STOP THE ACLU - MERRY CHRISTMAS, NOT Happy Holidays - moonshadows1949's Blog - Tehachapi News

Apr 29, 2008 at 10:04 PM : Well I support 7 out...

Well I support 7 out of 10................... I support1,3 and 4 the most and I do not support 7, 8 and 10 .........

Apr 29, 2008 at 10:04 PM : Well, how about you...

Well, how about you get your law degree and go against the ACLU? Fight them in the courts instead of in the media. But maybe I'm a little biased, since I happen to agree with 7 out of the 10 things you've listed there, and I'm not even far left. They have also done a great many good things for citizens' rights- how about a sampling of those?

Apr 29, 2008 at 10:04 PM : Hah, Gube- we both...

Hah, Gube- we both support 7 of them, but my 7 are mostly different from yours. I agree with 3-9.

Apr 29, 2008 at 10:04 PM : madkow do you know...

madkow do you know what # 9 means? Terri Schiavo wasn't euthanized .....She had her feeding tube removed right? I thought her husband did the right thing. I hope my wife would..........

Apr 29, 2008 at 10:04 PM : I'm...

I'm confused! You say "in my opinion, I know this is the right adgenda for the USA." Are you referring that the above statements are the right adgenda for the USA?

For Your information --here is what the ACLU has done TO PROTECT students and the bible in public schools:

"First, children are free to pray in public schools either as individuals or in groups. In addition, whenever a teacher opens up an assignment topic for the children's choice (such as which book to read, what to discuss in a talk to the class, or which song to sing), students may choose religious themes - and the ACLU has protected their right to do so. In addition, schools may offer courses about religion or about the Bible or other religious works.

And when was the last time you were in a public school or library? They use "NET NANNIES" to filter out porno. This idea is just a figment of your wild imagination. Go ahead--call all the school districts in the US--none of them allow unfiltered Internet.

Another example of right wing imaginations GONE WILD!

Apr 29, 2008 at 11:04 PM : The worse moment in my...

The worse moment in my life was when I told the medical staff to discontinue my husband's life support. I could hardly say the words, and had to whisper them. He was 47 yo, and we had a 9 and 10 year waiting at home for dad. It was the only decision I could make, as I didn't want him to die a slow terrible death. If I didn't, he would have been discharged to a nursing home. There he would have slowly suffocated for 4-8 weeks until pneumonia filled his lungs with fluid. And the final outcome? He still would have died. So I did what I hope someone will do for me someday, and that is no feeding tube and to die a peaceful death while in family's arms. My husband was an organ donor. There are several people still alive today because of his death and our family's decision.

The terrible tragedy of Terri would have been avoided had a feeding tube NOT been inserted in the first place. This dilema has been made available by the advances in health care. People did not get feeding tubes years ago and they always died so the ethical idea of prolonging life has come about. People need to accept that death IS a fact of life.

Apr 29, 2008 at 11:04 PM : Awsmom you are one of...

Awsmom you are one of my favs on this blog site and thank you for sharing about your husband........I know it must be tough at times but from what you tell us here on the blogs your husband would be very proud of you...........

Apr 30, 2008 at 09:04 AM : Well said Awsmom! I...

Well said Awsmom! I can't imagine what you went through, but I admire your strength and courage!

I don't agree 100% with the ACLU either, but at times it is necessary. I support 2, 5, 6 & 9. I don't care one way or another about 1, 3 & 4, and 7, 8 & 10 I don't support at all.

Apr 30, 2008 at 09:04 AM : awsmom8, I understand...

awsmom8, I understand what you went through as my brother made the same decision as he was losing his fight against MS. I know how horrible it feels, even though you're telling yourself it's the best of a bad lot. I'm with Joty in admiration of you!

Regarding this list posted, does everyone believe all of these positions are truly the stance (no Senator Craig, not right now) of the ACLU? Could some of these things America has had to "endure" really just be twisted propaganda in order to instill fear?

Just askin'...

;-)

Apr 30, 2008 at 12:04 PM : Well like a bunch of...

Well like a bunch of others, I support much of what is up there.

Denial of student led prayer in the public schools, colleges and townhall meetings

I'm all for this. Separation of Church and State. If tax dollars are paying for it, it doesn't belong there. If you want religion in schools, use your personal funds to send your kids to a religious private school. I don't have a problem with kids praying in school. But student led prayer implies prayer groups, which soon grows in to bible clubs, which soon grows into recruitment. These things have no place in school. Even the founding fathers knew this, and they were very religious.
Partial birth abortion and for that matter, abortion at any time up to delivery

This I have mixed feelings on. I believe if it is a danger to the mother (physically and/or psychologically) it should be an option. Otherwise I'm 110% against it. If my wife was pregnant, and the doctors discovered a problem where my wife could/would die due to the pregnancy or delivery -- I'm choosing my wife and to "hell" with anyone that tells me the baby comes first.
Threats to take God out of the Pledge of Allegiance and our money

The original Pledge did not have the words "under God" in it. It was added by The Knights of Columbus in 1951 when they said the pledge at their meetings, taken from Lincoln's usage in the Gettysberg Address, at which point they began lobbying the president to have it "officially" amended unsuccessfully. The nutshell is that a reverend convinced Eisenhower, who helped push it through Congress and in 1954 those words were "officially" added to the Pledge. So Its only been part of the pledge for 54 years. Less than a lifetime.

Money has a similar story. It wasn't on money until 1956 -- an even shorter amount of time.
The reason those references to God weren't in the Pledge and on money? Separation of Church of and State.
I'd be all for restoring the pledge and the money like it was for 200 years prior, but since the words don't mean anything to me, I don't really care and its not a battle worth fighting when there important issues.

As an aside, this is why I hate having a Congress and a President of the same party. You get all these ridiculous extreme right or left "wonderful ideas" that pass with ease.
Removal of monuments and plaques of the 10 Commandments at city, county and state public buildings, courtrooms and schools across America

They don't belong there. See #1, and #3. I'd also add that putting quotes from the Christian and Jewish Bible all over courtrooms doesn't exactly exude a feeling of fairness if you are in court for something and happen to be of, say, an eastern religion.
The imposition of the homosexual agenda in public schools thru Gay/Straight Alliances. (SB777)

The way you stated this is entirely misleading. SB777 is affording the same consideration to sexual orientation as currently afforded to matters of gender, race, religious belief, disability, etc. I'm all for this. Homosexuals exist, have always existed and will exist in the future so you better start getting used to the idea. They aren't going to go away.
The imposition of homosexual marriage thru our judicial system

There is no logical and coherent argument that homosexual marriage should be forbidden. Unless you try to bring religious arguments. I'm sure there are plenty of homosexuals that really don't care if your religion of choice forbids it. Nor do I for that matter. As far as state recognized marriages, religion doesn't factor in (again that pesky separation of Church and State thing!)
Unfiltered pornography on the Internet in our public schools and libraries

I'm against anything that restricts or censors access to any and all types of information. If you don't want to see it, don't look at it. But don't attempt to dictate what others can and can't see. What is considered pornography today may not be in the future. Victoria's Secret catalogs would be considered pornographic in 1920. Heck probably 1950 too. ;) You see worse on TV.
Defending terrorists such as those held at Guantanamo Bay, saying they have legal rights instead of being treated as enemy combatants, thus putting America at risk!

This one is not about terrorists rights per se. Its about human rights. This is one that could affect you personally. Its not a very big step from just sending "terrorists" there, to sending "criminal elements" there to sending anyone they point at there. It's a HUGE legal sidestep to take away the rights of anyone the governement wants disappeared. The whole concept should be EXTREMELY SCARY to anyone who calls themselves American. Besides the key word you left out is, "SUSPECTED". They are SUSPECTED terrorists. Which is a very different thing than KNOWN terrorist. Anyone could be a suspected terrorist. That guy taking photographs! That guy buying a lot of fertilizer! That guy who looks middle eastern! That guy that doesn't believe the same way I do! ;P

You think all the U.S. citizens of Japanese decent were worried about being rounded up before Pearl Harbor? It CAN happen to you.
Support of euthanasia as in the tragic case of Terri Schiavo

As others have said, I would hope that if I'm in desparate pain with no hope of survival, someone will pull the plug.
Uncontrolled borders and unrestricted immigration, allowing for thousands and millions of illegal aliens and criminals to enter the U.S.

I never heard anyone from the ACLU say this. Can you site a source for this?

Anyway, thats my nutshell take if anyone cares. :) I don't agree with the ACLU all the time, but the points listed here I don't have a problem with, once the obviously loaded and twisted phrasing is corrected. All of the objection to these are soley based on a Christian religious objection and I just don't buy into that. Besides in this day and age of extremism and fundamentalism you need the opposite extreme around to balance things out apparently.

