Categories: Articles

Why Christians Must Vote in This Election

why-christians-must-vote-in-this-electionDespite the remarkable progress made in 2006 on pro-faith and pro-family issues, virtually all the mainstream media news about Washington politics has been almost completely negative. Apparently, the liberal media does not consider progress on traditional religious and moral values to be newsworthy, but only news about the Mark Foley scandal, being bogged down in Iraq, conservative voter discouragement, etc.

Unfortunately, highlighting the negative news while ignoring the substantial progress made in the culture war tends to disengage values voters (which, by the way, certainly might be part of the reason for their selective reporting). Nevertheless, many good bills have been signed into federal law:

     ØThe Internet Gambling Prohibition Act closes down a huge anti-family industry. Four federal laws already prohibit Internet gambling, but since all major gambling sites operate outside the United States, federal enforcement is virtually impossible. This Act now requires financial institutions to block credit card and other payments to Internet gambling sites. The impact of the bill was immediate: the value of stock in Great Britain’s online gambling companies dropped fifty percent upon passage of the bill; two Internet gambling firms sold their American operations for only $1; the directors of a major Internet gambling company simply resigned and walked off, leaving the company in the hands of creditors. Internet gambling – one of the fastest growing forms of addiction in America – is now dramatically curtailed, if not completely stopped.

 ØThe Broadcast Decency Act imposes significant penalties on networks and stations for public broadcasts of indecent incidents (such as the infamous “wardrobe malfunction” at the halftime of the Super Bowl) and indecent speech (such as the egregious language used by Howard Stern on his programs). Instead of a maximum FCC fine of $32,500 per program, the fine is now raised to $325,000 per incident/word, with no cap on the amount of total fines per program. Already, Howard Stern has been dropped from broadcast TV, and many other programs and networks are also cleaning up their act.

ØA religious liberty measure was signed into law that reverses the current Pentagon policy preventing military chaplains from praying according to their faith – a policy that specifically kept them from using words such as “Jesus” or “Christ” in their prayers. Military chaplains once again have the freedom to pray in the manner they choose – as they did during the first 230 years of American history.

ØThe Fetal Farming Ban prohibits the creation of fetuses solely to be aborted for research purposes. As embryonic stem-cell research continues to falter and persists in proving unsuccessful, researchers are seeking new sources of embryonic stem cells; this bill shuts off one significant venue by prohibiting the creation of human embryos for the purpose of harvesting their stem cells. (Incidentally, during the past decade, congressional leadership has allowed over 170 votes on pro-life issues, the overwhelming majority of which have ended favorably.)

ØThe Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Act increases availability to patients of cord blood stem-cell treatments, a rich source of stem cells (a source obtained without destroying any human embryo) that has already successfully been used to treat at least 85 diseases.

ØThe Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act prohibits government at any level from using federal funds to confiscate guns from law-abiding citizens during emergencies (as happened in Louisiana after Katrina, when 1,300 guns were confiscated from law-abiding citizens, directly resulting in many of those specific homes and businesses being stripped by looters).

ØThe defunding of a $300 million grant to build a gay-lesbian center in Los Angeles.

ØThe Freedom to Display the American Flag Act ensures that an individual has the right to display the U. S. flag on residential property, even if condominium associations and homeowner groups object.

ØThe Child Pornography Prevention Act strengthens and enhances prosecution of child pornography. Previously, interstate pornography (i.e., instances where child pornography is transmitted from one state to another) was prohibited, but this Act now prohibits intrastate child pornography (i.e., material that stays within the same state). Additionally, it prohibits prosecutors from making additional copies to distribute to defendant’s attorneys, thereby limiting its use and exposure of exploited children even in appropriate prosecutions.

ØThe Mount Soledad Veterans Memorial Act transfers possession of a 29-foot high cross (part of a Korean War memorial in San Diego under assault from the ACLU) to the federal government. A federal judge ruled that the cross violated the California constitution and ordered it be torn down or the City of San Diego to pay $5,000 per day in fines until it was removed. With this Act, the Memorial will no longer be subject to that judge’s opinion of the California constitution and thus will remain proudly standing, as it has for the past fifty years.

There have also been many other good bills passed during Congress, including bills strengthening faith-based programs, limiting judicial powers and thus restraining judicial activism, etc. Furthermore, there have been some very, very close “near misses,” whereby only one individual has prevented complete success. For example:

ØThe “Child Custody Protection Act” prohibits minor girls from being transported across state lines for an abortion without their parents’ knowledge. This bill passed the House twice this session, and the Senate once; yet, despite the 4-1 margin of support from the American public, one member of the Senate prevented a Conference Committee with the House on this measure, thereby effectively killing the bill. If not for the procedural maneuver, this bill would now be law.

ØThe House passed a constitutional amendment to prevent flag desecration, and the vote in the Senate was 66-34 – one vote short of the two-thirds needed for final approval. This constitutional amendment would forever prohibit activist federal judges from addressing this issue.

ØThe House voted (for the fourth time) to abolish the immoral Death Tax, and the Senate came within one vote of passing the repeal. Only 50 Senators are needed to rescind this outrageous anti-family tax, and 59 Senators currently support the repeal; but the measure has been filibustered, and the vote to break the filibuster failed by one vote as anti-family liberals hung together to keep the filibuster alive.

Furthermore, one of the most significant (and unheralded) successes in this Congress has been the confirmation of scores of strict-constructionists to the federal bench – an achievement that may be directly attributed to increased Christian voter activity in the past two elections. Over the last four years, Christian voter turnout increased 82 percent, and the result of that increase has been apparent in the changed composition of Congress.

For example, of the 94 freshmen elected to the House in those two elections, 61 were pro-life, pro-faith, and pro-family (i.e., about two-thirds of the new members). Similarly, of the 19 freshmen elected to the Senate during that time, 15 were pro-life, pro-faith, and pro-family (about 79 percent of new members). These new Senators provided the margin of victory needed to confirm the appointment of two new strict-constructionist pro-life Justices to the Supreme Court; and the Court has already begun to change, including this year’s decision reversing a pro-abortion policy implemented twenty-five years ago in 1981. In addition to these two Justices, those Senators have confirmed dozens of other strict-construction judges to the federal Courts of Appeal.

These are just some of the many pro-faith and pro-family measures that have recently passed through Congress – measures very encouraging to most Americans, but measures almost completely ignored by the national media. Nevertheless, be encouraged! Good things are happening! Therefore, encourage your friends in states across America to stay engaged in this election! The results of this year’s contest will determine whether America will keep moving forward in winning the culture war, or whether we will start retreating. Be active this election! Much is at stake!

In closing, while I’ve approached this article from a positive viewpoint, allow me to offer a thought for those who are better motivated by negatives than positives: What will Christians say to themselves (and to the Lord) if: (1) they don’t vote this election, (2) we lose pro-family champions in the House and Senate, (3) after the election, a Supreme Court Justice announces his retirement (two-thirds of the Court is now older than 65), and (4) we no longer have the necessary votes to confirm a fifth strict-constructionist Justice to the Supreme Court and thus begin bringing the culture war to its well-deserved demise? I certainly wouldn’t want to try to explain that one to my friends or family (or especially to the Lord!). Just a thought for those who might need additional motivation!

(If you do not know where your federal candidates stand on pro-family issues, you can find candidate positions at websites such as Project Vote Smart and On The Issues, where you can see what each says about abortion, judges, marriage, etc.; or you can go to WallBuilders’ “Election Resources and Information” for links to voting sites and other organizations that provide information about candidates’ views on pro-family issues.)

Meet The ACLU

The ACLU aggressively pursues an agenda in many different areas that seeks to undermine the values and beliefs of most Americans in those areas. (Unless noted otherwise in the footnotes, the sources are from the ACLU’s website: www.aclu.org

Criminal Justice Issues

The ACLU opposes:

  • The use of drug-sniffing dogs1
  • Attempts to strengthen DUI alcohol laws2
  • Laws restricting areas where the sexual offenders of children can live3
  • Life sentences for juveniles convicted of extremely violent crimes4
  • The “Three Strikes” law mandating harsher sentences for those with three felony convictions5
  • Withholding voting rights for felons6

The ACLU opposes the death penalty, and:

  • Claims: “The death penalty is contrary to fundamental notions of human rights. The United States is the only major country of the Western world that tolerates the death penalty.”17
  • Seeks to halt death penalty executions,8 claiming that “death by lethal injection is extraordinarily painful and [can] constitute cruel and unusual punishment.”9

Illegal Drug Issues

The ACLU opposes:

  • Mandatory sentencing laws for crack-cocaine possession10
  • Shutting down Methadone clinics11
  • Laws stipulating where half-way houses may be located12
  • Drug testing of welfare recipients13
  • Federal faith-based drug treatment programs14
  • Federal laws banning student loans to convicted drug addicts15

The ACLU supports:

  • “Medical” marijuana laws16

Abortion Issues

The ACLU supports:

  • Abortion and abortion-on-demand17
  • Increased funding for pro-abortion groups such as Planned Parenthood18
  • Euthanasia19

The ACLU opposes:

  • Abstinence-only sex education for students20
  • Conscience protection rights for medical providers21
  • Informed consent and “Women’s Right to Know” laws22
  • Pro-life state license plates23

Immigration & Illegal Alien Issues

The ACLU supports:

  • Government services for illegal aliens24

The ACLU opposes:

  • Federal immigration laws targeting border security and preventing entrance of illegal aliens205 as well as the enforcement of those laws26
  • Denying drivers licenses to illegal aliens27
  • Federal laws identifying citizenship status of those receiving treatment at medical facilities28

Homosexual Issues

The ACLU supports:

  • Homosexuality29
  • Gay marriage30 and benefits for gay “families”31
  • Adoptions by gays,32 gays as foster parents,33 “parental” rights for gay “parents,”34 and gay parent family training35
  • Gay clubs on school campuses,36 gay campus publications and articles on campus,37 and forcing straight students to attend gay sensitivity training38
  • Gays in the military39
  • Pro-gay state license plates40

The ACLU opposes:

  • Marriage between only a man and a woman41
  • A school competition asking “students to explain why preserving marriage between men and women is vital to society and why unborn children merit respect and protection.”42

The ACLU supports:

  • Bigamy and polygamy43
  • Pedophilia and legalizing sex between children and adults44
  • Transgender rights45

Religious Expression Issues

The ACLU opposes:

  • Ten Commandments displays46
  • Use of government facilities by the Boy Scouts47
  • Religious symbols in public parks48
  • Prayers at military academies49

At the federal level, the ACLU opposes:

  • Keeping “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance50
  • Keeping the national motto (“In God We Trust”) on currency51
  • Faith-based programs52
  • The observance of religious holidays53

At the state level, the ACLU opposes:

  • The mention of God in a state motto54
  • Prayers to open legislatures55
  • Moment-of-silence laws at schools56
  • Religious sales tax exemptions57
  • Educational choice and vouchers58
  • Prayer in judicial arenas59

At the local level, the ACLU opposes:

  • Character cities60
  • Mayor’s prayer breakfasts61
  • City council prayers62
  • School board prayers63
  • Nativity scenes64
  • Religious symbols in city seals65
  • Voluntary distribution of Gideon Bibles66

In schools, the ACLU opposes:

  • Graduation prayers67
  • Athletic prayers68
  • Intelligent Design or any mention of creation or a Creator69
  • Prayers at school70 or at school events71
  • School choirs singing religious songs72

Miscellaneous Issues

  • Opposes library policies blocking access of minors to sexual content, gambling, and illegal activities73
  • Opposes denying visas to foreigners who oppose the United States government74
  • Opposes one federal agency from sharing with another federal agency the information that it has on Arabs in America75
  • Supports anti-American foreign terrorists captured on the battlefield having the same constitutional protections as U. S. citizens,76 even though the guarantees in the U. S. Constitution apply only to American citizens
  • Supports activists disrupting military funerals and confronting the distraught family members with offensive and inappropriate language77
  • Opposes banning convicted sex offenders from having access to parks where children play78
  • Supports the notion that the “separation of church and state” trumps students’ freedom of speech79
  • Supports prison inmates being permitted to view pornography80

Endnotes

1 ACLU.org, “ACLU of Illinois Disappointed with High Court Ruling on Drug Dog Searches,” January 24, 2005 ; ACLU.org, “Nine Mile Falls School District Abandons Drug-Sniffing Dog Searches,” March 30, 2006.

