ACLU Targets Jesus - Again

Out of Louisiana:

A small southern Louisiana town is the latest battleground for a classic First Amendment showdown over the separation of church and state, pitting a feisty judge with a painting of Christ in his courthouse against the nation's top civil liberties group.

The American Civil Liberties Union sued Judge Jim Lamz of Slidell, La., earlier this month for refusing to take down a portrait of Jesus Christ above the words "To know peace, obey these laws" displayed in a courthouse lobby. The judge says he believes the picture is legal, and the mayor of the city — the mayor and the town are also named in the lawsuit — called the ACLU "America's Taliban."

The case began when a man walked into the Slidell courthouse earlier this year and saw the portrait, which has hung there for a decade.

The man, who is insisting on anonymity because of the nature of the case, is named in the suit as "John Doe."

John Doe? If the picture of Jesus is so offensive that you feel the need to file a lawsuit AGAINST A JUDGE, couldn't you at least use your real name?

You can read the rest here.

This is why I live in Detroit instead of NYC

Unbelievable.

Reverend Billy says he wants the New York Police Department to get right with the Constitution.

The performance artist — a cross between a street-corner preacher and an Elvis impersonator (but blond) — was arrested on harassment charges last week while reciting the First Amendment through a megaphone in Manhattan's Union Square. On Monday, he donned his trademark white suit and returned to the scene of his alleged sin to demand that police repent.


Image © Associated Press






"It feels so good to be back on the very spot where I was denied my First Amendment rights by reciting the First Amendment," he told reporters over the din of an NYPD helicopter hovering overhead.

Reverend Billy, whose real name is Bill Talen, was joined by women in red choir robes who sang a hymn version of the amendment, which guarantees freedom of speech. Other activists distributed an amateur videotape of his arrest.

Eyes closed and hands raised, the pretend pastor whooped, "Bill of Rights-elujah!"

Talen, 57, has spent years using his mock persona as a fire-and-brimstone evangelist to rail against consumer culture — what he portrays as the Disneyfication of Manhattan. He was arrested this year on misdemeanor trespassing charges for protesting at a Starbucks; that case is pending.

His latest run-in with the law began after he turned up to support people gathering in Union Square last Friday for the monthly Critical Mass bike ride asserting cyclists' rights.

The NYPD has aggressively policed the rides, arguing that they can interfere with traffic and threaten public safety. Advocates for Critical Mass have accused police of infringing on the riders' constitutional rights to free speech and free assembly.

The video shows Talen preaching the "44 beautiful words of the First Amendment" to a visibly annoyed congregation of police commanders huddled a few feet away. At one point, an officer approaches and warns him that his sermon is breaking the law.

"What's the law?" Talen asks.

"Harassment," the officer answers.

When Talen persists, another officer comes up behind him and slaps on handcuffs. When being put in a police van, the satirist shouts, "We have a right to peaceful assembly!"

Talen was held overnight before being released without bail. A criminal complaint alleges he harassed police officers by approaching them and "repeatedly shouting at such officers through a non-electric bullhorn."

Civil rights attorney Norman Siegel, appearing with Talen on Monday, called on prosecutors to drop the charges.

"The arrest was a false arrest," Siegel said. "What Reverend Billy did last Friday night does not constitute illegal conduct."

Prosecutors declined to comment. The New York Police Department, contacted Monday evening, said it had no comment.

You Ain't Got No Stinkin' Rights

There is only one constitutional right in the United States which is absolute and that is your right to believe anything you want.

Kalifornia State Senator Sheila Kuehl, when arguing for SB 52,requiring citizens to obtain a state-issued license to own a firearm for self-defense.

What rights has a slave? There is only one: a slave can think anything he wants. As long as he doesn't utter it or act on it - he may think what he wants. He has no right to the fruit of his labor; no right to self-defense, no right to raise his children, no right to contract with others for his betterment, no right to worship - except as his master allows. He has only the right to his own thoughts. All other rights are at the sufferance of his master - whether that master is a state or an owner.