Apr 30, 2008 at 12:04 PM : What about Praying...

What about Praying before football games scottso?, should this be banned too?, what about when a player is injured, and the team huddles and prays, should this be banned?

Apr 30, 2008 at 01:04 PM : I do like how you...

I do like how you think Scottso. I only differ in that I believe that government and/or religion should stay out of the womb, every woman should have the choice (and yes, the way Moonshadow phrased #2 is simply ridiculous).

I guess it would depend on who the football players are praying to Starbucks, if the injured player is a follower of Islam, are his teammates going to pray to Allah?

Praying before a game? lol...only one team can win, so is god frowning on the loosers? Or on the players who get injured despite the praying?

Apr 30, 2008 at 02:04 PM : You may think its...

You may think its funny Joty, but praying at football games it is just another tradition that 90% of the people dont have a problem with,but now, because of groups like the ACLU and political correct crowd, the other 10% of people want it stopped, should we roll over to the 10% again?, or maintain some of our countrys traditions?

Apr 30, 2008 at 02:04 PM : Starbucks1,...

Starbucks1, spontaneous student prayer is not restricted on school property or during school sponsored events. Don't be a silly willy.

Students can pray before meals in school, and they can gather & pray before & after school (think flag-pole prayer groups.) They can form bible clubs, as long as they adhere to the same regulations as other school clubs. They can pray before they take a test, the only restriction is in teacher-led prayer. They can pray before they get on the bus going & leaving school. They can pray before they leave to attend any sporting event, and they can pray after the event on the way home.

With all that potential praying going on, why do you want to organize more? Just so everyone else can see that you're praying? Doesn't the Bible say something about praying in public?

Apr 30, 2008 at 02:04 PM : oohchild, I never said...

oohchild, I never said prayer was restricted, I just asked what the opinon was of banning prayer before and during football games, I think all the prayer times you listed here are enough for anyone actually, I brought up the football game topic because it was not mentioned before, this has been going on for a long time, check out this story from 1999.http://www.cnn.com/US/9911/15/scotus.school.prayer.02/index.html

Apr 30, 2008 at 09:04 PM : Ohh Child I'm not...

Ohh Child I'm not into praying but if I had to get on a bus and drive over 60 teenagers without supervision I think I might become a praying person!!!!

Apr 30, 2008 at 09:04 PM : Starbucks1, seriously,...

Starbucks1, seriously, after all I wrote the only thing you can ask me is, "what about praying before football games..." :) No I don't have a problem with people praying before football games. Go for it. ;) Read what I said about it again and you'll see I really answered this already.

Apr 30, 2008 at 09:04 PM : I do like how you...

Actually I should have clarified, Joty. I don't agree with late term abortions unless the conditions I mentioned are met. I'm of the opinion that once a baby is developed enough that it has organs, limbs and a brain, its a little to late to "decide" you don't want it anymore. At that point it really is a living being and should be treated as such. Thats also an awful lot of time to "think" about an abortion up till then.

Prior to that point I agree with you whole heartedly though. Its not a being. Just a blob of cells. I don't believe "potential human being" is the same thing as human being and government and religion should stay out of the womb.

May 1, 2008 at 12:05 AM : so moonshadows,...

so moonshadows, abortion isn't ok when the baby is in the womb, but as soon as it's delivered, we can club it to death??? hahaha...anyway away from the sarcasm, so you're all for restricting the rights of americans then? cuz that's what each one of the things you list is all about

May 1, 2008 at 08:05 AM : It is funny Starbucks,...

It is funny Starbucks, and IMO silly, but I didn't say I had a problem with it (omigod, I guess that puts me in with that 90%). Just because I find it silly doesn't mean I care if people do it. BTW, just why is it a "tradition"? And dancer that you are, you didn't really answer me...

May 1, 2008 at 11:05 AM : Joty, its a tradition...

Joty, its a tradition in this country because we are a country rooted in Christianty, in my view,you know, pray to keep the kids safe from injury and stuff like that, and Im not sure what you want me to answer here, seems we agree on this, WOW, we agree!, is peace in the middle east possible??

May 1, 2008 at 01:05 PM : rm6 - you need to...

rm6 - you need to reread everything - no one on this blog has advocated restricting anything, quite the contrary. Well, maybe the author of the blog did.

scottso, I am not for late-term abortion either as an "oops, I've decided I don't want this baby afterall" solution - only if it's a medical emergency for the mother once the first trimester is over or the baby is not viable, or deceased in the womb.

