Putting the "Free" Back in "Free Exercise"

I posted this a couple of weeks ago (May 8, actually), but I think with the introduction of the Bill in the House of Representatives on May 26 it probably needs to go up again:


We all know the ACLU loves suing to "vindicate the religious rights" of those who feel "offended" when they see the Ten Commandments on public property or hear a prayer at a high-school football game. What you may not know is that, under the current law, if the ACLU wins these suits they are entitled, under the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards Act of 1976, to collect, "a reasonable attorney's fee as part of the costs..." Well, that doesn't sound so bad, until you start to look at what the ACLU actually collects in "reasonable attorney's fees" to vindicate somebody's hurt feelings! According to News With Views, Alabama got soaked for $540,000 for Judge Moore and the Ten Commandments case. When they stopped the Boy Scouts from using Balboa Park in San Diego for a summer camp, the taxpayers got hammered for $790,000 in "reasonable fees."

Every time the ACLU takes on a municipality, the municipality is forced to ask itself whether displaying the Ten Commandments, or a cross, or saying a public prayer is worth going to court for when the gamble is not just that they will have to remove the "offending" item or cease the "offending" practice. They have to look down the barrel of the ACLU's attorney's fee gun and ask themselves how lucky they feel. Obviously, this creates a huge "chilling effect;" it is easier to cave to the ACLU's demands than risk getting a liberal judge who might find saying "bless you!" after a sneeze an unconscionable display of religion.

Hopefully Representative John Hostettler will be successful in curbing the ACLU's out of control litigiousness when he introduces an amendment to the Attorney's Fees Act that would remove establishment of religion cases from its purview. Such an amendment would make bringing these actions much less attractive to the ACLU as well as giving it less leverage against financially beleaguered school districts and municipalities.

The reasoning for amending the attorney's fees law in cases involving religious liberty is relatively simple--"Every other civil right case, there is some injury to somebody," American Legion attorney Rees Lloyd of Banning, California, told a Thursday rally in front of ACLU's Los Angeles offices. "Somebody lost their job ... somebody got beat up by authorities – they have some physical, mental, economic injury. But in an Establishment Clause case, it is someone who says, 'I take offense,' and the offense is based on religions, politics, philosophy, but there is no injury." World Net Daily

In other words, there should no longer be a bonanza for the ACLU every time somebody's feelings get hurt.

The Pulpit Pounder encourages readers to contact their elected officials and voice support for this legislation. We need to stop allowing the ACLU to use the threat of attorney's fees as a lever to destroy our religious freedoms. For additional info, go to Stop the ACLU.

This Just In--I'm a Fundamentalist!!

I just took a test at QuizFarm and, to my shock and amazement, I am a Fundamentalist...who'd a thunk it? I am also proud to say that I scored 0% Modernist, Materialist or Idealist...How did you score? Thanks to Digger!

You scored as Fundamentalist. Fundamentalism represents a movement in opposition to Modernism, stressing the highest importance on foundational religious tradition. Science has brought on corruption of society. God is real and is watching. Scripture leaves little room for interpretation; man is God’s creation. About a quarter of the population in the U.S. is classified as Fundamentalist. Fundamentalist 81% Cultural Creative 75% Romanticist 63% Existentialist 38% Postmodernist 38% Modernist 0% Materialist 0% Idealist 0% What is Your World View? (updated) created with QuizFarm.com

It's Kerry Time--John, We're Still Waiting

Holy cow, it's been a week since we were all abuzz with the news..."bzzz, bzzz, Kerry signed the Form-180...bzzz, bzzz, finally, Francois is finally going to make good on his promise....bzzz, bzzz, I wonder why he waited so long to show us his glorious military records, replete with decorations for his heroism...bzzz, bzzz...did you know John Kerry was in VietNam, by the way?"

Well, so far it hasn't quite worked out...I dunno whether JK signed the form or not, but if he did, he apparently immediately misplaced it (probably with files from the Rose law firm, that stuff vanishes mysteriously all the time), simply failed to file it, or decided that since he just agreed to sign it, that was sufficient. Whatever the case I, for one, am now more curious than ever to see the record...what is so bad that it can't be brought forth into the light of day, John?

Anyway, you can e-mail Mr K. at http://kerry.senate.gov/v3/contact/email.html. If you would like to join the Tuesday Blogburst requesting that John actually make good on his promise and make his military records public you can go to Cao's Blog and click on the link there to sign up. I believe there are now over 50 bloggers in the Tuesday Blogburst!! It's not just a Blogburst, it's a Movement!

Amnesty International--More Looniness

Amnesty International is reported as calling the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay "the gulag of our time." Naturally, this is disputed by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Richard Myers, who called the remarks "absolutely irresponsible." But did you know--

Not one of these illegal enemy combatant detainee's who came from Afghanistan had a Qur'an in his possession when captured.

A brand new Qur'an in the specific, native language of each individual was provided to each "enemy combatant".

Furthermore:

Each illegal enemy combatant detained at Guantanamo is given three nutritious halal meals (culturally-appropriate and in accordance with Islamic dietary law) per day. The meals include all optional condiments.

Each illegal enemy combatant detainee receives Muslim feast meals at special times in accordance with Muslim feasts and holy periods during the year.

Each illegal enemy combatant detainee has unrestricted access to Muslim Imams and religious instruction.

Each illegal enemy combatant detainee has a Quibla, a large green and white sign in his cell which points toward Mecca.

Each illegal enemy combatant detainee hears Islamic loudspeaker calls to prayer five times daily.

Each illegal enemy combatant detainee received a brand new Muslim prayer cap.

Each illegal enemy combatant detainee received a brand new prayer rug.

Each illegal enemy combatant detainee received brand new Islamic prayer beads. Each illegal enemy combatant detainee received Islamic holy oil.

Each illegal enemy combatant had ALL of this done and paid for him at US taxpayer expense and this is far, far in excess of requirements delineated by Geneva Convention Cat. III protocols on the treatment of Prisoners of War.

Source


So maybe Amnesty International ought to go whine about some real atrocities...maybe those occurring every day in dictatorships around the world?

Happy Installation To Me!!

I think I have mentioned before that I am new to New Jersey...Up until April, I pastored a very small, rural church in western New York--and I mean rural--A post office, a church, and a handful of houses. Now we're in the 'burbs, and this morning I am being formally "installed" as the pastor of my new church.

If the word "installed" brings to mind microwaves and dishwashers, you're not alone--but that's what it's called. The purpose is twofold...to remind the pastor and the church of why they are here and what they need to be doing, and to announce to the community that, as one of my elders put it, "there's a new 'shurruf' in town."

Anyway, it is a fairly solemn occasion, and I thought I would share my thoughts--this isn't everything I think about being a pastor (I have a few minutes to speak, not a few weeks), but it gives you an idea:

"As I accept the charge and the challenge of being the pastor here this morning, I want you to know that I do so mindful of the Scriptures—The Apostle Paul said this, “for I say, through the grace given to me, to everyone who is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think soberly, as God has dealt to each one a measure of faith.” To me, this means that the pastor needs to recognize that he is just one of many in the body of Christ; that all of us who know Jesus as savior have received God’s grace and God’s gifts; and so the pastor should exercise his gifts with humility, not pride.

"The Book of James says this, “My brethren, let not many of you become teachers, knowing that we shall receive a stricter judgment.” If a pastor needs anything to remind him to be humble, James reminds us that those who teach are asking to be judged by a higher standard, because what we say influences the spiritual life of others. And so the pastor, in his teaching, should be scriptural, accurate and careful to control his speech.

"The Apostle Peter reminds us that the Pastor should also bring a passion to his work, saying, “The elders who are among you I exhort, I who am a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that will be revealed: Shepherd the flock of God which is among you, serving as overseers, not by compulsion but willingly, not for dishonest gain but eagerly, not as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock…” A pastor should be happy in his work, and excited about getting up every morning to serve the Lord and His flock.

"So a pastor should exercise the gifts God has given to him, stay humble, be scriptural, be accurate, be careful in speech, be excited about his work, be passionate for the Lord, serve cheerfully and recognize that he will be judged by a stricter judgment based on how he does these things…That sounds like a tall order, but the Pastor also knows he is not alone in this, because Paul also says, in 2 Corinthians 3, “Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think of anything as being of ourselves, but our sufficiency is from God, who also made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit…”

"So I accept the charge and the challenge of being the pastor of this Church today, not because I am sufficient to the task, but because God has promised to make each of us sufficient to the tasks He has prepared for us…let’s pray.

