Politics & Opinions

Screw You ACLU!

By Robehren

7 months ago

Read more: School, prayer, first amendment, rights, Florida, ACLU

The ACLU has determined that first amendment rights apply only to non-Christians. The following story delineates the lengths that the ACLU will go to in order to silence free speech; at least where those pesky Christians are involved.

The following story appeared in the Washington Times:

Educators face jail in Florida
By Julia Duin

Students, teachers and local pastors are protesting over a court case involving a northern Florida school principal and an athletic director who are facing criminal charges and up to six months in jail over their offer of a mealtime prayer.

There have been yard signs, T-shirts and a mass student protest during graduation ceremonies this spring on behalf of Pace High School Principal Frank Lay and school athletic director Robert Freeman, who will go on trial Sept. 17 at a federal district court in Pensacola for breaching the conditions of a lawsuit settlement reached last year with the American Civil Liberties Union.

"I have been defending religious freedom issues for 22 years, and I've never had to defend somebody who has been charged criminally for praying," said Mathew Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, the Orlando-based legal group that is defending the two school officials.

An ACLU official said the school district has allowed "flagrant" violations of the First Amendment for years.

"The defendants all admitted wrongdoing," said Daniel Mach, director of litigation for its freedom of religion program. "For example, the Pace High School teachers handbook asks teachers to 'embrace every opportunity to inculcate, by precept and example, the practice of every Christian virtue.' "

The fight involving the ACLU, the school district and several devout Christian employees began last August when the ACLU sued Santa Rosa County Schools on behalf of two students who had complained privately to the group's Florida affiliate, claiming some teachers and administrators were allowing prayers at school events such as graduations, orchestrating separate religiously themed graduation services, and "proselytizing" students during class and after school.

Holy cow Batman, this travesty cannot be allowed to stand. Imagine allowing prayers at school and school sponsored events. We have to trample the rights of everyone else so as to protect the rights of these two?

In January, the Santa Rosa County School District settled out of court with the ACLU, agreeing to several things, including a provision to bar all school employees from promoting or sponsoring prayers during school-sponsored events; holding school events at church venues when a secular alternative was available; or promoting their religious beliefs or attempting to convert students in class or during school-sponsored events.Mr. Staver said the district also agreed to forbid senior class President Mary Allen from speaking at the school's May 30 graduation ceremony on the chance that the young woman, a known Christian, might say something religious.
So much for due process, or the ability to face your accusers. For an organization that purports to protect individual rights they seemed to have stripped Mary Allen’s rights on nothing more substantive than the chance she may something religious; no proof or evidence of her intent to do something wrong.

Apparently just being Christian is now in and of itself enough to prevent you from exercising your rights to speech or even participating in school events. God help us all.

"She was the first student body president in 33 years not allowed to speak," he said.In response, many members of the 300-plus-member student body taped crosses to their mortarboards and stood for an impromptu recitation of the Lord's Prayer during the ceremony.Mr. Mach responded, "We believe students have the constitutional right to pray voluntarily in public or private. Constitutional problems arise only when public school officials promote or endorse prayer or specific religious views."The criminal charges, which carry up to a $5,000 fine and a six-month jail term, originated with a Jan. 28 incident in which Mr. Lay, a deacon at a local Baptist church, asked Mr. Freeman to offer mealtime prayers at a lunch for school employees and booster-club members who had helped with a school field-house project.Mr. Staver said no students were present at the event, which was held on school property but after school hours."He wasn't thinking he was violating an order," he said. "Neither did the athletic director. He was asked to pray and so he did."Mr. Mach said the event was during the school day and that Mr. Lay, the school's principal, has said in writing that students were present.
It brings to mind Orwell’s “thought police” in a more vivid manner than I am comfortable with. No students present, no coerced participation so can someone tell me what the problem is?

"Decisions about the religious upbringing of children should be left in the hands of parents, not school officials," he said. As to whether prayer constitutes "religious upbringing," he said, "If school officials were promoting non-majority faiths and religious viewpoints, I suspect there'd be an uproar."The ACLU brought the matter to the attention of U.S. District Court Judge M. Casey Rodgers, who issued a contempt order for the two men.Meanwhile, members of the small community of Milton, Fla., where Pace High School is located, have contributed more than $10,000 toward a legal defense fund for the defendants.Anti-ACLU T-shirts are also being sold and the proceeds donated.Judge Rodgers' order also included Michelle Winkler, a clerical assistant who was attending a school district event in February with other school employees at a local naval base. There, she asked her husband to offer a blessing for a meal, says the ACLU, adding that students were present and led the Pledge of Allegiance."She didn't do the blessing; she asked somebody to do it," Mr. Staver said. "The ACLU is sending people to school to monitor things happening on campus and see if there is anything encouraging religious activity, then running to the court if they see anything."Her trial, which could result in a fine, is scheduled for Aug. 21.

The ACLU does not represent the majority in this country. We have to reign in this crusade against our freedoms before we are left to lament the loss in silence; to do otherwise may result in civil/criminal proceedings.

This was originally published here

Random Post

The American Public School System is a Failure

Obama Wants More School Days and Hours for Ameri...

Mao Zedong: Anita Dunn’s Hero?

Religion & Human Rights

Lakeland man gets 2 years in prison for rap song...

...
Comments (3)

Respond

By TheJackB6 months ago

I don't feel badly for these people. The law is clear and they knew that they were wrong. Separation of church and state is clear. I don't care what religion it is, keep it out of the public schools.

Last post by TheJackB: The First Gray Hair

Respond

By Eddie7 months ago

The ACLU operates through intimidation, getting school entities to agree to out-of-court settlements under threat of having to pay exorbitant attorney fees in case they lose in court.

They are definitely anti-Christian in these school cases, infringing on people's rights to pray, even to the point of pulling the plug on a microphone when a speaker was about to mention the name of Jesus.

Last post by Eddie: A Constitutional Question

Respond

By MacAaron7 months ago

I once had a friendly argument with ACLU lawyer (now the mayor of Salt Lake City) about the issue of the Bill of Rights. I asked why the ACLU never defends second amendment cases.

His response was that the militia is defined in the 2A as the National Guard and "trained civilians."

We discussed some other issues, including those similar to this, and I asked him if the ACLU was really "pro rights" or not.

He said they skip some cases because of workload, relevance, etc. and they always consider the amount of press attention and other things they'll have to face in each one. He stated that they consider some "rights" more highly than others when defending them (namely the 1st A is "tops").

I asked him if he believed that we could have one right, but lose another and still be considered free. He said "no."

So I asked "If that's the case, then someone who believes in one right, but ignores another must be anti-rights. Since it's an all or one deal. Right?"

He said, "sure. All of the rights in the BoR work together."

So I said, "Then since the ACLU picks and chooses and ignores some of them, they must be anti-rights."

He found the logic amusing, at least.

I have worked with the ACLU in the past on issues, but those were single-issue only. They have their place, I guess, but should be opposed when they take the wrong side of an issue, as they have in this one apparently.

Last post by MacAaron: Even medical students want conventional medicine to include alternative therapies