posted on December 30, 2003 03:35:20 PM new
While many graduates of the U.S. Naval Academy have spent 2003 defending our nation in Iraq, in Afghanistan or on ships at sea, lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union have been plotting an act of cultural terrorism against the Navy here at home.
The ACLU is targeting the voluntary lunchtime prayer that has been a tradition at the Naval Academy since its founding.
In the ACLU's view, consenting adults have a right to do just about anything they want except say grace in a government cafeteria. Consensual sodomy, it believes, is a sacred right, while consensual public prayer is a sorry ritual to be crushed beneath the boot heel of big government.
True to its creed, the ACLU began maneuvering against the Navy in April, after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit ordered the Virginia Military Institute to cancel its supper prayer.
Theoretically, VMI violated the First Amendment. "Congress," it says, "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." In essence, the judges concluded that when Virginia allowed its cadets to say a nondenominational prayer it was the equivalent of Congress establishing a federal religion in the very corner of Virginia where Stonewall Jackson used to teach.
Although absurd, the appeals court decision was the predictable progeny of a long line of abominable Supreme Court decisions. That court banned prayer in public grade schools and high schools. The appeals court merely extended the principle to a public college.
That gave the ACLU an opening to attack the Navy.
Maryland ACLU Director Susan Goering sent the academy a letter. "We believe that when you have had a chance to review the 4th Circuit's opinion," she said, "you will agree that the Naval Academy's mandatory lunchtime prayer cannot pass constitutional muster, and will therefore cease the practice."
Never mind that the prayer is not "mandatory." What mattered was Goering's implicit threat to sue. But the Navy did not retreat. In August, it announced it would keep its prayer, and the ACLU went ballistic.
"We tried things the nice way, and they've told us to pound sand," ACLU lawyer David Rocah told the Baltimore Sun. "If someone is interested in challenging" the prayer, he said, "we'd be perfectly happy to talk to them about that."
Republican Rep. Walter Jones of North Carolina did not sit idle at such threats. If the ACLU can't be stopped now, he told me, tomorrow it will "try to control what prayer is said in the foxhole."
"I have seen the federal courts take one right after another away from people of faith in this country," said Jones, "and I think it's time to fight."
He introduced legislation to codify the authority of the military academies to offer "voluntary, nondenominational prayer" at academy events. Designed to send an unsubtle signal to any court that entertains an ACLU suit against the Navy, the proposal is likely to be included in next year's Defense authorization.
But will it stop a judge from banning the Navy's prayer? I doubt it.
The same federal courts that declared same-sex sodomy a right and banned the Ten Commandments from state buildings will not be deterred by an ordinary act of Congress.
If the federal judiciary stays on trend, prayer will be banned at Navy, and the ACLU will set its sights on a bigger target -- perhaps banning military chaplains.
Must Congress surrender? No. Just as the Navy has faithfully defended our democracy, our democratically elected leaders must faithfully defend the Navy. The Constitution says Congress has the power to "establish" the lower federal courts and that the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court shall be set "with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make." Explaining this language, Justice Joseph Story, who was appointed by President James Madison, said: "Of course, as the judicial power is to be vested in the supreme and inferior courts of the Union, both are under the entire control and regulation of Congress."
If the ACLU files suit against Navy's prayer, Congress should pass a law lifting the issue from the jurisdiction of the courts. Then, borrowing lawyer Rocah's words, it should tell the ACLU to go pound sand.
"If you believe you can tell me what to think, I believe I can tell you where to go. Not all of us are sheep....."
[ edited by Bear1949 on Dec 30, 2003 03:37 PM ]
posted on December 30, 2003 06:43:11 PM new
Sorry for the length, I don't usually cut and paste. This is a clip from this website, which supports VMI's suppertime prayer.
Everybody's hollering now that poor VMI's little prayer is "voluntary". That's laughable. Nothing a military cadet does is "voluntary" once they volunteer to sign up. The author of the above editorial even goes so far as to equate this with the ACLU's actions involving prayer in public schools...
the appeals court decision was the predictable progeny of a long line of abominable Supreme Court decisions. That court banned prayer in public grade schools and high schools. The appeals court merely extended the principle to a public college.
Careful study will show anyone that truly voluntary prayer, that is prayer that is not lead by someone in a position of authority, for example a classroom teacher, is not illegal and is not affected by anything the ACLU has ever done.
If the prayers led at VMI were voluntary, I don't have any problem with them. Lord knows I'd be praying if I were there....it just doesn't look to me like it is.
Military History. VMI is unique among the nation’s military academies because it sent cadets into battle on May 15, 1864, when ten VMI cadets were killed in action and 47 wounded at the Battle of New Market. A battle streamer awarded for that action still flies above VMI colors. VMI cadets were sent into battle with official and public prayer. Jennings C. Wise, a military historian of VMI, described the scene as the cadets gather for the final 26-mile march to New Market:
Before the command to march was given, a thing occurred which made a deep impression upon us all-a thing which even now may be a solace to those whose boys died so gloriously that day. In the gloom of the night, Captain Frank Preston, neither afraid nor ashamed to pray, sent up an appeal to God for His protection of our little band; it was an humble, earnest petition that sunk into the heart of every hearer. Few were the dry eyes, little the frivolity, when he had ceased to speak of home, of father, of mother, of country, of victory and defeat, of life, of death, of eternity…
Military Precedent. Prayer has long been an essential part of the adverse training system of VMI since it’s beginning on November 11, 1839. Throughout its long history, VMI has been led by distinguished senior military officers and has produced many extraordinary military leaders. The very martial spirit of VMI revolves around the Battle of New Market and two distinguished generals, General Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson, who served on the VMI faculty from 1851 to 1861, and VMI’s most famous alumnus, George C. Marshall, who went on to become Secretary of Defense and also was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Marshall said, “the spiritual life of the soldier is more important than his physical equipment.”
Military Necessity. Under the historic doctrine of “military necessity” the Virginia Military Institute’s practice of a mealtime prayer is perfectly acceptable under the authority of the school’s military leadership because laws of civilian society are not applicable due to the special nature of VMI’s military training. Prayer is a “military necessity” to the Military. General George Washington said, “The blessing and protection of heaven are at all times necessary, but especially so in times of public distress and danger.”
American Military Leadership’s Support for Prayer. The importance of prayer in the formation and preservation of morale is evidenced by the writings of military leaders, as well as numerous military prayer books published both by private entities and also the Government Printing Office since 1774. A sampling of two Prayer Books distributed to our armed forces during World War II and the Korean War contain the prayers and their background from: 34 senior uniformed military authorities, including, 4 & 5-star generals from the: Army: Bradley, Clark, Clay, Collins, Devers, Eisenhower, MacArthur, Marshall, Patton; Navy: Nimitz, Schonland; Airforce: Vandenberg; Marines: Cates, Holcomb, Vandergrift;Coastguard: O’Neill, Waesche; 11 senior civilian military authorities, including secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air force; 11 military chaplains; and 2 Commanders-in-Chief.
Science Confirms American Military Practice of Prayer. Science confirms the judgment of Military authorities regarding prayer. “The Studies in Social Psychology in World War II Series,” produced by the Social Science Research Council, was one of the largest social science research projects in history. Volume II, The American Soldier, Combat and Its Aftermath, Princeton University Press, (1949), reported data on the importance of prayer to officers and enlisted infantrymen. Prayer was selected most frequently as the soldier’s source of combat motivation. The motivation of prayer was selected over the next highest categories of “thinking that you couldn’t let the other men down,” and “thinking that you had to finish the job in order to get home again.” From the responses, “did not help at all,” “helped some,” and “helped a lot,” 70% of enlisted men in the Pacific Theatre (n = 4,734), and 83% in the Mediterranean theatre (n = 1,766) responded “helped a lot,” as did 60% of Infantry officers (n = 319).
These data would suggest that combat men who had experienced greater stress were at least as likely to say they were helped by prayer as those who had been subjected to less stress” (p. 176)…[T]he fact that such an overwhelming majority of combat men said that prayer helped them a lot certainly means that they almost universally had recourse to prayer and probably found relief, distraction, or consolation in the process (p. 185). [Emphasis added.]
___________________________________
The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then gets elected and proves it.
-- P. J. ORourke (Holidays in hell, 1989)
posted on December 30, 2003 07:01:56 PM new
The most effective way I've found to combat the ACLU is by donating as much as I can to the ACLJ. [American Center for Lawand Justice].
IMO, that's the best way to tell the ACLU to 'pound sand'. They fight cases like these and are beginning to have some success. They just need more financial support and then we'll have a fighting chance to worship as we please, without have our religious freedoms silenced by groups like the ACLU.
posted on December 30, 2003 07:06:18 PM new
Isn't VMI a private institution? I don't think that anyone can stop their prayer in that case. Wish somone could have - when I was in a private school that was picked as much for its non religious affiliation as anything else as far as I was considered I quickly found out that "non religious" was in reality "non denominaional" with prayer "student lead" (admin picked a student to lead) before every meal and mandatory chapel services on Sunday. I caught holy hell from the adminstration for refusing to take part in the prayer. As for chapel service - I just took a good book - there was no way to avoid that one.
