Home » Intelligent Design » ACLU Alarmed Over Well Going Dry

ACLU Alarmed Over Well Going Dry

The Public Expression of Religion Act of 2005 passed by a 244-173 house vote Tuesday. The bill bans the award of attorney fees in establishment clause cases (like Kitzmiller v. Dover). The ACLU has turned establishment clause cases into a cottage industry for underemployed lawyers. Naturally, they are quite alarmed at this turn of events.

More at Stop The ACLU.

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

14 Responses to ACLU Alarmed Over Well Going Dry

  1. Dave,

    I understand your disdain for the ACLU, but doesn’t this work the other way around, too? What if a church feels like it’s religious rights are being violated and wants to take the issue to court and the ACLU isn’t there with its gigantic endowment? How are the poor constituents of that church possibly going to afford a lengthy legal battle?

  2. mjb2001,
    Are you suggesting that churches are now going to be without the legal representation of the ACLU? I’m confused, I thought it was the Anti-Church Legal Union.

  3. Jack Golightly,
    The ACLU may have helped churches more often than you think. See http://home.comcast.net/~aasch.....stians.htm

  4. Thomas Moore, ACLJ… and others litigate on behalf of Christians. I do not need a communist inspired organization to defend my rights. Good riddance and excellent job by StoptheACLU watchdog activist.

    Besides, George Soros can easily plop down a cool 5-20 million any day and does to buy the such talents as the ACLU braintrust, as well as other organizations. This will hardly stop them square in their tracks, but it will make the donors spend more money in their efforts to continue to squash the liberty of small town USA, local governing bodies and states rights to govern themselves without interference from the federal government.

    At least now they can no longer merely do it by fear and intimidation in the form of a letter. The only civil rights violated in Dover – were those attacked by the ACLU and Judge Jones. That of the right of local school boards to govern themselves who are funded by local tax payors.

    This can potentially pull money from other areas of subversive activity against “this greatest nation on G_d’s green earth.”

    Smiles, couldn’t help but quote Michael Medved for such an occassion. Another liberal who left the blindfold behind and cast his net upon the right side of the boat.

  5. Well, ofro, without studying those links extensively, I still have doubts about their motivations.

  6. At least now they can no longer merely do it by fear and intimidation in the form of a letter.

    Civics lesson: A bill has to pass both houses of Congress and gain the signature of the president to become law. As best I can tell, the Senate version of the bill never got out of the judiciary committee, and today is the last day of this session of Congress. Does anyone have information to the contrary.

    But let’s get down to the real power of the ACLU — it wins a high percentage of the relatively few cases it accepts. If you believe at all in the notion that the American judicial system renders justice, then this means that the ACLU often takes on just causes. If you are the chair of a school board and you get a letter from the ACLU, there is good reason to be circumspect.

    But back to the 12th-hour passage of a bill that had been in the House for a year — is it really an attempt to accomplish something, or is it brazen electioneering, meant to get representatives to come down on one side or the other, and meant also to get fools to think that certain representatives made a sincere effort to hamstring the ACLU.

  7. The law doesn’t ban fees in free exercise cases, only establishment cases. That means anyone who’s right to practice their religion is being abridged can still win attorney fees.

    Tom English is likely correct that it won’t make it through the senate.

    The president’s signature, should it ever get to him, is a sure thing.

  8. “I do not need a communist inspired organization to defend my rights.”

    Wow. These kind of extremist comments certainly don’t make this blog look good. And “StoptheACLU” is probably one of the last websites I’d visit for information on the ACLU.

    The ACLU frequently defends the rights of Christians, but unfortunately, a lot of conservative Christians operate with blinders on and only remember (or comment) with the cases they disagree with.

    The ACLU is nowhere near perfect and it’s obvious to me that they ignore the 2nd amendment read the establishment clause very strictly, but I believe they are a valuable organization for all American citizens.

  9. That darn anti-Christian ACLU!!

    http://www.aclu.org/religion/d.....60929.html

  10. . dodgingcars // Sep 29th 2006 at 7:57 pm

    That darn anti-Christian ACLU!!

    http://www.aclu.org/religion/d.....60929.html

    Comment by dodgingcars — September 29, 2006 @ 7:57 pm

    Nice post. They will defend Wiccans (per your link) and ignore Muslim jihadist role-playing in California public schools, while forcing the City of Los Angeles (“City of Angels”) to remove the small Catholic Mission from the city’s seal!

    The ACLU is a defender of liberal/leftist values, not traditional American Judeo-Christian values. I’m pretty sure the only reason they don’t go after the annual nativity display in front of my town’s city hall is that it’s a majority black (African-American) city and blacks are an important liberal constituency.

  11. The ACLU is a defender of liberal/leftist values…

    Absolutely correct! Everybody remembers when the ACLU defended the right of neo-Nazis to march in Skokie, Illinois. But wait… Are fascists left or right? I always get mixed up.

    … not traditional American Judeo-Christian values.

    Correct, again! Some Christians say the ACLU is a Jewish organization opposing Christian values, e.g.,

    According the KFMB San Diego, the ACLU has just filed a lawsuit against the federal government in regards to Mt Soledad Cross located in San Diego County, California (on behalf of a Jewish Veterans Organization). [source]

    but you and I know better, don’t we?

    I’m pretty sure the only reason they don’t go after the annual nativity display in front of my town’s city hall is that it’s a majority black (African-American) city and blacks are an important liberal constituency.

    Yeah. Some fools think the ACLU cannot sue your city officials. They think the organization can only represent parties that have legal standing to sue, but you and I know better, don’t we?

    And yes, those blacks are such a favored race, aren’t they? Has your town elected a black mayor and / or majority-black city council yet? I have seen white people in various Mississippi towns suffer “grievously” when the blacks gained political power. How would you feel if the black mayor ordered the school superintendent to display passages from the Koran in the hallways of your child’s school? Would you ask the ACLU to represent you, or would you maintain your purity?

  12. The law doesn’t ban fees in free exercise cases, only establishment cases. That means anyone who’s right to practice their religion is being abridged can still win attorney fees.

    So, the local government of a heavily Muslim area decides to institute manditory head coverings for women when out in public. And you’re totally fine with the citizenry ponying up the cash to pay for the ensuing legal battle? Somehow I find that hard to believe.

  13. 13

    Actually, dodgingcars, it’s not extremist at all to call the ACLU a communist-inspired organization, because that’s precisely what it is. It’s a simple matter of record that Roger Baldwin, the founder of the ACLU, was a communist and formed the group to appeal to communist sentiments.

    Here’s a quote from Baldwin on the ACLU and its goals:

    “I have continued directing the unpopular fight for the rights of agitation, as director of the American Civil Liberties Union. I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal.”

    So, in less a statement of fact can somehow be extremist, the comment wasn’t extremist in any sense.

    You can’t take a few cases supporting Christian causes, ignoring their overall record, then claim the ACLU is all for Christian’s rights in this country. Of course they defend Christian groups every now and then- it’s called PR. You want to claim that your organization isn’t totally biased, so you branch out every now and then and claim- ‘look at this case here and here where we defended a conservative Christian group’s rights. We can’t be anti-Christian or anti-US with these cases under our belt!’ You can’t take the fact that nearly all terrorists are muslim and then say that islam=terrorism. Same sort of thing.

    It’s like a racist claiming he has a number of black friends. It’s all for show and public perception. Trying not to completely tarnish your image.

  14. 14

    edit- make that:

    “So, unless a statement of fact can somehow be extremist, the comment wasn’t extremist in any sense.”

Leave a Reply