Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 11/30/2008 6:46:49 PM PST by Free ThinkerNY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: Free ThinkerNY
I think we need to start fighting the ACLU like we FReep other things.


2 posted on 11/30/2008 6:52:03 PM PST by Salvation ( †With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Free ThinkerNY

It’s tempting to make the ACLU an offer they can’t refuse....


3 posted on 11/30/2008 6:55:49 PM PST by G Larry (BarackÂ’s character has been molded by extremists)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Free ThinkerNY

It looks as though the God haters at the aCLU have won another one. Freedom of Religion my ass. Not in this country. The First Amendment has been turned completely on its head.


4 posted on 11/30/2008 6:55:58 PM PST by FlingWingFlyer (For more information on America's "new direction" read The Road to Serfdom. by Friedrich A. Hayek.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Free ThinkerNY

But somebody’s freedom of speech was violated. Doesn’t the ACLU care? If somebody wanted to promote pagan house cat sacrifice the ACLU would be all for it.


5 posted on 11/30/2008 6:56:13 PM PST by rdl6989
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Free ThinkerNY

Freedom of religion is achieved by religious repression. ACLU logic.


6 posted on 11/30/2008 6:56:57 PM PST by Mojave (http://barackobamajokes.googlepages.com/obama_funny)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Free ThinkerNY
Then the people should:
7 posted on 11/30/2008 6:57:22 PM PST by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Free ThinkerNY

This is not the same ACLU that was OUTRAGED when someone hacked into Sarah Palins records or invaded Joe the Plumbers multiple records, is it?

Tell me again, what they did to protect THEIR civil liberties..... I forgot!


8 posted on 11/30/2008 6:58:07 PM PST by dianed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Free ThinkerNY

Some real hatemongers in the ACLU. Anyone who gets upset over Christmas and its symbols have some real serious mental issues.

This stuff was fine a few years ago but now it’s not? The Constitution hasn’t changed, only the people who hate religion and its followers have changed.

And as other posters have noted, it’s time to fight back. I refuse to shop at Target once I heard it had booted The Salvation Army in the name of “multiculturalism.” I urge others to do the same. (Walmart allows TSA, I’ve dropped money in the kettle already this season)


9 posted on 11/30/2008 6:59:38 PM PST by A_Former_Democrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Free ThinkerNY

ACLU makes me sick! Can’t defend a mainstream tradition but it spares no expense protecting niche, weirdo, immoral fruitcakes.
Pay their wages in pieces of silver.


10 posted on 11/30/2008 6:59:59 PM PST by bossmechanic (If all else fails, hit it with a hammer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Free ThinkerNY

The brimstone-lined offices of the ACLU are Satan’s Children.


11 posted on 11/30/2008 7:04:55 PM PST by F16Fighter (I do not believe Kenyan-born Presidents are constitiutionally acceptable....YET.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Free ThinkerNY

American Communists Lie to U


12 posted on 11/30/2008 7:06:12 PM PST by redbloodredstate
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Free ThinkerNY

There are conservative groups like the Thomas Moore Law Center and Pacific Justice Institute who fight these cases. The city or residents may want to contact them.


13 posted on 11/30/2008 7:07:14 PM PST by Frantzie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Free ThinkerNY

Pontchatoula - such a lovely, small, old-time kind of place. Why do they pick on these kinds of places? Small town America, don’t be afraid, defy them, defy them, defy them!!! Never forget that the second part of the Second Amendment is “nor interfere with the free exercise thereof” = the part almost always forgotten.


14 posted on 11/30/2008 7:12:27 PM PST by smalltownslick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Free ThinkerNY

Call me old fashioned, but I remember a time when politicians from either party supported Christian values and strongly supported Christmas.

It’s a sad testament to what our country has become due to the efforts of a handful who represent the minority.

I’m hoping that America may one day see a new era when the MAJORITY rules and Christians aren’t afraid to stand up against petty tyrants who threaten them with court action for celebrating one of America’s most important annual events.

I can’t help but imagine how Jesus must feel about this. I have an image of his looking aghast upon us saying, “I was tortured and crucified and murdered on the cross by barbarians for THIS!!??? Father, explain the purpose to me again, I think someone has lost sight of the reasons I suffered to save humanity.”