"'Now may the God of Peace who brought up our Lord Jesus from the dead, that Great Shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant, make you complete in every good work to do His will, working in you what is well pleasing in His sight, through Jesus Christ, to whom be the glory forever and ever.'" Amen.

Almost Whoville... West Virginia

Apparently Dr. Seuss fans had better watch their step in Wheeling, WV...Norman Gray was arrested last Tuesday morning for refusing to
remove his Grinch mask at the request of the police. It is illegal for anyone over 16 to wear a mask in public. Norman is 42.

Hmmm...On the one hand, I would almost like to come down on Norm's side here...it seems sort of petty to arrest a guy for wearing a Grinch
mask on a city street without something more...say, indecent
exposure--or a gun? On the other hand...what is a grown man doing
wearing a Grinch mask on a city street? Norm, buddy, you're 42...I
would even defend your right to wear the mask up to the point the police explained the law to you...but for a 42 year-old man to defy the police so he can wear a Grinch mask seems a little straaaaange to me.

If I was wearing my Yoda outfit, and the police...uh, um, never
mind...that's another story.

"Keep Your Religion Away From Your Kids!!"

Interesting report on FoxNews -- Not only is it bad to smoke around your kids, you can now be ordered not to practice your "non-mainstream religious beliefs and rituals" around your kids as well...OK, here's some credit where credit is due...when a court ordered two "Wiccan" parents going through a divorce not to practice their religion around their kids, both the Indiana Civil Liberties Union AND the conservative Christians have come out against the court's nonsense ruling. Let's hope somebody wakes the judge up and explains that you can't dictate religious beliefs to parents.

Jellybeans...Ya Gotta Love Jellybeans

I am sitting here scarfing down a few Jolly Rancher jelly beans, which are my current beans of choice...I have to tell you, I think Jelly Bellies are way overpriced and I will take a bag of Jolly Ranchers over the 10 or 12 jellybeans Jelly Belly gives you for the same price...

I mean, come on...$6.99 or $7.99 a pond for jelly beans? I resist paying that much for steak (which I only buy on sale, and usually when there's a red tag on it saying "Special Today Only," which means they have to throw it out if they don't sell it that day...yum), so I'm sure not going to pay that much for jelly beans...

Any other candy lovers out there? What's the candy of choice for you?

Watch Out...Or We'll Get Mad Again!!

Bill ("Limp") Frist is apparently trying to rehabilitate his image with his constituency after the recent "compromise" debacle. Jeff has a copy of a letter purportedly issued by Limpy over at Thinksink, in which he says he won't hesitate to call the "Constitutional Option" to a vote..."Not for a second" he avers. (Earlier in the paragraph he put NOT in capitals, so we would know he really means it this time.)

I would love to give this some credence, but common sense tells me this is just more of the same...Republicans make some statements about how mad they are, Democrats tell them to get lost, and the Republicans say..."Well, we're REALLY mad now...and if you don't cooperate...well, we'll even get madder! So there!!"

"Limp" Frist needs to put up or shut up.

Media Bias...It Doesn't End With the Reporters

In case you haven't seen this, you ought to check out Media Slander's story on Linda Foley. Linda Foley is the President of the Newspaper Guild, a 34,000 member union. According to Ms. Foley, US soldiers "target and kill journalists from other countries, particularly Arab countries." Now, notice the phraseology here...this isn't accidental, according to Ms. Foley...our troops are "targeting" journalists. Ms. Foley has no basis or foundation for these claims.

It's interesting to note that Ms. Foley has also said the reporting coming out of Iraq is too "positive" has expressed her feeling that the fall of Saddam Hussein and the coverage of Iraqi elections has been "orchestrated" by our government to paint an inaccurate picture of what is going on in Iraq. I don't know what media Ms. Foley reads, but apparently it's not the newspapers where her members work.

Is Being A Murderer REALLY So Bad?

Apparently not, according to Justice Stephen Breyer. In 2003, Carman Deck was convicted of robbing and murdering an elderly couple, execution-style, in their home. The Supreme Court has overturned the conviction because, during the penalty phase of the trial (after he had been convicted, when the penalty for the crime he committed was to be imposed), he appeared before the jury in manacles.

"The 7-2 majority opinion was written by Justice Stephen Breyer, who said shackling implies to jurors that the defendant is "a danger to the community" - thus affecting their perception of him as they decide his fate."

Uh-huh...we wouldn't want the jury to think that a guy who killed two old folks "execution-style" so he could avoid going to jail for his theft poses a danger to the community. It was good to hear that the prosecutor plans to re-try this sicko and have him sentenced to death yet again, sans handcuffs...let's hope he doesn't kill anybody in the courtroom while we're protecting his civil rights.

Osama Awadallah, Possible Accomplice to 9/11 Terrorists, May Go Free on Monday

Osama Awadallah, a student at a San Diego college, has been under investigation since just after the 9/11 attacks for his possible role in the attacks. Allegedly, his name and phone number were found in one of the terrorist's vehicles after the attack, he lived in the same building as one of the terrorists, he was a known associate of two of the terrorists, and he also was identified as being with the terrorists on September 10th, 2001--at that time, he was allegedly heard to say “'it is finally going to happen' as the others celebrated by giving each other high fives.”

Once again, it appears that the justice system, in its misguided attempts to bend over backwards to appear "fair" to the people who killed thousands on September 11, 2001, is going to participate in a miscarriage of justice by allowing Osama Awadallah to walk. Judge Shira Scheindlin has scheduled a special hearing for Monday to decide whether the charges against Osama should be dismissed...why? Because he was handcuffed during the grand jury proceedings.

Handcuffing suspected criminals, in other words, is now too prejudicial to their "civil rights." Perhaps we could have District Attorneys braid daisy chains for their hair, instead.

Selective Civil Rights

Cross-Posted from Stop the ACLU with thanks to Jay:

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it

."-Voltaire

The right to express unpopular opinions, advocate despised ideas(NAMBLA) and display graphic images is something the ACLU has steadfastly defended for all of its history. Exception: in the case for pro-lifers.

The ACLU's Reproductive Rights Project has a lot to do with why the ACLU is so reluctnat to defend the rights of anti-abortion protesters.

"With a $2 million dollar budget and a staff of 17 employees, Janet Benshoof was the Union's most devoted activist for abortion rights.....she became so overextended in her approach that she advocated mob pressure on the judiciary; she pushed for "pro-choice" activists to march on court rooms where abortion cases were being heard."Twilight of Liberty

To the ACLU, anti-abortion protesters are not seen in the same light as civil rights demonstrators in the 60's, but as lunatic fascists out to destroy freedom.

"Hence, the reluctance of the ACLU to defend principle, that is, the excersize of First Ammendment rights by anti-abortion activists. Ironically, real facists-like the American Nazis and Klansmen-have had thier rights protected more often and with greater vigor by the ACLU than anti-abortion demonstrators.Twilight of Liberty

Of course there are loonies in the anti-abortion movement, but that was true of the civil rights movement, the anti-war movement of the 60's, and even today in the "pro-choice" demonstrators. Every movement has it's fringe element. But while the ACLU was right on top in defending any violations of the law for all of these movements, when it comes to the opponents of abortion having their First Amendment rights violated by the authorities, the ACLU is completely absent.

Not even having the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act(RICO) thrown at anti-abortion protesters moved the ACLU into action.

The ACLU is nominally opposed to the RICO statute, and there are some senior members, like Washington official Antonio Califa, who are truly opposed to the invocation of RICO against any protesters, including opponents of abortion. However, due largely to the influence of Benshoof, the ACLU's record is grievously stained in this area.Twilight of Liberty

It was actually her suggestion in a booklet titled, "Preserving the Right to Choose: How to Cope with Violence and Disruption at Abortion Clinics." The ACLU would not tolerate the use of RICO against nuclear weapons dissedents, but in the case of anti-abortion protesters the matter is quite different. In fact, the ACLU has actually used the RICO against them. When pro-life demonstrators were sued under RICO in Philadelphia, the local chapter of the ACLU filed an amicus brief on behalf of the plaintiffs, the Northeast Women's Center.

The ACLU missed another opportunity to defend civil liberties in 1989 in West Harford, Connecticut. It was on June 17 that 261 persons were arrested, and then physically abused by police, for staging a sit-in.

The police used "come-a-long" holds, or "pain compliance holds", with a result that many claimed permanent nerve damage. Some were denied medical care, and others were not allowed phone calls for over two days. One woman had to have surgery after the police damaged her uterus. The ACLU did nothing.

