TOPIC: ACLU Intimidates and Seeks to Deny Free Speech to Christians
Article by christiansunite.com staff
"It's very troubling for the government to dictate what kind of prayers Christians can or cannot offer in the public forum," says Dr. Gary Cass. "Jesus taught His disciples to pray to the Father in His name. To require Christians to not pray in the name of Jesus Christ is asking them to pray contrary to their faith. By what authority does the Government deny Christians their First Amendment right to pray according to the dictates of their conscience?"

Reverend Hashmel Turner, a member of the Fredericksburg, Virginia city council, was threatened with lawsuits from secular anti-Christian groups, including the ACLU, for his Christian prayers during a council meeting. Turner was apart of a rotation of all the council members who would take turns praying at the council meetings. His case is currently making it's way to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals on March 19, and would allow Christians the right to pray "in Jesus' name" in the public forum.

This case will have a tremendous impact on city councils and state legislatures throughout the United States. "Just because somebody objects to praying in Jesus' name does not mean that Christians must deny their faith to accommodate another person's opposing beliefs. This is discrimination," said Dr. Cass. "Over 80% of American's self-identify as Christians, but Hindu's, Muslim's and Jew's have all prayed in the public forum and no one has restricted the content of their prayers and the ACLU has not threatened them. The majority of Christians are subjected to non-Christian prayers, why are Christians told what they can or cannot pray? This is simply anti-Christian bigotry and an attempt to deny free speech for Christians," said Cass.

The Christian Anti-Defamation Commission is a non-profit organization devoted to protecting the rights of Christians to confidently live their faith. Dr. Gary Cass has degrees from Westminster Theological Seminary. He previously served as Executive Director of the Center for Reclaiming America for Christ, an outreach of Coral Ridge Ministries founded by the late Dr. D. James Kennedy.

TOPIC: Enough of the ACLU, Says the American People

Article from ChristiansUnite.com

On June 15th, Californians have a golden opportunity by uniting in a show of strength outside the offices of the ACLU of Orange County. The picket and protest were originally organized by Lake Forest residents in response to litigation the ACLU filed against the city in February but has been expanded due to ACLU actions locally and across the state.

"Cities, counties, states and even private businesses and persons are relentlessly targeted by the ACLU in pursuit of deconstructing America's moral infrastructure and creating a godless society", states Nedd Kareiva, director of the Stop the ACLU Coalition. "When someone or a city dares to resist the ACLU, it is frequently bullied into submission to its will, often with threats of costly lawsuits".

California is a state hard hit by the ACLU, both policy- wise and in taxpayers' wallets. The ACLU successfully sought removals of crosses on the seals of L.A. County, the city of Redlands and a makeshift steel one at the Mojave Desert and nearly succeeded in removing the Mt. Soledad cross in San Diego. They sued the city of Escondido for seeking to curb illegal immigration while threatening other communities seeking to do similarly. And with its pursuit of assisted suicide and same sex marriage in California's legislature, the ACLU seeks to overturn previously enacted voter referenda.
ACLU policies and lawsuits have affected California children. Its faithful defense of Planned Parenthood has thwarted prosecutions of child molesters and prevented parents from knowing when their teen girls sought abortions. And its support of homosexual teaching and activities in public schools and unrestricted pornography has gravely hurt many families.
"The ACLU has met its match in the courts with legal groups like the Alliance Defense Fund & Liberty Counsel taking them on", says Kareiva. "However, outside these excellent firms, Americans have had little say-so against the ACLU until recently. The Coalition represents God-fearing Americans by raising massive public awareness of ACLU policies and positions and organizing more rallies like this one. Only when huge numbers of Americans mount sustained resistance of the ACLU's agenda will America truly be kept safe and free."

BTW, did you know that the founder of the ACLU was a Communist sympathizer?

Former ACLU chief admits guilt

From WorldNetDaily.com
A former executive for the American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia has been sentenced to eight years in prison after he admitted having "graphic and violent" child pornography. The guilty plea was entered in court in Virginia by Charles Rust-Tierney, where he was immediately sentenced, according to a report today from WJLA television.

Rust-Tierney previously had served as the president of the Virginia chapter of the ACLU, and admitted his guilt under a plea bargain. He had been in jail since his arrest earlier this year, because two separate judges in pretrial hearings had rejected his request for freedom, describing the pornography as some of the most sickening they ever had encountered.

It was Rust-Tierney who, nearly 10 years ago, had argued before the Loudoun County Library Board against any Internet filters on the computers at the public facility. The library, which had been using filters on its computers, was ordered to change its policy by a federal court.
"The ACLU of Virginia urges the board to carefully consider a new Internet Use Policy that allows for maximum Internet access…," he said at the time. He encouraged the library board to recognize "that individuals will continue to behave responsibly and appropriately while in the library," so therefore "the default should be maximum, unrestricted access to ... the Internet."

