American Civil Liberties Union sues again
How many unborn toddlers were murdered today because of the humanistic, paganish decisions of the United States Supreme Court?
Stop the
Murder of
Unborn
Toddlers
“Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn’t do it, sins.” James 4: 17 (NIV)
http://www.kansasmeadowlark.com/2006/ShameOfKansas
www.alliancedefensefund.org
www.childpredators.com
www.lifedynamics.com
Reminder and a clarification of my schedule for these posts:
On my post entitled “Immigration reform, Oklahoma Style” I was asked the following: “What if someone is starving and destitute? As Christians, I thought we live by a higher law and that we see other people through the eyes of God, not through the eyes of any sort of nationalism. 10:47 AM” This is a good and a valid question. I knew I could not answer it in a few sentences. Originally, I thought I would answer it in one post. However, the more I thought about it, the more I realized this could be a book and still generate disagreement among Christians. Therefore, although I won’t write a book, I will probably deal with the question with several posts (How many I don’t yet know because I haven’t conceptually thought it out.) (I have decided not to do additional posts on immigration until I answer this question since the immigration issue seems, at the moment, to have been beaten back in the Senate.) I hope to try to answer the question from my understanding of what the Bible says about this question. Stay tuned. I do plan on responding. Thanks for the penetrating question.
I was watching a particular Sunday morning program before corporate worship, as I always try to do, last Sunday July 1, 2007. The information presented fit perfectly with the above question. I can get a copy of the program from the website but it usually isn’t posted until about a week after the original program. Therefore, I’m going to wait until I’ve downloaded that copy. Therefore, I won’t start to answer the question until at least after the 4th of July. I’m sorry for the delay but I think it will be worth it to include this material as my lead into what I have to say about the question. I will answer the LORD willing, please be patient. Thank you!!!
The following article was taken from the web and is an Associated Press article.
“ACLU Sues City Over Jesus Painting
July 03, 2007 10:02 PM EDT (How symbolic! The day before the 4th of July holiday! Let true freedom ring! Freedom from the destroying slavery of sin!!!—my addition)
NEW ORLEANS – The American Civil Liberties Union sued the city of Slidell on Tuesday for displaying a painting of Jesus in a courthouse lobby, saying it violates the constitutional separation of church and state.
The ACLU sued after the Slidell City Court refused to voluntarily remove the picture and a message below it that reads: ‘To Know Peace, Obey These Laws.’ The ACLU says the portrait—an image of Jesus presenting the New Testament—is a religious icon of the Eastern Orthodox branch of Christianity.
(I obviously have not seen the picture. However, I do have this question. How does the ACLU, or anyone else for that matter, know that it is a picture of JESUS—the SON of GOD? As far as I know, no picture or drawing of JESUS was every made of HIM while HE was alive on this earth. As far as I know, no specific, physical description is given of HIM in the New Testament. Okay, maybe I am trying to be a bit facetious; but isn’t the ACLU being just a bit ridiculous trying to remove every single instance of any possible reference to GOD and JESUS from the public arena. First of all as I’ve declared many times, the First Amendment does not provide for a separation of church and State. That concept is a fiction created by a then out-of-control Supreme Court. Second, do you think the ACLU would react the same way if the picture was of Karl Marx holding The Communist Manifesto and declaring “To know peace, obey my writings?” Would the ACLU react the same way if a Muslim was holding the Koran and demanding “To know peace, you must obey this book?”—my addition)
‘We did not file this lawsuit because the ACLU is anti-religion ... We did file this lawsuit because we believe this display is clearly in violation of the law,’ said Vincent Booth, president and acting executive director of the Louisiana ACLU chapter.
(The ACLU may or may not be anti-religion; religion spans a wide variety of concepts. They certainly are overtly supportive of the religion of evolution. So no, I guess they are not anti-religion as such. However, don’t they seem to be obsessive-compulsive in trying to remove all perceived attempts to have even a hint of Christianity visible in the public arena? How much money do they have available that they are willing to go from local governmental unit to local governmental unit to remove a picture!!! How obsessive-compulsive are they to argue a picture violates the First Amendment when the First Amendment says nothing about a separation between church and State. First, they convince the Court to create a fictional concept in relation to the Establishment Clause and now they have literally hundreds of possible units of government to try to impose their own views upon the will of the people. My guess is that the vast majority of people do not care if that picture is there or not. Probably, most of the local citizens have no idea that the picture is suppose to be a representation of JESUS.—my addition)
The suit was filed on behalf of an unidentified person who complained to the ACLU about the picture. Named as defendants were the city of Slidell, St. Tammany Parish and City Judge James Lamz. St. Tammany Parish is being sued because it partially funds the court, the ACLU said.
