The Scriptorium

The ACLU will stand up and fight for the rights of men who want to go out in public in thong underwear, but will sue a five year old child for saying grace over her lunch in the school lunchroom. And they’ll take tax payer money to do it.

The American Civil Liberties Union will file suit today on behalf of six men who were arrested when they stripped down to thongs and made a human pyramid in anticipation of President Bush’s motorcade.

The demonstration in Lancaster County, Pa., on July 9 was meant to mimic the pyramid prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad were forced to make at the hands of American military personnel.

According to a statement from the ACLU of Pennsylvania, the lawsuit charges that police officers from East Lampeter Township’s police department, state troopers from the Pennsylvania State Police and federal agents violated the men’s constitutional rights by illegally arresting them to suppress a peaceful, symbolic political protest against the president. . . . . . .

So, let me get this straight. The mere sight of a Christian symbol on a flag or in front of a public building is offensive, and therefore unconstitutional, but a pyramid of men in revealing underwear isn’t offensive, and is protected free speech. Interesting how that works.

WorldNetDaily

Separation of Church and State wasn’t enough. Now we have separation of fact and school. The citizens of San Francisco quoted in this article are a perfect example of a failed education system. They honestly believe that teaching the actual history of this country, including the writings of our first Presidents and historical documents like the Declaration of Independence, is equivalent to proselytizing. Some of the parents are so ignorant of our country’s history, they think the Christian history being taught in this teacher’s class is a fiction that never really happened. Perhaps if the parents took the time to read the handouts of state constitutions and historical documents that this teacher based his lessons on, it would penetrate through some of the hate and layers of secular propaganda that keep them so deluded.

“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. . . . In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness.”

– George Washington’s farewell address

Stephen Williams wants to teach his fifth-graders at a Cupertino public school all about Christianity’s role in America’s founding — an effort that has opened a blue state-red state divide smack in the middle of the blue Bay Area.

Williams, a self-described “orthodox Christian,” ran afoul of school administrators — and several parents of his students at Stevens Creek Elementary School — when he backed up his contention that religion was central to the Founding Fathers by passing out historical documents to supplement the district-approved curriculum.

Williams complained that state-approved textbooks contain scant mention of how much Christianity meant to early America. So he handed out William Penn’s Frame of Government of Pennsylvania, in which Penn wrote, “Government seems to me a part of religion itself, a thing sacred in its institution and end.”

Williams also passed out a list of religious clauses in state constitutions such as Delaware’s — which in 1776 required officeholders to “profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son.”

Then there was George Washington’s prayer journal. And as an example of a modern-day presidential proclamation, Williams distributed President Bush’s statement on National Prayer Day 2004, in which he said, “Prayer is an opportunity to praise God for His mighty works.”

Some parents said Williams crossed the line into evangelizing, and they complained.

SFgate.com Article

CBS, the home of Rathergate and the October surprise that backfired, is deflecting attention from their own incompetence by attacking bloggers again. They point to bloggers credibility problems (pot…kettle), and then suggests that blogs may need to be regulated as a media outlet would be. Someone please explain freedom of speech to these people.

First, bloggers don’t claim to be fair and balanced while blatantly pushing the view of one side of the political spectrum. Blogs admit their bias up front unlike CBS and the rest of network news. Second, it’s ridiculous to suggest that we regulate free speech. It’s nothing more than an attempt by CBS to go after those who exposed them for what they are. When they suggest passing laws to regulate blogs, they are really saying they want the blogs limited or silenced so they can go back to shamelessly distorting the news and lying to the American Public. The problem isn’t unregulated free speech on the internet. CBS is just tired of getting caught doing something they’ve gotten away with for decades.

Internet blogs are providing a new and unregulated medium for politically motivated attacks. With the same First Amendment protections as newspapers, blogs are increasingly gaining influence.

While many are must-reads for political junkies, are some Internet blogs also being used as proxies for campaigns? In the nation’s hottest Senate race, this past year, the answer was yes.

[snip]

No laws have apparently been broken. Case precedent on political speech as it pertains to blogs does not exist. But where journalists’ careers may be broken on ethics violations, bloggers are writing in the Wild West of cyberspace. There remains no code of ethics, or even an employer, to enforce any standard.

At minimum, the role of blogs in the Daschle-Thune race is a telling harbinger for 2006 and 2008. Some blogs could become new vehicles for the old political dirty tricks.

Like all media, blogs hold the potential for abuse. Experts point out that blogs’ unregulated status makes them particularly attractive outlets for political attack.

“The question is: What are the appropriate regulations on the Internet?” asked Kathleen Jamieson, an expert on political communication and dean of the Annenberg School for Communications. “It’s evolved into an area that we need to do more thinking about it.

This is coming from the same media outlet that recently asked anti-war bloggers to help them promote an upcoming anti-war segment on 60 minutes II.

Homosexual activists are learning that you can’t have it both ways. Now that gay marriage has been made legal in Massachusetts, companies are taking away the special benefits that were given to unwed same sex partners. The companies rightly argue that, if they don’t give benefits to unwed heterosexual partners, and homosexual partners have the same right to marry, they can’t continue to give special benefits to single gay employees.

The homosexual activists are now changing their story. “But, it’s harder on gay couples to get married”, they cry. Now that they’ve been given the equality they wanted, they don’t want to be treated equally anymore. Their goal all along has been special rights, not equal rights. Welcome to the real world folks.

After successfully pressing for same-sex marriage in Massachusetts, a homosexual-rights group now is complaining because companies in the state are withdrawing benefits for unmarried, same-sex partners.

The companies’ reasoning is that if homosexuals can marry, they should no longer be given special treatment that is not available to unmarried, opposite-sex couples, the Boston Globe reports.

One year ago, the state high court decided homosexual couples are legally entitled to wed under the state constitution and should be allowed to apply for marriage licenses, a practice implemented in May.

The companies withdrawing all or part of the special benefits include the New York Times Co., owner of the Boston Globe and the Worcester Telegram & Gazette.

Other companies include IBM Corp., Raytheon Co., Emerson College, Northeastern University, the National Fire Protection Association, Boston Medical Center and Baystate Health System.

WorldNetDaily

This is a good example of what can happen when parents speak up.

Is Christmas music the target of a school district in Illinois?

Some parents believe it is, and they went to bat last night looking to overturn a new ban silencing music from the radios of school buses.

Sandy Hartogh says she found out about the no-music policy when her children rode the bus home last Friday, and she and her husband retained a lawyer to challenge the edict.

The attorney, Andy Norman, sent a letter to officials of the school district stating:

Your order that no Christmas carols may be played under these circumstances constitutes an illegal suppression of the rights of our clients’ children under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. It also reflects illegal hostility directed against Christianity. Respectfully, demand is made that you immediately rescind this order and allow Christmas carols to be played in the buses along with other music.

[snip]

During last night’s heated school board meeting, members went behind closed doors for some 15 minutes in “executive session” to discuss the issue. In the end, the decision was made to allow the music back on the buses at the discretion of each driver.

While Hartogh is excited by the change of heart, she tells WND there’s an even greater victory:

“The Board of Woodland Schools now recognizes and is actively addressing the issues of religious equality in all its meaning, including symbolism and expression. They now celebrate Jewish holidays, Indian, Black, Muslim, and many, many other religions and ethnic faiths and organizations as they should.

“However, they also conceded that Christianity has been shelved in fear of lawsuits or special groups that might complain. They admit Dr. Conti allowed the complaint of one parent and their child to influence the decision of 7,000 students and it was wrong to do so.”

WorldNetDaily Aritcle