to make. A county board changed the seal....and Muise takes this to mean that Christianity itself has been struck a blow?
About the ACLU's claim, it seems a little more shaky--but they probably are correct. In that the seal is unconstitutional. The fact remains, regardless of whatever it is Muise is trying to say here, that a cross is a symbol of Christianity. Unless the seal happened to have a nice, colorful, multi-symbolic arrangement of religious crests, I doubt that the court would let the image stand. Even then, they might not.
So, No. Unless I misunderstand the article, I cannot fathom any scenario where Muise might be anywhere near correct.
Is there merit to this case?
No. I don't even think there is any injury, and without injury I find it hard to believe that any court would respect his argument. Is Muise claiming any injury? Or some sort of injury to the Christian faith? I belive, in this sort of case, concerning the Establishment Clause, that the burden of proof would be on Muise to show that there is a concrete injury. In other words, someone must have had their rights violated--and I can't find that anywhere in Muise's argument.
I think I answered what I believe a Court, especially a California Court, would actually find on the merits--if they even looked at them.
Absolutely not. It seems almost ridiculously ludicrous and juvenile, actually. Almost like a prank. I really am confused.
For a number of reasons. First, taking a cross off of a seal violates absolutely no constitutional protections of any kind, nor does it injure anybody in any case.
Second, that taking such action would be in any way sending a "hostile message to Christianity" really makes no sense.
If the cross is not symbolic of Christianity, then how can its removal send a hostile message to Christianity?
Is Muise correct?
Does not seem like it. But I doubt the court will even get past standing issues.
I am actually not sure what point he is trying to make. A county board changed the seal....and Muise takes this to mean that Christianity itself has been struck a blow?
About the ACLU's claim, it seems a little more shaky--but they probably are correct. In that the seal is unconstitutional. The fact remains, regardless of whatever it is Muise is trying to say here, that a cross is a symbol of Christianity. Unless the seal happened to have a nice, colorful, multi-symbolic arrangement of religious crests, I doubt that the court would let the image stand. Even then, they might not.
So, No. Unless I misunderstand the article, I cannot fathom any scenario where Muise might be anywhere near correct.
Is there merit to this case?
No. I don't even think there is any injury, and without injury I find it hard to believe that any court would respect his argument. Is Muise claiming any injury? Or some sort of injury to the Christian faith? I belive, in this sort of case, concerning the Establishment Clause, that the burden of proof would be on Muise to show that there is a concrete injury. In other words, someone must have had their rights violated--and I can't find that anywhere in Muise's argument.
I think I answered what I believe a Court, especially a California Court, would actually find on the merits--if they even looked at them.
I would ask people to go back in this debate and follow what has been said and consider truth in the context of the argument in this case.
Truth - There is no doubt that the City and County of Los Angeles were founded primarily by Christian missionaries, this is a truth that is undisputed. This is a part of the historical heritage of Los Angeles.
Truth - There is no doubt that Spanish conquistadors such as Balboa played a very important part in the development of Los Angeles and Southern California. They too are a part of the historical heritage of Los Angeles.
Given these two irrefutable truths, one must wonder what the difference is between them. It seems to me that the ONLY difference is that one references a religion and one doesn't specifically. So, why should we differentiate between the two if not to deny religion it's place in Los Angeles history? I would submit that denying a historical past simply because it includes a religious reference is indeed a violation of the First Amendment.
There is nothing in that seal that harms anyone. Christians, Jews, Muslims, Atheists, Pagans, Buddists, Agnostics, you name it. There are people from every belief that have done well in LA, and the cross in the seal had nothing to do with it one way or the other. It is simply an acknowledgment of a very big part of the heritage of Los Angeles County. To deny that acknowledgment of history based on religion is discriminatory against the people of Los Angeles County, Christian or not, and that is wrong and, unconstitutional.
Truth - There is no doubt that the City and County of Los Angeles were founded primarily by Christian missionaries, this is a truth that is undisputed. This is a part of the historical heritage of Los Angeles.
Truth - There is no doubt that Spanish conquistadors such as Balboa played a very important part in the development of Los Angeles and Southern California. They too are a part of the historical heritage of Los Angeles.
Given these two irrefutable truths, one must wonder what the difference is between them. It seems to me that the ONLY difference is that one references a religion and one doesn't specifically. So, why should we differentiate between the two if not to deny religion it's place in Los Angeles history? I would submit that denying a historical past simply because it includes a religious reference is indeed a violation of the First Amendment.
There is nothing in that seal that harms anyone. Christians, Jews, Muslims, Atheists, Pagans, Buddists, Agnostics, you name it. There are people from every belief that have done well in LA, and the cross in the seal had nothing to do with it one way or the other. It is simply an acknowledgment of a very big part of the heritage of Los Angeles County. To deny that acknowledgment of history based on religion is discriminatory against the people of Los Angeles County, Christian or not, and that is wrong and, unconstitutional.
The case has real legal merits and the ACLU is way off base on this. The intent of the ACLU has allways been to expunge any vistage of religion and morality from the public square. I for one think this kind of frivioulas minipulation of the Civil Courts is a blantant attempt to subvert the original intent of the First Amendment.