(Why is the person being represented in the suit unidentified? I’ve got an idea. Every governmental unit in the United States should place a “religious” picture in a public place and let us see if the ACLU sues every local unit of government in the United States. The picture does not have to be a Christian picture. In fact some should not be. Let’s see if the ACLU will file law suits if the picture is not a Christian picture.—my addition)
On Saturday, Lamz said the picture would stay up unless a federal judge ordered it removed. He said he didn’t believe the portrait violates the Constitution, but the issue should be decided in federal court.
(It must be that our federal court system has nothing better to do than decide whether or not every picture hung in every local unit of government is a violation of the Constitution! Even if the ACLU is right and they are not, isn’t that an absurd concept!!!—my addition)
Lamz could not comment Tuesday because of the pending litigation, his office said.
Before refusing to take the painting down, Lamz consulted Douglas Laycock, a professor at the University of Michigan Law School who has argued before the Supreme Court.
Laycock said he told Lamz that the legal issues in the case aren't clear-cut and could set legal precedent.
The painting has been on display at the courthouse for nearly a decade and hadn't provoked any complaints prior to the ACLU's recent objections, said Michael Johnson, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian civil rights group representing the city and the parish.
(Isn’t that amazing? If one person is supposedly offended by a picture, the ACLU jumps in to protect America from those big, bad Christians. I’ve got horribly bad news for the ACLU. They can not defeat GOD. Satan has tried over and over again even to the point of murdering the SON of GOD. It didn’t work then and it will not work now!!! The Alliance Defense Fund is one of two organizations [that I know of] that has become active because of the sinful practices of the ACLU. They are on the web at www.alliancedefensefund.org—my addition)
Johnson, whose group is often at odds with the ACLU, said the painting sends an inclusive message of equal justice under the law. He said the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that similar displays in public forums are constitutional.”
(I should hope so! What nonsense the ACLU is trying to promote!—my addition)
How many unborn toddlers were murdered today because of the humanistic, paganish decisions of the United States Supreme Court?
Stop the
Murder of
Unborn
Toddlers
“Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn’t do it, sins.” James 4: 17 (NIV)
http://www.kansasmeadowlark.com/2006/ShameOfKansas
www.alliancedefensefund.org
www.childpredators.com
www.lifedynamics.com
Reminder and a clarification of my schedule for these posts:
On my post entitled “Immigration reform, Oklahoma Style” I was asked the following: “What if someone is starving and destitute? As Christians, I thought we live by a higher law and that we see other people through the eyes of God, not through the eyes of any sort of nationalism. 10:47 AM” This is a good and a valid question. I knew I could not answer it in a few sentences. Originally, I thought I would answer it in one post. However, the more I thought about it, the more I realized this could be a book and still generate disagreement among Christians. Therefore, although I won’t write a book, I will probably deal with the question with several posts (How many I don’t yet know because I haven’t conceptually thought it out.) (I have decided not to do additional posts on immigration until I answer this question since the immigration issue seems, at the moment, to have been beaten back in the Senate.) I hope to try to answer the question from my understanding of what the Bible says about this question. Stay tuned. I do plan on responding. Thanks for the penetrating question.
I was watching a particular Sunday morning program before corporate worship, as I always try to do, last Sunday July 1, 2007. The information presented fit perfectly with the above question. I can get a copy of the program from the website but it usually isn’t posted until about a week after the original program. Therefore, I’m going to wait until I’ve downloaded that copy. Therefore, I won’t start to answer the question until at least after the 4th of July. I’m sorry for the delay but I think it will be worth it to include this material as my lead into what I have to say about the question. I will answer the LORD willing, please be patient. Thank you!!!
The following article was taken from the web and is an Associated Press article.
“ACLU Sues City Over Jesus Painting
July 03, 2007 10:02 PM EDT (How symbolic! The day before the 4th of July holiday! Let true freedom ring! Freedom from the destroying slavery of sin!!!—my addition)
NEW ORLEANS – The American Civil Liberties Union sued the city of Slidell on Tuesday for displaying a painting of Jesus in a courthouse lobby, saying it violates the constitutional separation of church and state.
