Why doesn't the ACLU defend this person?

Question

she told The Associated Press. "I wanted to say why I was successful, and what inspired me to keep going and what motivated me. It involved Jesus Christ for me, period."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060714/ap_on_re_us/religious_valedictorian;_ylt=AnGElowH6N8nWo61sFhAGcSs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3ODdxdHBhBHNlYwM5NjQ-

i think this is why many people, including myself, can't stand the ACLU because they don't protect the average citizen...just the citizen who shares their extreme view...where is her freedom of expression...

Answer 1

How many of you actually know about the history of the ACLU. It was originally thought up by the Soviet Union to take away our freedoms. Look at what and who it defends. They are defending the rights of sex offenders who have committed crimes against children to go to a park where children play and nearby is an elementary school. They care more about defending the rights of perverts, criminals, and anybody who espouses their views. The history of the Soviet Union had been anti God just like the ACLU. The Constitution says that government should not make a law establishing religion which was a direct reference to the Church of England at the time when we were establishing our own government. The government of England and the Church of England goes hand in hand. The Church plays a major role in the crowning of the Royals. By stating a personal view of what motivated somebody is not establishing any religion. It only expresses a personal view which is covered under freedom of speech. The warped view that one should not be allowed to freely tell what role faith has made in their life is both communistic and atheistic. That is why we have freedom of religion and not from religion. Not until an atheist named Madeline Murray O'Hare was faith an issue in the public schools. Who was so offended before her that they held protest in public denouncing religous practices in public schools? Show me proof that anybody thought it was wrong? Yet, who defended her rights. One citizen's view should not make a public policy that conflicts with the majority as to freedom of religous expression in public. Even those whom I may not agree with must also have that same right. Look at those countries where one religion rules and no others are permitted or goes unpunished. Is that the kind of nation that you want to live in? We must not let the Arrogant Communists Leeches Unite to take our religous heritage out of public sight. Ignorance of the past will be not only the downfall of the present but our future as well. When we have not an accurate view of it and have less and less to do with it, our religous freedoms are doomed to secrecy.

Answer 2

The ACLU has defended many cases where your rights as an American citizen were ignored or cast aside. They defended both people from the right (including Rush Limbaugh) and from the left and more from the middle. Most of the people they defend are AVERAGE people, by the way.

I doubt if yours would qualify for several reasons. First, she knowingly and willingly broke established laws of conduct. Second, as has been mentioned, her actions cancel out two basic rights that are guaranteed under the constitution.

It's like saying you have the right to bare arms. But that right does not give you the right to break the law with the gun you have the right to own.

Answer 3

Because the ACLU is interested in protecting both freedom of SPEECH and freedom of RELIGION. In this case, the two come into conflict-- the woman's freedom to say what she wishes, and the "state sponsorship of religion" that would come if a school facilitated this kind of speech.

Since the school apparently approves all speeches given at commencement (and a valedictorian speech is clearly a privilege-- there is no right to speak in this forum), and she violated the agreement to excise religious references, it is not really a free speech issue. Think of it as the same as when Bill OReilley or other talk show host cuts the mike off from his guests.... mean, yes. stupid, yes. a violation of constitutional rights, no.

Answer 4

useful, if there's a concept concerning the bill of Rights. there is no crime in burning a flag. ACLU communist? tell that to Bob Barr and Dick Armey, who've consulted for the ACLU.

Answer 5

The ACLU defends NAMBLA North American Man Boy Love Association. Any group who thinks they have a right to speak, let alone live is **** in my book

Answer 6

She doesn't have a case. It was a publicly funded event, where a group of people were massed together. The law in the community states that under those conditions, no one can speak of religion.

Answer 7

Why?
Because article said she filed a lawsuit which implies that she already has a lawyer.
So what does she need ACLU for?
Why doesn't Pat Robertson defend her?
Or Benny Hinn?
Or that repulsive telepanhandler ...whats his name?
Robert Tilton.....

Answer 8

They don't defend her for the same reason they wouldn't defend a person recruiting for a Satanic Church at a publicly funded affair.

Answer 9

Because she was told not to bring religion into a school sponsored speech, and she ignored them and went ahead.

Answer 10

They will not defend her because she is a Christian. She should contact the ACLJ for help.