A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Weiser says:
===========
Not hardly. The ACLU is a far-left, socialist shill that carefully
picks
it's battles, and two of the things they have never fought for are gun
rights or religious freedom.
=================

Hmmmm.... so supporting people's freedom not to be confronted by
religious symbols in public buildings does not, in your eyes,
constitute fighting for religious freedom? If not, then what is it?

The First Amendment protects the "free exercise of religion," not "freedom
from religion." What this means is that the Constitution prohibits the
government from favoring one religion over another in its public acts, and
it forbids the government from SUPPRESSING the free exercise of religion by
any individual or group. This happens to include the exercise of religion on
public property, within certain limits. Thus, the government may not forbid
a Christian rally on the courthouse lawn, nor may it say only a Christian
rally on the courthouse lawn is permitted. It may forbid a Christian rally
*inside* the courthouse, however.

As to religious symbols on public buildings, it depends on the context of
the symbol and the potential effect that the symbol might have on either the
acts of government officials towards people who do not subscribe to that
religious belief, and to some degree how such a symbol would impair a
non-believer's trust in the government's religious neutrality.

The SCOTUS is now considering the Ten Commandments plaque issue. I believe
they will come down with a ruling that says that while a religious symbol
may be placed on public property, generally, whether it is allowed depends
on the nature of the property involved. Thus, where a Ten Commandments
plaque might be allowable as a part of a public display of historical
documents in the context of a neutral public forum like a park or museum,
such a display in a courthouse or government office would be disallowed
because of the potential for harm to the civil rights of non-believers
engaged in conducting public business.

The demarcation line would seem to me to be wherever someone engaged in
business with the government will be unlikely to avoid exposure to a
religious message in, on, or around public buildings where public business
is conducted, such as courthouses, city halls, and other such venues. Where
the venue is a public one, but there is no business with the government
being transacted, such as a public park, it is unlikely that a reasonable
person would view such a display as some sort of government mandate or
policy, and thus it should be allowed according to the will of the people. I
think I'd suggest that a vote be required before any religious displays are
permitted on public property, however, so that the display can be
justifiably within the public will.

As for the ACLU, for example, the ACLU does not defend Christian students
who wish to form religious clubs and use school property for their meetings,
despite the fact that the Supreme Court has ruled that they have a First
Amendment right to do so.

As I said, the ACLU carefully picks its agenda, and it's universally and
without exception a far-left, socialist, secular, anti-religious agenda.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser