Please Help Katrina's Victims
Our prayers are with all of those who have been devastated by Katrina, and to all of those working to help the victims.
We are a non-demoninational group that is dedicated to promoting faith in God and in our country and the freedom to practice it. Religious beliefs in public places have come under attack. We encourage everyone to place crosses, Stars of David, and other religious emblems on their property, in their windows, and on their cars to support this effort.
Many local governments across Georgia and other states begin their meetings with a prayer and reference the Christian deity during the invocation. However, the ACLU says doing so is unconstitutional, and last year federal courts in South Carolina agreed with them.
"The courts have said that if they are going to have these prayers, they have to be inclusive," said Maggie Garrett, a staff attorney for ACLU of Georgia who filed earlier this month against the Cobb County government for the practice.Source
To understand the worldwide ideological battle - especially the one between America itself - one must understand the vast differences between leftist and rightest worldviews and between secular and religious (specifically Judeo-Christian) values.
One of the most important of these differences is their attitudes toward law. Generally speaking, the Left and the secularists venerate, if not worship law. They put their faith in law-both national and international. For most of the Left, "Is it legal?" is usually the question that determines whether an action is right or wrong....
To the Left, legality matters most, while to the Right, legality matters far less than morality. To the Right and to the religious, the law, when it is doing its job, is only a vehicle to morality, never a moral end in itself. Even the Left has to acknowledge this. When Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat to a white man on a Montgomery, Alabama, bus in 1955, she violated the law. Therefore, anyone who thinks she did the right thing is acknowledging that law must be subservient to morality...
And why is the Left so enamored by law?
First, the Left, which is largely secular, regards morality no as absolute, but as relative. This inevitability leads to moral confusion, and no one likes to be morally confused. So instead of moral absolutes, the left holds legal absolutes. "Legal" for the Left is what "moral" is for the Right. The religious have a belief in a God-based moral law, and the Left believes in man-made law as the moral law.
Second, whereas they cannot change God's laws, those on the Left can and do make many of society's laws. In fact the Left is intoxicated with law-making. It gives them the power to mold society just as Judeo-Christian values did in the past. Unless one understands that the leftist ideals function as a religion, one cannot understand the Left.
Laws are the Left's vehicles to earthly salvation. Virtually all human problems have a legal solution. Some men harass women? Pass laws banning virtually every flirtatious action a man might engage in vis-a-vis a woman. Flood legislatures with laws preventing the creation of a "hostile work environment." Whereas the religious world has always worked to teach men how to act toward women, the secular world, lacking these religious values, passes laws to control men.
In fact, since it lacks the self-control apparatus that is a major part of religion, the Left passes more and more laws to control people. That is why there is a direct link between the decline in Judeo-Christian religion and the increase in governmental laws controlling human behavior.
Of course, the more laws that are passed, the less liberty society enjoys. But to the Left, which elevates any number of values above liberty-e.g. compassion, equality, fairness- this presents little problem.
All this helps to explain the Left's preoccupation with controlling courts; passing laws; producing, enriching and empowering lawyers; filing lawsuits; and naming judges. Laws and the makers of laws will produce heaven on earth. And that is why the Left hates the America....(that) says morality is higher than man-made law.
This type of thinking leads to totalitarian societies that the ACLU and its leftist allies say they oppose but Roger Baldwin admired during their "struggle in a transition period to Socialism." When society exalts individual rights over collective responsibility, then speech or actions seen as interfering with the right of the individual must be silenced. When law, instead of God, is seen as the salvation of mankind, more and more restrictive laws are passed to ultimately limit freedom rather than expand it.ACLU Vs. America
ALLIANCE DEFENSE FUND NEWS RELEASE
August 19, 2005 - FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT ADF MEDIA RELATIONS: (480) 444-0020
Federal appeals court rejects attack
on Nebraska Ten Commandments monument
U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit says monument constitutional,
cites U.S. Supreme Court decision in Van Orden v. Perry
ST. LOUIS - The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit today ruled against the ACLU in their attack upon a monument bearing the Ten Commandments in Plattsmouth, Neb. The court reversed the decision of a district court judge who ruled the monument unconstitutional, vacating the position of a three-judge panel of the court that earlier upheld the district court's decision.
"One offended passerby does not amount to a violation of the Establishment Clause," said ADF Senior Counsel Gary McCaleb. "The court rightfully rejected the argument that this monument promotes religion. It has been present for many decades in the corner of a city park without any complaints. It is perfectly constitutional, as has been argued in this case from the beginning."