2 ACLU.org, “New Report Challenges Rhode Island Drunk Driving Statistics,” January 9, 2006.

3 ACLU.org, “ACLU Asks U.S. Supreme Court to Review Iowa’s Sex Offender Residency Restriction,” September 29, 2005; ACLU.org, “ACLU of Washington Files Lawsuit over Issaquah Housing Ordinance” August 31, 2005.

4 ACLU.org, “Children Sentenced to Life Without Parole Bring Plea to Human Rights Body,” February 22, 2006.

5 ACLU.org, “After High Court Upholds Harsh ‘Three Strikes’ Sentencing Law,” March 5, 2003.

6 ACLU.org, “ACLU of WA Supports New Legislation to Restore Voting Rights to Ex-Felons,” February 24, 2003.

7 ACLU.org, “ACLU of Massachusetts Decries Federal Imposition of Death Penalty Charge in Local Murder Case,” December 23, 2003.

8 ACLU.org, “ACLU Says California’s Use of Paralytic Drug During Executions is Unconstitutional,” January 13, 2005; ACLU.org, “Kansas Supreme Court Strikes Down Death Penalty Law,” December 21, 2004; ACLU.org, “NYCLU Hails New York Appeals Decision Invalidating State Death Penalty,” June 24, 2004; ACLU.org, “ACLU of Massachusetts Decries Federal Imposition of Death Penalty Charge in Local Murder Case,” December 23, 2003; ACLU.org, “ACLU Sues Ohio Officials to Expose Hidden Procedures in Execution of Death Row Inmates,” September 25, 2003.

9 ACLU.org, “ACLU Challenges Maryland’s Death Penalty,” January 20, 2006; ACLU.org, “Tennessee’s Use of Lethal Injection Chemical Blocks Public’s First Amendment Right to Know, Says ACLU,” June 8, 2005.

10 ACLU.org, “ACLU Says Mandatory Minimums are Discriminatory and Urges Inter-American Commission to Condemn Unfair Practice,” March 3, 2006; ACLU.org, “ACLU and Sentencing Experts Urge Federal Court to Uphold Judges’ Right to Reject 100-to-1 Crack/Powder Ratio,” January 20, 2006.

11 ACLU.org, “ACLU of Virginia Offers Legal Aid to Methadone Clinics Barred From Opening Under New Law,” March 3, 2005.

12 ACLU.org, “ACLU of Florida Asks Court to Strike Down Ban on Residential Housing for Recovering Addicts,” March 7, 2003.

13 ACLU.org, “Settlement Reached in ACLU of Michigan Lawsuit Over Mandatory Drug Testing of Welfare Recipients,” December 18, 2003.

14 ACLU.org, “ACLU Decries House Legislation that Earmarks $100 Million For Unproven Faith-Based Drug Treatment Programs,” July 10, 2003.

15 ACLU.org, “ACLU Challenges Federal Law That Refuses Financial Aid to Students With Drug Convictions,” March 22, 2006.

16 ACLU.org, “Round Two Begins in Legal Fight to Force Feds to Honor States’ Medical Marijuana Laws,” January 31, 2006; ACLU.org, “ACLU of Alaska Calls on Attorney General to Clarify State’s Commitment to Uphold Medical Marijuana Statute,” June 16, 2005; ACLU.org, “ACLU of Oregon Urges State Officials to Immediately Resume Medical Marijuana Card Program,” June 9, 2005.

17 ACLU.org, “ACLU Applauds Defeat of Abortion Ban in Mississippi,” March 28, 2006; ACLU.org, “ACLU Calls on South Dakotans to Join the Effort to Stop Extreme Abortion Ban,” March 24, 2006; ACLU.org, “ACLU Says South Dakota’s Extreme Abortion Ban Will Endanger Women’s Health and Lives,” March 6, 2006; ACLU.org, “ACLU and National Abortion Federation Call On U.S. Supreme Court to Hold Women’s Health Paramount,” February 21, 2006; ACLU.org, “ACLU and National Abortion Federation Hail Two Appeals Court Rulings Holding Federal Abortion Ban Unconstitutional,” January 31, 2006; ACLU.org, “Planned Parenthood and ACLU Ask Supreme Court to Protect Women’s Health in First Abortion Case Before the Roberts Court,” November 30, 2005; ACLU.org, “ACLU Applauds Supreme Court Decision Allowing Access to Reproductive Healthcare Services for MO Prison Inmate,” October 17, 2005; ACLU.org, “ACLU and National Abortion Federation Ask Appeals Court to Uphold Ruling Striking Down Federal Abortion Ban,” October 6, 2005; ACLU.org, “Federal Court Strikes Michigan Abortion Ban for Third Time; Reproductive Rights Groups Hail the Decision,” September 15, 2005; ACLU.org, “ACLU Praises Court Decision Striking Arizona Jail Policy Denying Inmates Access to Timely, Safe and Legal Abortions,” August 25, 2005; ACLU.org, “ACLU and National Abortion Federation Hail First Appeals Court Ruling Holding Federal Abortion Ban Unconstitutional,” July 8, 2005; ACLU.org, “ACLU and Planned Parenthood Applaud Court Decision Striking Idaho’s Third Attempt at Restricting Teenagers’ Access to Abortion,” July 1, 2005; ACLU.org, “ACLU Launches Web Site for Reproductive Rights Activists,” June 23, 2005; ACLU.org, “Groups Ask Court to Block Michigan’s Abortion Ban,” June 14, 2005; ACLU.org, “ACLU Calls Upon Congress to Protect the Health and Reproductive Rights of Women in the Military,”; ACLU.org, “ACLU Confident the U.S. Supreme Court Will Uphold Lower Court Decision Striking New Hampshire Law Restricting Teenagers’ Access to Abortion”; ACLU.org, “ACLU Awarded 2005 Christopher Tietze Humanitarian Award for Its Work on Challenge to the Federal Abortion Ban”; ACLU.org, “Planned Parenthood and ACLU Applaud Decision by U.S. Supreme Court Refusing to Review Idaho Law Restricting Teenagers’ Access to Abortion”; ACLU.com, “ACLU Denounces Teen Endangerment Act”; ACLU-Mn.org, “Michigan Abortion Ban Put on Hold While Challenge Proceeds”; ACLU.org, “As House Convenes Hearings, ACLU Says Teen Endangerment Act Puts Vulnerable Lives at Risk”; CLRP.org, “Women’s Health Care Providers Challenge MI Law Banning Virtually All Abortions”; ACLU.org, “ACLU and National Abortion Federation Vow to Defend Federal Abortion Ban Victory As DOJ Pursues Appeal”; ACLU.org, “Federal Appeals Court Strikes Down New Hampshire Law Restricting Teens’ Access to Abortion”; ACLU.org, “Federal Abortion Ban Struck Down Today in Nebraska”; ACLU.org, “Federal Abortion Ban Struck Down Today in New York”; ACLU.org, “ACLU Warns Legislation Would Put Lives of Young Women at Risk”; ACLU.org, “Planned Parenthood and ACLU Hail Appeals Court Decision Striking Down Idaho’s Extreme Parental Consent Law”; ACLU.org, “Closing Arguments in Federal Abortion Ban Trial Heard Today in New York”; ACLU.org, “ACLU Says Adults Helping Frightened Teens Should Not Become Outlaws”; ACLU.org, “Reproductive Rights Groups Hail First Ruling To Permanently Block Federal Abortion Ban”.

18 ACLU.org, “ACLU Hails Amendment to Increase Funding to Prevent Unplanned Pregnancies” (at https://www.aclu.org/reproductiverights/gen/24612prs20060316.html).

19 ACLU.org, “ACLU Applauds Federal Court Decision Upholding Oregon’s Death with Dignity Law” (at https://www.aclu.org/disability/gen/10634prs20020417.html).

20 ACLU.org, “ACLU Hails Rhode Island Department of Education Efforts to Stop the Use of Harmful “‘Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage’ Curriculum in Public Schools” (at https://www.aclu.org/reproductiverights/sexed/24721prs20060322.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Announces Settlement in Challenge to Government-Funded Religion in the Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Program the “‘Silver Ring Thing'” (at https://www.aclu.org/reproductiverights/sexed/24246prs20060223.html); “ACLU Announces Nationwide Action Aimed at Combating Dangerous Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Curricula in the States” (at https://www.aclu.org/reproductiverights/gen/20117prs20050921.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Applauds Federal Government’s Decision to Suspend Public Funding of Religion by Nationwide Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Program” (at https://www.aclu-mass.org/news/08.22.05%20SilverRing.pdf); LAACLU.org, “ACLU Troubled by Court’s Refusal to Hold Louisiana Governor’s Program on Abstinence in Contempt for Continuing to Preach with Taxpayer Dollars” (at https://www.laaclu.org/News/2005/June24GPADecision.htm); ACLU.org, “ACLU Challenges Misuse of Taxpayer Dollars to Fund Religion in Nationwide Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Program” (at https://www.aclu.org/reproductiverights/gen/12602prs20050516.html); LAACLU.org, “ACLU Asks Court to Stop Louisiana Governor’s Program on Abstinence From Continuing to Preach with Taxpayer Dollars” (at https://www.laaclu.org/News/2005/March24AbstinenceHearing.htm); ACLU.org, “ACLU Asks Court to Hold Louisiana’s Abstinence-Only Program in Contempt” (at https://www.aclu.org/reproductiverights/gen/12754prs20050120.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Calls On Lawmakers to Stop Spending Taxpayer Dollars on Dangerous Abstinence-Only Sex Education” (at https://www.aclu.org/reproductiverights/gen/12740prs20041201.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Asks Louisiana to Remove Religious Content from Abstinence-Only Website” (at https://www.aclu.org/reproductiverights/sexed/12734prs20041117.html); ACLU.org, “NYCLU Criticizes Ban on Condom Demonstrations in Sex Education Classes in New York” (at https://www.aclu.org/hiv/prevention/11572prs20040827.html).

21 ACLU.org, “ACLU Condemns Passage of Measure That Allows Religiously Affiliated Health Care Institutions to Jeopardize Women’s Health” (at https://www.aclu.org/reproductiverights/gen/12737prs20041120.html).

22 ACLU.org, “Planned Parenthood and ACLU Hail Florida Appeals Court Decision Striking Down Law that Would Have Forced Physicians to Give Patients Irrelevant Information” (at https://www.aclu.org/reproductiverights/medical/12731prs20041013.html).

23 ACLU.org, “ACLU Troubled By Appeals Court Decision Allowing Anti-Choice License Plate in Tennessee” (at https://www.aclu.org/reproductiverights/gen/24696prs20060317.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Asks Appeals Court To Uphold Ruling Blocking Anti-Choice License Plate in TN” (at https://www.aclu.org/reproductiverights/gen/21253prs20051102.html); ACLU.org, “Tennessee Court Blocks Anti-Choice License Plate; ACLU and Planned Parenthood Say Decision Protects Free Speech” (at https://www.aclu.org/reproductiverights/gen/12711prs20040924.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU and Planned Parenthood Ask Tennessee Court to Block Anti-Choice License Plate” (at https://www.aclu.org/reproductiverights/gen/12709prs20040923.html).

24 ACLU.org, “New Report Challenges Rhode Island Drunk Driving Statistics ACLU.org, “Ohio’s Proposed Immigration Plan Will Disadvantage Community” (at https://www.aclu.org/immigrants/discrim/24486prs20060307.html) ACLU.org, “Leaving Immigrants Out of Census Will Result in Funding Shortfalls, ACLU Says” (at https://www.aclu.org/immigrants/discrim/24486prs20060307.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU of Indiana Urges Rejection of Anti-Immigrant Bill” (at https://www.aclu.org/immigrants/gen/23963prs20060127.html).

25 ACLU.org, “New Report Challenges Rhode Island Drunk Driving Statistics ACLU.org, “ACLU Calls Flawed House Border Security Bill An Assault on Privacy” (at https://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/22437prs20051208.html).

26 ACLU.org, “New Report Challenges Rhode Island Drunk Driving Statistics ACLU.org, “Community Members Express Concerns Over Orange County Plan to Involve Local Police in Federal Immigration Enforcement” (at https://www.aclu.org/immigrants/gen/23230prs20051216.html).

27 ACLU.org, “New Report Challenges Rhode Island Drunk Driving Statistics ACLU.org, “ACLU of Rhode Island Sues DMV Over Driver’s License Procedures For Immigrants” (at https://www.aclu.org/immigrants/gen/11746prs20050523.html).

28 ACLU.org, “New Report Challenges Rhode Island Drunk Driving Statistics ACLU.org, “ACLU Urges Rhode Island Hospitals to Protect Patients’ Privacy” (at https://www.aclu.org/immigrants/gen/11817prs20040921.html).

29 ACLU.org, “New Report Challenges Rhode Island Drunk Driving Statistics ACLU.org, “About Us” (at https://www.aclu.org/about/index.html).

30 ACLU.org, “ACLU Urges New York’s High Court to End Unfairness Against Gay Couples in Marriage” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/24354prs20060303.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU of Tennessee Files Appeal Over Passage of Anti-Marriage Amendment” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/24349prs20060223.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Promises to Appeal Marriage Case for Same-Sex Couples to New York’s Highest Court” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/24175prs20060216.html); ACLU.org, “Oral Arguments Held in Federal Appeals Court: ACLU and Lambda Legal Urge Court to Uphold Prior Ruling Striking Down Extreme Antigay Nebraska Law Banning All Protections for Same-Sex Couples” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/24136prs20060213.html); ACLU.org, “Six Same-Sex Couples Urge Florida Supreme Court to Strike Initiative Threatening Families of Same-Sex Couples” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/24103prs20060208.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU of Pennsylvania Calls Proposed Constitutional Amendment Anti-Family and Discriminatory” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/24079prs20060124.html); ACLU.org, “Maryland Court Says State Cannot Bar Same-Sex Couples from Marriage Protections” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/23558prs20060120.html); ACLU.org, “Religious and Civil Rights Groups Support Same-Sex Couples in Legal Battle to Marry” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/23411prs20060110.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU of Utah Files Friend-of-the-Court Brief in Support of Domestic Partner Benefits for Salt Lake City Employees” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/21623prs20051111.html); ACLU.org, “Senate Panel Must Rebuff Discriminatory Amendment to Constitution, ACLU Says Measure Must be Stopped Again” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/gen/21213prs20051109.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU, NCLR, and Lambda Legal Urge California Appeals Court to Affirm Decision Ending Unfairness Against Same-Sex Couples in Marriage” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/parenting/21204prs20051109.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU and Lambda Legal Urge Federal Appeals Court to Uphold Ruling Striking Down Extreme Nebraska Law Banning All Protections for Same-Sex Couples” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/21251prs20051101.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Calls on Lawmakers to Reject Discriminatory Marriage Amendment Again” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/gen/21165prs20051020.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Urges New York Appeals Court to Strike Down Law Barring Same-Sex Couples from Marriage Protections” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/21150prs20051017.html); ACLU.org, “Proponents of Anti-Gay Initiative Concede It Would Ban Civil Unions and Domestic Partnership Laws” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/21139prs20051012.html); ACLU.org, “Six Same-Sex Couples File Challenge to a Florida Anti-Gay Initiative Threatening all Protections for Families of Same-Sex Couples” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/19955prs20050921.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU of Massachusetts Praises Legislators for Voting Down Discriminatory Marriage Amendment” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/20044prs20050914.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Urges Maryland Court to Strike Down Law Barring Same-Sex Couples from Marriage Protections” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/gen/19936prs20050830.html); ACLU.org, “Maryland Religious Leaders Join Together to Support Marriage for Same-Sex Couples” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/gen/19866prs20050829.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Urges New York Appeals Court to End Unfairness Against Gay Couples in Marriage” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/12202prs20050519.html); ACLU.org, “Federal Court Strikes Down Nebraska’s Anti-Gay-Union Law Banning Protections for Same-Sex Couples” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/12201prs20050512.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU of Tennessee Files Lawsuit Challenging State Amendment Banning Marriages for Same-Sex Couples” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/12233prs20050421.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Applauds California Judge’s Decision Ending Discrimination Against Same-Sex Couples in Marriage” (at https://www.aclu-mn.org/16Mar20052.html); “Massachusetts ACLU and Town Clerks Challenge Governor’s Discriminatory Ban on Marriage Licenses for Non-Resident Same-Sex Couples” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/12138prs20050311.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Urges Washington Supreme Court To Uphold Marriage Equality” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/12144prs20050308.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Applauds Decision by New York Trial Judge Striking Down Laws Banning Same-Sex Couples from Marrying” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/12432prs20050204.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Criticizes Reintroduction of Federal Marriage Amendment” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/12431prs20050124.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Urges California Trial Court to End Discrimination Against Same-Sex Couples in Marriage” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/12446prs20041222.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU to Ask the Oregon Supreme Court to Provide Same-Sex Couples With Protections of Marriage” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/12443prs20041215.html); ACLU.org, “New York Trial Court Decision Denying Marriage for Same-Sex Couples Advances ACLU Lawsuit to Appeals Court” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/12456prs20041207.html); ACLU.org, “New CD Marry Me Supports the ACLU’s Efforts to Win Marriage for Same-Sex Couples” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/gen/12427pr
s20041112.html); ACLU.org, “Following Passage of Gay Marriage Bans in 11 States, ACLU Vows to Continue Striving for Equality” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/12430prs20041103.html); ACLU.org, “Prominent Legal Scholars Join ACLU Lawsuit Challenging Georgia Marriage Amendment” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/12420prs20041020.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU and Lambda Legal Urge Federal Court To Strike Down Nebraska Law Banning Recognition of Gay Couples” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/12417prs20041015.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Disappointed with Arkansas Supreme Court’s Decision on Misleading “Marriage” Ballot Initiative” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/12422prs20041007.html).

31 ACLU.org, “Unanimous Alaska Supreme Court Says It Is Unconstitutional to Deny Equal Benefits to Lesbian and Gay State Employees” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/21248prs20051028.html). ACLU.org, “Michigan Marriage Amendment Does Not Reach the Workplace, Judge Rules” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/20055prs20050927.html?ht); ACLU.org, “ACLU Sets Record Straight on Costs of Domestic Partner Benefits” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/19859prs20050714.html); ACLU.org, “California Supreme Court Clears the Way for Comprehensive Domestic Partnership Protections for Same-Sex Couples” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/12248prs20050629.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Launches Marriage Campaign to Move Americans to Treat Families of Same-Sex Couples More Fairly” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/gen/12210prs20050516.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Seeks Health Insurance and Family Leave for Lesbian and Gay Wisconsin State Employees” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/parenting/12232prs20050420.html); ACLUFL.org, “ACLU Says Florida’s Proposed Marriage Ban Threatens Health Benefits for Thousands of Families” (at https://www.aclufl.org/news_events/?action=viewRelease&emailAlertID=961); ACLU-SC.org, “ACLU Cheers Decision by California Appeals Court Removing Legal Challenge to Domestic Partnership Law” (at https://www.aclu-sc.org/News/Releases/2005/100848/); ACLU.org, “ACLU of Michigan Files Lawsuit of Behalf of 21 Couples Who May Lose Same-Sex Partner Benefits Under Proposal 2” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/12192prs20050321.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Files Discrimination Lawsuit on Behalf of Couple Kicked Out of Health Care Center Because They Are Lesbian” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/discrim/12133prs20050224.html); ACLU.org, “NYCLU Files Same-Sex Benefits Lawsuit on Behalf of Rochester Woman” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/discrim/12436prs20050113.html); ACLU.org, “Montana High Court Says University System Must Provide Gay Employees with Domestic Partner Benefits” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/12451prs20041230.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Ends Discrimination Lawsuit Against the University of Pittsburgh Following Decision to Provide Equal Benefits to Gay Employees” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/discrim/12404prs20041005.html).