Starbucks, no, I don't have a problem with other people praying. But my paternal great-great grandmother's people had traditions that were deeply rooted in this country prior to the arrival of Christianity...

I simply believe in separation of church and state as our forefathers did. I have nothing against traditions or even religions (well, not quite true, I have a problem with organized religions that are nothing more than big business) as long as it is not forced down my throat.

Peace in the middle east? Anything's possible - even a woman president...LOL!

May 1, 2008 at 02:05 PM : Separation of Church...

Separation of Church and State - The Metaphor and the Constitution
"Separation of church and state" is a common metaphor that is well recognized. Equally well recognized is the metaphorical meaning of the church staying out of the state's business and the state staying out of the church's business. Because of the very common usage of the "separation of church and state phrase," most people incorrectly think the phrase is in the constitution. The phrase "wall of separation between the church and the state" was originally coined by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to the Danbury Baptists on January 1, 1802. His purpose in this letter was to assuage the fears of the Danbury, Connecticut Baptists, and so he told them that this wall had been erected to protect them. The metaphor was used exclusively to keep the state out of the church's business, not to keep the church out of the state's business.

The constitution states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Both the free exercise clause and the establishment clause place restrictions on the government concerning laws they pass or interfering with religion. No restrictions are placed on religions except perhaps that a religious denomination cannot become the state religion.

However, currently the implied common meaning and the use of the metaphor is strictly for the church staying out of the state's business. The opposite meaning essentially cannot in be found in the media, the judiciary, or in public debate and is not any part of the agenda of the ACLU or the judiciary.

This, in conjunction with several other factors, makes the "separation of church and state" metaphor an icon for eliminating anything having to do with Christian theism, the religion of our heritage, in the public arena. One of these factors is the use of the metaphor in place of the actual words of the constitution in discourse and debate. This allows the true meaning of the words in the constitution to be effectively changed to the implied meaning of the metaphor and the effect of the "free exercise" clause to be obviated. Another factor facilitating the icon to censor all forms of Christian theism in the public arena is a complete misunderstanding of the "establishment" clause.

Separation of Church and State - The Establishment Clause in Context
In addition to the "Separation of Church and State" metaphor misrepresenting the words of the establishment clause, the true meaning of the establishment clause is also misrepresented. The "establishment" clause states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. . ." Before these words can be put in context and the true meaning of the clause can be correctly identified, we need to examine the word "religion" and put it in America's historical context at the time the constitution was framed. In addition, we need to examine the previous European historical background of the founders of our country to identify what specifically motivated them to place the "establishment" clause in the constitution.

To accomplish this, we need to add more specificity to the word "religion" to clarify both the American and European historical backgrounds and put the word "religion" in proper context. We need do delineate between doctrinal and denominational religion. We also need to understand that the doctrinal religion being discussed is Christian Theism, which is defined by a belief in the Bible. We know what specific Christian denominational religions are.

Separation of Church and State - Constitution Framers Historical Context
The "Separation of Church and State" metaphor blurs the distinction between a doctrinal religion and a denominational religion. This places the doctrinal religion we have embraced in the same basket as an organized denominational religion with potential to merge with the state. The documentary evidence of the doctrinal Christian religion origin of this nation is voluminous. The Supreme Court thoroughly studied this issue, and in 1892 gave what is known as the Trinity Decision. In that decision the Supreme Court declared, "this is a Christian nation." John Quincy Adams said, "The highest glory of the American Revolution was, it connected in one indissoluble bond, the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity." The founders were definitely Christian for the most part. At least 90 to 95 percentage of them were practicing, Trinitarian Christians. This and the additional supporting evidence below show conclusively that the concern that motivated the framers to include the establishment clause in the constitution was definitely not fear of the doctrinal religion of Christian Theism. It was understood that Christian Theism was the default state doctrinal religion. As opposed to being something to fear, it was something believed to be vital to the success of our government. Consequently, the framers feared a state denominational religion not a state doctrinal religion! http://www.allabouthistory.org/separation-of-church-and-state.htm

and about that woman president?, sure, someday, but not Hillary,not now,

May 1, 2008 at 07:05 PM : thats who I was...

thats who I was referring to...the author of this blog

May 1, 2008 at 08:05 PM : Nice article,...

