Why does the ACLU wear a mask of hypocrisy?

Question

Aside from my views that the ACLU is mentally ill (for many more reasons than included in this post), could somebody give me a good reason why the ACLU would fight to allow a woman to wear a burka in her driver's license photo (ID - and a governmental establishment) on the grounds of freedom of religion...while at the same time forcing the display of the Ten Commandments to be removed from a courthouse because of this claim of a "seperation of church and state"? I'm curious to hear any good reasons for this.

Answer 1

People are free to follow any religion that they choose.

As far as the woman in the burka goes, for the government to require her to remove her burka (a violation of her Muslim religion) is nothing more than the government telling her were and how she can practice her religion.

As far as the ten commandments in a court house is concerned, this is an example of an endorsement of a particular religion. If we allow the ten commandments we would also have to allow all other religions equal space for their religious texts and or symbols. Do you really want a pentagram or any other pagan symbols right up there with the ten commandments?

Answer 2

The ACLU has their own agenda, they are trying their best to give rights where none were intended and to take away some of those that were intended...

Seperation of Church and State... says that the government should make no law to interfere with our practice of religion...

yet the government does... back in the 1800's when the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints was practicing polygamy the government decided to pass a law to stop it. (the Church told members not to practice it anymore... and some split off from the main body because of this). How many times have people whose religion promotes polygamy been arrested for it?... does the ACLU get involved? no... why? ... it is not on their agenda.

yet we let idiots like this force the removal of a "Symbol of Law" from in front of a courthouse...just because it also has religious meaning...

soon we will not be allowed to wear any religious artifacts or clothing in public...

by the way... a driver's license is considered a public document in some states.

Answer 3

Apparently, you do not know your Constitution very well. The text of the First Amendment to the US Constitution reads as follows (in relevant part): "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

In Lemon v. Kurtzman, the Supreme Court declared the test for the Establishment Clause as follows:
1. State action must have a secular purpose
2. The action must neither advance nor inhibit religion; and
3. There must be no excessive entanglement with religion.

Thus, as far as the ten commandments go, the ACLU posits that permitting a statute of the 10 commandments to stand on state grounds is akin to the state endorsing a particular religion in violation of the test set forth in Lemon (and ultimately, in violation of the First Amendment).

As for the burkas, one can make the argument that refusing to permit them violates the Free Exercise clause.

There is no hypocrisy there. Just your idiocy for not being familiar with your own constitution.

Answer 4

The way they see the difference is-

The woman with the burkha is having her religious freedom taken away.

Displaying the 10 Commandments at a courthouse is forcing a religious display onto a secular public environment.

I know you people have a hard time telling the difference. But try thinking about it. By the way if you were having your religious freedom taken away (not your attempt to force your religion on others, there is a difference) then the ACLU would defend even you.

Legal issues are hard for limited thinkers, I know. Go have a cookie.

Answer 5

It's actually not hypocrisy, it's consistency

Freedom of religion in the US involves your PERSONAL freedom to express your religion, but also PROHIBITON from the GOVERNMENT endorsing religion.

Thus, a woman should be able to wear a burka because that is HER liberty.

But the government has no freedom to post religious displays in a taxpayer funded building.


Just because you don't understand the first amendment, that doesn't make it mentally ill.
It just makes you uninformed.

Answer 6

Because you clearly don't understand what the ACLU does, what the legal basis of the decisions regarding the 10 commandments in a courthouse is.

Answer 7

Even the ACLU knows the real God and how to rid itself of the truth.

The ACLU wants to back its "claim" it withholds freedom of religion, just as long as it doesn't preside in the runnings of this country. If it can get all religion out of the government and schools, it can institute its own form of religion, and then fall back on the freedom of religion that most desire.

Answer 8

Now, the 1st question I truly have, as a non Islamic, what could the Islamic peoples emotions be in the direction of me, an infidel washing my feet interior the foot tub? basically the ACLU is asserting that the foot tub in and of itself isn't a contravention of church and state and that the college had to have them put in to circumvent the risk-free practices threat that arises out of people washing their feet in sinks. I comprehend the alternative, yet do no longer think of that foot baths would desire to be supplied. In Judaism, evaluate the med student. To be interior the room with a ineffective physique makes the Jew "Unclean" and he would desire to bathe in a Mikvah and be faraway from the community for a quantity of time to be seen "clean" back. there are various Jewish medical doctors accessible and yet i've got on no account heard of a scientific college interior the states having a Mikvah. If the hygiene of their feet preclude them from going to a Public college, so be it. pass to a private Islamic college and characteristic a foot tub on each and every nook, however the publicly funded gadget would desire to pander to no faith and as a approaches through fact the risk-free practices situation, boost the sinks severe adequate to the place they are able to't get their feet in them.

Answer 9

Ditto SecondStar.

It's the difference between personal adherence and expression of religion, and government backing of religion. The first is not a violation of church/state seperation, the second is.

Answer 10

Aging Commie Left-over Union