ACLU gets a bad rap during holidays
http://www.thesnapper.com/media/paper142/news/2005/12/08/Opinion/Aclu-Gets.A.Bad.Rap.During.Holidays-1123625.shtml?norewrite&sourcedomain=www.thesnapper.com
Your shorter link is: http://makeashorterlink.com/?H2201294C
Snapper - Millersville,PA,USA
ACLU gets a bad rap during holidays
By: Paul Franz
Issue date: 12/8/05 Section: Opinion
Article Tools:Email This ArticlePrint This Article Page 1 of 1
A year ago I wrongly criticized the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
for their much publicized litigation against public display of Christmas
decorations on government property. I argued that litigation came "at the
wrong time of the year," however, that line of reasoning was short-sighted,
and was incorrect.
The ACLU and other interest groups have no interest in suppressing the
freedom of expression as it pertains to religion. Consider that several of
the cases the ACLU took up in the past year involved defending those who
publicly expressed their religious beliefs.
For instance, in September, the ACLU defended the right of a second-grader
to sing a song praising God at a talent show. In November 2004, they
defended the right of evangelists to preach on the sidewalks in Las Vegas.
All the ACLU requests is to have the government not express preference by
keeping it out of religious affairs.
Supreme Court Justice Harry A. Blackmun expressed this principle best in
his opinion in Lee v. Weisman (1992): "When the government puts its
imprimatur on a particular religion it conveys a message of exclusion to
all those who do not adhere to the favored beliefs. A government cannot be
premised on the belief that all persons are created equal when it asserts
that God prefers some."
But every year, the media depicts an "attack" or a "war" being waged on
Christmas. It's now become an established tradition within the media to
depict a struggle to save Christmas from insidious "liberal" interest
groups like the ACLU.
But for all the coverage I see, no media report actually gets to the crux
of the debate. The media depictions only serve to obstruct serious inquiry
over how separate church and state ought to be. Rather, what should be
discussed in public is how valid the ACLU's policy position is.
Several arguments can be reasonably made in defense of not separating
church and state. Like them or not, two great conservative legal scholars,
Robert H. Bork and Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, make very
reasonable arguments against separating church and state.
Instead of hearing reasoned debate from great minds like Bork and Scalia,
the public is served the constant criticism of legally challenged critics
like John Gibson of "Faux News" castigating the "secularist conspiracy to
rewrite the Constitution and to oust religion from the public square."
Nevermind the fact that Christmas expresses itself vigorously throughout
entertainment venues like movies, music, and books. Nevermind the fact that
people can decorate their own property to their heart's content, after all,
a person's house does not appear in public to anyone. But forget all that,
the evil ACLU is trying to remove a nativity scene from City Hall. It's
just more evidence that these radicals want to establish a godless
communist international order!
These critics want you to think that the ACLU, is creating this whole
"separation of church and state" concept out of whole cloth, that the First
Amendment contains no mention of the maxim if read literally. However, such
an interpretation of the Constitution lacks any understanding of the
document. The Constitution is not self-executing. How does one determine if
a law "respects" an establishment of religion? How does one determine the
extent of the right of free speech? What defines "unreasonable" in the
Fourth Amendment? That has been a task left to judges. Thus, the separation
of church and state is a doctrine that has evolved through judicial
interpretation.
Whatever your view of the ACLU and other interest groups with similar
goals, at least realize that whatever they do, and whatever laws are
passed, prayer and worship can neither be forced nor banned. The spirit of
Christmas or whatever holiday you celebrate can never be squelched through
government fiat.
Paul Franz is a junior majoring in government and history.
**************************************************************
Posting and reading from alt.politics.usa.constitution OR alt.education
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the U.S. and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
