actually the words in god we trust did not appear on u.s. currency until the time of the civil war in the 1860's.

http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-s ... rust.shtml

and your statement about the constitution also relies on the date the country was actually founded. historians disagree about the date of the founding of the country. some believe it is 1776 with jefferson's declaration of independence, others date the founding as the first government under the articles of confederation in 1781, while others set the date as 1787 the date of the ratification of the constitution.

Personally I think you should stop associating a body that wants to maintain your civil liberties with either right or left wing party policies. Their both just different cheeks of the same backside waiting to dump on you. A body prepared to fight for your civil liberties is about your only defense against such malignant control freaks.

David Cameron is about to remove our eligibility from the European court of human rights. Well he will when he kicks that squatter out of no 10 anyway.

_________________
No no and no

+1 The ACLU has always been a joke.

_________________
Life...... It's sexually transmitted and always fatal

Oh god... the ACLU. An entire organization that should be phased out.

+1000 there. I believe the motion for the cross removal was for a Monument in a National park. However, it was put there to honor veterans of WWII so anyone wanting it removed should be shamed.

just my 2 cents.

I should have posted with that Allen West video, that he is on a gvt. pension and most everybody in the room is either on SSI, or will be.
So, take it with a grain of salt. Great passion, though.

bbrodie- 100%, right on. I'm not a Christian, but a cross in the middle of the Mojave Desert? Who's it hurting? It was there before the PC witch hunt
started.

I just bristle at being told I cant. Why did the hippie cross the road?
Someone told him not to.

Not an ACLU story, but kinda similar ... when high schoolers were sent home last week for wearing shirts with the American flag on it.

"On Cinco de Mayo, five Morgan Hill high school students came to school in red, white and blue, and got a very public lesson in school politics and free speech.

The boys came to Live Oak High School on the Mexican holiday, wearing t-shirts, shorts and shoes emblazoned with American flags.

Around 10 a.m., the assistant principal told sophomore Matthew Dariano he had to remove his bandana, which is against school policy.

But then Dariano said the assistant principal told all him and all his friends to take off their shirts, or turn them inside out, because some Hispanic students were upset and the school feared it would start a fight.

Dariano is part Mexican.

"Our Hispanic vice principal was taking their side, and was thinking that we were being racist towards them, so he was discriminating against us, making us take off our stuff," Dariano said.

"We're not trying to start trouble," said student Austin Carvalho. "We're in America. We can't wear our own colors?"

The boys refused to take off the shirts. They were not suspended, but they were sent home.

Referring to his shirt, student Dominic Maciel said, "I think it was disrespectful to my country, if I flip this inside out." Maciel is also part Mexican.

The parents of the five boys said the school's decision was un-American.

"You can't just single out these five. It doesn't work that way. That's not what America is about," said Julie Fagerstrom.

Cinco de Mayo is popular at Live Oak, which is 40 percent Latino. The school even had ethnic dancers perform at lunch.

Live Oak's principal had no comment. The Morgan Hill Unified School District, however, disagreed with the high school.

"The district does not concur with the Live Oak High School administration's interpretation of either board or district policy related to these actions," said Dr. Jay Totter of the district.

By sundown, the district met with all the students and parents, and they all got good news. The t-shirts can stay."

_________________
Laughing out loud with fear and hope, I have a desperate plan ...

That's absolutely God damn right the T-Shirts can stay... ahhh what's wrong with this place?

Man, i remember when i was in school, you got disciplined if you didn't stand and face the flag and recite the Pledge of Allegiance every morning in proper fashion. And now schools are discouraging national pride because it "Might offend others"???

Well, if I was one of the Mexican-American students I wouldn't be bothered if someone wore an american flag shirt on Cinco De Mayo. The American flag WOULD be my flag, because I would be an American.