When John Spear, a publisher of a small New York newspaper, wrote an editorial against police brutality, he too was slapped with a RICO suit. He was charged with extortion. The ACLU did nothing.

"Why do they still call it a civil liberties union?" commented ACLU member and nemesis Nat Hentoff. When pressed about cases like the West Hartford one, the ACLU typically responds that it can't get involved with the defense of antiabortion protesters because it is already committed ot the ise of the abortion clinics. When John Leo asked Alan Dershowitz, "Can it be that the affiliates sometimes deliberately involve themselves early on one side so they will have an excuse not to help victims on the other?" the Harvard Law professor replied, "Absolutely. They go to the pro-choice people and say, "Get us in right away, "thereby giving them the excuse of conflict of interest in the event they are contacted by the anti-abortion side. And what does the ACLU say when asked specifically about its duplicity regarding RICO? Lynn Paltrow, who worked for Benshoof, explained the Union's attitude: "Its ACLU policy to oppose application of RICO, but there are those on staff who feel that as long as RICO exists, this kind of behavior (Operation Rescue tactics) does fit." "In other words," as John Leo puts it, "RICO is totally bad, but sort of useful."Twilight of Liberty,

It looks pretty clear to me. In the eyes of the ACLU you the First Amendment protects child molesters, perverts, and facists, but not Pro-lifers! Quite hypocritical in my opinion.


This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst! If you would like to join, it is very simple.

Go to our new portal at Protest The ACLU , click where it says "sign up now", and fill out a simple form. This will enable us to send you a weekly newsletter with information, and keep your email private. Current members who have not registered, please do so. There are additonal advantages and features that will be available for you there...you can opt to use them, or not. Thank you!

Sites Already on Board:

Stop The ACLU
Freedom Of Thought
Mad Tech
Respublica
The Wide Awakes
Angry Republican Mom
Kender's Musings
American Patriots
What Attitude Problem?
Life Trek
Gribbit's Word
Def Conservative
An American Housewife
A Tic In The Mind's Eye
Cao's Blog
Regular Ron
Freedom Of
Is This Life?
Patriots For Bush
California Conservative 4 Truth
NIF
Obiter Dictum
PBS Watch
Xtreme Right Wing
Daily Inklings
Miss Patriot
Jack Lewis.net
Conservative Dialysis
Conservative Angst
Kill Righty
American Warmonger
Birth Of A Neo-Con
The Nose On Your Face
The View From Firehouse
Ogre's View
Fundamentally right
Conservative Rant
My Political Soap Box
Common Sense Runs Wild
Redstate Rant
Time Hath Found Us
American Dinosaur
Merri Musings
And Rightly So
Sweet Spirits of Ammonia
Smithereen's Files
Pulpit Pounder
Ravings of J.C.B.
Is It Just Me?
Blogtalker
Parrot Check
Stuff You Should Know
Rancher Blog
Christmas Ghost
Vista On Current Events
Musing Minds
Pirate's Cove
Mr . Minority
The Lesser Of Two Evils
RAGE
The Life And Times

An Extremist?--I Don't Think So...

Since I get a little weary of being called an extremist every time I espouse an opinion slightly to the right of center, I especially enjoyed this from Keith Thompson about Jerry Falwell, one of my brethren...

"If Falwell is an extremist, what does that make Al Qaeda? Bin Laden and his henchmen stone women for adultery and beat them for showing an ankle; they throw homosexuals to their deaths from the tops of towers; they murder thousands of civilians by flying airplanes into skyscrapers. A sedentary Baptist minister from Lynchburg, Virginia, is somehow a greater threat? I don’t think so."

Thank you, Mr. Thompson...

Islam in the Public Schools Part 4--Endorsement of Islam

Ok, this is the final installment in my humble analysis of Eklund v. Byron Union School District, a decision in which the court ruled that it was permissible for California schools to use an "interactive educational module" to teach seventh graders about Islam. In the first three installments we reviewed the facts of the case and the first prong of a two-prong analysis the court did regarding the possible violation of the Establishment Clause. The court concluded, in the first section of its analysis, that the Eklund children were not "coerced into participating in religious activity" because, in the court's view, learning portions of the Koran, reciting portions of muslim prayers, doing symbolic fasting to simulate Ramadan, etc. did not rise to the level of actually participating in religious activity. See Part 3, below, for the complete discussion.

Today, the court turns to the second prong of its analysis...Did the Excelsior School "endorse" Islam through its use of the module? Again, the court concludes that, from the objective standpoint of a reasonable observer (a hypothetical "reasonable" seventh grader at Excelsior) and the "larger context of the challenged activity" that endorsement did not occur.

I have to say that there is very little to analyze regarding the court's findings in this regard. Rather than applying the legal standards at issue to the specific facts of the module (for instance the documented admission by the teacher that the students were required to learn portions of muslim prayers, or the fact that the module repeatedly stated that Muhammad was a prophet of Allah and received special revelation from God, without any qualifying language whatsoever) The court simply states that "a reasonable Excelsior student would not have believed that it [the module] represented an endorsement of religion..." (brackets supplied). The sum total of the legal reasoning applied to this aspect of the Establishment Clause analysis is about half a page of a 22 page opinion.

Again, the judge's conclusion is unsupported by the facts...she never makes mention at all of the fact that the final exam was required to be a "critique" of Islam so long as the student didn't say anything negative, that elements of Islam were presented as "truth," or that the student guide handed out to the students stated that "you and your classmates will become Muslims."

This is intellectual dishonesty and judicial activism at its worst...The ACLU and organizations like it are using the willing accomplices of the federal bench to do their dirtywork.

Just for the record, for those of you who don't think that the "compromise" agreed to by the Senate Republicans on GWB's judicial nominees is a big deal, for instance Beth at My Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy, remember that judges like Phyllis Hamilton are what you are going to get every time you concede a point to the liberals.

Dean: Blacks "Annoyed" With Democrats

I mentioned here last week, in "Are Dems Losing a Loyal Constituency?" that many African-Americans, including Al Sharpton, are pretty upset that Howard Dean, for all his "inclusiveness" chatter, hasn't made good on his promises to put blacks in positions of authority at the DNC. Sharpton's comments indicated his unhappiness with the lack of return blacks were getting for their support of Democrats--including his opinion that Republicans are running more blacks for office than the Democrats and that Dean has left blacks out of the highest echelons of the Democrat party.

Apparently in an attempt to deflect criticism from himself, Dean announced today that the fault really lies with the party as a whole..."African-Americans are annoyed with the Democratic Party because we ask them for their votes four weeks before the election instead of being in the community now and that's a mistake I'm trying to fix," he said.

Really? Is this the same Howard Dean who wants "to be the candidate for the guys with Confederate flags on their pickup trucks"? The same one who said the Republican party could attract more blacks by summoning "the hotel staff"? The best way Howard Dean could take the lead in healing the growing rift between Democrats and African-Americans would be to step down.

Kerry Blogburst Day Is Here...How About It, John?

Once again it is Tuesday, time for another request for Senator Kerry's Form-180. The form is not difficult to obtain, and it is a little hard to understand why an upstanding "Hero" like Lurch, uh, John, would keep refusing to sign it after promising to do so on national TV 114 days ago.

Anyway, you can e-mail Mr K. at http://kerry.senate.gov/v3/contact/email.html. If you would like to join the Tuesday Blogburst requesting that John actually make good on his promise and make his military records public you can go to Cao's Blog and click on the link there to sign up. I believe there are now over 50 bloggers in the Tuesday Blogburst!! It's not just a Blogburst, it's a Movement!

Islam in The Public Schools--Part 3--Was "Religious Activity" Taking Place at Excelsior School?

This is Part 3 of this series on Islam in the public schools, in particular the decision in Eklund v.Byron Union School District. The parents of a seventh-grader sued the school district (and the superintendent of schools, the teachers, and the principal of the Excelsior school), claiming that the use of an "interactive educational module" simulating the five pillars of the muslim religion violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution (at least as it is currently interpreted).

The undisputed facts of the case are found in the two previous posts regarding this dispute. I say "undisputed" because the judge ruled on cross-motions for summary judgment in favor of the defendants, and summary judgment is only appropriate when there is no genuine issue of material fact (there's nothing for a jury to decide, because the parties basically agree on the facts) and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Before I get to the judge's reasoning, I want to address the facts just a little bit more...the reason I went to the trouble of getting the opinion was so I could see whether the "facts" reported on various websites were the "facts" the judge ruled on. To be fair, there were some differences. NewsMax reported that children were required to play "jihad (holy war) games"--in fact the game was a "haaj (pilgrimage) game"--in terms of the religious content, this may be a distinction without a difference, but at least they weren't advocating Islamic violence.