32 ACLU.org, “ACLU and NCLR Halt Legal Action After Promise from California Adoption Agency that It Won’t Discriminate” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/parenting/20088prs20051005.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Disappointed the Supreme Court Will Not Hear an Appeal in Case Challenging Florida’s Anti-Gay Adoption Law” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/parenting/12438prs20050110.html); ACLU.org, “Child Welfare League of America Backs ACLU in Challenging Florida Gay Adoption Ban” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/parenting/12454prs20041209.html).

33 ACLU.org, “Missouri Judge Rules That Lesbian Can Be Foster Parent” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/parenting/24195prs20060217.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Urges Arkansas Supreme Court to Uphold Ruling” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/parenting/23094prs20051219.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Argues Challenge to Missouri’s Anti-Gay Foster Care Ban” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/parenting/21258prs20051103.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Asks Missouri Judge to Let Lesbian Become Foster Parent” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/parenting/19858prs20050721.html). ACLU.org, “Lesbian Challenges Missouri Policy Barring Gay People from Foster Parenting” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/parenting/12196prs20050502.html); ACLU.org, “Arkansas Anti-Gay Foster Care Ban Overturned” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/parenting/12448prs20041229.html); ACLU.org, “Trial Concludes in ACLU Challenge to Arkansas Anti-Gay Foster Care Ban” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/parenting/12444prs20041220.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Resumes Challenge to Arkansas Anti-Gay Foster Care Policy” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/parenting/12403prs20041005.html).

34 ACLU.org, “ACLU Applauds Child Custody Award For Surviving Lesbian Mom in West Virginia” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/parenting/12242prs20050617.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Urges West Virginia High Court Not to Take Four-Year-Old From His Surviving Lesbian Mom” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/parenting/12433prs20041206.html).

35 ACLU.org, “Just in Time for Mother’s Day, ACLU Launches Toolkit for LGBT Parents” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/parenting/12197prs20050503.html).

36 ACLU.org, “ACLU Files Federal Lawsuit Against White County, Georgia School District for Illegally Blocking Gay-Straight Alliance Club” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/youth/24284prs20060227.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU of Florida Warns School Board Not to Deny Students’ Right to Form Gay-Straight Alliances” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/youth/24119prs20060206.html); ACLU.org, “Federal Judge Rules That High Schools Cannot Out Lesbian and Gay Students” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/youth/22068prs20051201.html); ACLU.org, “Following ACLU Lawsuit, Colorado Springs High School Ends Second-Class Status for Gay-Straight Alliance” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/youth/21730prs20051122.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Asks Judge to Reopen Kentucky Gay-Straight Alliance Case” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/youth/12240prs20050706.html). ACLU.org, “ACLU Applauds Georgia Students’ Gay-Straight Alliance Victory” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/youth/12180prs20050322.html).

37 ACLU.org, “As a Result of Lawsuit, School Agrees to Allow Publication of Articles on Sexual Orientation” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/youth/21200prs20051104.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU of Alabama Condemns Proposed Bill that Would Ban State Funds for Lesbian and Gay Books” (at https://www.aclu.org/freespeech/gen/11527prs20041202.html).

38 ACLU.org, “ACLU Hails Federal Court Ruling on School Trainings Aimed at Reducing Anti-Gay Harassment” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/youth/24215prs20060218.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Asks Court to Uphold Kentucky School’s Training Aimed at Reducing Anti-Gay Harassment” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/youth/23156prs20051220.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Tells Federal Court That Mandatory Anti-Gay Harassment Training Does Not Violate Students’ Freedom of Religion” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/youth/12236prs20050428.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Asks Court to Let Students Join in Kentucky Anti-Gay Harassment Training Case” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/youth/12149prs20050401.html).

39 ACLU.org, “Law Schools Shouldn’t Be Forced to Accommodate Military Recruiters, Says ACLU” (at https://www.aclu.org/scotus/2005/rumsfeldv.fair041152/22304prs20051206.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Expresses Disappointment Over Supreme Court Ruling in Military Recruitment Case” (at https://www.aclu.org/scotus/2005/rumsfeldv.fair041152/24377prs20060306.html).

40 ACLU.org, “ACLU Persuades Utah to Approve Personalized License Plates with Gay-Positive Messages” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/gen/20186prs20050727.html).

41 ACLU.org, “ACLU Urges New York’s High Court to End Unfairness Against Gay Couples in Marriage” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/24354prs20060303.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU of Tennessee Files Appeal Over Passage of Anti-Marriage Amendment” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/24349prs20060223.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Promises to Appeal Marriage Case for Same-Sex Couples to New York’s Highest Court” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/24175prs20060216.html); ACLU.org, “Oral Arguments Held in Federal Appeals Court: ACLU and Lambda Legal Urge Court to Uphold Prior Ruling Striking Down Extreme Antigay Nebraska Law Banning All Protections for Same-Sex Couples” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/24136prs20060213.html); ACLU.org, “Six Same-Sex Couples Urge Florida Supreme Court to Strike Initiative Threatening Families of Same-Sex Couples” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/24103prs20060208.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU of Pennsylvania Calls Proposed Constitutional Amendment Anti-Family and Discriminatory” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/24079prs20060124.html); ACLU.org, “Maryland Court Says State Cannot Bar Same-Sex Couples from Marriage Protections” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/23558prs20060120.html); ACLU.org, “Religious and Civil Rights Groups Support Same-Sex Couples in Legal Battle to Marry” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/23411prs20060110.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU of Utah Files Friend-of-the-Court Brief in Support of Domestic Partner Benefits for Salt Lake City Employees” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/21623prs20051111.html); ACLU.org, “Senate Panel Must Rebuff Discriminatory Amendment to Constitution” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/gen/21213prs20051109.html; ACLU.org, “ACLU, NCLR, and Lambda Legal Urge California Appeals Court to Affirm Decision Ending Unfairness Against Same-Sex Couples in Marriage” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/parenting/21204prs20051109.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU and Lambda Legal Urge Federal Appeals Court to Uphold Ruling Striking Down Extreme Nebraska Law Banning All Protections for Same-Sex Couples” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/21251prs20051101.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Calls on Lawmakers to Reject Discriminatory Marriage Amendment Again” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/gen/21165prs20051020.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Urges New York Appeals Court to Strike Down Law Barring Same-Sex Couples from Marriage Protections” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/21150prs20051017.html); ACLU.org, “Proponents of Anti-Gay Initiative Concede It Would Ban Civil Unions and Domestic Partnership Laws” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/21139prs20051012.html); ACLU.org, “Six Same-Sex Couples File Challenge to a Florida Anti-Gay Initiative Threatening all Protections for Families of Same-Sex Couples” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/19955prs20050921.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU of Massachusetts Praises Legislators for Voting Down Discriminatory Marriage Amendment” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/20044prs20050914.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Urges Maryland Court to Strike Down Law Barring Same-Sex Couples from Marriage Protections” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/gen/19936prs20050830.html); ACLU.org, “Maryland Religious Leaders Join Together to Support Marriage for Same-Sex Couples” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/gen/19866prs20050829.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Urges New York Appeals Court to End Unfairness Against Gay Couples in Marriage” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/12202prs20050519.html); ACLU.org, “Federal Court Strikes Down Nebraska’s Anti-Gay-Union Law Banning Protections for Same-Sex Couples” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/12201prs20050512.html); ACLU.org, ACLU of Tennessee Files Lawsuit Challenging State Amendment Banning Marriages for Same-Sex Couples” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/12233prs20050421.html); ACLU-MN.org, “ACLU Applauds California Judge’s Decision Ending Discrimination Against Same-Sex Couples in Marriage” (at https://www.aclu-mn.org/16Mar20052.html); ACLU.org, “Massachusetts ACLU and Town Clerks Challenge Governor’s Discriminatory Ban on Marriage Licenses for Non-Resident Same-Sex Couples” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/12138prs20050311.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Urges Washington Supreme Court To Uphold Marriage Equality” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/12144prs20050308.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Applauds Decision by New York Trial Judge Striking Down Laws Banning Same-Sex Couples from Marrying” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/12432prs20050204.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Criticizes Reintroduction of Federal Marriage Amendment” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/12431prs20050124.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Urges California Trial Court to End Discrimination Against Same-Sex Couples in Marriage” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/12446prs20041222.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU to Ask the Oregon Supreme Court to Provide Same-Sex Couples With Protections of Marriage” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/12443prs20041215.html); ACLU.org, “New York Trial Court Decision Denying Marriage for Same-Sex Couples Advances ACLU Lawsuit to Appeals Court” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/12456prs20041207.html); ACLU.org, “New CD Marry Me Supports the ACLU’s Efforts to Win Marriage for Same-Sex Couples” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/gen/relatedinformation_press_releases.html); ACLU.org, “Following Passage of Gay Marriage Bans in 11 States, ACLU Vows to Continue Striving for Equality” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/12430prs20041103.html); ACLU.org, “Prominent Legal Scholars Join ACLU Lawsuit Challenging Georgia Marriage Amendment” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/12420prs20041020.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU and Lambda Legal Urge Federal Court To Strike Down Nebraska Law Banning Recognition of Gay Couples” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/12417prs20041015.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Disappointed with Arkansas Supreme Court’s Decision on Misleading “Marriage” Ballot Initiative” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/12422prs20041007.html).

42 ACLU.org, “Civil Rights Groups in New Mexico Denounce High School Contest Soliciting Anti-Gay, Anti-Choice Student Essays” (at https://www.aclu.org/studentsrights/gen/21792prs20051122.html).

43 ACLU.org, “ACLU of Utah to Join Polygamists in Bigamy Fight” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/frb/16163prs19990716.html).

44 GETACLU.org, “The ACLU needs to get A CLU” (at https://www.getaclu.org/).

45 ACLU.org, “Federal Court Rules Transgender Discrimination Lawsuit Against Library of Congress Can Proceed” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/transgender/24851prs20060331.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU and Lambda Legal Challenge Law Barring Transgender People Access to Medical Treatment in Prison” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/transgender/23913prs20060124.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Files Lawsuit on Behalf of Army Veteran Against Library of Congress for Transgender Discrimination” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/transgender/12256prs20050602.html).