Nice article, Starbucks1, but the Supreme Court does not agree with that interpretation (and neither do I). Your source site for that article is a Christian funamentalist site, attempting to disguise itself as a "source of history." The people who run and post on it also happen to run, allaboutgod.com. Convenient. ;) The article you posted is full of conjecture.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state

Under the United States Constitution, the treatment of religion by the government is broken into two clauses: the establishment clause and the free exercise clause. While both are discussed in the context of the separation of church and state, it is more often discussed in regard to whether certain state actions would amount to an impermissible government establishment of religion.

The key phrase is impermissible government establishment of religion, which is the basis for not allowing anything religious with regards to the government.

This is interesting reading as well:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_clause

May 1, 2008 at 11:05 PM : Not only do many...

Not only do many libraries NOT use internet filters, and not only does the American Library Association actively oppose their use, awsmom, but just up the road, in Lindsey, a librarian was fired for reporting a child-porn surfer to police. Check it out for yourself here.

http://www.visaliatimesdelta.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080314/news01/803140331

May 1, 2008 at 11:05 PM : "Public...

"Public computers at Tulare County libraries have software to filter out adult or pornographic Web sites. But Lindsay Police Capt. Rich Wilkinson said Chrisler brought up images attached to an e-mail, bypassing the filters."

People with this type of devious mind always find ways to outwit the controls or rules. Glad he was arrested!

There were filters in place. And I am still waiting for a list of public schools and libraries that have unfiltered internet. There are vague reports of schools that have unfiltered internet but the actual names of the schools have never been released.

One of the problems with internet filters is the filtering of material and information that is not really porn, and there is no way to easily disable it to get to the appropriate website. I installed SBC yahoo parental controls on my teens computer but it ran extremely slow (if at all) and blocked too many sites. I "loosened up" the controls but still had the same problems. So instead I re educated the kids on approp internet use and left the computer out in the open so I could check sites as I walked by.

Post the list of schools and libraries not using filtering. I'll look foward to seeing how many there really are.

May 2, 2008 at 07:05 PM : Scottso: I think that...

Scottso: I think that you are blessed that you have a mother that loved you enough to keep you and raise you. Now, are you telling me that you were a blob in your mother’s womb? And are you telling me that the child in the mother’s womb has NO right to life? Here is a lesson in biology to disprove your theory: The child enters the womb at the time of conception. With the aid of modern science we can actually see the child starts to develop from the very moment of conception. At the time of conception the father’s semen and the mother’s discharge emulsify into a pea like form which grows day by day. It is described that first seven holes develop and these holes gradually become the different senses; the mouth, the eyes, the nose, the ears, the genitals and the rectum. These are the seven holes in the body. Therefore, from the pea shaped form the child develops seven holes and gradually these holes develop into the senses and in this way the body of the child is formed. When the "blob" as you so call the baby, is of seven months, the child becomes conscious within the womb of the mother. The child can actually think and perceive his surroundings and the mother can feel the child developing within her womb. Here is what transpires in the mother’s womb at conception (from the website of Life Homilies):

At conception a new human being begins, complete with his or her own unique set of DNA, this is present from the first day of life. The new little person’s sex is also determined from the beginning.
Eighteen days after conception the baby’s heart is beating.
During the first month the baby grows to 10,000 times his/her size at conception.
S/he moves six weeks after conception though the mother does not yet feel the movements.
At eight weeks every part of the body found in an adult is already in the baby.
At eleven weeks after conception the baby has fingerprints and the fingernails are growing.
At twelve weeks the baby’s lips open and close. S/he can wrinkle his/her forehead, raise his/her eyes, and turn his /her head, smile and frown.
At sixteen weeks s/he reacts to sound, sucks and swallows, may get hiccups, yawns and stretches.
Although moving since six weeks, at eighteen weeks the mother now feels the movements. The baby pushes with his/her feet and head to exercise and tone his/her developing muscles and also sucks his/her thumb. His/her toenails, hair, eyebrows, fringe of eyelashes on closed eyelids are growing.
At twenty weeks the baby sleeps and wakes and is fully able to hear.
At twenty-four weeks the baby may possibly dream and can make a fist and punch it against his/her mother.
By twenty-five weeks the baby in the womb has the ability to hear like that of an adult and can discern the moods and attitudes of its mother.
The baby from an early stage can show the usual symptoms of pain during a pre-birth operation and even release the chemicals associated with adult pain but nobody can judge definitively whether it is in pain or not.