"In America, religion and morality have been mutually reinforcing. Anyone seeking to corrupt the morals of America would want to drive religion out of the public square. George Washington once remarked, "of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports." He warned about those who purport to be patriots, but who undermine "these great pillars of human happiness."
L.A. County's Seal and the Real Agenda of the ACLU
First Amendment rights extend to the states rights to have a symbol in their seal since the Federal government has no authority to exercise authority not explictly given. You may not like the cross but it doesnt change the fact that missionaries were the centers of the settlements out west. Christianity has had a profound influence on the governance and for the most part this has been a positive influence. We forget that morality and religion were inseperatly linked in the minds of the founders and it is pure folly to allow the ACLU to try to create a collective amnesia in the name of the First Amendment. Frankly, I think its a perversion of the First Amendment.
"In America, religion and morality have been mutually reinforcing. Anyone seeking to corrupt the morals of America would want to drive religion out of the public square. George Washington once remarked, "of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports." He warned about those who purport to be patriots, but who undermine "these great pillars of human happiness."
L.A. County's Seal and the Real Agenda of the ACLU
First Amendment rights extend to the states rights to have a symbol in their seal since the Federal government has no authority to exercise authority not explictly given. You may not like the cross but it doesnt change the fact that missionaries were the centers of the settlements out west. Christianity has had a profound influence on the governance and for the most part this has been a positive influence. We forget that morality and religion were inseperatly linked in the minds of the founders and it is pure folly to allow the ACLU to try to create a collective amnesia in the name of the First Amendment. Frankly, I think its a perversion of the First Amendment.
Phaedrus and Aguilla: I can't find myself to agree with you for a number of reasons.
No, the case has no legal merits, nor would it ever be granted standing.
Two issues here really.
1.) Does the case have standing?
No. How were those listed on the suit actually injured? To repeat, there is no concrete, measureable, reconciliable injury here. Having one's religious faith on the county seal is not a right we American's have. Having it removed thus causes no harm that the Court is prepared to remedy.
2.) The merits.
The case does not have legal merit. The county voted to remove the cross from the seal. Next, Muise filed suit.
Petitioner claims injury to, presumably the Christian faith. The injury is, in his words is that the "...county supervisors [by] removing that cross, singl[ed] it out for disfavored treatment" and thus were "conveying an impermissible message of hostility towards Christianity". Muise claimed that the Christian Cross was not, in fact symbolic of Chrsitianity. Ignoring the logical fallacies in this argument, Muise then contends that the removal of the symbol was a violation of the Establishment Clause.
This is not a violation of the Establishment Clause. A violation of the Establishment Clause would be if the Catholic Church was taught in school. Or if children were required to read from the Bible.
In fact, the cross is not "being singled out for disfavored treatment". It is being treated the same as every other religious symbol on the seal: by being removed. If on the seal they left the Star of David that signified the influence of those of the Jewish persuasion on LA then that in fact, would be favoring the Semite faith. In this particular case, the board merely removed all religious symbolism. Which is perfectly fine and acceptable.
The elected legislature is completely within its rights to alter the seal of the county in any way they see fit. Removal of a religious symbol is in no way a violation of the Establishment Clause.
One can't sue to have their particular religion emblazoned on the County Seal--regardless of its historical significance.
The complete lack of legal grounding coupled with the total emptiness of logic that Muise rhetoric contains (the cross is not symbolic of Christianity, but removing it damages Christianity) leads one to believe that his suit is laughable.
QUOTE
The case has real legal merits and the ACLU is way off base on this...
No, the case has no legal merits, nor would it ever be granted standing.
Two issues here really.
1.) Does the case have standing?
No. How were those listed on the suit actually injured? To repeat, there is no concrete, measureable, reconciliable injury here. Having one's religious faith on the county seal is not a right we American's have. Having it removed thus causes no harm that the Court is prepared to remedy.
2.) The merits.
The case does not have legal merit. The county voted to remove the cross from the seal. Next, Muise filed suit.
Petitioner claims injury to, presumably the Christian faith. The injury is, in his words is that the "...county supervisors [by] removing that cross, singl[ed] it out for disfavored treatment" and thus were "conveying an impermissible message of hostility towards Christianity". Muise claimed that the Christian Cross was not, in fact symbolic of Chrsitianity. Ignoring the logical fallacies in this argument, Muise then contends that the removal of the symbol was a violation of the Establishment Clause.
This is not a violation of the Establishment Clause. A violation of the Establishment Clause would be if the Catholic Church was taught in school. Or if children were required to read from the Bible.
In fact, the cross is not "being singled out for disfavored treatment". It is being treated the same as every other religious symbol on the seal: by being removed. If on the seal they left the Star of David that signified the influence of those of the Jewish persuasion on LA then that in fact, would be favoring the Semite faith. In this particular case, the board merely removed all religious symbolism. Which is perfectly fine and acceptable.
The elected legislature is completely within its rights to alter the seal of the county in any way they see fit. Removal of a religious symbol is in no way a violation of the Establishment Clause.