46 ACLU.org, “Georgia County Agrees to Remove Ten Commandments Display from Courthouse” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/tencomm/20163prs20050719.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU of Ohio Victorious in Another Ten Commandments Case” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/tencomm/16351prs20040714.html); ACLU.org, “Supreme Court Agrees to Review Two Challenges to Government-Endorsed Ten Commandments Displays” (at https://www.aclu.org/scotus/2004/13970prs20041012.html); ACLU.org, “Citing Religious Freedom, Appeals Court Bars Government Placement of Ten Commandments Monument in Nebraska Park” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/tencomm/16107prs20040218.html); ACLU.org, “Federal Appeals Court Hears ACLU Argument Against Government Endorsement of Ten Commandments” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/tencomm/16203prs20030407.html); ACLU.org, “Federal Appeals Court Rejects KY’s Ten Commandments Monument as Government-Endorsed Religion” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/tencomm/16153prs20021009.html); ACLU.org, “High Court Again Refuses to Review Ban on Government Endorsement of Ten Commandments” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/tencomm/16175prs20020225.html); ACLU.org, “Acting on Behalf of Concerned Residents and Clergy, ACLU of TN Challenges Posting of Ten Commandments in County Buildings” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/tencomm/16054prs20020129.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU of Kentucky Files Lawsuit Over Government-Endorsed Ten Commandments Postings in Four Counties” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/tencomm/16045prs20011127.html); ACLU.org, “County Officials in IA Agree to Remove Ten Commandments from Courthouse Grounds” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/tencomm/16126prs20010315.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU of Montana Settles Lawsuit Over Ten Commandments” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/tencomm/16298prs20001012.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU of GA Sues Local Officials Over Ten Commandments Image in County Seal” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/tencomm/16292prs20000515.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU of Illinois Lauds Officials’ Decision to Remove Religious Postings in Harrisburg Schools” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16168prs19991207.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Action Prompts School Board to Abandon Posting of Ten Commandments” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16109prs19991124.html); ACLU.org, “Commandments Come Down In West Virginia School” (at https://www.aclu.org/studentsrights/religion/12801prs19990827.html).

47 ACLU-IL.org, “Prominent Chicago Religious Leaders Applaud Court Order Ending Pentagon’s Special Funding for Boy Scout Jamboree” (at https://www.aclu-il.org/news/press/000286.shtml; ACLU.org, “Pentagon Agrees to End Direct Sponsorship of Boy Scout Troops in Response to Religious Discrimination Charge” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/discrim/16382prs20041115.html); ACLU.org, “In Final Chapter of San Diego Park Lease Case, Court Rules Against Boy Scouts on All Issues” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/discrim/12115prs20040414.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU of San Diego Secures Landmark Settlement in Boy Scout Lease Case” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/discrim/11950prs20040108.html).

48 ACLU.org, “San Diego Ends Nine-Year Effort To Keep Christian Cross in a Public Park” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/govtfunding/16058prs19990903.html); ACLU.org, “Federal Appeals Court Upholds ACLU Charge That Cross in Mojave Federal Preserve Violates Constitution” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/gen/16225prs20040607.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Sues Federal Government Over Christian Cross in Mojave National Preserve” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/discrim/16319prs20010322.html).

49 ACLU.org, “School-Sponsored Prayers at VA Military Institute Wrongly Entangle Government and Religion, Court Declares” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16120prs20020124.html); ACLU.org, “Supreme Court Lets Ban on Coerced Prayer at Virginia Military Institute Stand” (at https://www.aclu.org/scotus/2003/13910prs20040426.html).

50 ACLU.org, “ACLU Praises Appeals Court Decision Striking Down Pennsylvania’s Mandatory Pledge of Allegiance Law” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16350prs20040819.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Urges Supreme Court to Uphold Ruling Removing the Phrase “Under God” From Pledge of Allegiance Recited in Public Schools” (at https://www.aclu.org/scotus/2003/13914prs20040324.html).

51 AFA.net, “Judge OKs Controversial “‘In God We Trust’ Poster” (at https://www.afa.net/journal/february/religiona.asp); see also https://orig.clarionledger.com/news/0104a/12/a2.html)

52 “ACLU Calls On Providence Police Department To Halt Faith-Based “Prayer” Program” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/govtfunding/16310prs20001128.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Decries House Legislation that Earmarks $100 Million For Unproven Faith-Based Drug Treatment Programs” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/govtfunding/16078prs20030710.html).

53 ACLU.org, “ACLU Files Challenge to Religion-Themed Post Office in Connecticut Town” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/govtfunding/16343prs20031003.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Sues Over Ohio School District’s Policy on Religious Holidays” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16111prs19990825.html).

54 ACLU.org, “Ohio Appeals Court Strikes Down Christian State Motto as Unconstitutional” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/govtfunding/16291prs20000425.html).

55 ACLU.org, “Indiana Court Upholds Challenge to House’s Exclusionary Sectarian Prayers” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/govtfunding/22088prs20051130.html).

56 ACLU.org, “U.S. Supreme Court Asked to Strike Down Virginia’s “‘Minute of Silence’ Law” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16043prs20010831.html).

57 ACLU.org, “High Court Rejects Sales Tax Appeal on Religious Goods” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/govtfunding/16165prs19991012.html).

58 ACLU.org, “Parents, Educators Denounce Florida Voucher Scheme, Say Program Hurts Public Schools” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/govtfunding/16266prs20050606.html); ACLU.org, “Maine Civil Liberties Union Urges High Court to Keep Government Out of Religion Business” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16255prs20050324.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Applauds Appeals Court Decision Striking Down Florida School Voucher Program” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/vouchers/16349prs20040816.html); ACLU.org, “High Court Hears Arguments on Ohio Vouchers” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/vouchers/16124prs20020219.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Denounces Voucher, Block Grant Schemes; Says Congress Should Reject Divisive Amendments” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/vouchers/16328prs20010521.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU of Michigan Celebrates Sound Defeat of Voucher Program” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/vouchers/16309prs20001108.html); ACLU.org, “New ACLU Report Says CA’s Proposed Voucher Program Leaves Neediest Behind” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/vouchers/16297prs20001011.html).

59 ACLU.org, “ACLU Lawsuit Seeks to End West Virginia Judge’s Courtroom Prayer Sessions” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/discrim/16290prs20000511.html).

60 ACLU.org, “ACLU Warns Against “Character Cities” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/govtfunding/16134prs19990902.html).

61 ACLU.org, “Five Georgia Residents Sue to Block Extremist City-Sponsored Prayer Breakfast” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/gen/16041prs20020103.html).

62 ACLU.org, “ACLU of Virginia Defends Fredericksburg’s Decision to Ban Sectarian Prayers at Open City Council Meetings” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/frb/24227prs20060216.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU of San Diego Challenges Sectarian Prayers at City Council Meetings on Behalf of Resident” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/gen/16234prs20040505.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Challenges Sectarian Invocation at San Diego County Board of Supervisors Meetings” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/govtfunding/16285prs20000629.html); ACLU.org, “Federal Court Says that Virginia County’s Prayer Policy Violates Religious Freedom Rules” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/discrim/16100prs20031113.html).

63 ACLU.org, “ACLU Sues PA School District to Stop Official Prayers at Graduation and School Board Meetings” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/gen/16269prs20050526.html); ACLU.org, “Louisiana School Board Repeatedly Defied Federal Court Order, Charges ACLU” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16261prs20050405.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Asks Virginia School Boards Not to Open Meetings with Prayer” (at https://www.aclu.org/studentsrights/religion/12795prs19991001.html).

64 ACLU.org, “ACLU of Rhode Island Sues On Behalf of Town Resident’s Objection to City Hall Religious Display” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/gen/16093prs20031222.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Monitoring New Rule Regarding Nativity Scene Display in Iowa Town” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/gen/16092prs20031203.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU of Montana Challenges County Creche Display” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/gen/16139prs19991221.html).

65 ACLU.org, “The Fish Must Go: Court Rules Missouri Must Remove Religious Symbol from City Logo” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/gen/16114prs19990709.html).

66 ACLU.org, “Missouri School District Agrees to Stop Distributing Bibles to Students” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16228prs20040603.html).

67 ACLU.org, “As Graduation Approaches, Colorado Family Asks Court to End School-Sponsored Religious Exercises” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16048prs20020523.html); ACLU.org, “Louisiana Family Seeks ACLU Help in Ending Sponsored Prayers in Public Schools” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16159prs20020517.html); ACLU.org, “ICLU Brings Lawsuit On Behalf of Students Required to Sing Lord’s Prayer at Graduation” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16044prs20020401.html; ACLU.org, “ACLU of Nebraska Sues Over Graduation Prayer” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16053prs20011129.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU of Illinois Hails Judge’s Decision Blocking School-Sanctioned Prayer at Graduation Ceremony” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16327prs20010517.html); ACLU.org, “Supreme Court Sets Aside Appeals Court Ruling in Jacksonville School Prayer Case” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16300prs20001002.html).

68 ACLU.org, “ACLU Supports Parents in Demanding that Coach Stop Leading Prayer Before Football Games” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16307prs20001030.html); ACLU.org, “Warning of Legal Consequences, ACLU Urges South Carolina School to End Prayer Broadcasts” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16301prs20000901.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Hails “‘Total Victory’ for Religious Liberty In High Court’s Rejection of School Stadium Prayers” (at https://www.aclu.org/scotus/1999/16294prs20000619.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Sues Ohio School District Over Football Team Prayers” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16123prs19990628.html).

69 ACLU.org, “ACLU of Ohio Demands Schools Stop Teaching Intelligent Design as Science” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/24147prs20060214.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Applauds Decision in “‘Intelligent Design’ Case” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/23144prs20051220.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Applauds School Board Vote to Remove Evolution Disclaimers From Science Textbooks” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/20126prs20050714.html); ACLU.org, “Federal Judge Orders Georgia School District to Remove Evolution Disclaimers” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16376prs20050113.html); ACLU.org, “Pennsylvania Parents File First-Ever Challenge to “Intelligent Design” Instruction in Public Schools” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16372prs20041214.html); ACLU.org, “Parents Challenge Evolution Disclaimer In Georgia Textbooks” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16381prs20041112.html). ACLU.org, “ACLU Urges Kansas Public Schools to Reject Religion-Based Evolution Teachings in Science Classes” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16121prs19990813.html).

70 ACLU.org, “In Victory for Religious Liberty, Unanimous Appeals Court Finds LA’s School Prayer Law Unconstitutional” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16155prs20011212.html).

71 ACLU.org, “ACLU of Nebraska Files Complaint Against School Official Who Lead Prayers at Assembly” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16320prs20010321.html); ACLU.org, “In Long-Awaited Victory, High Court Vacates Alabama Decision Allowing Public School Prayer” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16286prs20000626.html).

72 ACLU.org, “ACLU of Ohio Demands Cancellation of Government-Sponsored “‘Faith-Based’ Concert” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/govtfunding/16348prs20040816.html).

73 ACLU.org, “Following ACLU Action, Rhode Island Public Libraries Agree to Give Patrons Increased Access to Internet” (at https://www.aclu.org/freespeech/censorship/20153prs20051007.html).

74 ACLU.org, “ACLU Challenges Patriot Act Provision Used to Exclude Prominent Swiss Scholar from the United States” (at https://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/23908prs20060125.html); ACLU.org, “U.S. Scholars and Writers Say Government Should End Censorship at the Border” (at https://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/23908prs20060125.html).

75 ACLU.org, “After Latest Data Release Controversy, ACLU Urges Census Bureau to Create Privacy Advisory Committee” (at https://www.aclu.org/privacy/spying/15739prs20040805.html); ACLU.org, “Request Follows Report that Bureau Shared Data on People of Arab Descent With Homeland Security Officials” (at https://www.aclu.org/privacy/spying/15739prs20040805.html).