Kalifornia State Senator Tom McClintock, in a written rebuttal.

Senator McClintock, as quoted in Freedom & Firearms, published in Concealed Carry Magazine (Vol 1 Issue 5)

Act Now and Save Some Shred of the First Amendment

The U.S. House of Representatives is set to vote on H.R. 1606 as early as today. This bill, if passed, will amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to exclude communications over the Internet from the definition of public communication. This bill was introduced by Texas Congressmen Jeb Hensarling and Ron Paul.

Remember the blatant devastation of the First Amendment known from our "friends," John McCain and Russ Feingold? Thanks to their treasonous acts, organizations cannot engage in major "broadcast communications" which even mention a candidate in a favorable or unfavorable light within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary.

The US Supreme Court continued allowed this abomination in the McConnell v. Federal Election Commission decision, where the Supreme Court, by a five-to-four decision, upheld McCain-Feingold.

The Federal Election Commission had narrowly interpreted the M-F legislation and wouldn't regulate the internet. This has changed since Federal Judges ordered the FEC to begin active enforcement on the internet (Shays v. Federal Election Commission) in compliance with the M-F regulation.

According to GOA, the FEC is doing everything in its power to minimize the impact of the Shays ruling. But, if H.R. 1606 isn't passed, the internet will not be exempt from FEC regulation. Hence, many major blogs and web sites - for that matter, what is to stop them from coming after small blogs? - will be considered as engaged in "electioneering communications" if they praise or criticize any candidate. This means they can be SHUT DOWN FOR 60 days prior to an election or subject to a gag rule, restricting and defining what they are allowed to say.

GOA recommends contacting your congressional representative (via phone, if possible, since the House will be voting any day now) and asking him/her to vote for H.R. 1606, the bill to exempt the Internet from McCain-Feingold. The toll-free number to call your representative is 1-877-762-8762. If you prefer, you can go to www.house.gov and write an email to your congressional representative.

GOA gave this sample text as a guide for phone calls:

The U.S. House of Representatives will soon vote on H.R. 1606, a bill by introduced by Texas Congressmen Jeb Hensarling and Ron Paul to exempt the Internet from regulation under federal "electioneering" laws.

Unless the Hensarling-Paul bill is successful, many major blogs and web sites could be shut down for 60 days before any general election -- and for 30 days prior to any primary.

Please support H.R. 1606.

As a side note (which I'd better write before McCain and Feingold take away my right to an opinion), both Senator John McCain, R-AZ and Senator Russ Feingold, D-WI are running for their party's Presidential nomination. Whether you are Republican or Democrat, send them a political message loud and clear that we don't want them or their Constitution-destroying, freedom-hating ilk in the White House.

First Amendment , McCain-Feingold

No First Amendment Rights Exist for Funeral Protesting

Fred Phelps is one terrific guy. Years ago he gained notoriety by protesting at the funeral of a gay man, killed in a horrific way simply because he was, indeed, a gay man. Good ol' Freddie carted around intellectually stimulating signs like "God hates fags" and couldn't contain his glee at the results of this hate crime.

Now Freddie raids funerals of our soldiers, gleeful at their death because, as he asserts, they died because God is punishing this country for tolerating "fags."

I am reading a lot commentary and thoughts from a lot of people angry at Freddie's antics. But almost everyone can't spew out this type of phrase fast enough: "we need to respect his first amendment rights and let him protest, even if he is a jerk."

Bull.

Funerals are usually private affairs. They are usually conducted with the assistance of a private funeral home and lead by the representative of a local house of worship. They end at a cemetery, usually owned by a private group or society.

This man has no first amendment rights to crash a funeral, nor do the people of his "church." If Freddie wants to assert that "God hates fags" and "I thank God for the roadside bombs killing soldiers," and people are so concerned that he be able to express these opinions because of the first amendment, then let him say what he wants in front of any TV camera crew. But this man has absolutely no first amendment freedom to interfere with a private funeral on private property and insult a grieving family. Shame on the all the people in America who worry more about Phelps' inexistent rights to protest at a funeral than about the families of our brave soldiers... or the families who lost their sons to violence against gays.