Moreover, students were not "required" to choose a muslim name or wear Islamic garb as has been reported--they were "encouraged" to do so. NewsMax also reported that this was an "intensive three-week course in California government schools," making it sound as though this module is taught to every California seventh grader as a matter of state policy, when in fact it is not...the module at issue was not even used in every seventh grade world history class in the Excelsior School plaintiffs attended.

With these facts in mind, let's look at the judge's opinion...First of all, Judge Hamilton disposed of any thought that she was going to order the school to stop teaching the "interactive educational module" regarding Islam. Both of the named child-plaintiffs had completed the course, and would never be in seventh grade history again, and so the judge ruled that, insofar as they sought an injunction against the school to stop the teaching of the module, they no longer presented a "live case or controversy" and therefore were not entitled to the equitable relief of a court order prohibiting the use of the module...the claim was moot.

Though not entitled to equitable relief, however, the students were also suing the school district, the superintendent, the teachers of seventh grade history, and Excelsior's principal for damages. The court found the superintendent and the district immune from suit, as they were acting only in their official capacities, and the Eleventh Amendment bars damage claims against state agencies acting officially. At this stage, therefore, only nominal damage claims against the teachers and the principal for violation of the Constitution remained in the suit.

According to the opinion, "All parties agree that the school district is entitled to teach students a basic history of Islamic religion and culture. The parties instead dispute whether role-playing games, and the details of this particular role-playing game, are a proper way to do so."

According to the court, the Establishment Clause is violated if: 1) a school coerces a student into participating in religious activities, even if the coercion is subtle and indirect, and even if students may opt out of the activity, or; 2) the activities in question advance or endorse a particular religion.

The remainder of this post will cover the court's analysis of the first Establishment Clause test--whether the students were coerced into participating in religious activities.

In discussing the first test, the court avoided having to analyze whether the Eklund children had been coerced into participating in the educational module because, according to the court, the activities in question did not rise to the level of participating in religious activities. The court reasoned that an objective observer would not have considered the students "to have performed any actual religious activities in their seventh grade world history class." They did not actually proclaim the "Shahada", pray five times a day facing Mecca, donate to charity as an act of faith, fast for the whole month of Ramadan, or make a real pilgrimage to Mecca. They only "approximated" these activities.

The court noted that the Ninth Circuit has already held that it is acceptable to discuss witchcraft and instruct students to pretend to cast magic spells, since these are just "fantasy activities...that happen to resemble religious practices." Brown v. Woodland Joint Unified Sch. Dist., 27 F.3d 1373, 1382 (9th Cir. 1994).

The court also stated that, if there was a subjective lack of spiritual intent on the part of the students, an objective observer would not conclude that "religious activity" was taking place. In other words, if the children's state of mind is not "worshipful" toward the activity, there is no "religious activity."

I find this analysis incredible. First of all, even a "moment of silence" has been held to constitute religious activity, as has saying "under God" during the Pledge of Allegiance in Judge Hamilton's very Circuit. Yet the recitation of portions of muslim prayers, symbolic fasting and charitable donation are not. The court seemed to make much of the fact that, although the students did a portion of activities that would be Islamic, they never did the complete Islamic rituals...apparently, anything short of actually proclaiming the divinity of Allah, praying five times a day facing Mecca, fasting for a month, charitably donating as an act of faith, and traveling to Mecca is permissible. In the court's words, the activities were "analogous...[but]...not actually the Islamic religious rites."

Then, the court buttresses it's argument by saying that "'fantasy activities...that happen to resemble religious practices'" are not religious exercises violative of the Establishment Clause. (Quoting Brown). While claiming to use an objective test, the court is really saying that whether or not activities will pass constitutional muster will depend on whether the court finds the practice in question to be a "fantasy activity" or "real religion"...a highly subjective factual inquiry that calls into question whether the court should ever have entertained these motions for summary judgment.

Finally, the idea that a "subjective lack of spiritual intent" by the students establishes that no religious activities tool place is laughable. The whole purpose of this prong of the Establishment Clause test is to ensure that student are not coerced into religious activities. Their "spiritual intent" or lack thereof should not be material to the test, since obviously people being coerced lack the requisite intent the court would require. Nonetheless, the court concluded that there was no religious activity and therefore no coercion into religious activity.

The Eklunds' still had one more arrow in their quiver...the court could find that, even if there was no religious activity, the unit advanced or endorsed Islam...

Tomorrow--Endorsement of Islam?

Three More Pillars...Islam in Public Schools

As I began discussing in my last post, I was reading Cao's piece on Stop the ACLU the other day, "Jailed Terrorist Helps Draft Anti-Christian Rules," and I thought it was pretty interesting. But I thought it might be even more interesting if I could actually read the court papers, so I obtained a copy of Judge Hamilton's decision in Eklund v. Byron Union School District, so I could figure out if what the judge actually said is as bad as what has been reported.

As I mentioned below, the first two pillars of Islam, the "Shahada" (profession of faith in Allah) and and "Salaat" (prayer) were taught by requiring the students to learn lines from muslim prayers. The students were also required to learn the other three "pillars" of Islam--"Ramadan" (ritual fasting), "Zakaat" (charity), and "Haaj" (pilgrimage to Mecca). The court made the following factual findings (italicized quotes are from the court opinion):

"For the third and fourth pillars, Carlin (the teacher, not George) also required students to give up things for a day, such as watching television or eating candy, to demonstrate the Islam principle of Ramadan, or fasting. (Citations omitted). Carlin also required students to perform volunteer community service...in conformance with the Muslim requirement of Zakaat, or charitable donation...

"Finally, to demonstrate the fifth pillar of Haaj...Carlin had the students participate in a board game, called 'Race to Makkah.'"...(Apparently, in "Race to Makkah," students are asked to identify religious statements about Islam as "trivia," "truth," or "fact.")..."Certain 'truth' or 'fact' cards included statements of religious faith such as 'The Qu'ran...is God's third revelation that was revealed to Prophet Muhammad,' or 'The Holy Qu'ran is God's word as revealed to the Prophet Muhammad through the Archangel Gabriel,' without any qualifying language such as 'Muslims believe...' prefacing the statement.

"As part of the final [exam], Carlin required students to write an essay critiquing elements of Islamic culture. The essay assignment stated, 'BE CAREFUL HERE -- if you do not have something positive to say, don't say anything!!!' (Capitals and triple exclamation points in original).

Putting aside my own feelings about Islam and my own feelings about how incorrect the Supreme Court is in its current interpretation of the First Amendment of the Constitution, it is almost impossible to imagine that a court could find that this treatment of Islam in a public school passes Constitutional muster.

Let's try this with Christianity as our model...We start by "encouraging" all the students take "Christian" names (oh, didn't I mention that? Although it wasn't "required" the students were "encouraged" to choose muslim names to "facilitate role-playing.") So, um, Muhammad, you're "Peter"--yeah, the Apostle--uh, Kim Lee, you're Joseph...chill out, this is just to facilitate role-playing...what are we role-playing? We're going to start with role-playing that you believe in Jesus as your personal savior...say, "For God so loved the world, that he gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." Yes, it's on the final.

Ok, Muham..., uh Peter, now you baptize Kim, er, Paul...Say, "I baptize you, my brother, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." YES, it will be on the final!

Now I will read a short passage from 1 Corinthians 11 on partaking of the Lord's table, and then for snack time we will be having some crackers and grape juice as we role-play the Lord's Supper...as we partake of snack time, keep in mind that the elements represent the broken body and shed blood of out Lord and Savior...uh, that Christians believe in, but there's no pressure here, gang, just role-playing...YES, IT WILL BE ON THE FINAL

Final Exam--Critique Christian culture--if you say anything bad, you will fail...

Yeah, that would fly...

Next: The court's legal reasoning in finding this activity passed constitutional muster.

Islam In The Public Schools...The First Two Pillars of Islam

I was reading Cao's piece over on Stop The ACLU the other day, entitled, "Jailed Terrorist Helps Draft Anti-Christian Rules", and I thought it was pretty interesting--so I thought I would dig up just exactly what what was going on in the Byron Union School District vis-a-vis the muslim religion. In case you don't know, the case involved a parent's objections to the methods used in the teaching of Islam to seventh graders in the public schools in California, particularly in the Excelsior School of the Byron Union School District. Judge Hamilton, a notoriously activist judge, granted summary judgment to the school district.