17 posted on 11/30/2008 7:24:48 PM PST by DustyMoment (FloriDUH - proud inventors of pregnant/hanging chads and judicide!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Free ThinkerNY; All
It's no surprise that the constitutional flunky lawyers of the ACLU don't understand that the 1st A.'s prohibition on federal government power to regulate religion does not apply to the states. In fact, while justices argue that the 14th A. applied the 1st A.'s prohibition of religious powers on the federal government to the states, the problem is that Justice Owen Roberts misrepresented John Bingham's intentions for the 14th A. in Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940), Bingham being the main author of Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment. More specifically, Justice Roberts wrote the following indefensible statement in the Cantwell opinion.
"The First Amendment declares that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The Fourteenth Amendment has rendered the legislatures of the states as incompetent as Congress to enact such laws. The constitutional inhibition of legislation on the subject of religion has a double aspect." --Mr. Justice Roberts, Cantwell v. State of Connecticut 1940. http://tinyurl.com/38a87c
As evidenced by his statement above, Justice Roberts didn't do his homework concerning the 14th Amendment. This is because Bingham had clarified to Congress, both before and after the ratification of the 14th A., that the 14th A. was not intended to take away any state powers. See for yourself.
"The adoption of the proposed amendment will take from the States no rights (emphasis added) that belong to the States." --John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe http://tinyurl.com/2rfc5d

"No right (emphasis added) reserved by the Constitution to the States should be impaired..." --John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe http://tinyurl.com/2qglzy

"Do gentlemen say that by so legislating we would strike down the rights of the State? God forbid. I believe our dual system of government essential to our national existance." --John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe http://tinyurl.com/y3ne4n

And to make matters worse, Justice Black later used Justice Roberts' peversion of the 14th A. to misrepresent Jefferson's "wall of separation". More specifially, Justice Black ignored that Jefferson had acknowledged that the Founders had written the 1st and 10th Amendments in part to reserve government power to regulate religion uniquely to the states. In fact, Jefferson did so on at least three occasions. See for yourself.
"3. Resolved that it is true as a general principle and is also expressly declared by one of the amendments to the constitution that ‘the powers not delegated to the US. by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively or to the people’: and that no power over the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or freedom of the press being delegated to the US. by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, all lawful powers respecting the same did of right remain, & were reserved, to the states or the people..." --Thomas Jefferson, Kentucky Resolutions, 1798. http://tinyurl.com/oozoo

"In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the general government. I have therefore undertaken on no occasion to prescribe the religious exercises suited to it; but have left them as the Constitution found them, under the direction and discipline of State or Church authorities acknowledged by the several religious societies." --Thomas Jefferson: 2nd Inaugural Address, 1805. ME 3:378 http://tinyurl.com/jmpm3

"I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment or free exercise of religion, but from that also which reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the United States. Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise or to assume authority in religious discipline has been delegated to the General Government. It must then rest with the states, as far as it can be in any human authority." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Miller, 1808. http://tinyurl.com/nkdu7

As a side note, the 10th A. protected powers of the states are now limited by the honest interpretation of the 14th A., as opposed to the perversions of that amendment by corrupt majority justices. And speaking of 14th A. protections, the city in question should respect the following words of Jefferson with respect to local taxpayers, in my opinion, even though they are not constitutional law.
"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical." --Thomas Jefferson: Bill for Religious Freedom, 1779. Papers 2:545 http://www.religioustolerance.org/virg_bil.htm

22 posted on 11/30/2008 7:59:51 PM PST by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Free ThinkerNY

23 posted on 11/30/2008 8:13:40 PM PST by SandRat (Duty, Honor, Country! What else needs said?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Free ThinkerNY

Here is my suggestion: Instead of the cross this year put a much larger display that says that the ACLU is an anti-american front group for communist interests. That way the display is protected as political speech. We all know the ACLU protects that right?


24 posted on 11/30/2008 8:22:53 PM PST by DaveyB (Those who are merciful to the cruel will be cruel to the merciful.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Free ThinkerNY
Does the cross violate a specific LOUISIANA law?

If not, then the ACLU will lose.

No Federal court in the United States has any jurisdiction to rule on the subject of state-based religion or religious expression. None whatsoever. Any Federal ruling on the subject can be simply ignored (nullified) as an un-Constitutional violation of the 1st and 10th Amendments.

Only if it violates LA law is there a legal issue.

25 posted on 11/30/2008 8:23:57 PM PST by montag813 (www.FreepShop.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Free ThinkerNY

two cross-bars? it’s a lorraine cross! take that aclu!


26 posted on 11/30/2008 8:26:07 PM PST by rightwinggoth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson