May 22, 2005
Is it me, or has the ACLU become just plain mean?
I'm a Christian pastor (granted, I'm on haitus with the cancer) and even I'm against forcing people to listen to Christian prayers if they don't want to hear them. I'm perfectly happy keeping secular events, organizations, schools and the like secular and letting individuals decide their own spiritual fate.
However, the ACLU is going a bit overboard these days. Now they have sent out a call for those who pray "in Jesus' name" to be, quote, "removed from society." Ouch.
The ACLU asked a federal judge to send those who prayed publically in one Louisiana school TO JAIL.
Wow. I mean, I'm all for sensitivity to other religions, but don't you think jail is a bit much for public prayer?
Posted by Dan at May 22, 2005 09:19 AM
TrackBack URL for this entry:
I think the problem is that some laws are passed, and then some people break them. So when that happens, measures need to be taken. Now jail?? I don't know about that. I do know that if they were told to stop the prayer thing in school, and they kept doing it, then they should indeed be punished.
How about asteep fine first, like the article suggested?
Posted by: Alex at May 22, 2005 01:23 PM
I'm with Alex on this. I'm generally a big supporter of the ACLU, and there's no doubt that these people should not be breaking a Federal Court Order, but I think a big old fine would be the appropriate first step.
If it continued after that . . . well, putting someone in jail for praying doesn't wash well with me, but a court order is a court order--you gotta follow it. I'm glad the ACLU is following up, but I think they should have started with asking for a fine.
Posted by: Joel Caris at May 22, 2005 03:27 PM
I like the small fine then large fine idea for "belligerent pray-ers."
The thing that strikes me is that in order to push it so far that you go to jail, you have to be the sort who WANTS to go to jail, yes?
Posted by: Dan at May 22, 2005 08:28 PM
OK, a couple of things here.
First, the post at Blogcritics is a review of David Limbaugh's book, Persecution: How Liberals Are Waging War Against Christianity. Both the blogger and Rush's brother would prefer that we frame this in a certain way, but I'm not buying it.
Second, I'd appreciate a link from the blogger to the quote about "removing them from society." Until that happens, I'm not buying it.
Third, the ACLU is about protecting our rights as detailed in the Constitution. This means that they will often be representing the minority position, which by definition will be "unpopular."
Fourth, David Limbaugh is practicing one of the oldest political tricks in the book: pitting "us" against "them," or more specifically, Christians against the ACLU.
But the next time you hear someone, anyone, do that, just remember this: What they're really saying is that it is God against the Constitution.
And that's a false choice.
Posted by: Ara at May 23, 2005 08:09 AM
Ara, didn't God write the Constitution?
Posted by: Dan at May 23, 2005 08:26 AM
Dude, don't get me started.
Posted by: Ara at May 23, 2005 10:49 AM
“I guess it would have been OK if the prayer ended with 'In Allah's name'.”
Or not. Perhaps, "official" prayers over a loudspeaker remind them of something they don't want to see repeated in this country.
Posted by: shep at May 23, 2005 01:10 PM
The ACLU never comes to fight for the rights of Christians! Never, and let me tell you something I live 15 miles out of San Francisco and they don't even want the kids to practice silent prayer.
I have grown up being the unrepresented minority where I live.
Posted by: linda lee at May 26, 2005 09:27 PM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)