ADF-allied attorney Jeff Downing, of the Lincoln, Neb., law firm Keating, O'Gara, Davis & Nedved, helped defend the case, ACLU of Nebraska v. City of Plattsmouth, with lead attorney Frank Manion of the American Center for Law and Justice.
The Fraternal Order of Eagles donated the granite monument, inscribed with the Ten Commandments, to the city in 1965. The monument stands in the corner of a 45-acre memorial park ten blocks from city hall. In 2001, the ACLU sued the city on behalf of an unidentified man who claimed the monument violated the so-called "separation of church and state," even though the city did not routinely maintain the monument.
A federal district court judge granted summary judgment in favor of the ACLU, but the 8th Circuit panel reversed that decision, relying upon the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Van Orden v. Perry, which concerned a similar monument in Texas.
Today's opinion states, "The Ten Commandments monument had stood on the Texas State Capitol grounds for forty years without legal challenge. In Justice Breyer's view, 'those 40 years suggest more strongly than can any set of formulaic tests that few individuals...are likely to have understood the monument as amounting, in any significantly detrimental way, to a government effort' to promote, endorse, or favor religion."
"Like the Ten Commandments monument at issue in Van Orden," the court added, "the Plattsmouth monument makes passive-and permissible-use of the text of the Ten Commandments to acknowledge the role of religion in our Nation's heritage."
The full text of the court's opinion can be read HERE ADF provided funding for the case and for a friend-of-the-court brief filed with the appeals court by the National Legal Foundation.
ADF is America's largest legal alliance defending religious liberty through strategy, training, funding, and litigation.
www.telladf.org
"They believe that they answer to a higher power, in my opinion. Which is the kind of thinking that you had with the people who flew the airplanes into the buildings in this country, and the people who did the kind of things in London."
Tangipahoa school officials tell reporters it's ludicrous to compare the Tangipahoa school board's "fight for religious freedom and freedom of expression in schools" with terrorist motivated attacks.
Jay--
Great site man. Good resources for all Americans.
Sept. 1, Alan Sears will release his second book -- The ACLU vs. America.
Would you and/or Nedd like an advance copy? Shoot me an email back and I can drop it in the mail pretty quick. This thing is a sledgehammer to the ACLU's ugly knees.
Best--
Greg
LOS ANGELES - For years, the American Civil Liberties Union (search) and other groups have fought to remove any trace of religion from government and public life, and for years they've won.
Now the ACLU is facing a challenge from groups such as the Alliance Defense Fund (search), one of several Christian law firms formed in the 1990s.
From its base in Phoenix, the ADF says its goal is to defend religious liberty, the sanctity of human life and the traditional family against any person or group who attacks those principles.
"The ACLU has through the years filed a series of lawsuits that diminish the rights of Americans to understand their history, to exhibit in public, to exercise their faith in many ways," said ADF president and CEO Alan E. Sears.
In one of its better-known cases, the ADF sued the city and county of San Francisco and successfully argued before the California state Supreme Court that marriage licenses granted to same-sex couples should be declared null and void because the mayor and county clerk did not have the authority to issue them.
Now it's working on what it calls its "Christmas project," an effort to defend school districts around the nation against lawsuits to ban Christmas trees and other religious displays during the holidays.Fox News
"The ACLU's case was going nowhere fast," said Mike Johnson, an ADF attorney based in Shreveport. "Stockwell Place Elementary School's display of a creche was unquestionably lawful and legitimate, and its allowance of equal access for Christian student organizations is in perfect compliance with the First Amendment."
The man behind an online effort to rein in the American Civil Liberties Union is taking his campaign to America's churches, hoping to mobilize millions of believers into taking a stand against the legal organization.
As WorldNetDaily reported, Nedd Kareiva's StopThe ACLU.org is dedicating to ending the legal victories of the ACLU - from limiting the activities of the Boy Scouts to promoting same-sex marriage.
The website exists for one purpose, Kareiva says, "to mobilize millions of God-fearing, patriotic Americans to stand up to the ACLU agenda and consigning it to the ash heap of history (or export it to Communist regions)."
Now, the activist has begun a mailing campaign "to recruit pastors, church leaders and congregations to expose them to the ACLU's agenda. Just as the ACLU has 400,000 members, according to a recent article in the National Journal and another in the Washington Times, we are shooting for 1 million Stop the ACLU members."
