PDA

View Full Version : ACLU vs. God



82Marine89
08-26-2007, 01:41 AM
When an organization finds itself squarely in the sights of the ACLU, and other uber-Leftist groups like the Anti-Defamation League and the self-proclaimed “People for the American Way,” we can be sure that the organization is exercising its constitutional rights in a meaningful and meritorious way.

Such is the case with a curriculum for teaching about the Bible in government schools developed by the nonprofit National Council on Bible Curriculum In Public Schools. The case against NCBCPS is filed as “Moreno v. Ector County (Texas) school board,” but the real plaintiff is the ACLU and the real defendant is, well, God.

NCBCPS is a small North Carolina organization with a nickel-and-dime budget. For ten years, this group has been distributing a teacher guide, The Bible as History and Literature, for school districts desiring to teach about the Bible in that context. NCBCPS provides interested parents a template for introducing the curriculum to their school district in an effort to get this elective high-school course funded.

The NCBCPS course provides students with an entry-level understanding of the Bible’s influence in history, literature and our legal and educational systems, as well as art, archaeology and other aspects of civilization. Appropriately, students use the most widely circulated text in history, the Bible, as their textbook.

Though the teacher guide is, clearly, not as well edited as the slick texts produced and marketed by the nation’s leading academic publishing houses, the NCBCPS curriculum has, nonetheless, been implemented by more than 400 school districts in 37 states. More than 200,000 young people have been through the course.

Indeed, every student in America should understand the Bible’s role in our nation’s founding and principles—and why.

What did our Founders have to say about the Bible? “The Bible is the best of all books, for it is the word of God... Continue therefore to read it and to regulate your life by its precepts.” —John Jay (1784) “Religion is the only solid basis of good morals; therefore education should teach the precepts of religion and the duties of man towards God.” —Gouverneur Morris (1791) “[W]here is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation deserts the oaths...?” —George Washington (1796) “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” —John Adams (1798) “[T]he only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be laid in religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments.” —Benjamin Rush (1806)

According to Chuck (Roundhouse Kick) Norris, an NCBCPS board member and advocate for government school Bible curricula, “A study by the American Political Science Review on the political documents of the founding era (1760-1805), [reported] that 94 percent of the period’s documents were based on the Bible, with 34 percent of the contents being direct citations from the Bible. The Scripture was the bedrock and blueprint of our Declaration of Independence, our Constitution, academic arenas and heritage until the last quarter of a century.”

Unfortunately, in that last quarter century, judicial activists have done everything in their power to Expel God from the academy.

Ken Blackwell, a national advocate for the restoration of our Constitution, writes, “In 1968, the liberal Warren Court carved out a narrow rule that if the government spends any money on something that involves faith, a person can be so offended that this creates a mental ‘injury’ for which they can sue. This rule, from Flast v. Cohen, [is] a weapon of choice of the Left to purge the public square of all reference to God.”

The Left is using that weapon to expel the NCBCPS curriculum from one school district—and, by proxy, the entire nation.

The ACLU chooses these cases very carefully, mapping the district and circuit courts through which the cases will advance, and only filing suit in locales where they believe there are enough judicial activists willing to do their bidding.

Accordingly, on 16 May 2007, eight parents of high-school kids in the Ector County (TX) school district are suing the school board to have the NCBCPS curriculum removed. One interesting aspect of this case involves the standing of the parents—none of their children are actually in the course because, after all, it is an elective.

Ector County adopted the NCBCPS curriculum last year after a local resident, John Waggoner, collected 6,000 signatures on a petition asking for a Bible course.

To that end, ECISD school-board trustee L.V. Foreman, a defendant in the suit, exclaimed with typical Texanese eloquence, “If they don’t have children in the class, they can kiss my butt. They’re just looking to impose their beliefs and their views on everybody and we don’t put up with that crap out here.”

The NCBCPS has issued a response to the charges, and NCBCPS board member Mike Johnson, legal counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund, says the curriculum “meets all tests” for constitutionality. “As one of the people who read and gave an editorial viewpoint it does a good job of presenting the Bible objectively.”