76 USAToday.com, “ACLU: FBI ruse used in Guantanamo abuse (at https://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-12-21-gitmo-probe_x.htm).

77 Washingtonpost.com, “ACLU Challenges Ky. Funeral Protest Law” (at https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/01/AR2006
050101936.html).

78 Chicago Tribune, “Sex Offenders Sue Over City’s Ban” (at https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0606010152jun01,
1,5132453.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed); ACLU Indiana, “Legal Docket: Doe v. City of Plainfield” (at https://www.iclu.org/subpage.asp?p=32).

79 Amarillo Globe-News, “Court of appeals dismisses school prayer case”.

80 ABC News, “ACLU wants porn to be allowed for South Carolina inmates” (at https://abc7.com/archive/8162220/).

 

The Bible and Taxes

Capital Gains Taxes

The Capital Gains Tax, which is a tax on profits, actually penalizes a person for success. With this, the more profit you make the more you have to pay. (The more profit a person makes the higher tax rate they pay on that profit/windfall from an investment). However, in the Bible, those who earn more profit are rewarded. The parables of the talents (Matthew 25:14-30) and of the minas (Luke 19:12-27) conflict with the notion of a tax on capital gains. “For to everyone who has, more will be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who does not have, even what he has will be taken away.” In other words, the Bible implies that those who invest well with what they have will receive more.

Wages

The parable of the landowner and laborers (Matthew 20:1-16) is applicable to the employer/employee relationship and the issue of wages. The landowner hires workers at different times of the day and yet pays each worker the same amount at the end of the day. When the workers hired first complain, the landowner replies, “Did you not agree with me for a denarius? Take what is yours and go your way. I wish to give to this last man the same as to you. Is it not lawful for me to do what I wish with my own things?” (“things” is translated as “money” in some versions) There is an implication that the landowner had the right to determine the wages of his workers, as well as an implication that the workers could accept or reject the landowner’s offer of work. James 5:4 balances this by stating that the Lord hears the cries of the laborers who are cheated out of their due wages.

Income Taxes

The current income tax structure in the United States mandates a higher tax rate or percentage the more a person makes. This tax system is contradicted by scripture, especially Exodus 30:11-15, which provided a “half a shekel” tax for everyone numbered. Verse 15 states: “The rich shall not give more and the poor shall not give less than half a shekel.” In addition, the Biblical Tithe is not applied progressively, rather it is applied equally to everyone. (“And all the tithe of the land, whether of the seed of the land or of the fruit of the tree, is the Lord’s. It is holy to the Lord. . . .And concerning the tithe of the herd or the flock, of whatever passes under the rod, the tenth one shall be holy to the Lord.” Leviticus 27:30,32)

Inheritance Taxes

The Bible speaks to the issue of inheritance numerous times. Proverbs 13:22 states “A good man leaves an inheritance to his children’s children.” (This is not likely with the Estate Tax which can take up to 55% of an estate. Thus leaving 45% to the children. When the children pass it on to the grandchildren, up to 55% of the remaining 45% can be taken. Thus only 27% of the original is passed on to the “children’s children”). Ezekiel 46:18 states that “the prince shall not take any of the people’s inheritance by evicting them from their property; he shall provide an inheritance for his sons from his own property, so that none of My people may be scattered from his property.” Other scriptures that deal with inheritance are Proverbs 19:14, I Chronicles 28:8, and Ezra 9:12.

Benjamin Rush Dream about John Adams and Thomas Jefferson

The Dream of Dr. Benjamin Rush & God’s Hand in Reconciling John Adams and Thomas Jefferson
One of the more bitter aspects of the retirement of John Adams from the presidency in 1800 was the fact that several of those with whom he had early co-labored during the Revolution had become his fervent adversaries. This was especially true in the case of Thomas Jefferson who, although serving closely with Adams during the Revolution, had become one of his chief enemies during President Washington’s administration. This feud not only deeply embittered Adams emotionally but it also troubled Dr. Rush, who was still a close friend of both Adams and Jefferson. In his concern over the relationship between these two, one night several months after Jefferson’s retirement from the Presidency in 1809, Dr. Rush had a dream about the two which he felt was important. On October 17, 1809, he wrote down an account of that dream and sent it to John Adams. In describing that dream, he related what he had seen:

“What book is that in your hands?” said I to my son Richard [who later became the Secretary of State under President James Monroe] a few nights ago in a dream. “It is the history of the United States,” said he. “Shall I read a page of it to you?” “No, no,” said I. “I believe in the truth of no history but in that which is contained in the Old and New Testaments.” “But, sir,” said my son, “this page relates to your friend Mr. Adams.” “Let me see it then,” said I. I read it with great pleasure and herewith send you a copy of it.

“1809. Among the most extraordinary events of this year was the renewal of the friendship and intercourse between Mr. John Adams and Mr. Jefferson, the two ex-Presidents of the United States. They met for the first time in the Congress of 1775. Their principles of liberty, their ardent attachment to their country. . . being exactly the same, they were strongly attracted to each other and became personal as well as political friends. . . . A difference of opinion upon the objects and issue of the French Revolution separated them during the years in which that great event interested and divided the American people. The predominance of the party which favored the French cause threw Mr. Adams out of the Chair of the United States in the year 1800 and placed Mr. Jefferson there in his stead. The former retired with resignation and dignity to his seat at Quincy, where he spent the evening of his life in literary and philosophical pursuits, surrounded by an amiable family and a few old and affectionate friends. The latter resigned the Chair of the United States in the year 1808, sick of the cares and disgusted with the intrigues of public life, and retired to his seat at Monticello, in Virginia, where he spent the remainder of his days in the cultivation of a large farm agreeably to the new system of husbandry. In the month of November 1809, Mr. Adams addressed a short letter to his friend Mr. Jefferson in which he congratulated him upon his escape to the shades of retirement and domestic happiness, and concluded it with assurances of his regard and good wishes for his welfare. This letter did great honor to Mr. Adams. It discovered a magnanimity known only to great minds. Mr. Jefferson replied to this letter and reciprocated expressions of regard and esteem. These letters were followed by a correspondence of several years in which they mutually reviewed the scenes of business in which they had been engaged, and candidly acknowledged to each other all the errors of opinion and conduct into which they had fallen during the time they filled the same station in the service of their country. Many precious aphorisms [truths], the result of observation, experience, and profound reflection, it is said, are contained in these letters. It is to be hoped the world will be favored with a sight of them. . . . These gentlemen sunk into the grave nearly at the same time, full of years and rich in the gratitude and praises of their country.”1

At the time this letter was written, Jefferson and Adams were still vehement opponents. None of what was described in this letter had begun to come to pass, nor did it seem likely that it ever would. Nevertheless, Adams received the dream from his dear friend with an open heart and candidly responded:

Your prophecy, my dear friend, has not become history as yet. I have no resentment of animosity against the gentleman [Jefferson] and abhor the idea of blackening his character or transmitting him in odious colors to posterity. But I write with difficulty and am afraid of diffusing myself in too many correspondences. If I should receive a letter from him, however, I should not fail to acknowledge and answer it.2 [To see the entire John Adams to Benjamin Rush letter click here.]

Shortly after this letter, Rush, who was also a dear friend of Jefferson, initiated a correspondence with Jefferson on the same topic, attempting to reconcile the two. Jefferson, too, listened to Rush with an open heart, and tentatively reached out to Adams with a gracious letter. Adams, as he had promised, did “not fail to acknowledge and answer the letter,” and thus began a cordial renewing of a warm and sincere friendship between the two.

In retrospect, the amazing accuracy and future fulfillment of several parts of Dr. Rush’s dream are absolutely astounding. As accurately described in his dream, Adams and Jefferson did again become close friends, and there did indeed follow the “correspondence of several years” described in the dream. Furthermore, the “world was favored with a sight of the letters” as entire volumes were eventually published which contained the letters written between those two in their latter years. Interestingly, seventeen years after his dream, they did “sink into the grave nearly at the same time” as the two men died within three hours of each other on the same day: July 4th, 1826 – the fiftieth anniversary of the Declaration of Independence! Finally, both expired “full of years and rich in the gratitude of praises of their country.” It would appear that Providence had indeed given this dream to Dr. Rush since, although extremely unlikely at the time, it all eventually came to pass. (For similar Providential involvement in dreams, see Genesis 41:25+ and Daniel 2:28+).

In 1812, some three years after Dr. Rush had related his amazing dream to John Adams, Dr. Rush gratifyingly noted that a reconciliation between the two had begun:

I rejoice in the correspondence which has taken place between you and your old friend, Mr. Jefferson. I consider you and him as the North and South Poles of the American Revolution. Some talked, some wrote, and some fought to promote and establish it, but you and Mr. Jefferson thought for us all. I never take a retrospect of the years 1775 and 1776 without associating your opinions and speeches and conversations with all great political, moral, and intellectual achievements of the Congresses of those memorable years. 3

Shortly after this letter, Dr. Rush wrote with similar excitement to Jefferson, also expressing to him his pleasure over the rekindled friendship:

In a letter which I received a few days ago from Mr. Adams, he informs me, with a kind of exultation, that after a correspondence of five or six and thirty years had been interrupted by various causes, it had been renewed, and that four letters had passed between you and him. In speaking of your letters, he says, “They are written with all the elegance, purity, and sweetness of style of his youth and middle age, and with (what I envy more) a firmness of finger and steadiness of chirography [handwriting] that to me are lost forever.” It will give me pleasure as long as I live to reflect that I [Dr. Rush] have been in any degree instrumental in effecting this reunion of two souls destined to be dear to each other and animated with the same dispositions to serve their country (though in different ways) at the expense of innumerable sacrifices of domestic ease, personal interest, and private friendships. Posterity will do you both justice for this act. If Mr. Adams’ letters to you are written in the same elevated and nervous style [at that time, the word “nervous” was defined as “possessing or manifesting vigor of mind; characterized by strength in sentiment or style”], both as to matter and language, that his letters are which he now and then addresses to me, I am sure you will be delighted with his correspondence. Some of his thoughts electrify me. I view him as a mountain with its head clear and reflecting the beams of the sun, while all below it is frost and snow. 4

On the death of Adams and Jefferson on the very same day, some 17 years after Benjamin Rush has seen that event in his dream, the Rev. Edward Everett (a U. S. Representative & Senator, Governor, Diplomat, Secretary of State, and President of Harvard) delivered an oration in remembrance of the two in which he noted the great impact on America of their dual influence, both before and after their reconciliation:

Having lived and acted and counseled and dared and risked all, and triumphed and enjoyed together, they have gone together to their great reward. . . . Forgetting the little that had divided them and cherishing the communion of service and peril and success which had united, they walked with honorable friendship the declining pathway of age; and now they have sunk down together in peace into the bosom of a redeemed and grateful country. . . . They were useful, honored, prosperous, and lovely in their lives, and in their deaths they were not divided. 5

Endnotes

1 L. H. Butterfield, editor (Princeton: The American Philosophical Society, 1951), Vol. II, pp. 1021-1022, to John Adams on October 17, 1809.