Here are some of the facts of the Eklund v. Byron Union School District case, according to the court, not according to any of the interested parties (you can have our own view of whether the court was actually an "interested" party--I'm just saying these aren't the facts according to the ACLU or the Plaintiffs--they are the uncontested facts the judge used in granting the School District's motion for summary judgment). The italicized portions below are directly from Judge Hamilton's opinion:

"The California State Board of Education requires that seventh grade world history classes contain a unit on Islamic history, culture, and religion (citations omitted)...The state has approved a standard textbook, Across the Centuries, which is used by the Byron School District, but Excelsior teachers are also encouraged to use other instructional methods that they in their professional judgment feel best serve their students.

"Accordingly, some teachers have chosen to supplement the Islam unit with portions of an interactive educational module. This module...suggests a variety of role-playing activities to engage students in the subject matter. The module is premised on having students role-play situations roughly equivalent to the five elements of faith in the Muslim religion."

Note--Although the Plaintiffs in this case challenged only the "interactive educational module," the Across the Centuries textbook is currently the subject of an Administrative Complaint against the San Luis Coastal School District--Plaintiff in that case asserts that even the textbook violates the First Amendment, inasmuch as it contains unqualified statements "of fact," such as:

"The Arabic word Quran can be loosely translated as 'recitation." In fact, the very first word the angel Gabriel spoke to Muhammad was "Recite."

"Ramadan is a holy time, because in this month Muhammad received his first message from Allah."

"From Jerusalem, both Muhammad and Gabriel ascended into heaven, where Muhammad spoke to God." (new paragraph) "These revelations confirmed both Muhammad's belief in one God, or monotheism, and his role as the last messenger in a long line of prophets sent by God. The God he believed in - Allah - is the same God of other monotheistic religions, Judaism and Christianity."

Back to the court: "The Student Guide (distributed by the teacher, Carlin, to the students) states that '[f]rom the beginning [of this module], you and your classmates will become Muslims.' Id. Carlin states that she went over the guide in great detail and specifically emphasized...that the students would not actually become Muslims through their participation...(brackets in original).

"Students...were also encouraged, but not required, to choose a Muslim name....

"For the first two pillars of Islam, Carlin admits that, in the classroom, she read Muslim prayers and portions of the Qu'ran aloud in class, required student groups to recite a line from a Muslim prayer, such as 'In the name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful,' on their way out of class, and had the students make group banners."

Hmmm...I wonder if a teacher recited the Lord's prayer in class and required the students to say a line or two of it on their way out the door, the court would find that unobjectionable...or if "role-playing" Baptism and Communion would pass muster. There's more, that's just some of the facts of the case through page 4 of the 22-page opinion, and I want to get to the rest of it (and I will), but I'm going to post this for now, just to get a sense of what people think of the actual facts of the case...I will continue with "Pillars" 3-5 later this evening.

The Dictionary--A Tool, Not An Argument

Could somebody explain to me why there seems to be this fad in the blogosphere to trot out a favorite dictionary every time an issue is being discussed, point to a definition, and go "AHA, look, I can find a dictionary that agrees with my view, you lose!" It seems that, in some circles, this passes for reasoning. In fact, relying on a dictionary to define your reality is, at the end of the day, just another way to allow somebody else's opinion to replace your own (assuming you think the dictionary ends all discussion and cannot be controverted by the rational mind).

I'm not saying dictionaries aren't helpful--sometimes I use them for spelling, or to get just the nuance I am looking for when I want to say exactly right thing, and no more. But oftentimes dictionaries just confuse the issue, particularly when knotty problems of philosophy or religion are in view.

For example...what is the soul? Do I want to look at Webster's dictionary to explain this to me? If I read it's definition, will I then understand the soul? One of the synonyms given in most dictionaries for "soul" is "spirit", and vice versa--however, does that mean that soul and spirit are the same? I don't happen to think so, but there are apparently some bloggers who would refer to a dictionary, say, "Look, the dictionary says..." and walk away smugly sure that they had defeated me in debate by virtue of being in agreement with a book...

Hmmm...Yet, if I were to say, "The Bible says..." I would not even get the words out of my mouth before I would hear the resounding "slam" of minds going shut all across the blogosphere. Now, my Book has been around for several thousand years, and it contains wisdom far beyond any dictionary, and I'm even willing, in a discussion with a non-Christian, to treat it (solely for purposes of the discussion) merely as a tool in a debate, not as a final arbiter of every dispute. Yet many seem to fear and loathe the thought that they might even have to discuss the Bible's contents, while clinging to every word of their dictionary like a lifeline.

Just think about it--the next time you want to discuss something intelligently, put away that urge to grab the dictionary first thing...try applying reason to fact and come up with a real argument.

"Victimless Crime" and the ACLU

Welcome to the Stop the ACLU Blogburst for this Thursday! Today's topic: the so-called victimless crime of prostitution. The ACLU's position is simple-- Prostitution should be legal, and not regulated by the state. It should be legal and unregulated, opines the ACLU, because it is a private act between two consenting adults.

The ACLU also asserts that regulation of prostitution is counter-productive in the war against AIDS, because "'targetting prostitutes for forced testing simply won't work as a prevention strategy,' saying that '[i]f there is any group which will be driven underground by such a policy, it is prostitutes.'" Apparently they believe that unregulated prostitutes are more likely to get tested for AIDS and then voluntarily abstain from "working" if they are HIV-positive than prostitutes that actually have rules.

First of all, prostitution is not a victimless crime, nor is it simply a private act between two consenting individuals. Prostitution helps destroy families, spread disease, and seduce young people with the idea that selling your body is a quick and easy way to make a living. Taking the "stigma" away from this degrading act will not reduce it or make it safer--on the contrary, we will simply become more degraded as a society than we already are.

Second, the idea that unregulated, legal prostitution will serve to help in the war on AIDS is laughable, coming from the lips of liberals...if unregulated prostitution will result in more conscientious prostitutes, why not remove government regulation everywhere? I am sure that, given the chance, all businesses, landlords, sports franchises, and so forth would be more conscientious in their business practices if they were allowed to operate without regulation. In fact, we could just do away with the IRS--I "know" everybody would just send in their tax dollars voluntarily. We might even see a surplus, since "we know" all liberals would love to give more to the government. (This is liberalspeak--just say everybody "knows" something with no proof or facts.)

Although it cuts no ice with the ACLU, the practice of prostitution has been condemned from Biblical times simply because it is morally wrong. I reject the common idea that morality is passe, and I believe out nation ignores morality at its peril.


This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst! If you would like to join, it is very simple.Go to our new portal at Protest The ACLU , click where it says "sign up now", and fill out a simple form. This will enable us to send you a weekly newsletter with information, and keep your email private. Current members who have not registered, please do so. There are additonal advantages and features that will be available for you there...you can opt to use them, or not.

I Can't Change...

I can't believe this, but it was just suggested over at Stop the ACLU, (in a comment, not on the site) that if the ACLU "is reformed, so should the [religious right] be." According to Joseph (OK Democrat), one is as bad as the other. In other words, I need to "moderate" my religious views before it is reasonable to ask the ACLU to "moderate" their political stances.

I will try to believe that Joe wrote in haste and does not actually equate the ACLU with a person's personal religious beliefs. Naaah...I did try, but it didn't work. I think that's exactly what he thinks. Saying I should reform my religious beliefs is not only insulting, it's impossible. If you want to understand a fundamental difference between the left and the right, there it is...my beliefs are not held because they are convenient or expedient, and they don't change in order to suit the political, social or religious climate...they are what they are.

I can't change. And I don't plan to try.

Are Dems Losing a Loyal Constituency?

Back in February, Howard Dean had this to say about African-American inclusion in the Democrat Party, "My thought is on how to fully integrate on every level. The way we'll deal with that is the same way we deal with diversity at the DNC...When you put people in charge of operations at the DNC who are people of color, then you'll have a much better likelihood that people [of color] will be hired." (brackets in original) The New York Beacon.

Unfortunately, according to NewsMax, Howard is now under fire from none other than Al Sharpton for failing to put African-Americans in the very positions of leadership at the DNC he talked about in February...

