I received this in the mail today. The words in red italics are directly from the letter of the American Civil Liberties Union, the words in parenthesis are mine, and the words in green are links. The letter reads:
Anthony D. Romero
Dear ACLU Member,
There are a number of reasons why I have grown increasingly concerned as weeks, and now months, have passed without hearing from you about renewing your ACLU membership. (I was a member years ago when I was stupid. )
But there is one particular freedom requiring a staunch defense that we can't provide without your help: religious freedom. (The ACLU has been the leading proponent for the removal of CHRISTIAN/JEWISH religions, but not Islam from American public life. The ACLU actually is working to supplant our Judeo/Christian heritage with Islam by forcing our schools - elementary through university - to adopt textbooks showing Islam in the most positive light while exhibiting Christianity and Western civilization in the most negative light possible.)
Religious extremists have been chipping away at religious liberty in America for years. Now, in collaboration with elected officials at the highest levels of government and their sights set on transforming our country from a constitutional democracy to a theocracy, they are taking aim at the First Amendment's free exercise and establishment clause. (The ACLU has successfully forced the city of Los Angeles to remove the Christian cross from the City Seal, the removal of the Ten Commandments from Court rooms across the country, and banned Christian clubs from university campuses. Our country is not now, nor has it ever been a "constitutional democracy"; it is and always has been a Constitutional Republic. The establishment clause forbids the government from enacting a Religion of State as the Anglican Church is in England. But, neither does the establishment clause allow the government to hinder the free expression of religion as a national interpretation of faith; government was intended to be neutral in religious affairs unless a religion became a danger to individuals or society at large.)
Their goal: infusing every aspect of our government - and our lives - with THEIR religious doctrine. (As opposed to the ACLU religious doctrine. See my previous post Atheism is Religion.)
Civil libertarians know the ACLU stands as a vital, and often last, line of defense against attempts to tear down the wall of separation between church and state. It's a fight we are willing to take on. ... With the religious freedom of everyone in our country at stake, we must win. (The "wall of separation" does not exist in the Constitution, the Declaration, or any of the founding documents of America, but rather in an answering letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists of Connecticut penned Jan 1, 1802. The Danbury letter and the Jefferson reply.) ... (Plea for funds here) ...
Adherence to First Amendment principles is what has made our country a safe haven for every religion by prohibiting the federal government from favoring one religion over another. But now we face a growing campaign to curtail religious liberty through federal legislation, executive orders and below-the-radar policy shifts. (As with most of the ACLU's arguments, this is also disingenuous. Only the Federal government was prohibited from establishing religion. The States, until recently, have been free to endorse or ban any religion as they saw fit. Allowing Mosques to announce prayer five times a day over loudspeakers, intruding across the religion boundaries of neighborhoods, in American cities with majority Christian populations hardly seems a curtailment of religious liberty. However, causing Christians to dismantle Christmas Nativity displays and Jews to remove Hannakah menorrah from Temple lawns which intrude only upon the sight lines of those who come near enough to see, in majority Christian cities does seem to be a curtailment of religious liberty and that is what the ACLU endorses.)
But the moral absolutists intent on seeing their religious beliefs become the law of the land continue to press ahead with their dangerous agenda. And they are determined to eliminate all obstacles that stand in their way, including an independent judiciary and the Constitution's system of checks and balances. "Court stripping" bills now being debated in Congress would prevent all federal courts from hearing challenges to laws involving school prayer, government displays of the Ten Commandments, or the legality of including "God " in the Pledge of allegiance. (This entire paragraph is complete nonsense. The only group here intent on seeing their dangerous agenda become the law of the land is the ACLU. Through the efforts of the left to politicize the judiciary, the court system has become less independent and far more activist, creating laws without the consent of Congress, the President, or the people. Because religion is not a government agency, it is not part of the system of checks and balances the Founders designed into the Constitution, believing "the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions..." - Jefferson's Danbury letter. The bills being debated in Congress are intended to reign-in the innumerable court cases brought by the ACLU and others, time and time again challenging the will of the people with cases that have been heard countless times the judgments of which the ACLU and the left are unwilling to accept. If they cannot get the desired judgment in one court, they move on to the next until a willing fellow traveler judge is found. ) ... (The closing plea for funds) ...
Needless to say, I will not be sending money the the American Civil Liberties Union. I believe I will respond to the other letter received today - the NRA membership renewal.
The life of Indigo Red is full of adventure. Tune in next time for the Further Adventures of Indigo Red.
Barely 12 hours after the above was posted, The Pledge of Allegiance has been declared unconstitutional by US District Judge Lawrence Karlton in a case brought (again) by Michael Newdow, the atheist who didn't like the decisions of the last several judges who heard his case.
"A federal judge declared the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools unconstitutional Wednesday in a case brought by the same atheist whose previous battle against the words "under God" was rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court on procedural grounds.
U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled that the pledge's reference to one nation "under God" violates school children's right to be "free from a coercive requirement to affirm God."
Karlton said he was bound by precedent of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which in 2002 ruled in favor of Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow that the pledge is unconstitutional when recited in public schools.
The Supreme Court dismissed the case last year, saying Newdow lacked standing because he did not have custody of his elementary school daughter he sued on behalf of.
Newdow, an attorney and a medical doctor, filed an identical case on behalf of three unnamed parents and their children. Karlton said those families have the right to sue.
Karlton, ruling in Sacramento, said he would sign a restraining order preventing the recitation of the pledge at the Elk Grove Unified, Rio Linda and Elverta Joint Elementary school districts, where the plaintiffs' children attend.
The decision sets up another showdown over the pledge in schools, at a time when the makeup of the Supreme Court is in flux.
Wednesday's ruling comes as Supreme Court nominee John Roberts faces day three of his confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee. He would succeed the late William H. Rehnquist as chief justice.
Sandra Day O'Connor stepped down unexpectedly from the Supreme Court in July.
The Becket Fund, a religious rights group that is a party to the case, said it would immediately appeal the case to the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. If the court does not change its precedent, the group would go to the Supreme Court.
"It's a way to get this issue to the Supreme Court for a final decision to be made," said fund attorney Jared Leland.
Newdow, reached at his home, was not immediately prepared to comment. "