Prosecutors said Rust-Tierney, who also served as a youth league sports coach in the area, actually downloaded the materials on a computer in his son's bedroom at home. As WND reported, the 51-year-old was arrested in February and was indicted in May on charges of having what a U.S. magistrate described as "the most perverted and nauseating and sickening type of child pornography" she ever had seen. Authorities said he used his own credit card and his own e-mail address to access and purchase an estimated $1,000 in graphic and violent child pornography during 2005 and 2006, according to Virginia's North Country Gazette.

Magistrate Theresa Buchanan said the material included an extended video featuring the sexual torture of children, accompanied by a song by the band called Nine Inch Nails. He faced a maximum sentence of 11 to 14 years on each of two counts, had he not reached a plea agreement. Court records indicate Rust-Tierney had subscribed to several websites featuring child pornography over a period of years. The federal indictment alleged he "knowingly received multiple computer files that contained photo and video depictions of minor teenage and prepubescent children engaging in sexually explicit conduct."

An anonymous chat room participant on the cannablog was distressed by the low profile in the national media over the case. When Rust-Tierney's arrest first was announced, authorities didn't even mention either his ACLU or youth league coaching connections. "This man was the PRESIDENT of the Virginia ACLU and while he was president, he lobbied to keep the Internet available to child pornographers via any port available, and WHILE he was president he was engaged in purchasing and subscribing to child (infant and toddler torture) pornography for his personal and sexual gratification. The ACLU. Pouring money into a machine that victimizes children. For years. And that the media is keeping this out of sight is okay with you? Wow," he said.

Fox News' Bill O'Reilly called it a "horrifying" case. And he noted that the two "biggest left-wing outfits in the country – the New York Times and NBC News – ignored the story entirely." CBS News, CNN and most of the big city liberal newspapers also failed to cover the Rust-Tierney arrest, Fox said. Several area broadcast stations and newspapers actually started covering the case as it headed towards a conclusion. [ABC News covered the story in February, 2007.]

"That Mr. Rust-Tierney, a leading proponent of unrestricted access to the Internet, has now been arrested for receiving and possessing graphic child pornography should serve as testimony to the injudicious and baleful outgrowth of the legal challenges launched by the ACLU questioning the constitutionality of important legislation that protects children from Internet exploitation and content harmful to minors," said a statement released by spokeswoman Cris Clapp of Enough is Enough, an organization dedicated to protecting children from the dangers on the Internet.

"When Mr. Rust-Tierney argued before the Loudoun County Library Board that unrestricted access to the resources of the Internet was essential for our children's ability to learn and communicate, and when groups like the ACLU contend that acceptable use policies alone are capable of protecting children online, they fail to acknowledge the tragic and devastating effects to children and families of both intentional and unintentional access to online pornography," the statement said.

TOPIC: Federal Appeals Court Decision Dismisses ACLU Lawsuit Challenging Boy Scouts

Source: christiansunite.com

The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), specializing in constitutional law, Tuesday applauded a decision by a federal appeals court dismissing a lawsuit by the ACLU challenging the U.S. Department of Defense's support of the Boy Scouts of America and their national jamboree. The ACLJ filed an amicus brief with the appeals court on behalf of 90 members of Congress asking that the suit be dismissed.
"We're delighted that the federal appeals court reached the proper conclusion in this case," said Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the ACLJ, which filed the brief on behalf of members of Congress.

"This is just another example of the ACLU trying to impose its flawed view of the constitution on the rest of America. The military provides the Boy Scouts with support and services that aid both the military and the Scouts without endorsing religion. This lawsuit should never have been brought in the first place and we're pleased the appeals court dismissed the suit clearing the way for this beneficial relationship between the military and the Boy Scouts to continue."

The ACLJ asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit to reverse a lower court decision that declared a 1972 statute passed by Congress enabling the Defense Department to provide support to the Boy Scouts unconstitutional because it violated the separation of church and state. The Defense Department provides support and services every four years when the Scouts hold their Jamboree at Fort A.P. Hill in Virginia. In a decision released this week, the appeals court ruled that the ACLU-backed taxpayer plaintiffs who brought the suit did not have legal standing to bring the case and dismissed the lawsuit.
The dispute began in 1999 when the ACLU filed suit claiming that the Defense Department's sponsorship of the Boys Scouts violated the First Amendment because the group requires its members to swear an oath which states, in part, "On my honor I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country." A federal district court said the Jamboree statute was unconstitutional and violated the Establishment Clause because it had a primary effect of advancing religion. The decision was appealed to the 7th Circuit.
The ACLJ represented nearly 90 members of Congress in support of the statute. In its brief, the ACLJ contended that in passing the statute, Congress sought to help the military advance its own goals, not to promote the Boy Scouts religious beliefs. The ACLJ contends the lower court used flawed legal reasoning to reach its conclusion. The brief asserts that the Defense Department's support comes in the form of "non-religious supplies and services." The brief states: "The military's rental of forklifts and trucks, transportation and military equipment, restoration of Fort A.P. Hill after the Jamboree, and provision of other secular services is clearly 'neutral and nonideological.' The only possible message that the military's aid can be viewed as conveying is that patriotism, self-reliance, physical fitness, and support of the military are positive things." You can read the entire ACLJ amicus brief here.