On the website, Kareiva is asking for supporters to help him mail letters to churches across the nation. The form letter asks leaders and members "to visit the website and catch a vision of what we are doing."
Kareiva tells WND that since the ACLU visits college campuses to recruit followers, "we are countering them by going to our churches."
Said Kareiva: "Churches are at risk of the ACLU's agenda, particularly in efforts to force them to hire and prevent them from firing homosexuals and transsexuals."
"We want to build a huge public awareness campaign against the ACLU and hopefully getting churches on board will help facilitate it," the activist told WND. "Many are silent but when they see what we're doing, we think they'll mobilize... We already have a few pastors from various denominations across America. We need thousands more."
Kareiva ends his online pitch with a reference to the Almighty: "With your help, we can build massive public awareness of the ACLU's agenda and put the fear of God in them. Let's do it today!"
The lawsuit, filed by the ACLU Wednesday in federal court in Atlanta, claims the prayers before commission meetings are too Christian. One prayer ended, "in the name of Jesus our savior," and dozens more since 2003 mentioned Jesus, according to the lawsuit.Source
Civil liberties lawyers have appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court to allow a Wiccan priestess to offer prayers before a public board's meetings.Source
Please forward this message to your family and friends!
Should Intelligent Design Be Taught In Public Schools Alongside Evolution?
Recently President Bush was asked by a reporter if he felt intelligent design should be taught in public schools. President Bush replied: "Part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought. You’re asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, and the answer is yes."
The media immediately blasted the President for his comments. They made the front page of the liberal Washington Post. Should students be exposed to different ideas, or should they be shielded from information about intelligent design? Give us your opinion.
Click Here To Register Your Vote Now!
Please forward this On-Line Poll to friends and family. Results will be posted at AFA.net and forwarded to media outlets.
Sincerely,
Don
Donald E. Wildmon, Founder and Chairman American Family Association
(AgapePress) - A judge has tossed out a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union challenging prayers at school board meetings in Delaware. The lawsuit was filed against members of the Indian River School District Board of Education, a group that regularly opens its business meetings with prayer.Nice to hear that we have a judge that can actually see that prayer is not a violation of the Constitution. I'm always glad to hear about an ACLU defeat, and a victory for freedom of expression.
Judge Joseph Farnan ruled that the school board meeting prayers are not a violation of the constitutional provision often referred to as the separation of church and state or the "Establishment Clause," as the ACLU had argued. He also determined that the school board members are immune from the ACLU's liability claims.
In dismissing the case against the individual board members, the judge stated that opening a session of the legislature or other deliberative public body with a prayer does not violate the Establishment Clause. He also declared that absolute immunity extends to legislators at all levels of government, including school board members in Delaware.
The Rutherford Institute, an international, non-profit civil liberties organization that works to defend constitutional human rights, became involved in the Indian River school board's case after the Wilmington branch of the ACLU demanded that the district discontinue offering prayers at school events and graduation ceremonies, as well as at school board meetings. Despite ACLU pressure, the board members continued to open their meetings with a brief prayer.Read The Whole Thing
I also must note that I love it when people stand up for their rights. These board members didn't give an inch to the Anti-Chirstian Lawyers Union. More Christians need to start standing up to this dangerous organization. I applaud these board members for standing up for what they believed was right, and their constitutional rights.
Anyway, its a victory for the good guys, and I'm happy to be able to share it with you all.
“Both sides ought to be properly taught?”Bush said: "Then, I said that, first of all, that decision should be made to local school districts, but I felt like both sides ought to be properly taught...”
When asked,"So the answer accepts the validity of ‘intelligent design' as an alternative to evolution?"
President Bush replied,"I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought, and I'm not suggesting — you're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, and the answer is yes."
Why the controversy in such a simple statement? Because it gives the supporter's of intelligent design a plug by the President, who in his statements merely pointed out that our children should be exposed to "different schools of thought".
President Bush's calling either side of the controversy "schools of thought" points out the obvious. The "big bang theory" and "theory of evolution" are merely that - theories which in large are based on faith that the theory is correct. So teaching one school of thought and stifling the teaching of another could in effect be a violation of the 1st Amendment freedom of speech because both are based in a belief system with no absolute conclusive evidence to support it. Freedom of speech is based on the right to freely speak of ones beliefs regardless of the validity of those beliefs. Teaching intelligent design should not then be restricted from schools who believe that it is a valid theory - they are only exercising their 1st Amendment rights to speak freely of their beliefs.