Fred Phelps , First Amendment , 1st Amendment

The First Amendment and the Ten Commandments

Can you recite the 1st Amendment? No, I mean the entire First Amendment. What does it say - beyond the "freedom of religion" or the "separation of church and state" or the "wall of separation" stuff that we usually hear in the news.

"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."

This is pretty powerful stuff. Congress shall not make a law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Congress shall not make a law respecting an establishment of religion. Wow - there is no mandated "wall of separation" in this amendment, but rather a precious freedom. The State cannot establish a national church (such as The Church of England), and it cannot prevent Americans from exercising their religious faith.

It is nice to see the Court system realize that the 1st Amendment covers their actions, too. On December 20, the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the ACLU's "repeated reference 'to the separation of church and state' ... has grown tiresome. The First Amendment does not demand a wall of separation between church and state."

In the particular case referenced, a display of historical documents in Mercer County, Kentucky, included the Ten Commandments (in addition to the Magna Carta, The Mayflower Compact, the Declaration of Independence, the Star Spangled Banner, the national motto, the preamble to the Kentucky Constitution, the Bill of Rights to the U. S. Constitution and a picture of Lady Justice). The ACLU alleged this violated the "separation of church and state." Source http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48006

I applaud the Court for issuing a decision that respects our Constitution and the Rights of We The People.

More Thoughts on Intelligent Design

What do scientists hold to be the truth regarding evolution vs. Intelligent Design (ID)? Obviously a majority of scientists still hold to evolution, but a growing percentage are examining and some even endorsing ID.

I don't understand why science teachers are afraid of mentioning that there are other ideas out there besides Darwin’s Theory of Evolution. If they don't want to teach about ID, fine. But is every theory challenging evolution really religion in disguise? Have we elevated Darwin to saint-like status and made evolution a de facto state-supported religion?

I personally wonder why any science teacher confident in the theory of evolution would mind a challenge from ID. If ID is so inferior, or simply repackaged creationism, shouldn’t smart, young students be able to figure this out? At what point does the education system feel safe in letting a student critically think for themselves?

I would like to see a head-on clash between the best of the scientists who back evolution and the pro-ID scientists. Let's have a very public debate and see all the evidence as presented by the best minds and communicators on both sides. I am tired of the portrayals of pro-ID scientists as minor league brains who fall for repackaged creationism. I am equally tired of seeing portrayals of pro-evolution scientists as evil athiests who fear their career and work will be forever invalid if they are wrong on Darwin.

Don't attack ID in court. Bring it to the forefront of scientific and newsworthy analysis and break it into pieces. Do the same with evolution. Investigate the teaching materials. Analyze every bit of the theories in microscopic detail. Put the investigators on shows like CSI to shame; be an example to them on how to do critical, open-minded, methodical, careful and thoughtful research.

When all is said and done, I imagine we would find strengths and weaknesses in both theories. Who knows, maybe we could make some significant advances in science education if both sides remember they are dealing with theory.

The Patriot Act renews

Everyone remembers the awful imagery of that fateful day, September 11, 2001. Four years later, it still sends chills up the spine. Suddenly the US was at war with a new enemy, a villain much different than we'd faced before. An enemy without a nation.

To help us fight this new type of war, Congress passed the Patriot Act, legistlation that broadened law enforcement abilities and dramatically reformed the ways we could legally gather intelligence. A sweeping reform of the "way we do business" when fighting terrorism, but also unfortunately, giving the government more authority to act as Big Brother. As a guarantee our civil rights would be protected, and as insurance that nothing was passed as a frightened knee-jerk reaction in an time of incredible duress, the Patriot Act was set to expire at the end of 2005.

Yesterday the Senate approved extending the Act for another six months.

The Fourth Amendment states, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Among other things, The Patriot Act, in a rather un-Patriotic way, allows the following:

1. This law provides for indefinite imprisonment without trial of non-U.S. citizens whom the politically appointed Attorney General determines to be a threat to national security. Note that at least two U.S. citizens, Yaser Hamdi and Jose Padilla, have been designated as "enemy combatants" and imprisoned without trial - so don't say it won't come back to haunt citizens.