"The Harlem firebrand and one-time presidential candidate said that as things stand now, the Republican Party is making more progress including blacks than Dean's team.
'We ought to have more to show [for our support],' he complained. 'And we should ask why, as the Republicans, ironically, are running blacks [for office], that [Dean] has left blacks out of the top echelon of the Democratic Party.'
Sharpton also said that Dean needed to apologize for racially charged remarks last February, where the top Democrat suggested that Republicans could attract blacks to their party if they summoned the 'hotel staff.'
'That was at a DNC session where we were running candidates for chair and vice chair,' Sharpton recalled. 'I said right at that session that he ought to apologize, absolutely.'" (brackets in original).

If even Al Sharpton can see it, maybe it's time for African-Americans to start seeing the Republican Party as the party of opportunity that it is.

Porn 101: Your Tax Dollars at Work

More news of the absurd: The University of Iowa (yes, a state-funded school) plans to offer a class on the role of pornography in popular culture. NewsMax reports that the teacher, a U of I grad student, defends the course, saying that porno won't actually be viewed in class. No, I'm sure it will be "homework."

Real ID Redux

Since they decided that the Real ID Act would be a good topic of discussion this week over at The Balance of Power, I thought I would clarify some of the points I made last week regarding this (in my view) bad piece of legislation. As you may know, Congress passed this legislation, with the aim of creating a uniform standard for driver's licenses across all 50 states, as part of a military appropriations bill.

The bill is a mandate to the states to conform to standards set by the Secretary of Homeland Security with regard to the states' issuance of driver's licenses. The bill prohibits any federal agency from accepting any state-issued driver's license or ID card that does not comply with the national standards. What the final standards and the licenses will look like is unclear, but getting the final product may involve multiple visits to your local DMV and lots of red tape.

As you might expect, there is a spirited debate underway as to whether this bill represents: 1) "fascism on parade," a transparent attempt by jackbooted Republicans to strip us of our privacy and freedom of movement, or; 2) a necessary homeland security measure that will only make our nation more secure--inhibiting the freedom of potential terrorists and illegal immigrants at the cost of some minor and temproary inconvenience to the citizenry, or; 3) a perhaps well-meaning attempt at greater homeland security, but one that probably puts us all at higher risk for identity theft, especially if a lot of personal information is contained on the card.

Frankly, I never get to the merits of the card when I analyze this issue, because I find the procedure used to pass it reprehensible--I don't care if it is the greatest thing since the wheel--Congress is hiding the ball from the public by tacking it on to a military appropriations bill as well as making it another unfunded mandate to the states.

I believe that, if the Congress really thinks this is a necessary homeland security measure, they ought to have the guts to make it a stand-alone piece of legislation, let the public have a detailed description of what is going to be entailed in the new licenses and what it is going to cost. I realize it is a time-honored tradition in Congress to pack bills with unrelated amendments and call in favors (or threaten retribution) in order to get them passed. Maybe it is time to break with tradition and ask our legislators to actually speak and vote their conscience. This measure passed 100-0 in the Senate, which just tells me that Democrats are going to say, "we had to vote for it, it was attached to a military appropriations bill!" while Republicans claim, "this was a bipartisan effort, not our fault!"

I don't care whose fault it is, I don't care if it's a good idea or a bad idea, Congress ought to put all the cards face up on the table for the American public to judge...and if they don't want to do that, then we really are in trouble.

Beth Graduated!!

Hello, yes, I'm back and my little girl did graduate--a wonderful time was had by all. Congratulations Beth and CWRU Class of 2005!!

Kerry's 180--The Saga Continues

Once again it is Tuesday, time for another request for Senator Kerry's Form-180. The form is not difficult to obtain, and it is a little hard to understand why an upstanding "Hero" like Lurch, uh, John, would keep refusing to sign it after promising to do so on national TV.

Anyway, you can e-mail Mr K. at http://kerry.senate.gov/v3/contact/email.html.

If you would like to join the Tuesday Blogburst requesting that Francois, uh, John, actually make good on his promise and make his military records public you can go to Cao's Blog and click on the link there to sign up. I believe there are now over 50 bloggers in the Tuesday Blogburst!! It's not just a Blogburst, it's a Movement!

Have a Nice Weekend...

Everybody have a nice weekend, and PLEASE stop posting about evolution and creationism for a month or so...I am not going to discuss it any further, you are all invincibly convinced of your own rightness, and I have better things to do than try to overcome all the years of brainwashing your little skulls full of mush have gone through...Maybe in June or July I'll feel like it again...

Anyway, I am off to Cleveland for my daughter's graduation from law school...since I am still in the non-portable Dark Ages of computing, I will probably not be blogging until Monday night... It's about 12:18 am, I am posting this now, and then I am posting my Thursday anti-ACLU blogburst, and then I am outta here...woo hooooooooo!!

Felons--The Untapped Democrat Constituency

Welcome to the Thursday "Stop the ACLU Blogburst" (Blogburst participants are listed at the bottom of the right-hand column)...this week's topic, felons and the ACLU's commitment to restore convicted criminals' right to vote. The ACLU, in case you were unaware, participates in a national coalition, "Right to Vote," that supports voting rights for felons.

Ok, I'm not going to hide the ball or spend a lot of time developing some thesis regarding felons and their so-called right to vote--let's cut right to the chase, shall we? Why are we even discussing this topic? Why is this an issue at all? Why do the ACLU and the Democrat party support felons' rights to vote, and why are they working so hard to get legislation passed restoring the franchise to felons? Well, uh, golly, could it be because they think they can predict how felons are likely to vote? Statistics show that, where felons are permitted to vote, they can generally be counted on to vote 70% (or more) Democrat. Of course the ACLU's motivation is to tap this untapped Democrat constituency, but they are not likely to admit it.

Oh, and before you bother accusing me of some hypocrisy here, why do I oppose voting rights for felons? Two reasons: A) Because I don't think people who have so little concern for the rights of others that they commit serious crimes against our citizenry should be afforded the privilege of voting, and B) Because I don't want to deliver a voting bloc to the liberals. I think reason A is more than sufficient, but I'm not going to pretend reason B doesn't exist.

The ACLU will not be so forthcoming about their real reason for championing felons' rights...Instead, we get smoke blown in our faces...The first smokescreen is that disenfranchising felons is racist, because it results in about 13% of black men being ineligible to vote. While I agree that the statistic is alarming, the racial disparity isn't caused by racism, it's caused by felony convictions. The answer isn't to make the penalty for committing a crime less; if disenfranchisement is an appropriate sanction for committing a felony, the race of the felon is irrelevant to the discussion.

So we move to the second smokescreen--that the right to vote is so "fundamental" to our country that it is unconscionable to stop felons from voting. This argument is absurd on its face. If we can incarcerate felons, and take away their right of self-determination, we can certainly, as a society, disenfranchise them for their crimes. But, say the proponents of felons' voting rights, once we free them from incarceration (at the latest--many would suggest that felons ought to be able to vote even while incarcerated), permanently disenfranchising them is continuing to punish them after they have "paid their debt to society."

This argument misses the point that there can be multiple components to a single punishment--Edward Feser of City Journal points out that, "Few people would say that the drunk driver sentenced by a judge to lose his driver’s license and to pay a hefty fine is punished twice. Most would agree that, given the crime, this one punishment with two components is perfectly apt." Permanently disenfranchising felons is not continuing to punish them after they have paid their debt...it is simply a judgment that, given the nature of felonious crime, permanent disenfranchisement is an appropriate component of the debt owed.

Maybe instead of trying to get voting rights restored to felons, the ACLU could better spend its time educating people on the rights that they will lose if they are convisted of a felony...if the right is as fundamental and important as the ACLU insists it is, we would certainly see a huge drop in crime once people were educated regarding the potential loss of voting privileges...and if not, it wasn't that important in the first place, was it?


This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst! If you would like to join, it is very simple.Go to our new portal at Protest The ACLU , click where it says "sign up now", and fill out a simple form. This will enable us to send you a weekly newsletter with information, and keep your email private. Current members who have not registered, please do so. There are additonal advantages and features that will be available for you there...you can opt to use them, or not.

Internet, Radio, Blamed for Anti-Islamic Discrimination

Now here's a ridiculous bit of news from the AP I found reported on Earthlink...the Council on American-Islamic Relations is blaming a rise in "hate crimes" and "civil rights violations" against Muslims on talk radio and internet chat. The proof?

"Whenever there is a beheading or act of terrorism overseas that involves Muslims, we see a rise in reported incidents here," said Ibrahim Hooper, a spokesman for the council. (Emphasis mine).