Elizabeth Ridenour, NCBCPS President, says, “The real objection to our curriculum is not the qualifications of our academic authorities, but the fact that we actually allow students to hold and read the Bible for themselves, and make up their own minds about its claims. [Opponents are] fearful of academic freedom and are trying to deny local schools and communities the right to decide for themselves what elective courses to offer their citizens. This is not freedom, it is totalitarianism.”

Ah, yes, precisely what Founding Patriot Thomas Jefferson meant when expressing his concern that the judiciary might become a Despotic Branch. “[T]he opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not... would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.”

Thirty years after the Constitution’s ratification, Jefferson wrote, “The judiciary of the United States is the subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly working under ground to undermine the foundations of our confederated fabric. They are construing our constitution from a co-ordination of a general and special government to a general and supreme one alone...[T]he germ of dissolution of our federal government is in... the federal Judiciary.”

Five years later, just before his death in 1826, Jefferson warned, “One single object...[will merit] the endless gratitude of the society: that of restraining the judges from usurping legislation.”

Clearly our Constitution forbade such mischief: Arguing for its ratification, Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist No. 81, notes, “[T]here is not a syllable in the [Constitution] which directly empowers the national courts to construe the laws according to the spirit of the Constitution, or which gives them any greater latitude in this respect than may be claimed by the courts of every State.”

The first line in our Constitution’s treasured Bill of Rights states plainly: “Congress (emphasis added) shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...” But judicial activists, interpreting the “spirit” of the Constitution, have, in Jefferson’s words, rendered it “a mere thing of wax... which they may twist and shape into any form they please.”

Back in Odessa, the ACLU and other plaintiffs may be banking on breaking the bank in Odessa—in essence, picking a district with limited resources for defense, and hoping to extort them into folding. They also chose Texas because that state’s House of Representatives almost unanimously passed a bill authorizing the training of teachers for classes on the Old and New Testaments. That bill is now before the Texas State Senate.

If we were still a “nation of laws,” our Constitution would not have been rendered unrecognizable by judicial diktat, and this case would never have gotten through a courtroom door. Unfortunately, the so-called “Living Constitution” today is but a faint shadow of the bold document drafted by our Founders, ratified by the states, and defended with the life blood and sacrifice of millions of Patriots since.

LINK (http://archive.patriotpost.us/pub/07-34_Digest/index.php#continued)

diuretic
08-26-2007, 02:06 AM
Why don't you just have a referendum on whether or not you want the US (when I say "you" I mean the US populus) to become a Christian theocracy. If the separation of Church and State is to be removed and the State and the various Christian Churches (Judaism, Islam and other religions practised in the US by Americans would of course not get a look in) could then start running things.

No need for Congress. No elections. Just get the Churches to send representatives to the Washington DC Synod. The President could also be the Head of the Church of America. Anyone who didn't want to convert to the Church of America could have the choice of being shipped out to one of the many countries offering asylum for religious refugees from the US or they could be put to death summarily by the Religious Police and Religious Courts.

82Marine89
08-26-2007, 02:14 AM
Why don't you just have a referendum on whether or not you want the US (when I say "you" I mean the US populus) to become a Christian theocracy. If the separation of Church and State is to be removed and the State and the various Christian Churches (Judaism, Islam and other religions practised in the US by Americans would of course not get a look in) could then start running things.

No need for Congress. No elections. Just get the Churches to send representatives to the Washington DC Synod. The President could also be the Head of the Church of America. Anyone who didn't want to convert to the Church of America could have the choice of being shipped out to one of the many countries offering asylum for religious refugees from the US or they could be put to death summarily by the Religious Police and Religious Courts.

Google the U.S. Constitution and show me where it says there is a separation of Church and State. Last time I checked it said, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Missileman
08-26-2007, 02:44 AM
Google the U.S. Constitution and show me where it says there is a separation of Church and State. Last time I checked it said, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

I've got no beef with elective Bible classes, but, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"would include appropriations legislation IMO. Using public funds to pay for a Christian course would violate the first amendment.