2 From a handwritten letter from John Adams to Benjamin Rush, dated from Quincy [Massachusetts], December 21, 1809, in possession of the author.

3 Benjamin Rush, Letters of Benjamin Rush, L. H. Butterfield, editor (Princeton: The American Philosophical Society, 1951), Vol. II, p. 1127, to John Adams on February 17, 1812.

4 Benjamin Rush, Letters of Benjamin Rush, L. H. Butterfield, editor (Princeton: The American Philosophical Society, 1951), Vol. II, pp. 1127-1128, to Thomas Jefferson on February [i.e., March] 3, 1812. Letter was actually received on March 19, 1812.

5 Edward Everett, An Address Delivered at Charlestown, August 1, 1826, in Commemoration of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson (Boston: William L. Lewis, 1826), pp. 8-9.

A Christian Voter Intimidation Letter from Americans United for Separation of Church and State

Letter from Americans United for Separation of Church and State.Numerous militant secular groups want to see people of faith and churches silenced and kept from exercising any influence in the public sphere, even if that influence is legal and constitutionally permissible. One such group is Americans United for Separation of Church and State. It seems that each election cycle, they send out an ominous letter to pastors and churches, warning them that they can face legal problems for something as innocuous as providing a non-partisan voters guide to their parishioners.

People of faith should not rely on such agenda-driven adversarial secularist groups for advice on what they can do in relation to elections; they should instead rely on neutral and even supportive groups to help navigate these relatively simple waters. For example, the IRS has issued a very easy-to-understand letter of guidance (link to this letter provided here) explaining what churches and non-profit organizations can do at election time, and a number of national legal groups which specialize in this area have provided even easier-to-understand letters of guidance (link also provided here).

Just to illustrate how straightforward and uncomplicated this issue really is, we have taken the threatening letter sent by Americans United for Separation of Church and State to pastors in 2006 and have crossed out their editorial comments designed to intimidate pastors and churches, leaving intact the actual legal guidance which is confirmed by the IRS and supportive attorneys; as you can see, the difference is stark! Don’t be intimidated! Maximize your constitutional influence by obtaining and following the clear guidelines provided by legal groups that specialize in helping people of faith.

Futile Intimidation Attempts

February 6, 2008

Greetings!

On February 5, 2008, nearly two dozen states made their voice heard in the presidential primaries. To help equip Christian voters to fulfill their role during the election season, WallBuilders produced a Voters’ Guide that was distributed to millions of homes.

That Voters’ Guide proved to be a great threat to anti-Biblical secularists. Americans United for the Separation of Church and State therefore filed an official complaint requesting that the IRS investigate both WallBuilders and the American Family Association (then headed by Don Wildmon) for distributing that Voters’ Guide.

We had absolutely no intention of backing down or altering our message, nor would we allow ourselves to be intimidated. Benjamin Franklin observed, “Make yourself sheep, and the wolves will eat you,” and Thomas Jefferson wisely advised, “In matters of principle, stand like a rock!” WallBuilders is determined to never be intimidated from exercising our constitutional rights and encouraging other Christians to do so.

Because the real intent of the secularists was to keep Christians out of the civil arena, the Rev. Barry Lynn (head of Americans United), warned that “Any church that distributes these biased guides is risking its tax exemption and casting aside its integrity.” He was dead wrong. The Voters’ Guide was reviewed by numerous constitutional attorneys before it was released.

Some often marvel that the head of such a secularist group as AU goes by the title of “Reverend,” yet Barry Lynn is indeed an ordained minister in the United Church of Christ (the same denomination of which Barack Obama is a member) – considered the most liberal (and fastest declining) of all American denominations.

The UCC was the first denomination to ordain an openly gay minister in the early 1970s, and to call for recognition of homosexual marriages; and over 200 of its churches are led by openly homosexual ministers. The UCC is also a strong advocate of abortion and openly endorsed abortion a full two years before the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court abortion decision in 1973. They even opposed the ban on partial-birth abortions.

The UCC does not accept fixed absolutes from the Bible, but instead believes that the Bible should be defined by the current culture and context. You can certainly understand why individuals with this worldview would not want Christians to vote Biblically.

“The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in a time of moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.” Dante, The Inferno (circa 1315 A.D.)
Thank you for being involved. If you feel our efforts are worthy of support, would you consider making a small tax-deductible contribution?

God bless!

David Barton

Echoes of 1860: Is “Life” a Question of State’s Rights?

Much like the election of 1860, the 2008 presidential election generated a spirited debate over the correct relationship between the state and federal governments. The 1860 election debated the relationship of “states’ rights” to the issue of liberty; the 2008 election resurrected the issue of “states’ rights” but instead in the areas of life and family. Several of the 2008 presidential candidates declared themselves to be pro-life and pro-marriage but, citing federalism and “states’ rights,” they oppose either a Human Life or Marriage Amendment to the federal Constitution, claiming that such issues are to be decided by the state rather than the federal government. Yet a candidate’s position on such issues actually identifies their understanding of inalienable rights rather than their commitment to federalism.

In the original governing principles set forth in the Declaration (and then subsequently incorporated into the Constitution through Article VII), the right to life is one of three specifically identified inalienable rights; additional inalienable rights were subsequently enumerated in the Bill of Rights. The original documents – both the Declaration and the Constitution – make clear that the primary purpose of government, at all times and in all situations, is to protect those few inalienable rights.

Some candidates believed that the right to life is inalienable only to the degree that a specific state agrees – that if a state does not believe that the right to life is inalienable, then the federal government should not force the state to protect that right. Yet protection for the few specifically enumerated inalienable rights must always surpass what any particular state wishes – and this is the proper constitutional position on all inalienable rights, whether of life, private property, the right to keep and bear arms, the right of religious expression, etc. It is the duty of all government – including state governments – to protect inalienable rights. In fact, if the philosophy originally set forth in the Declaration of Independence and subsequently secured in the Constitution is rejected – the belief that there is a God, that He gives inalienable rights to man, and that the purpose of government is to protect those rights at all times (even when the states refuse to do so) – then there is no longer a unique American philosophy of government that will distinguish us from the rest of the world.

Understanding this, voices across the nation therefore asserted that what the state of Connecticut did in weakening property rights vis a vi the Kelo decision was intolerable because our founding documents specifically protected the inalienable right of private property through the Fifth Amendment; and they likewise asserted that what Washington, D. C. was doing with gun bans was wrong because it similarly violated the inalienable right to keep and bear arms secured to the people through the Second Amendment. Why, then, do they now believe that it is improper for the federal government to tell states that they must observe the inalienable right to life and traditional family set forth with equal force in the very same documents?

Some candidates even declared that because they are strict constructionists, they oppose amendments to the Constitution (a strict constructionist is one who supports interpreting the Constitution according to its original intent). Yet, since the Founders specifically included Article V in the Constitution to specify how the Constitution might be amended, then a strict constructionist must also support the part of the Constitution providing for its own amendment. In fact, refusing to consider a constitutional amendment does not reflect strict constructionism but rather a rejection of Article V of the Constitution.

The Founders wisely raised the bar so high as to make it is extremely difficult to pass any amendment, requiring a two-thirds approval of Congress and three-fourths approval of the states before any change could occur. Consequently, while there have been over 10,000 amendments to the Constitution proposed since 1789, only twenty-seven have been able to meet the constitutional standard. Of those twenty-seven, twelve were passed by the Founders themselves (the original “strict constructionists”) in only twenty years; in the subsequent two-hundred years, the nation has made just fifteen changes.

Federal constitutional amendments should be rare, but that does not mean they should be non-existent. States cannot be allowed to pick and choose which inalienable rights they will protect (although under the Constitution they are completely competent to determine virtually all other issues). The Constitution was written to preserve American culture and society, not to cause citizens to stand idly by while the culture is destroyed – especially when they have in their hands the means to preserve it through a constitutional amendment in the manner prescribed by the Constitution itself.

Some voices naively assert that simply eradicating abortion at the federal level and returning the issue to the states will correct the problem, but they are completely wrong. When the federal courts get out of the abortion issue and return it to the states, 20 states (based on both pro-life and pro-abortion estimates) will continue their current abortion practices, and those states include many with the largest population (e.g., California, New York, Illinois, etc.). Citizens from the other 30 states will therefore travel to one of those 20 states to get an abortion; so while the number of abortions will undoubtedly go down when the issue is returned to the states, it will come nowhere close to ending. Additionally, stopping abortion at the federal level will do nothing to correct the legal rulings generated in the state courts over the past 35 years as those state courts infused federal court positions into their own state case law. State courts will remain hostile to state attempts to restrict abortion because state case law is now as infused with the broad “health” exceptions, etc., as were the federal decisions.

A parallel legal analogy to today’s life and marriage protection concerns is seen in the 1860 slavery issue. At that time, even though the right to liberty was an inalienable right guaranteed in the founding documents, slavery was so deeply imbedded in the nation that the mere federal removal of itself from that issue vis a vi several federal statutes passed from 1861-1865 did little or nothing to change the slave culture in any of the states, either North or South – and those federal statutes certainly did nothing to change the bad court rulings that had occurred at the state level over the previous century.

Historically, the only manner in which bad case law can be completely eradicated from the law books (and thus completely terminate a long-standing harmful national practice that has permeated the states) is through a constitutional amendment – and a number of constitutional amendments have been passed to do just that (13th, 14th, 15th, 16th, etc.). In fact, had there been no constitutional amendments to secure the inalienable right to liberty that had been so egregiously violated by so many states, then there likely would still be slavery in America today as one generation, or family, or judicial system transmitted its errant beliefs to the next. So, too, with abortion.

The federal government should never have intruded itself into the abortion issue through the multiple Supreme Court decisions that opened the proverbial Pandora’s Box; however, the federal government did intrude itself. As a result, the abortion culture is now deeply implanted in America, and there are those who are as committed to that practice today as there were those who were committed to slavery a century-and-a-half ago. And abortion (like slavery before it) has become one of the nation’s biggest economic businesses; it therefore will not be eradicated from the nation by mere statutory action at the state level (or vice versa).

The Founding Fathers established federalism to preserve states’ rights, but they also placed the protection of inalienable rights far above the level of states’ rights. Candidates who desire to lead the nation should follow the Framers’ example and conform to the principles set forth in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, protecting life and marriage through the constitutional process those early leaders wisely provided.

* This article concerns a historical issue and may not have updated information.