The beautiful thing about life is that GOD creates it. We should have great respect for human life. The right to life is the most fundamental of all rights. I guess you are telling me that a child in the womb has no right to life, but you did and still do?

In addition, I know that the Ten Commandments says that "Thy Shall Not Kill." I am not restricting you or anyone else. Morals come from the conscious of the person. If you choose death over life, and think aborting a baby isn’t murder, then that is you business. I however, disagree. I don’t think we should abort babies for the sake of birth control. And I do NOT believe in abortion or clubbing a child over the head. The thought of it makes me sick. I believe that I report to a higher authority and HIS name is GOD. I would rather live my life as if there is a GOD, and die to find out there isn't, than live my life as if there isn't, and die to find out there is a GOD.

And RM6, where does it say there is separation of church and state? IT DOESN’T!!!! This is a ploy by elitists and they are trying to take GOD away from us so we can become a secular nation.

May 2, 2008 at 09:05 PM : I've had a few...

I've had a few drinks so excuse me if I'm perhaps not as coherent as I might otherwise be, but my response to you moonshadows1949, would be, a) I took biology so I'm quite aware of the stages, b) until late term all the line items you list are attributable to nerve responses, same as when you squish a bug and its limbs keep moving -- which even I will be the first to admit is an unpleasant analogy, yet it's true just the same, c) God doesn't create babies, people do (or technically sperm from men and eggs from women), d) there is a significant difference between morals and ethics and one does not equal the other, e) I pretty much made the claim that the child in the womb is not a child in the womb until late term, and lastly, f) you might feel that you report to some higher power but no one else necessarily does or even has to believe you. Especially when you can't prove it.

Believe it or not, I actually agree with you that abortion should absolutely not, under any conditions, be used as a form of birth control. I made my opinions clear as regards to when, in my view, abortion is acceptable. I believe this despite my lack of belief in your God. So would you call that an ethical or a moral view?

Oh, and yes, before late term I was just a blob of cells too.

I'm not even going to touch on the Church and State thing again. Its not even an issue. It's really not even up for argument when there is nothing new to add after 225+ years.

May 3, 2008 at 06:05 PM : I'm for 8 out of...

I'm for 8 out of the 10. Thus, ACLU does much good as far as I can see. I like the idea that we are all created equal. I don't think some people are better than others. I also believe all Americans should have the same rights.

Excluding some people from the same rights as we get simply because they are different is pathetic and small minded. I also believe we all should have a right to choose what we do with our own bodies. Also, forcing religion in schools takes away our freedom of choice, I don't want someone's religion forced on me, or anyone else for that matter, LIVE and Let LIVE.

Extremist need to stop trying to control Americans... this is a free country... get used to it.

Join the majority of America, be more liberal, be free, and allow others their freedom.

May 3, 2008 at 06:05 PM : The ACLU is pushing...

The ACLU is pushing their adgenda on right wing conservatives...I don't think that is being free! They are also trying to take our BIBILES away, that is NOT FREEDOM! They are also taking our crosses away...where is the freedom in that? And to do with you body as you wish, be my guest. I for one, honor my body.

When socialism hits hard (which is on the way) you will wonder what freedom really was. I love all people and I am not a bigot. And I think the child in the womb also was created to enjoy the so-called freedoms of our country. This country was based on Judeo-Christian beliefs, not Buddism, Islam or whatever religion you can think of. I tolerate all religions however, I do not want people that are atheists to shove their unbeliefs down my throat. I don't like evolution taught in school, there is NO basis for it.. I am a strong believer in the BIBLE.. We sing GOD Bless America, our laws are based on the 10 Commandents, which are from the JEWS, the chosen people of GOD. Have other religions contributed to the founding of this great country? I really don't think so.

The ACLU was started in order to make this country secular. It was designed to take away our laws and GOD away. Try reading the ACLU vs. America and then you will see what they are all about. I work under the guidelines of the ACLU. And it is NOT pretty. They defend the rights of the NAMBLE. Read the article below and you will weep. I suggest you may want to do some research on the ACLU. Please do not take my word for it. After you've done your research, get back to me, I will be glad to read your thoughts on them.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/04/24/parents_of_slain_boy_drop_lawsuit_against_nambla/?p1=email_to_a_friend

And by the way, I was liberal when I was younger..it only made me miserable. I am a much happier person and I have more freedom now than ever.