the A.C.L.U.---protecting our CONSTITUTIONAL values

[RyanH]

This recent newsclipping reminds me of why I am so incredibly proud to be both an active member and financial contributor to the A.C.L.U. The A.C.L.U. has fought more cases before the United States Supreme Court than any person or entity and quite successfully. The following is a recent A.C.L.U. victory which remind us all of the bedrock principle of separation between church and state.
Ryan.

FRANKLINTON, La. — Residents of a small Louisiana town are fighting back after the ACLU won a lawsuit over signs the town put on public property that proclaimed their faith in God.

The American Civil Liberties Union sued the town of Franklinton and forced town officials to remove four signs from public property that said, "Jesus Is Lord Over Franklinton."

Now, in a movement to have their own say, the town of 4,000 has posted more than 1,000 signs on lawns and store fronts that express their faith in God. The most popular sign says, "Jesus is Lord of All."

A local signmaker has sold about 2,800 more to people from surrounding towns, and a traveling salesman has started hawking them in Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia and Florida.

The civil liberties group filed its federal lawsuit Jan. 29, demanding the removal of the signs leading into town. ACLU officials named Washington Parish and town officials in their complaint, saying public money was used to erect the signs — which violate the constitutional separation of church and state.

Parish President M.E. Taylor acknowledged that parish road crews put up the signs, but he said residents paid for them.

New Orleans resident Linton Carney, who joined the ACLU as a plaintiff, said he was offended when he first saw the signs in July while driving through Franklinton, which is 55 miles north of New Orleans near the Mississippi state line.

But the lawsuit stung many residents of this mainly Protestant town.

"Most people were a little angry at the ACLU," Fowler said. "This is a small, basically Christian town and we just strongly believe that Jesus is lord over all."

"There was sort of an outcry from the Christian community," said Gene Richards, pastor of Hill Crest Baptist Church. "It seems the ACLU is trying to de-Christianize the community."

ACLU officials say that's not true, they are merely defending the Constitution.

Joe Cook, executive director of the Louisiana ACLU, said he's satisfied that his suit removed religious content from public property.

Richards said the ACLU lawsuit was the latest in a string of suits over public Christian displays. Nearby towns have been hit with legal battles over nativity scenes on public property.

"These are types of displays of the Christian faith that had been accepted, even expected, and now we're being told they're illegal," Richards said. "These signs originally were a declaration of the faith of a large majority of people in Franklinton. They were never intended to be offensive or to discriminate against anyone."

The idea to put signs on private property came independently to pastors and a group of residents organizing their annual parish fair, said Madonna Fowler, 54, a retired Franklinton teacher.

Homeowners put them in their yards. Some put them inside car windows. Business owners planted them in front of Radio Shack, Crown Auto Sales and Winston Refrigeration.

 

[danielson]

sounds like a worthy organisation

imagine the reaction if residents in san fransisco wanted to place a rainbow flag over every public property....

is this organisation partially state funded or is it totally independant?

 

[bunnymt]

Sure this violates the constitutional tenet of the separation of church and state, yet the town is mainly protestant. It seems to me that these townspeople are mainly exploiting their constitutional right:

that congress shall not make a law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise of the religion with freedom of speech entailed.

bunny

 

[p0ink]

*yawn*

 

[RyanH]

sounds like a worthy organisation

imagine the reaction if residents in san fransisco wanted to place a rainbow flag over every public property....

is this organisation partially state funded or is it totally independant?

the ACLU is privately funded, based in New York, and has fought an extraordinary number of cases before the United States Supreme Court, most very successfully.

Many critics tend to bash the ACLU, but whenever someone's civil liberties are threated or experiences discrimination first-hand, the ACLU is often who she turns to.

 

[RyanH]

*yawn*

I know, it's getting pretty tiring watching so many citizens trying to change our whole constitutional framework, isn't it?

But they continue to fail.

 

[RyanH]

*yawn*

I know, it's getting pretty tiring watching so many citizens trying to change our whole constitutional framework, isn't it?

Especially when they continue to fail.

 

[p0ink]

I know, it's getting pretty tiring watching so many citizens trying to change our whole constitutional framework, isn't it?

Especially when they continue to fail.

as it is getting tiring watching your party try to get the shays mehan bill signed into law. you know, the bill that gives the first amendment a good ass raping.

 

[danielson]

Many critics tend to bash the ACLU, but whenever someone's civil liberties are threated or experiences discrimination first-hand, the ACLU is often who she turns to.

 

[RyanH]

as it is getting tiring watching your party try to get the shays mehan bill signed into law. you know, the bill that gives the first amendment a good ass raping.

LOL. Good to hear your concern for first amendment rights, particulary when those rights are being used to destruct our political process. The first Amendment is subject to regulation, always has been, and will continue to be. None of our rights are absolute. For example, the states are not completely sovereign since the government restricts states rights where necessary.
Also, First amendment rights are not absolute in school settings either. The Supreme Court has limited constitutional rights time and time again where necessary to protect the welfare of our society.

This bill is just another example of a necessary restriction on first amendment rights in furtherance of the public good.