The ACLU sued after the Slidell City Court refused to voluntarily remove the picture and a message below it that reads: ‘To Know Peace, Obey These Laws.’ The ACLU says the portrait—an image of Jesus presenting the New Testament—is a religious icon of the Eastern Orthodox branch of Christianity.
(I obviously have not seen the picture. However, I do have this question. How does the ACLU, or anyone else for that matter, know that it is a picture of JESUS—the SON of GOD? As far as I know, no picture or drawing of JESUS was every made of HIM while HE was alive on this earth. As far as I know, no specific, physical description is given of HIM in the New Testament. Okay, maybe I am trying to be a bit facetious; but isn’t the ACLU being just a bit ridiculous trying to remove every single instance of any possible reference to GOD and JESUS from the public arena. First of all as I’ve declared many times, the First Amendment does not provide for a separation of church and State. That concept is a fiction created by a then out-of-control Supreme Court. Second, do you think the ACLU would react the same way if the picture was of Karl Marx holding The Communist Manifesto and declaring “To know peace, obey my writings?” Would the ACLU react the same way if a Muslim was holding the Koran and demanding “To know peace, you must obey this book?”—my addition)
‘We did not file this lawsuit because the ACLU is anti-religion ... We did file this lawsuit because we believe this display is clearly in violation of the law,’ said Vincent Booth, president and acting executive director of the Louisiana ACLU chapter.
(The ACLU may or may not be anti-religion; religion spans a wide variety of concepts. They certainly are overtly supportive of the religion of evolution. So no, I guess they are not anti-religion as such. However, don’t they seem to be obsessive-compulsive in trying to remove all perceived attempts to have even a hint of Christianity visible in the public arena? How much money do they have available that they are willing to go from local governmental unit to local governmental unit to remove a picture!!! How obsessive-compulsive are they to argue a picture violates the First Amendment when the First Amendment says nothing about a separation between church and State. First, they convince the Court to create a fictional concept in relation to the Establishment Clause and now they have literally hundreds of possible units of government to try to impose their own views upon the will of the people. My guess is that the vast majority of people do not care if that picture is there or not. Probably, most of the local citizens have no idea that the picture is suppose to be a representation of JESUS.—my addition)
The suit was filed on behalf of an unidentified person who complained to the ACLU about the picture. Named as defendants were the city of Slidell, St. Tammany Parish and City Judge James Lamz. St. Tammany Parish is being sued because it partially funds the court, the ACLU said.
(Why is the person being represented in the suit unidentified? I’ve got an idea. Every governmental unit in the United States should place a “religious” picture in a public place and let us see if the ACLU sues every local unit of government in the United States. The picture does not have to be a Christian picture. In fact some should not be. Let’s see if the ACLU will file law suits if the picture is not a Christian picture.—my addition)
On Saturday, Lamz said the picture would stay up unless a federal judge ordered it removed. He said he didn’t believe the portrait violates the Constitution, but the issue should be decided in federal court.
(It must be that our federal court system has nothing better to do than decide whether or not every picture hung in every local unit of government is a violation of the Constitution! Even if the ACLU is right and they are not, isn’t that an absurd concept!!!—my addition)
Lamz could not comment Tuesday because of the pending litigation, his office said.
Before refusing to take the painting down, Lamz consulted Douglas Laycock, a professor at the University of Michigan Law School who has argued before the Supreme Court.
Laycock said he told Lamz that the legal issues in the case aren't clear-cut and could set legal precedent.
The painting has been on display at the courthouse for nearly a decade and hadn't provoked any complaints prior to the ACLU's recent objections, said Michael Johnson, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian civil rights group representing the city and the parish.
(Isn’t that amazing? If one person is supposedly offended by a picture, the ACLU jumps in to protect America from those big, bad Christians. I’ve got horribly bad news for the ACLU. They can not defeat GOD. Satan has tried over and over again even to the point of murdering the SON of GOD. It didn’t work then and it will not work now!!! The Alliance Defense Fund is one of two organizations [that I know of] that has become active because of the sinful practices of the ACLU. They are on the web at www.alliancedefensefund.org—my addition)
Johnson, whose group is often at odds with the ACLU, said the painting sends an inclusive message of equal justice under the law. He said the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that similar displays in public forums are constitutional.”
(I should hope so! What nonsense the ACLU is trying to promote!—my addition)
posted by Christian Gunslinger at 5:32 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home