There, you see? Clearly this is the fault of talk radio and bloggers...if we would stop being so judgmental about some innocent beheadings, the anti-Islamic sentiment would immediately vanish...WHAT IN THE WORLD ARE THESE IDIOTS THINKING? No doubt it is a shame that civil rights complaints reported to the Council are on the rise, but maybe if they want to blame that on somebody they should point to the LOONS cutting off peoples' heads, not bloggers?

UPDATE--over at Atlas Shrugs there is now also a report that the rise in "hate crimes" tallied up by CAIR is wildly overstated...check it out!

John McCain...Spineless Filibuster Wimp

TJ has noted, at NIF, that as usual John McCain will do anything to undermine his own party as long as he gets some ink out of the deal...Now he's refusing to stand with his party (to the extent that anyone can call the Republican Party "his party" with a straight face) on overturning Democrat filibusters of Bush judicial nominees. According to FoxNews, "McCain is one of three Republicans who has publicly announced they will vote to retain the right to filibuster judicial nominees."

What is wrong with this guy? Throughout most of my life, I watched the House of Representatives and the Senate run by the thugs of the Democrat party--memorable moments like Dem's breaking down doors and carrying people onto the floor by force to obtain a quorum, Ted Kennedy sneaking amendments into Omnibus bills in the dead of night, Jim Wright, the Speaker of the House, cutting deals with the Teamsters to buy his phony book...

So now we have a majority, we can start to move the judiciary in the right direction, and John "Me and Francois, er, John Kerry Were War Heroes Together" McCain totally tries to screw up the works...does this upset anybody else?

Unfunded Mandates...and States' Rights

I thought Firewolf had an interesting article regarding a pending piece of federal legislation that would mandate that the states issue "more uniform driver's licenses." The goal of the legislation is to make it more difficult for potential terrorists to obtain fraudulent identification. The AP story says that the state governors are up in arms about the potential costs and increased "headache for law-abiding residents" who may have to deal with a whole new slew of requirements to get licensed to drive.

For once, I agree with the state governors on an issue and disagree with Firewolf; not because I think the goal of stopping terrorism isn't worthy, but because the federal government has decided to do it through an unfunded mandate. Let me explain:

An unfunded mandate is a requirement imposed on the states by the federal government without any federal funding to pay for it. The National Conference of State Legislatures reports that the cost of unfunded mandates to the states will reach around $34 billion this year...money the federal government insists be spent, but that Congress doesn't want to include in its budget. In my view, if the federal government wants something done, and the federal government thinks that what it wants done is within its purview, and the federal government thinks its what the people want, then the federal government ought to step up to the plate, pass legislation, collect the money needed and do what needs to be done.

On the other hand, if the federal government wants to do something that's NOT in its purview (say, regulate driving within a state), it shouldn't be able to use unfunded mandates to circumvent the constitutional limits of its power. These mandates are generally enforced, if necessary, by threatening to withhold funding in other areas if the states fail to comply. According to the Congressional Research Service Summary, in this case, if any state fails to comply, the agencies of the federal government will be prohibited from accepting that state's driver's licenses or ID cards for any purpose.

If the federal government wants to have uniform nationwide ID cards, Congress should have to legislate uniform nationwide ID cards and justify them to the public, and pay for them in the federal budget, not "backdoor" it through a federal unfunded mandate to the states, who will have to pass the costs on to their citizens.


UPDATE -- NIF is reporting that I am not alone in my dismay at the tactics used to get these national IDs...

Welcome Autorantic Virtual Moonbat!

A big welcome to the Autorantic Virtual Moonbat!! Enjoy!!

How Long Will We Wait, Mr. Kerry? As Long As It Takes...

Another day, another day of no SF-180 from John "Did you know I was in Vietnam?" Kerry...C'mon, Mr. Kerry, just suck it up and get it over with...Inquiring minds want to know, and so forth...it's been 100 days since you promised, on national TV, to release your military records, so why not do it? You wanted people to vote for you based on your campaign promises, how does it look when you can't put your signature on a piece of paper after promising to do so?

Besides, no matter what your record actually is, you can always fall back on the "Clinton defense"--It's yesterday's news, it happened a long time ago, this is just the VastRightWingConspiracy's attempt to dredge up the past...

Cao's Blog has all the info you need to turn up the heat a notch on Francois, uh, I mean John...

"Bonfire of the Vanities" Pirate Style

If you'd like to see an example of, "Here's something that takes a lot more time and effort than Makrothumeo would ever spend on his blog," check out Bonfire of the Vanities, week #97" at the Pirates Cove. Whew, niiiiice job, Willie T (a little hip-hop lingo there)!

Stopping the ACLU At Its Own Game

Most of the substance of this piece is cross-posted from Stop the ACLU--to see the whole original text, you can check that out--

As you may have noticed, there is a moderately large (and growing) group of "blogbursters" whose mission is to find a way to stop the damage we believe the ACLU is doing to our country. A complete list is on this website at the bottom of the right-hand column. What we've been asking ourselves is, "what can conservatives do to Stop the ACLU, and how can we beat them at their own game?" That is to say, how can we defeat the ACLU public relations scam that they are somehow defenders of liberty, and show them to the American public as the hypocrites and bottom-feeders that they in fact are?

Friday night we had a very interesting chat session, and I realized that many folks would like to adopt some kind of "nuclear strategy"...let's find a magic law or a really sympathetic judge, swoop down and wipe out the ACLU with one blow, causing their disorganized retreat, in the hopes that they will never be heard from again. Let me just say that, if such a thing were possible, I would be at the very forefront of the effort--I find the ACLU to be a running sore on the body of America. Unfortunately, this is not a novel by JRR Tolkien, this is real life, and there are no magic laws, and sympathetic judges are few and far between. Not only that, but the sympathetic judges are also men and women of conscience, which is actually bad for us (in this particular battle), since they feel honor-bound to apply the law as it stands, while liberal judges feel they are empowered to do whatever they think is "right," and that our elected lawmakers don't know what they're doing, so they have to "fix" the laws. Thus, even if you find a sympathetic judge, his hands are mostly tied by "precedent" set by liberal judges making bad law.

This creates a one-way "ratchet" effect in the system of jurisprudence...and it is a liberal ratchet. Liberal judges gleefully declare the will of the people "unconstitutional" with every ACLU suit, while conservative judges are unwilling to stoop to the levels of intellectual dishonesty necessary to become "activist" judges. With this "ratchet" in place, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that the solicitation of prostitution will at some point become a protected First Amendment "right" while the use of illegal drugs could fall into the "right of privacy net," which, although it doesn't exist in the Constitution, seems to "catch" everything the liberals can't justify otherwise.

So--what to do? I believe that the most effective (if not the only) route for those who are serious about stopping the ACLU is to patiently warn the public about what the ACLU is really doing. There are many well-meaning people who think of the ACLU as "our nation's guardian of liberty." I guess that would be true if protecting liberty meant attacking the Boy Scouts and defending groups of self-proclaimed pedophiles like NAMBLA. I truly believe (and fervently hope) the these people are unaware of the depths of depravity to which the ACLU will stoop in furtherance of what they characterize as "civil liberties."I realize that patiently warning the public about the ACLU isn't exciting and dramatic...but the fact of the matter is that there isn't amy quick and easy fix to the problem...I know, because if there were, somebody waaayyy smarter than me would have already used it.

But think about this--although politicians would have you believe that landmark legislation should be credited with bringing great change to society, change actually comes about not because politicos decree it, but because ultimately politicians bow to the will of the people. Women's suffrage, child labor laws, the civil rights act--these didn't come about because one morning the politicians woke up and decided to "do the right thing" for a change--they came about because it was time and the people demanded change. We on the right need to wake up the sleeping giant of public opinion and get people to see the ACLU for what it is--an atheistic leftist organization in existence solely for the purpose of instituting its goals judicially because they have been unsuccessful in instituting them legislatively.

A few months ago, the Stop the ACLU Blogburst didn't exist...today we number over 50...and growing every day, several new mwmbers a week. I would encourage all of our readers to get on board and make a difference for America. To quote a former president (who I am convinced would not recognize his own political party if he were alive today), "If not us, who? If not now, when?"

What Is So Scary About Creationism?

