"And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God"
-- Micah 6:8

"The duty of the prosecutor is to seek justice, not merely to convict."
-- American Bar Association Standard 3-1.2(c)

"There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia."
--Pope Benedict XVI, June 2004

Thursday, April 06, 2006

ACLU: "Scouts, No; Islam, Yes"

It's oral argument day in the 7th Circuit case of Winkler v. Rumsfeld, wherein the ACLU is trying to boot the Boy Scouts out of Camp AP Hill, just up the road from here in Fredericksburg, Va. That's the site of the Boy Scout Jamboree.

The ACLU kick and scream and pout whenever they hear of any support, however tangential, given by the government to the Scouts. Why? The Scouts require members to profess belief in "God." Note-- not Christianity, not Judaism, not Islam, not Buddhism. No, just a generic belief in "God." Somehow these ACLU lawyers see this requirment as running afoul of the First Amendment. That provision says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercize thereof...." Now if you're not a lawyer with the special skills and training necessary to understand this complicated phrase, it currently is construed by the ACLU to mean that the government can never, ever, permit any activity on public property that acknowledges the existence or importance of a (traditional Western) religion, or even allow a group that professes such views to have access to public land if the government has to expend any resources to accomodate that presence.

Now, it's true that the ACLU is Communist in its origins and orientation and that is certainly the explanation for much of their agenda.

But please don't get the impression that the dandies at the ACLU hate all religion or anything. Because they are partial to some religions. There is one religion in particular that they support, one religion that they don't mind getting a helping hand from the government, despite their vigilance against the corrupting influence of traditional Western religion creeping into the public life of this country.

Yes, the ACLU thinks some religions are more equal than others, which is why they are stonily silent when Moslems get preferential state treatment, as when Boston sold public land worth $2 million to a mosque for $175,000. The ACLU won't touch this case.

They also refuse to intervene in the case an Army Corps of Engineers lease of public land in Iowa to a Moslem group for the construction of a specifically Moslem youth camp, including a dome-covered prayer tower. The local ACLU sages stated:
There is no establishment clause violation in government permitting the building of a structure that resembles a mosque or church…we are unaware of any cases involving governmental religious displays based on the theory that certain public architecture is an endorsement of one religion over another…this is not the case in which to try that argument out….
So even though the ACLU hates the Scouts because they harbor religious believers and don't allow homosexuals to have access to the boys, remember: they are not so bad after all, because Islam needs a helping hand from the government just now, and the ACLU won't get in the way.


Anonymous said...

The ACLU has, by most accounts represented people of all faiths (yes, even mainstream protest Christians, in disputes with states and/or the federal government.) A quick search of Westlaw would have revealed this. But accuracy isn’t your strong point.

(While I don’t generally think it is acceptable, or to quote from a webpage, a quick search reveals a few dozen cases where the ACLU represented Christian students. They put some of their work on their web page. See http://www.aclu.org/religion/tencomm/16254res20050302.html . They are fairly high-volume on these matters, since the ACLU will generally only take on winning cases, and government entities are usually convinced by their arguments. )

You seem to have a lot of anger against the ACLU, but because you don’t read the briefs, you look like a Muslim chanting slogans. A real American would have known the contours of both arguments, and understood why these issues are not only close, but actually litigated.

Now, I have Muslims much more than you. Indeed, I support the troops more than any other American. But, that doesn’t give me a license to piss on the constitution by having no idea what the arguments are and just relying on oral arguments and newspaper reports.

Furthermore, the circumstances in which the ACLU can intervene in any ongoing case are quite narrow. While I don’t think that you actually care what the standard would be, suffice to say it is a might higher test than it is for an association to have standing to assert a constitutional injury. Likewise, while you may wish the ACLU to file briefs in support of people that you like, it is irresponsible, and probably unethical to file a brief in a case where your position is the same as one already taken in the matter. Indeed, many courts rightfully do not accept such amicus briefs.

Whether some people in the ACLU were communist or not doesn’t seem to be relevant. The ACLU’s position on free markets doesn’t seem to have anything to do withy your argument. Just pointing to some communists, doesn’t make your argument any more or less valid. As a lawyer (even one that went to a TTT) you might want to do better in the future.

Faithmy said...

"Now, I have Muslims much more than you"

Do you even READ the crap you spew??

Anonymous said...

I think "Faithmy" is under the impression that "anonymous" is one person. I am not the anonymous that posted the above comment. I do post from time to time and am generally critical of Mr. McKenna, but not always. I also value my anonimity to the point that I do not choose to register a pseudonym, although I am aware that some of my IP details are visible to the blog owner.
I personally dislike the ACLU for their dangerous and wilfull misunderstanding of the establishment clause. I also think that they misunderstand the Geneva Convention and have lately been too sympathetic to enemy combatants who wish to subvert the very values that they claim to support.
That being said, I do think organizations such as the ACLU serve an important role - they keep our law enforcement and judicial system on its toes. There are lots of police officers, prosecutors, judges, public school administrators out there. Some of them would all too easily slip into petty tyranny if they were not harrassed and scrutinized by the likes of the ACLU. If I happen to think that Mr. McKenna is one who would slip into petty tyranny, well... I do think that some of his arguments encourage this assumption. I AM the anonymous whose writing "Faithmy" characterized as "homosexual knee-jerk." Not to be petty, but do YOU read the things you spew?

Faithmy said...

First--I realize that their are a wide array of "anons" who post here, from the overtly queer to the leftist hose-bags.

Secondly, are you denying my charge??

Thirdly--I tend to write in at least a some hat coherent fashion. Did you read the part of the garbage I quoted? It wasnt even a stupid thought.

Steve Armstrong said...

I may have said this before- but I stand by it: We have reached a point in American history where the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional and the Boy Scouts are labeled a hate group! As an Eagle Scout myself, I take all of these attacks very seriously. The ACLU really shows its true colors on this one.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous, I don’t see how a position taken in court, even if erroneous, can be “dangerous.” I don’t know if you understand the Geneva Convention (because I have not seen your analysis of it).

Whatever the case, the courts are capable of interpreting the constitution (and, perhaps the Geneva Convention) and are not required to defer to the litigating positions of the ACLU. Likewise, there are plenty of competent lawyers taking positions opposite to the ACLU, so I don’t see any danger.

Moreover, even assuming (as you do) that the ACLU could hypnotize judges into adopting an erroneous constitutional interpretation, the constitution could be easily amended. However, in recent years, the only time we came close to amending the constitution was to somehow abrogate a state court’s interpretation of its own constitution regarding homosexuals – nothing about religion or foreigners was at stake. So, despite the rhetoric for the lay people, the system seems to work rather well.

Steven, Neither the ACLU, nor the 9th Circuit took the position that the pledge of allegiance was “unconstitutional.” We are at war here, and to make such a statement, without reading the briefs and the opinions will embolden the enemies of freedom. The only way we can beat the terrorists is if all Americans read legal opinions before commenting on them.

Faith, You do not write in a coherent fashion. You insult people’s sexuality, and you condemn people that write more than your can handle.

Faithmy said...

I only insult peoples HOMOSEXUALITY. Get it right.