PDA

View Full Version : Students, Legal Groups Stand Against Anti-Religious Court Order



FlaGator
06-07-2009, 07:38 AM
Some students stand up to the ACLU and the ACLU isn't happy about it


But critics say the order has gone too far and not only violates the First Amendment rights of school faculty and staff, but also students, some of which have already felt the brunt of the decree.

Members of the Fellowship of Christian Athletes and the Christian World Order at Jay High School, for example, were denied access to benefits and privileges available to other student groups because of the religious nature of their speech. Teachers at the same school were also told not to participate in private baccalaureate services sponsored by a local ministerial association despite the fact that the school property was rented for the event in accordance with district policy.

“While we appreciate the District’s concern for abiding by the recent Consent order ... treating FCA and CWO equally with other student clubs in no way violates this Order,” wrote David A. Cortman, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, in a letter last month to the principal of Jay High School, the superintendent of the Santa Rosa County School District, and members of the Santa Rosa County School Board.

After receiving the letter, school officials reversed the decisions it had made, allowing FCA and CWO equal access to benefits and privileges and granting permission to teachers to attend private baccalaureate services.

But religious freedom groups say there is still work to do.

At Pace High School, the student body and senior class presidents were barred from speaking at their own graduation ceremony due fears of prosecution.

In response, nearly 400 graduating seniors stood up last Saturday during their commencement ceremony in protest against the ACLU and recited the Lord’s Prayer. Many of the students also painted crosses on their graduation caps to make a statement of faith.

Though the ACLU has not taken any legal action yet, the legal group has stated that something should have been done to stop the prayer.

Mathew D. Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel and dean of Liberty University School of Law, however, argues that any attempt to make schools religion-free is unconstitutional.

The whole article is here (http://www.christianpost.com/article/20090606/students-legal-groups-stand-against-anti-religious-court-order/index.html)

thinker
06-07-2009, 11:15 AM
The ACLU, NAACP, unions, and pretty much all the other activism groups that started up in the 60s (or earlier) have a problem. They started out with a goal that had merit. Then they got WAY more than they ever thought they would, and they've turned from useful social tools to effect civil liberty reform into institutions that now perpetrate the same sort of persecution and even, in some cases, oppression they once fought against.

Some of these groups, (the NAACP, for starters) really have no purpose anymore, and should just shrivel up and blow away with the rest of the dust of history.

The ACLU is slowly heading in that direction. The only reason I say they're not there yet is because over the last 8 years they've inadvertently done a bit of good by trying to dismantle the entire patriot act, and been successful with some of the more heinous portions.

stsinner
06-07-2009, 12:38 PM
N-National
A-Association for the
A-Abolition of
C-Caucasian
P-People

FlaGator
06-07-2009, 02:56 PM
The ACLU, NAACP, unions, and pretty much all the other activism groups that started up in the 60s (or earlier) have a problem. They started out with a goal that had merit. Then they got WAY more than they ever thought they would, and they've turned from useful social tools to effect civil liberty reform into institutions that now perpetrate the same sort of persecution and even, in some cases, oppression they once fought against.

Some of these groups, (the NAACP, for starters) really have no purpose anymore, and should just shrivel up and blow away with the rest of the dust of history.

The ACLU is slowly heading in that direction. The only reason I say they're not there yet is because over the last 8 years they've inadvertently done a bit of good by trying to dismantle the entire patriot act, and been successful with some of the more heinous portions.

Eventually they become organizations whose main purpose is to collect money. They have to invent reasons to stay in business and so they find problems where there are none. NOW, NAACP and labor unions all have to justify their existence on a daily basis or the money dries up and careers come to an end. It's one reason I suspect you will never see real cures for the major diseases. Call me jaded but too many careers would come to an end tomorrow if someone found a cure for cancer today.