Why is it necessary to move religious education from homes and churches into public schools?

What might the repercussions be if a Catholic teacher were to teach something to a Baptist student and the parents disapproved? Are schools going to have to offer a separate Bible course for each denomination? Are parents going to be allowed to dictate the denomination of the teacher?

Is the purpose of the course educational or spiritual? If it's only educational, could an atheist teach it?

avatar4321
08-26-2007, 04:35 AM
What might the repercussions be if a Catholic teacher were to teach something to a Baptist student and the parents disapproved?

How come this is never asked when the left is trying to force other subjects on students that parents dont like?

82Marine89
08-26-2007, 07:16 AM
I've got no beef with elective Bible classes, but, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"would include appropriations legislation IMO. Using public funds to pay for a Christian course would violate the first amendment.

Why is it necessary to move religious education from homes and churches into public schools?

What might the repercussions be if a Catholic teacher were to teach something to a Baptist student and the parents disapproved? Are schools going to have to offer a separate Bible course for each denomination? Are parents going to be allowed to dictate the denomination of the teacher?

Is the purpose of the course educational or spiritual? If it's only educational, could an atheist teach it?

In California, they teach Islam during the 7th grade school year, Children are required to take a Muslim name and live the Muslim lifestyle for a week. Class trips include a visit to the local mosque. I disapprove of it, yet it has not been changed. Why should they be allowed to do that but not be allowed to teach Christianity? Why doesn't the ACLU scream to the high Heavens about this? Answer... Christianity bad, Everything else good.

Dilloduck
08-26-2007, 07:43 AM
I've got no beef with elective Bible classes, but, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"would include appropriations legislation IMO. Using public funds to pay for a Christian course would violate the first amendment.

Why is it necessary to move religious education from homes and churches into public schools?

What might the repercussions be if a Catholic teacher were to teach something to a Baptist student and the parents disapproved? Are schools going to have to offer a separate Bible course for each denomination? Are parents going to be allowed to dictate the denomination of the teacher?

Is the purpose of the course educational or spiritual? If it's only educational, could an atheist teach it?

Christianity was ESTABLISHED before America became a country--I think we're safe. Congress has NEVER established an official religion in America. We're still safe. If our government ever says that people must practice a particular religion, we're in trouble.

diuretic
08-26-2007, 07:51 AM
In California, they teach Islam during the 7th grade school year, Children are required to take a Muslim name and live the Muslim lifestyle for a week. Class trips include a visit to the local mosque. I disapprove of it, yet it has not been changed. Why should they be allowed to do that but not be allowed to teach Christianity? Why doesn't the ACLU scream to the high Heavens about this? Answer... Christianity bad, Everything else good.

They're not "teaching" Islam, they're being taught about it. And that sounds like it might be a constructivist approach where the emphasis is on learning by various means but emphasises experience, usually in groups, rather than the didactic transmission of information. As a kid I went to Catechism classes. I was taught religion, not about religion. There's a difference.

82Marine89
08-26-2007, 08:51 AM
They're not "teaching" Islam, they're being taught about it. And that sounds like it might be a constructivist approach where the emphasis is on learning by various means but emphasises experience, usually in groups, rather than the didactic transmission of information. As a kid I went to Catechism classes. I was taught religion, not about religion. There's a difference.

Bullcrap. Taking a Muslim name and living the lifestyle for a week is indoctrination. How would you feel if we made all students live like Jesus for a week and assume the name of one of the Apostles? Is that considered "being taught"? Nope, the ACLU would fight calling it a violation of the seperation of Church and State.

Missileman
08-26-2007, 12:50 PM
Christianity was ESTABLISHED before America became a country--I think we're safe. Congress has NEVER established an official religion in America. We're still safe. If our government ever says that people must practice a particular religion, we're in trouble.