I am currently teaching a course once a week on the book of Genesis--after about 6 weeks, we have made it to Chapter 2 (I know, I'm rushing). These early chapters of the book of Genesis give us a great insight into what the universe is all about and what humanity's place is in it. Yet, it seems to really anger evolutionists that I don't happen to see myself, or any other human, as the pinnacle of all existence. The very thought that there is a God just seems to throw them into a panic--and if you even mention that it might be appropriate to to teach creation theory as an opposing viewpoint to evolutionary theory in our schools, you immediately risk ad hominem attacks about your parentage and IQ, not to mention your gullibility and need for a religious crutch.

Yet I have always found that, no matter how much I study evolutionism and creationism, I always wind up with the belief that it would take more faith for me to believe in evolution than creation. I can see signs of God's handiwork all around me--in fact, it's so apparent that the Bible tells us that everybody really knows about God...some people just choose to disbelieve because they hate the idea of not being Numero Uno. (Romans 1:18-21)

But as for evolution, here's the truth: "As a matter of fact, in all human history, no one has ever seen any real evolution take place (horizontal variation within kinds is not macro-evolution), although thousands of species have become extinct during human history. Furthermore, out of the billions of known fossils in the earth's rock record of the past, no true intermediate evolutionary transitional form between kinds has ever been discovered, whereas there ought to be large numbers of such intermediate forms if evolution had really happened.

"No wonder evolutionists become paranoid when asked to allow both sides of the creation-evolution issue to be heard. They cannot respond with real scientific evidence, because there is none—no evolution in the present, none in the past. This has become painfully obvious in the hundreds of scientific debates between evolutionists and creationists during the past 25 years.

"Consequently, Eugenie Scott, from her strategic position as director of the main anti-creationist organization, is now warning her fellow evolutionists not to debate the issue at all. 'Avoid Debates,' she says. 'If your local campus Christian fellowship asks you to "defend evolution," please decline . . . you probably will get beaten.'"

Yup, definitely takes more faith to believe in something when your own experts are advising each other not to debate because they'll lose...You see, the people who need a crutch are not the folks who believe in God, it's the folks who are standing on the broken legs of evolution.

Putting the "Free" Back in "Free Exercise of Religion"

We all know the ACLU loves suing to "vindicate the religious rights" of those who feel "offended" when they see the Ten Commandments on public property or hear a prayer at a high-school football game. What you may not know is that, under the current law, if the ACLU wins these suits they are entitled, under the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards Act of 1976, to collect, "a reasonable attorney's fee as part of the costs..." Well, that doesn't sound so bad, until you start to look at what the ACLU actually collects in "reasonable attorney's fees" to vindicate somebody's hurt feelings! According to News With Views, Alabama got soaked for $540,000 for Judge Moore and the Ten Commandments case. When they stopped the Boy Scouts from using Balboa Park in San Diego for a summer camp, the taxpayers got hammered for $790,000 in "reasonable fees."

Every time the ACLU takes on a municipality, the municipality is forced to ask itself whether displaying the Ten Commandments, or a cross, or saying a public prayer is worth going to court for when the gamble is not just that they will have to remove the "offending" item or cease the "offending" practice. They have to look down the barrel of the ACLU's attorney's fee gun and ask themselves how lucky they feel. Obviously, this creates a huge "chilling effect;" it is easier to cave to the ACLU's demands than risk getting a liberal judge who might find saying "bless you!" after a sneeze an unconscionable display of religion.

Hopefully Representative John Hostettler will be successful in curbing the ACLU's out of control litigiousness when he introduces an amendment to the Attorney's Fees Act that would remove establishment of religion cases from its purview. Such an amendment would make bringing these actions much less attractive to the ACLU as well as giving it less leverage against financially beleaguered school districts and municipalities.

The reasoning for amending the attorney's fees law in cases involving religious liberty is relatively simple--"Every other civil right case, there is some injury to somebody," American Legion attorney Rees Lloyd of Banning, California, told a Thursday rally in front of ACLU's Los Angeles offices. "Somebody lost their job ... somebody got beat up by authorities – they have some physical, mental, economic injury. But in an Establishment Clause case, it is someone who says, 'I take offense,' and the offense is based on religions, politics, philosophy, but there is no injury." World Net Daily

In other words, there should no longer be a bonanza for the ACLU every time somebody's feelings get hurt.

The Pulpit Pounder encourages readers to contact their elected officials and voice support for this legislation. We need to stop allowing the ACLU to use the threat of attorney's fees as a lever to destroy our religious freedoms. For additional info, go to Stop the ACLU.

A "Toast" to the Runaway Bride (Literally)

I don't particularly care about Jennifer Wilbanks or her goofy fiance, (aside from the fact that I am praying for their futures and that they get good counseling--I think it is OK to pray for somebody while simultaneously thinking of them as "goofy"), but this is just waaaay too funny to not put up on a post...Jennifer's picture has been "discovered" on a piece of toast and is up for auction on eBay...the "toast artiste" has really captured her essence, I think...

Lois and Eunice--Moms For The Ages

I have now recovered from my early-in-the-week panic over Mother's Day (See Mother's Day----Aauughhhh!!!), and my studies have led me to Lois and Eunice. Who are Lois and Eunice? Lois and Eunice were the grandmother and mother, respectively, of a young preacher named Timothy roughly 1900+ years ago. We only know about them because Timothy had a friend and mentor named Paul, another preacher, who liked to write letters. Paul wrote, in a letter to Timothy, that he missed Timothy and looked forward to seeing him because he remembered Timothy's "unfeigned faith"--faith that Paul had first seen in Timothy's mother and grandmother. (2 Timothy 1:5) If you stop and think about it, that's pretty cool...Timothy was the kind of person that you want to be around and you miss when you're not with them, because he was real...no phoniness...and Paul knew he owed it to his mom and grandma.

What does it take for moms and dads to raise a child who becomes the kind of man Timothy was? First, it takes being real yourself...Paul says that he first saw the unfeigned faith of Timothy in his mother and grandmother...those ladies didn't just talk about having faith or being Christians, they lived it out...Paul says their faith "dwelt" in them. Their faith lived with them all the time...Now for some people, faith seems to come for a visit on Sunday morning...it might hang around for lunch and the evening service, but then faith is in the car, waving as it heads off down the road until next Sunday. In those kind of families, kids see a model that teaches them that Jesus is for one day a week, and then we go back to the "real world." But Lois and Eunice's faith was with them all the time, guiding and directing them, and helping them to show Timothy how to live as a Christian man.

They didn't just live out a faith with no context, however...in 2 Timothy 3:15, Paul mentions that Timothy had been taught the holy Scriptures from his childhood. Lois and Eunice had not been slack in taking care of Timothy's education--Timothy wasn't taught to be good for the sake of being good, or that he should "let his conscience be his guide," or that he should look at every situation and do what he thought was best; he was taught God's word from a young age. Learning the Bible is not just a good idea--learning the Bible gives us the direction we need to make us the people God would have us to be. Verse 16 says the Bible should be used to direct our ways and to guide us into righteousness...not our righteousness, but the righteousness of God.

Finally, Lois and Eunice did one more thing that was a key to Timothy's development as a Christian and as a man...they made sure that his role model was a person worthy of being followed...Paul. Timothy had traveled with Paul, had served with Paul in ministry, had been taught by Paul, and had seen Paul in good times and bad...and Timothy saw that Paul, like Lois and Eunice, lived out his faith in every situation, and God was always faithful to deliver Paul.

Timothy grew up to be a faithful follower of Christ and man of faith...because the women in his life, his mother and grandmother, lived out their faith, taught him the word, and made sure he had good role models. Praise the Lord for faithful mothers!!

Want to Stop the ACLU?--Who Wouldn't!!

If you're interested in being part of an effort to impede the ACLU's efforts to destroy Christianity, Democracy and Life as We Know It in General, I would encourage you to visit Stop the ACLU! today and check out Gribbit's "Open Invitation to Join a Blog Community" at Protest the ACLU.

"Louie Louie"--42 Years Later, Still a Menace

Accoring to the Herald-Palladium, the McCord Renaissance Center marching band (a Middle School band) in Benton Harbor, MI, has been advised by the local school superintendent, Paula Downing, that they will not be permitted to play "Louie Louie," the 1963 Kingsmen tune, because of the "degrading and vulgar lyrics" contained therein. It would be interesting to know what the degrading and vulgar lyrics are, since I've been listening to the song for 40 years and still don't know the lyrics.

I doubt the superintendent does either, since the The Smoking Gun files on the subject show that the FBI, after investigating the "smutty" song, discovered that the lyrics were entirely unintelligible...Soooo... "Hey, hey Paula, give that marching band some slack...Hey, hey Paula, let that Kingsmen song come back..."