CueSi
06-07-2009, 09:15 PM
N-National
A-Association for the
A-Abolition of
C-Caucasian
P-People

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v449/SweetKnight82/oh_christcopy.jpg

~QC

Constitutionally Speaking
06-08-2009, 12:23 PM
The ACLU, NAACP, unions, and pretty much all the other activism groups that started up in the 60s (or earlier) have a problem. They started out with a goal that had merit. Then they got WAY more than they ever thought they would, and they've turned from useful social tools to effect civil liberty reform into institutions that now perpetrate the same sort of persecution and even, in some cases, oppression they once fought against.

Some of these groups, (the NAACP, for starters) really have no purpose anymore, and should just shrivel up and blow away with the rest of the dust of history.

The ACLU is slowly heading in that direction. The only reason I say they're not there yet is because over the last 8 years they've inadvertently done a bit of good by trying to dismantle the entire patriot act, and been successful with some of the more heinous portions.

I would suggest that the purpose of the ACLU NEVER was meritorious.

It was founded by communists who are on record as saying their intention was to undermine this government and turn it to communism.




I am for socialism, disarmament, and, ultimately, for abolishing the state itself... I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and the sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal. - Roger Nash Baldwin founder of the ACLU



“Do steer away from making it look like a Socialist enterprise…We want also to look like patriots in everything we do. We want to get a good lot of flags, talk a good deal about the Constitution and what our forefathers wanted to make of this country, and to show that we are really the folks that really stand for the spirit of our institutions.”-Baldwin’s advice in 1917 to Louis Lochner of the socialist People’s Council in Minnesota.


This is irrefutable evidence of the purpose and methodology of the ACLU - the second quote particularly is telling.

They want to LOOK like patriots in everything they do - all the while undermining this nations foundations.

PoliCon
06-08-2009, 12:26 PM
Some students stand up to the ACLU and the ACLU isn't happy about it



The whole article is here (http://www.christianpost.com/article/20090606/students-legal-groups-stand-against-anti-religious-court-order/index.html)

You have to love the way that the ACLU targets KIDS and schools with fear tactics. They are NOT for protecting civil liberties - they are for creating a communist society.

noonwitch
06-08-2009, 12:40 PM
When I was in school, we had a baccalaureate service at the school on the Sunday before graduation. I attended this service all four years, as the first 3, I had to play with the orchestra for it. It was a religious service for graduates, focusing on prayer and hope for the futures of the kids. Pretty much everybody in my school was either a christian or a nominal christian. The speaker my senior year was an evangelical, but that wasn't the case every year. Even the atheist kid attended, and the one jewish kid in my grade came with his parents.

We didn't have FOCA at my school, we had Young Life. Their counselors were allowed to come into the school at lunchtime and meet with us. Anyone's minister/rabbi/priest was given the same permission, they all just had to check into the office first (so the school knew who was on their grounds).


I am convinced that most of the complaints in these situations come from irrational parents who don't care about what their kids' opinions are, but want to make everyone else accomodate theirs. Maybe I'm just projecting because my mom was that kind of parent, but I don't think the ACLU would get involved without somebody complaining to them, and that person is most likely a parent like my mom.

PoliCon
06-08-2009, 12:43 PM
I don't think the ACLU would get involved without somebody complaining to them, and that person is most likely a parent like my mom. The ACLU goes hunting for these parents.

thinker
06-08-2009, 01:16 PM
The ACLU goes hunting for these parents.

QFT.

thinker
06-08-2009, 01:57 PM
@ CS - all good points, and I don't disagree. I never said to trust the ACLU. However, they have done good things in this nation's history, inadvertently. They're a very, very, double edged sword - they might help in the short run, but you'd better be prepared for what they're going to want and/or do in the long term.

I, for one, am happy with Brown v. Board of Ed. and ACLU v. NSA. On the other hand, I'm really not happy with some of the religious presentation cases. The "Under God" lawsuit makes me want to smack a barrelfull of em.

noonwitch
06-08-2009, 02:17 PM
The ACLU goes hunting for these parents.


Luckily, they never found my mom. I had enough problems with her trying to control my beliefs and thoughts when I was a teen and young adult. If they'd given her a platform....