Coincidentally last nights episode of The West Wing on Bravo addressed this issue. Toby stated that it was not about fighting for the constitution, it was not about fighting for political correctness. It was about fighting for the fourth grader who got his ass kicked on the play ground everyday for opting out of the "voluntary" prayer earlier that day. I could not have agreed more.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on December 31, 2003 11:27:31 AM new
I don't think there is anything you can do to help anyone who thinks God in heaven looks down with fondness on killers deciding which side should have his favor like it is a football game and he is rooting for one side.
posted on December 31, 2003 02:24:23 PM new
During Vietnam before going on a combat patrol, all were given a chance to make peace with his God. During my tours those that were Atheist or none believers converted quickly.
posted on January 3, 2004 06:14:56 AM new
Linda_K - Perhaps you should investigate the ACLU a little more befreo deciding that they should be stopped.
The ACLU fights for what is right when it comes to our civil liberties. Here's an article about when they hailed the religious freedom bill. Doesn't sound so much like an organization that wants to stamp out religion now does it?
And you'll notice the churches don't talk about these cases. God forbid their parishoners found out the church was helped by the ACLU. They'll scream and b*tch about the ACLU when the fight isn't for them but boy do they come a runnin' when they need something. And the ACLU doesn't care, if the fight is because of an unjust reason, they'll take up the cause.
And here's one where they fought for the religious freedom for a congregation:
The only reason they are against prayer time in the Naval Academy is that its a government establishment. That's all it is. If the academy was privately run, the ACLU wouldn't care. If the Navy just took that off the schedule as prayer time and let it be open time, they could still pray and the ACLU wouldn't care.
So, the ACLU does have a very good reason for being. They fight for women's rights, 1st Amendment, the poor, voting rights, etc. Basically to protect your individual rights that were guaranteed by the Constitution. You may not always agree with the battles they chose (I know sometimes I don't), but if you look at them with neutral eyes, you'll see its for the greater good and this country does need them.
posted on January 3, 2004 06:33:56 AM new
clivebarkerfan - I have read thousands of reports of pressure the ACLU puts on all kinds of groups. Then if they don't have the funding to fight them, the ACLU wins.
My opinions about the ACLU are not based only on the religious issues.
Years ago I believe they did help those who rights were being violated. But for the past 10 years or more, they've become anti-American, anti-family and anti-religious. You feel differently? Fine. I don't.
All anyone has to do is go to the ACLJ.com site and read the cases they currently, and in the past, have defended against people/groups the ACLU has filed suits against to see the other side.
Do you support the ACLUs paying for and defending groups like NAMBLA? They're a group that promote the molestation of our children. If you or anyone else feels they have a 'right' to promote that garbage, then more power to you. But I think many American's are offended by a group that supports those who break the law, by promoting child/adult sex is morally empty. Anyone with any values at all most certainly would question why in the world the ACLU didn't just let the group defend and pay for their defence themselves.
So, please don't think my opinion of the ACLU is strickly because of religious issues, because it's not.
posted on January 4, 2004 03:28:40 PM new
Whoa. The ACLU is not defending what NAMBLA does, they were defending their 1st Amdenment rights. That's all. The case had to do with their rights to freedom of expression. It is the duty of the ACLU to make sure these rights are upheld. What NAMBLA is and does is the matter of another court system. Without the ACLU defending the civil liberties of all of us (whether you agree with the group involved or not), we would be living in a completely different society. Because once you allow one groups opinion to be taken away, it is much easier to take it away from another and another. Sound like a certain country under a certain regime (perhaps Soviet Russia or Nazi Germany?)
See, just because you or me (or 99% of the people) don't with what a group does, it does not mean that we have the right to take away their 1st amendment rights. That's why the Nazis are allowed to march thru Skokie Illinois (a high population of Jewish), or thru Gary, Indiana (a high African American population). I would rather see every neo-Nazi skin head done away with, but they have the right to have an opinion and voice that opinion. THAT is what the ACLU defends.
They are not anti American. If anything they a more pro American because they fight to make sure our rights that were decreed to us many years ago remain ours. What about the disablied woman that was barred from serving on a jury because she was in a wheelchair? They fought for her doing her duty as an American to serve as a part of a jury. Anti family? Please! They are fighting against the Marriage Promotion bil which would basically bribe welfare recipients into getting married. Anti religion? They fought for the right for churches to incorporate, they fought WITH Jerry Falwell (as I indicated in my prior post). The lsit goes on.
Now, why didn't they allow NAMBLA to go off on their own? What about the Nazis in Skokie? Shoot, why not the poor? Because civil liberties defense is their job. To walk away would be like a doctor walking away from a patient because he doesn't have the same beliefs as the doctor.
Heres the ACLU statement about NAMBLA and other unpopular organizatiion:
