The Constitution Does Not Reflect People's Will

Peter Eliasberg, an ACLU attorney may have well gone on to say, "and don't you Christians forget it...". Eliasberg is representing the ACLU in Los Angeles County in a lawsuit, which has spurned a petition drive by a non-profit group called the Los Angeles County Heritage Coalition to bring back the original county seal that has been targeted by the ACLU for it's Christian images.

Los Angeles City Councilwoman Janice Hahn and county Supervisor Mike Antonovich are leading the supporters to reinstate the original seal. Ms. Hahn's father designed the seal and she has stressed that the seal originally was designed to reflect the history of the people of the area, not a single religion.

Peter Eliasberg, the ACLU attorney who is seeking the change of the seal stated,

"Unlike many other government decisions, things that are prohibited by the Constitution cannot be changed by the will of the people, any more than the voters of Los Angeles could vote to close all the synagogues or all the mosques."

So, the ACLU wishes to have religious symbols removed from the court.

BUT, in North Carolina the opposite is the case...

The ACLU of North Carolina has called on the state Administrative Office of the Courts to adopt a policy allowing the Quran and other religious texts for oath-taking in North Carolina courtrooms. Guilford Senior Resident Superior Court Judge W. Douglas Albright and Guilford Chief District Court Judge Joseph E. Turner decided that they could not accept the Koran or other religious texts for courtroom use after an attempt by Muslims from the Al-Ummil Ummat Islamic Center in Greensboro to donate copies of the Quran to Guilford County's two courthouses last month.

Seth Cohen of Greensboro an ACLU attorney, is arguing that the judge's decision is a violation of the First Amendment establishment clause by favoring one religion over another. The key to the argument is interpretation of the original 1856 state Supreme Court decision which was called "Administration of oath upon the Gospels" that was revised by legislators in 1985 who took out "the Gospels" in the title and changed the language to simply read "Holy Scriptures". The ACLU is arguing that the Koran is considered "Holy Scriptures" and should be accepted for the swearing in of witnesses in the courtrooms.

So, in this instance the ACLU wishes to include even more religious symbols in the court.

Now, isn't this a farce? Does the ACLU really want religion to be part of our courts or not? It would appear that as long as there is a possible reason to sue, the ACLU doesn't care to what end purpose the lawsuit will have. That doesn't reflect practicing good law, it reflects greed. In both cases, should a lawsuit actually come about the people of these states will pay and pay dearly for a ruling. Rulings that, if the ACLU has their way, would be in direct opposition of each other.