One can't sue to have their particular religion emblazoned on the County Seal--regardless of its historical significance.
The complete lack of legal grounding coupled with the total emptiness of logic that Muise rhetoric contains (the cross is not symbolic of Christianity, but removing it damages Christianity) leads one to believe that his suit is laughable.
So, the anti-ACLU argument is that changing the seal harms Christians by removing the cross, yet it should be allowed to remain because it isn't specifically a Christian symbol? Am I the only one failing to see how 2+2+5 here?
If removing the cross harms Christians, they cannot claim that it's inclusion doesn't harm non-Christians. It makes no sense logically.
If removing the cross harms Christians, they cannot claim that it's inclusion doesn't harm non-Christians. It makes no sense logically.
As long as one chooses to frame this issue as being about the "denial of history", they will never be able to see the other side of the story. Never underestimate the power of denial.
The ACLU agreed with the County that they could substitute the Christian Cross with an image of a Spanish missionary building and the result would be completely acceptable - a reference to the history of the Spanish missionary influence, without keeping the primary symbol of a major faith on the government seal.
Denial of history is the red herring argument, a convenient distraction from addressing the real issue. If the cross on the existing seal is no big deal... if people of other faiths (Jews, Muslims, Atheists, Pagans, Buddists, Agnostics, etc) should not feel that Christianity is elevated to a higher status by being on the government seal... then why is the cross being defended so vehemently?
The ACLU agreed with the County that they could substitute the Christian Cross with an image of a Spanish missionary building and the result would be completely acceptable - a reference to the history of the Spanish missionary influence, without keeping the primary symbol of a major faith on the government seal.
Denial of history is the red herring argument, a convenient distraction from addressing the real issue. If the cross on the existing seal is no big deal... if people of other faiths (Jews, Muslims, Atheists, Pagans, Buddists, Agnostics, etc) should not feel that Christianity is elevated to a higher status by being on the government seal... then why is the cross being defended so vehemently?
QUOTE
The case has real legal merits and the ACLU is way off base on this. The intent of the ACLU has allways been to expunge any vistage of religion and morality from the public square. I for one think this kind of frivioulas minipulation of the Civil Courts is a blantant attempt to subvert the original intent of the First Amendment.
Well, I have trouble with the ACLU at times, but their actions cut both ways. There a certainly not anti-christian. Here are some examples:
A girl wanted a Bible verse under her picture in the yearbook, and the school said no. The ACLU defended the girl, and won.
ACLU supports Bible Verse in Yearbook
The Reverend Jerry Falwell sues Lynchburg and the state of Virginia, claiming that laws limiting the amount of land churches can own are unconstitutional.
The American Civil Liberties Union offered to support the Rev. Jerry Falwell in his challenge of Virginia laws that restrict how much property a church can own.
ACLU Support Falwell in suit vs. Virginia over Church land ownership rights
The ACLU, considered by many to be on a crusade to remove every form of religious expression, specifically Christianity, from the public arena, is siding with a Virginia church wanting to baptize believers in a river in a public park.
ACLU Supports Baptist Church that wants to Baptise members in a river on a public park.
QUOTE
7. Why is the ACLU against God/Christianity/the Bible?
The ACLU strongly supports our country’s guarantee that all people have the right to practice their own religion, as well as the right not to practice any religion. The best way to ensure religious freedom for all is to keep the government out of the business of pushing religion on anybody. The ACLU strongly supports the separation of church and state. In practice, this means that people may practice their religion--just not with government funding or sponsorship. This simple principle in no way banishes or weakens religion. It only means that no one should have somebody else’s religion forced on him or her, even if most other people in a community support that religion.
The ACLU strongly supports our country’s guarantee that all people have the right to practice their own religion, as well as the right not to practice any religion. The best way to ensure religious freedom for all is to keep the government out of the business of pushing religion on anybody. The ACLU strongly supports the separation of church and state. In practice, this means that people may practice their religion--just not with government funding or sponsorship. This simple principle in no way banishes or weakens religion. It only means that no one should have somebody else’s religion forced on him or her, even if most other people in a community support that religion.
ACLU FAQ (PDF file from ACLU)
QUOTE
LAS VEGAS, NV -- Under pressure from local religious and civil rights leaders, Clark County Clerk Shirley Parraguirre said yesterday she is shelving new licensing regulations that would have required police background checks for ministers who perform marriages.
The ACLU of Nevada, which was the first organization to express opposition when the new regulations were announced last week, said it looks forward to working with county officials to address the constitutional questions surrounding the plan.
The ACLU of Nevada, which was the first organization to express opposition when the new regulations were announced last week, said it looks forward to working with county officials to address the constitutional questions surrounding the plan.
ACLU fight new fingerprinting requirements for Clergy
The ACLU is not Anti-Religion. It is Anti Government involvement in Religion. It doesn't matter if the Government supports or Opposes Religion, if the government involves it's self in religious issues, the ACLU is there.
There are likely many more cases to be found where the ACLU support Christians, and other Religions. THe above listed are the a few I found.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.