Both my parents objected to the Gideons handing out Bibles to 5th graders. They signed my permission slip to get one, but they both told me it was wrong for the school to have the Gideons come in, because doing so made religion an issue that other kids might use to single another out for harassment. They were right about that issue.

To this day, my mom will hold to her hatred of any (christian) religion other than her own, which she barely participates in anymore. I'm going to be visiting Grand Rapids in the end of July and I plan to visit Mars Hill Bible Church, because I read the pastor's book and am intrigued by his ideas. I know she's going to give me a hard time about it, and I'm 44 years old! Even if she says nothing to me about it, she'll go complain to my sister about how I snubbed her church (that she won't be attending that day) to go to some "megachurch that meets in an old mall".

FlaGator
06-08-2009, 03:40 PM
You have to love the way that the ACLU targets KIDS and schools with fear tactics. They are NOT for protecting civil liberties - they are for creating a communist society.

And you are spot on in your assement. Their job seems to be to take some "civil rights" and to redefine them so broadly that just about any signal act can be considered a right and at the same time an infringement upon some other right. They will argue that the KKK has the right to speak their philosophy in the heart of a predominately black community and when they win that case they will argue that the blacks can sue the KKK for hate speech that inflames racism against blacks.

Odysseus
06-08-2009, 08:21 PM
The ACLU, NAACP, unions, and pretty much all the other activism groups that started up in the 60s (or earlier) have a problem. They started out with a goal that had merit. Then they got WAY more than they ever thought they would, and they've turned from useful social tools to effect civil liberty reform into institutions that now perpetrate the same sort of persecution and even, in some cases, oppression they once fought against.

Some of these groups, (the NAACP, for starters) really have no purpose anymore, and should just shrivel up and blow away with the rest of the dust of history.

The ACLU is slowly heading in that direction. The only reason I say they're not there yet is because over the last 8 years they've inadvertently done a bit of good by trying to dismantle the entire patriot act, and been successful with some of the more heinous portions.
The NAACP goes back a lot further than the sixties. Unfortunately, it was overcome by events and rendered irrelevent by the more radical groups, and has since sought relevence by becoming the Democratic Party's black house organ. Whenever they need to attack a black conservative, it's the ACLU that does the heavy lifting.

I would suggest that the purpose of the ACLU NEVER was meritorious.
It was founded by communists who are on record as saying their intention was to undermine this government and turn it to communism.
This is irrefutable evidence of the purpose and methodology of the ACLU - the second quote particularly is telling.
They want to LOOK like patriots in everything they do - all the while undermining this nations foundations.
And, of course, we can never question their patriotism, but they get to attack ours at every turn. Look at Al Gore's insane speech after the invasion of Iraq, where he shouted that Bush had "betrayed his country" at the top of his lungs. If anyone publicly said that about Obama or Clinton, they'd be crucified (figuratively, since the ACLU would have a problem with nailing someone to a cross, although they might relent if someone else was nailed to a Star of David and a Crescent nearby for inclusion's sake).

And you are spot on in your assement. Their job seems to be to take some "civil rights" and to redefine them so broadly that just about any signal act can be considered a right and at the same time an infringement upon some other right. They will argue that the KKK has the right to speak their philosophy in the heart of a predominately black community and when they win that case they will argue that the blacks can sue the KKK for hate speech that inflames racism against blacks.
If you take a basic right and distort it to the point where it's original meaning is completely alien to its current application, you can subvert it without seeming to do it. Look at free speech. The founders wanted every American to have an unrestricted right to criticize their government. It had nothing to do with "expression" or any other pretense of communication, but now, after years of bizarre jurisprudence and campaign finance laws, a stripper can go topless or an "artist" can smear dung on a religious icon (as long as it's a Christian icon), and it's free expression, but if you criticize an elected official before an election, it's a thought crime.

thinker
06-08-2009, 08:59 PM
that started up in the 60s (or earlier)

Thank you for restating the previous, I guess?