PC is just a tool of oppression used by morons who believe something might be offensive to one group when in reality nobody but the person who believes its wrong actually gives a damn

_________________
Favorite bands:

Melvins
The Jesus Lizard
Cows
Big Business
R***man
Minutemen
Flight
Minor Threat
Big Black
Shellac
Karp
Scratch Acid
Wipers
Pixies

the best and most sober comment mentioned in this thread. this isn't about right, center or left politics. attacks on civil liberties come from all sides and i am thankful that aclu is actively working to uphold our civil liberties.

below is a link to examples where the aclu defended the rights of americans to practice their religion.

http://www.aclu.org/aclu-defense-religi ... expression


as far as the second amendment and gun control goes the aclu position was misstated by cvilleira because he cherry picked information and left out key text from the aclu website regarding their position on gun control. i think that is the second time in this thread that cvilleira has left out key information and taken things out of context.

the following is from the aclu website and a direct link follows for those that are interested:

Gun Control

Updated: 7/8/2008
The Second Amendment provides: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

ACLU POSITION
Given the reference to "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of a free State," the ACLU has long taken the position that the Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right. For seven decades, the Supreme Court's 1939 decision in United States v. Miller was widely understood to have endorsed that view.

The Supreme Court has now ruled otherwise. In striking down Washington D.C.'s handgun ban by a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court's 2008 decision in D.C. v. Heller held for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, whether or not associated with a state militia.

The ACLU disagrees with the Supreme Court's conclusion about the nature of the right protected by the Second Amendment. We do not, however, take a position on gun control itself. In our view, neither the possession of guns nor the regulation of guns raises a civil liberties issue.


http://www.aclu.org/racial-justice_pris ... -amendment

if you read the first paragraph you can see that the aclu's position on the meaning of the second amendment is in line with the 1939 case of united states v. miller. the miller ruling and it's interpretation of the second amendment had stood as good law from 1939 to 2008, some 69 years until the 2008 supreme court ruled differently in a narrow 5-4 vote.

the miller case decided in 1939 was a unanimous decision decided by a mostly conservative leaning court. only three of the justices deciding the case had been appointed by franklin roosevelt. as mentioned this case stood as good law for 69 years until the conservative leaning court of 2008 decided that they would not follow 69 years of legal precedent.

This just in: Girl rebuked for painting US flag in school. You probably wont see the ACLU intervene here either.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCXVEpjpTAk

Well guys I'm not taking any side at all. I'm certainly not being drawn into any argument between anybody. Lets get that clear eh?

What I would question (though I am very much a outsider and dont fully understand your constitution or amendments) is the usage of the term 'militia'. I always thought militia was synonymous with martial law. The West encyclopedia defines Martial Law as

Here http://www.answers.com/topic/martial-law

Basicaly during a irrevocable breakdown of law and order, martial law would be instated. The occupying army would then use trusted citizens of the area to form a militia. One of many reasons being that locals dont like to kill locals. It's easy to attack a member of a occupying force, even if it is one of your own countrymen. It's a lot harder to attack Billy Scuggins from three doors down than it is some armed stranger who's shouting at your granny.

Sorry if this is going off topic, this kind of stuff fascinates me.

_________________
No no and no

CHERRY PICKED!!!!

What did I take out of context from the ACLU statement. They say it's not a civil liberty right at the end of there own statement. What is a collective right? How is that different from a individual right? The collective are the people made up of individuals. The ACLU does nothing but twist things out of context, thats how they operate. They would want nothing better then the second amendment not to exist. They have taken the first amendment and twisted it and run amuck with it. Most of there attacks are against Christianity. And then they in turn try to force other religions beliefs down our throats by awarding them protection of there civil liberties. People can't forget that the ACLU come about as a group to protect illegal aliens and protect those with communist and socialist agendas. Thats not going back to the previous group that was around in WWI and helped draft dodgers.
ACLU POSITION
Given the reference to "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of a free State," the ACLU has long taken the position that the Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right. For seven decades, the Supreme Court's 1939 decision in United States v. Miller was widely understood to have endorsed that view.

The Supreme Court has now ruled otherwise. In striking down Washington D.C.'s handgun ban by a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court's 2008 decision in D.C. v. Heller held for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, whether or not associated with a state militia.

The ACLU disagrees with the Supreme Court's conclusion about the nature of the right protected by the Second Amendment. We do not, however, take a position on gun control itself. In our view, neither the possession of guns nor the regulation of guns raises a civil liberties issue.

_________________
The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.

Thomas Jefferson