2. The government is not required to provide detainees with counsel, nor is it required to make any announcement or statement regarding the arrest.

3. Law enforcement agencies are now allowed to obtain a warrant and search a residence without immediately informing the occupants, if the Attorney General has determined this to be an issue of national security.

4. Intelligence gathering is now allowed at religious events.

And now Congress has extended the Act. For some reason, I don't feel a lot safer.

I guess Big Brother looks a lot like Uncle Sam.

Christmas and Government

I used to believe there was a war on all things Jewish and/or Christian by the US Government - all three branches. I'd think of the many court cases including the recent Dover Intelligent Design decison, the "is the display of the Ten Commandments constitutional?" fights, the ACLU vs. every municipality in America over the manger display battles, and so on.

We are daily reminded, especially by the ACLU, that there is a wall of separation between the church and state in our Constitution, or at least a wall is alleged wall to exist. And the government, by and large, appears to agree with the ACLU in most court cases.

So imagine my shock when I found out the US Government actually endorses religion - specifically the Christian and Jewish faiths. And as a concerned American, I want to make sure my government does not come out and endorse religion.

You can see the US Government's blatant endorsement of Christianity and Judaism for yourself. Go to the web page for the US House of Representatives (www.house.gov) and look at their schedule. It states very clearly that they break for Christmas and Hannukah. Further investigation reveals that the Judicial branch of government is closed, too, as are most members of the executive branch. Even state governments and local municipalities share in this atrocity, although usually only on Christian holidays. Are you shocked and appalled, too?

What kind of political leadership brazenly taunts it's taxpaying and voting base like this? How dare they violate the separation of church and state. Who are they to take their religion and cram it down our throats?

Join me in demanding that our government make a bold statement and work both during the Christian holy day of Christmas and Jewish holy time of Hannukah. I don't want to see a tacit endorsment of religion, either, through some slick semantic game like changing the name of the vacation to "winter break."

It gets worse - Congress also takes vacations on Passover and Easter. Thank God (I mean, thank the deity of your choice if you choose to believe in any deity, but if you don't it is ok, just be thankful in general) they do not take off Good Friday.

It is time that We The People stand up to the US Government. No more endorsment of religion. Stop celebrating religious holidays.

Intelligent Design

What in the world is a court of law hearing a case on Intelligent Design (ID)? Why are the courts determining what is education and what is science?

If you are not familiar with the court case I am referencing, let me explain. A school board in Pennsylvania adopted a policy in October, 2004, stating that its biology curriculum must include the notion that life on Earth was produced by an unidentified intelligent cause. U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III said that Dover Area School Board members violated the Constitution when they set this policy. Judge Jones also noted that several of the Board members professed religious beliefs.

According to CNN, “the Dover policy required students to hear a statement about intelligent design before ninth-grade biology lessons on evolution. The statement said Charles Darwin's theory is ‘not a fact’ and has inexplicable ‘gaps.’ It refers students to an intelligent-design textbook, ‘Of Pandas and People,’ for more information.”

Judge Jones wrote that he wasn't saying the intelligent design concept shouldn't be studied and discussed, but, "our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom."

We have several important pieces of the Constitution that should have been at work here. According to Article III, Section 2, this case should not have been heard in court as it is out of the court's jurisdiction.

The First Amendment states:
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.

The Tenth Amendment states:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Here is how things should have panned out, according to the Constitution. The Dover School Board of Education required ID must be taught as an alternative to evolution. The people of the community, exercising their First and Tenth Amendment rights (petitioning the government for a redress of grievances, and enjoying the powers as delegated in the Constitution), don’t like this decision and vote eight of the incumbents into retirement, replacing them with anti-Intelligent Design board members who, according to the will of the people, will remove ID from the science curriculum. End of story, or at least, it should have been.

The court system is not the place to develop science education.


Tags Intelligent Design , Justice