TOPIC: Lawlessness & Discrimination Reign in Washington, D.C.

From christiansunite.com

Students violently attack White Advisor Karl Rove with no arrests made. Meanwhile peaceful Christians are threatened with arrest and ordered to stop praying on a Capitol Hill public sidewalk during a Stations of the Cross Celebration last week.
"Law enforcement officials are now responding to events bases on the political beliefs and viewpoint of demonstrators rather than their actions," states Rev. Patrick J. Mahoney, Director of the Christian Defense Coalition.
The Christian Defense Coalition has written a letter to the Library of Congress seeking a public apology and clarification concerning the unconstitutional disruption of public prayer. The Coalition is being representing by the American Center for Law and Justice and will seek further federal legal action if the matter cannot be resolved. See the letter online here.
Rev. Mahoney, comments,

"There is now a new standard in Washington, D.C. concerning public demonstrations and political gatherings. If you are involved in an anti-war protest, you can violently attack White House officials with no arrests. You can spray- paint the United States Capitol with no arrests or consequences. You can disrupt news conferences with no arrests. And, you can take over congressional offices with no arrests. Meanwhile, if you peacefully chose to exercise your First Amendment rights by praying in the public square you are ordered to stop, are harassed and threatened with arrest."

This kind of discrimination is both unconstitutional and dangerous and brings us back to a tragic time when people were arrested simply because of their skin color."Is there any person out there who believes, that Christians or conservatives would not have been immediately arrested if they had violently attacked Speaker Pelosi or spray painted the United States Capitol Building? Could you imagine the response of law enforcement officers if pro-life demonstrators had shouted down a news conference by Senator Hillary Clinton?"

The Sope-Bocks: The ACLU, as in the American Civil Liberties Union, has been curiously silent regarding the violation against these Americans, who were exercising their First Amendment rights on a public sidewalk. Ironic, isn't it -- a group that touts itself for being the vanguard of American civil liberties doesn't rush to protect the civil liberties of certain Americans. Thus, my reason for renaming the ACLU the "Anti-Christian Liberties Union"

TOPIC: Who REALLY Cares? Conservatives or Liberals; Christians or Atheists?

by Sarah Eekhoff Zylstra

The Religious Right really does put its money where its mouth is—at least more so than its secular rivals, according to a recent study from Syracuse University professor Arthur Brooks. Published in late November, 2006 the controversial findings in Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism have grabbed the attention of political commentators.
"If you asked me, I would have expected to find that religious conservatives are stingy," said Brooks, a committed Catholic and political independent. "That's what academics think. That's what we are told all the time." What he found instead was the Religious Right gives more in "every measurable way," from writing checks to volunteering time to donating blood.
Brooks attributes the difference to four factors— church attendance, two-parent families, Protestant work ethic, and distaste for government social services. But he said church attendance is by far the most telling. "Religious liberals and religious conservatives give at the same rate," he said. "What you find is more religious conservatives than religious liberals." Ninety-one percent of regular church attendees give to charity each year, compared with 66 percent of those who said they do not have a religion. The gap adds up— the faithful give four times more money per year than their secular counterparts. While most of that money is given to churches, religious people also give more to secular charities, such as the Red Cross or their alma mater.
Religious people also donate twice as much blood and are more likely to "behave in compassionate ways towards strangers," Brooks said. For example, they are much more likely to return extra change to a cashier when they are accidentally given too much. Generous giving is part of the religious conservative identity, according to sociologist Tony Campolo. "The Religious Right, by conviction, is convinced that helping the poor is something that should be done individually or by the church," said Campolo. "[They say that] asking the state to do it is wrong." But religious conservatives might not want to pat themselves on the back quite yet. Christian research organization Empty Tomb Inc. said evangelicals gave away 6.7 percent of their income in 1968. By 2004, that figure had dropped to 4.4 percent, but growing attendance and rising incomes have kept many churches from feeling the pinch. At the same time, more money is staying within the church to pay for things like music and technology. Evangelical churches, on average, devote only about 2 percent of their budgets to missions.

The Sope-Bocks: While this is NOT bragging, it is an indictment of those who preach tolerance and liberalism. It is also an indictment of those who spew hateful speech about the "evils" of religion, especially targeting Christians. The fact is -- they are TALKING, while believers are DOING.
Don't believe me? When was the last time you saw Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, NOW or the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) working in a disaster area? When was the last time one of these organizations held a blood drive or food drive? When was the last time a feminist group worked in a homeless shelter or gathered garments for the local clothes closet? When have you ever seen PETA sponsor a fund-raiser that aided the poor?
The fact is -- those organizations are bent towards hate speech, accusatory rhetoric, anger and, worst of all, self-righteous pride. They don't really HELP anyone. And frankly, they NEVER will. It is NOT part of their make-up, their thought processes or their beliefs.

Isn't it time people starting THINKING -- and realizing -- that these groups are NOT helpful, but hurtful, hateful and destructive to true peace and cooperation among humans?!?