Are you REALLY trying to argue that the first amendment was put in place to ONLY prevent the government from creating a NEW religion?

Missileman
08-26-2007, 01:01 PM
In California, they teach Islam during the 7th grade school year, Children are required to take a Muslim name and live the Muslim lifestyle for a week. Class trips include a visit to the local mosque. I disapprove of it, yet it has not been changed. Why should they be allowed to do that but not be allowed to teach Christianity? Why doesn't the ACLU scream to the high Heavens about this? Answer... Christianity bad, Everything else good.

Are they told that Allah is the one true god? Are they told that the Koran is the only source of relgious truth? When I was in school and taking foreign language courses it was customary to adopt a name from that language and to try to experience some of the culture in a limited sense. Do you think that meant that I was being indoctrinated into switching my citizenship to Spain or France?

Why should Christian kids need a class taught in schools to familiarize themselves with Christian culture? Aren't they living it?

truthmatters
08-26-2007, 01:04 PM
It is amazing how people cant seem to understand the separtion of church the founders pklanned and why?

It was designed to protect religion as well as protect the government of our country from religion.

Guernicaa
08-26-2007, 01:21 PM
How come this is never asked when the left is trying to force other subjects on students that parents dont like?
Because the information in those classes usually has something of a proven substance to stand on other than biblical fairy tales.

Guernicaa
08-26-2007, 01:27 PM
People who advocate including Christianity in our government are in a simple sense...stupid. All you have to do is look to other countries where the governments are based around religious theocracy to see how bad it is when you mix the state and government.

Why the fuck would we have biblical precepts in US law when a huge percentage of people in our country don’t practice Christianity or dont believe in it? It blows my mind when conservatives try advocating this shit. It’s insane.

82Marine89
08-26-2007, 02:16 PM
Why the fuck would we have biblical precepts in US law when a huge percentage of people in our country don’t practice Christianity or dont believe in it? It blows my mind when conservatives try advocating this shit. It’s insane.

:link:

Guernicaa
08-26-2007, 03:20 PM
:link:

http://www.adherents.com/rel_USA.html
About 75% of the country identify as "Christian".

Now, compare that number to people who actually practice:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/rel_rate.htm

I consider myself "Christian" for cultural reasons. My family's Catholic, I go through all the traditions and charades, but I consider myself agnostic as well. This is also how many of my friends identify themselves.

truthmatters
08-26-2007, 04:12 PM
When this world considers religion a private personal matter we will have a much more peacful world.

avatar4321
08-26-2007, 05:55 PM
Because the information in those classes usually has something of a proven substance to stand on other than biblical fairy tales.

Few things in life are proven.

Secularism in particular.

avatar4321
08-26-2007, 05:57 PM
When this world considers religion a private personal matter we will have a much more peacful world.

But religion is more than just a private personal matter. its a community matter as well. When you deny the community aspects of a religion you lose its meaning entirely.

There is a reason 6 of the 10 commandments deal with community issues.

diuretic
08-26-2007, 07:56 PM
Bullcrap. Taking a Muslim name and living the lifestyle for a week is indoctrination. How would you feel if we made all students live like Jesus for a week and assume the name of one of the Apostles? Is that considered "being taught"? Nope, the ACLU would fight calling it a violation of the seperation of Church and State.

I'd need to see the curriculum to be able to make a critical assessment. First question, which other religions/cultures are studied in this manner, using these approaches? Second question depends on the answer to the first, if Islam is the only religion studied in this manner, why?

As for the Christian aspect, a child doesn't need to study the cultural aspects of Christianity in the States, the culture is heavily influenced by Christianity. It would be akin to a child in a suburb of Paris moving to Toulouse to study French culture for a week.

diuretic
08-26-2007, 08:02 PM
But religion is more than just a private personal matter. its a community matter as well. When you deny the community aspects of a religion you lose its meaning entirely.

There is a reason 6 of the 10 commandments deal with community issues.

Only in the sense that a religion creates communities is that a valid statement. In a secular society religion isn't a public - as in whole of society - process.