Tea Parties- Same Song, Second Verse

History of Tea Parties

America’s first Tea Party in 1773 was not an act of wanton lawlessness but rather a deliberate protest against heavy-handed government and excessive taxation.1 Its leaders took great care to ensure that nothing but tea was thrown overboard – no other items were damaged. The “Indians” even swept the decks of the ships before they left.2

Tea Parties occurred not only in Boston but also in numerous other locales.3 And those who participated were just ordinary citizens expressing their frustration over a government that had refused to listen to them for almost a decade. Their reasonable requests had fallen on deaf ears. Of course, the out-of-touch British claimed that the Tea Parties were lawless and violent,4 but such was not the case.

Tea Party Today

Interestingly, in many ways, today’s Tea Parties parallel those of long ago. But rather than protesting a tax on tea, today they are protesting dozens of taxes represented by what they call the Porkulus/Generational Theft Act of 2009 (officially called the “American Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Act”). For Tea Party members (and for most Americans), that act and the way it was passed epitomizes a broken system whose arrogant leaders often scorn the concerns of the citizens they purport to represent.

Tea Party folks agree with the economic logic of our Founders.

  • “To contract new debts is not the way to pay off old ones.”5 “Avoid occasions of expense…and avoid likewise the accumulation of debt not only by shunning occasions of expense but by vigorous exertions…to discharge the debts.”6 GEORGE WASHINGTON
  • “Nothing can more [affect] national credit and prosperity than a constant and systematic attention to…extinguish the present debt and to avoid as much as possible the incurring of any new debt.”7 ALEXANDER HAMILTON
  • “The maxim of buying nothing but what we have money in our pockets to pay for lays the broadest foundation for happiness.”8 “The principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale.”9 THOMAS JEFFERSON

These are not radical positions – nor are the others set forth in the Tea Party platform – that Congress should: (1) provide the constitutional basis for the bills it passes; (2) reduce intrusive government regulations; (3) balance the budget; (4) limit the increase of government spending to the rate of population growth; (5) and eliminate earmarks unless approved by 2/3rds of Congress.10 Are these positions dangerous or extreme? Certainly not. In fact, polling shows that Americans support these Tea Party goals by a margin of two-to-one.11

Citizens are angry about the current direction of government. As John Zubly, a member of the Continental Congress in 1775, reminded the British: “My Lord, the Americans are no idiots, and they appear determined not to be slaves. Oppression will make wise men mad.”12 But does that anger automatically equate to violence? Of course not. It does equate to action, however; but instead of throwing tea overboard, modern Tea Parties are throwing out-of-touch politicians from both parties overboard.

The Tea Parties represent much of what is right in America – citizens reacquainting themselves with the Constitution and holding their elected officials accountable to its standards. Two centuries ago, Daniel Webster could have been talking to today’s Tea Party rallies when he said: “Hold on, my friends, to the Constitution and to the Republic for which it stands. Miracles do not cluster and what has happened once in 6,000 years may not happen again. Hold on to the Constitution!”13

Endnotes

1 George Bancroft, History of the United States of America (New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1888), III:443-447.

2 Bancroft, History (1888), III:456-457; “Facts You May Not Know about the Tea Party,” Boston Tea Party Historical Society (accessed on July 21, 2010).

3 Bancroft, History (1888), III:457 (Philadelphia, NY, SC).

4 Bancroft, History (1888), III:460.

5 George Washington, The Writings of George Washington, ed. John C. Fitzpatrick (Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office, 1940), 37:177, letter to James Welch, April 7, 1799.

6 Washington, Writings, ed. Fitzpatrick (1939), 35:230, Farewell Address, September 19, 1796.

7 Alexander Hamilton, The Papers of Alexander Hamilton, ed. Harold C. Syrett (New York: Columbia University Press, 1966), XI:140-141.

8 Thomas Jefferson, Writings of Thomas Jefferson, ed. Andrew A. Lipscomb (Washington, D.C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), VI:188, letter to Mr. Skipwith, July 28, 1787.

9 Jefferson, Writings, ed. Lipscomb (1904), XV:23, letter to John Taylor, May 28, 1816.

10 “Contract From America,” TeaParty365.com, April 10, 2010.

11 See, for example, “Tea Party 48%, Obama 44%,” Rasmussen Reports, April 5, 2010 (at: https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/april_2010/tea_party_48_obama_44); “Most Say Tea Party Has Better Understanding of Issues than Congress,” Rasmussen Reports, March 28, 2010 (at: https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/march_2010/most_say_tea_party_has_better_understanding_of_issues_than_congress).

12 William B. Sprague, Annals of the American Pulpit; or Commemorative Notices of Distinguished American Clergymen or Various Denominations (New York: Robert Carter & Brothers, 1858), 3:221.

13 Congressional Record: Proceedings and Debates of the 108th Congress, Second Session (Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office, 2004), 150:17247, Representative Franks quoting Daniel Webster, July 22, 2004.

Steps for Viewing Candidates Scorecards

Steps for Viewing Candidates Scorecards:1. Go to Project Vote Smart.

2. Type in the name of any candidate about whom you are seeking information.

3. When the page comes up for that candidate, click on the “Ratings” folder at the top of the page.

4. Dozens of scorecards on the candidates will appear, listed alphabetically by categories. To see where the candidate stands on abortion, go to the “Abortion” section at the top; scroll down to “Civil Liberties and Civil Rights” to see the ratings of groups like the ACLU and AU and other secular groups that oppose public religious expressions and the ratings of pro-homosexual groups such as the Human Rights Campaign and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force; scroll down to “Conservative” to see the ratings of many pro-family Christian groups, such as Christian Coalition, Concerned Women for America, Christian Action Network, scroll down to “Family and Children Issues” to find the ratings of Christian groups such as the Family Research Council; etc.

5. Realize that secular and religious, liberal and conservative groups are all mixed in each category; make sure that you know the philosophy of each group to understand whether its rating is good or bad for a Biblical viewpoint. (For example, National Right to Life is against abortion whereas Planned Parenthood, Pro-Choice America, and NARAL and for abortion. And pro-family groups that embrace Biblical values will include Family Research Council and Eagle Forum while Pro-homosexual marriage groups will include Human Rights Campaign and Gay-Lesbian-Straight Education Network (GLSEN). Therefore, from the “bad” groups, you want to see a low score on the candidate, while from the “good” groups, you want to see a high score.

 

*For additional voting resources, visit our Voter Resource page for voting guides,
instructions on registering to vote and much more.

David Barton & the ADL

On June 9th, 1994 the ADL (Anti-Defamation League) published unsubstantiated and scurrilous slanders against more than a dozen major Christian leaders including Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Dr. James Dobson, Dr. D. James Kennedy, Donald Wildmon, Phyllis Schlafly, Jay Sekulow, and David Barton.

The title of the now thoroughly discredited publication was “The Religious Right: The Assault on Tolerance and Pluralism in America.” Its contention, expressed in incendiary and intemperate language, was that adherence to Christian faith represented an “assault on tolerance and pluralism in America.”

David Cantor, the ADL researcher who wrote the report, and soon thereafter sought employment elsewhere, admitted to the New York Times that he never contacted any of the individuals or groups he slandered for their statements or reactions. Furthermore, he confessed that his report comprised almost entirely statements about the selected Christian leaders that had been written by their opponents. In a flagrant violation of journalistic ethics, he conducted no direct interviews of his subjects.

The abhorrence felt toward this baseless attack upon some of Judaism and Israel’s staunchest friends provoked a firestorm of criticism against the ADL in the mainstream Jewish community. A number of ADL leaders and board members made their objections widely known or resigned their positions in protest. This included well-respected leaders like Carl Pearlston, Phillip Aronoff, Fred Zeidman, and Houston attorney Gary Polland who later told New York magazine that “the liberal Jewish community is the enemy” and “the intellectual backbone of everything that’s wrong in this country.”

On August 2nd, responding to the ADL, the organization I had established and was privileged to lead, Toward Tradition, placed a large paid advertisement on a page of the New York Times. The headline read “Should Jews Fear The Religious Right?” and continued, “We are a group of Jews who wish to make it known that we reject the implications of this report and deplore its publication.” This national indictment of the ADL was signed by eighty-nine prominent Jewish leaders and made clear that most American Jews condemned the Anti-Defamation League for engaging in defamation of its own in its attack on leaders of the religious right.

In response to a vigorous protest by Pat Robertson, on August 3rd, the ADL’s National Director, Abraham Foxman wrote a letter to the evangelical leader in which he admitted to major inaccuracies and slanders in the report. Foxman’s letter also retracted the accusation found in the ADL report that in a 1980 staff meeting Robertson had referred to Jews as “spiritually deaf” and “spiritually blind.”

Syndicated columnist, Mona Charen, wrote, “The ADL has committed defamation. There is no other conclusion to be reached after reading its new report, The Religious Right: the Assault on Tolerance and Pluralism in America. It is sad that an organization with a proud history of fairness should have descended to this kind of character assassination and name calling.”

During the summer of 1994, Minnesota Senator, Rudy Boschwitz, who had been an honorary vice-chairman of the ADL wrote: “I always believed that the ADL considered diverse opinions permissible …. Indeed, they have just produced a scathing report about a group they maintain doesn’t allow such diversity. Could it be that our own ADL is itself assaulting pluralism and tolerance in America?”

The Jewish newspaper, The Forward, reported that William Kristol, son of Jewish intellectual Irving Kristol, and who was Vice President Dan Quayle’s chief of staff, said, “It is so shortsighted and self-destructive for a Jewish organization like the ADL to unjustly and gratuitously alienate Christian conservatives.” Kristol also said that the ADL is part of the Democratic Party’s strategy to “demonize religious conservatives.”

Herb Zweibon, head of Americans for a Safe Israel said the ADL report is a “slap in the face” to friends of Israel and indicated “that the ADL has veered off course and adopted a new ultra-liberal agenda that has nothing to do with ADL’s stated purposes.” He praised the Christian right for standing by Israel when others turned out to be “fair-weather friends.”

The September 1994 issue of Commentary magazine published by the American Jewish Committee carried a stinging denunciation of the ADL and its, by then, notorious report. It was written by Midge Decter the distinguished fellow at the Institute on Religion and Public Life.

A son-in-law of Midge Decter, Elliot Abrams who had served in both the Reagan and Bush administrations termed the ADL report “despicable.”

By the end of 1994, virtually the entire Jewish community had rejected the report as not only false and evil but also as stupid and a self-serving act of unconscionable ingratitude to some of the Jewish community’s greatest friends.

Originally created to combat the extensive anti-Semitism prevalent in the early twentieth century, ninety years later the ADL had become enormously successful with an annual budget of about fifty million dollars. Many have asked how the ADL could possibly have embarked upon this ill-advised adventure, defaming the friends and allies of the Jewish community and bringing embarrassment to itself. The answer offered by most Jewish commentators and by former members of the ADL is that by the 1990s, active anti-Semitism in America was largely extinct and the organization was becoming irrelevant.

In order to redesign its purpose and rediscover relevance, it repackaged itself as a national advocate of secular liberalism. It was chiefly responsible for popularizing the equation that Judaism equals liberalism, thus allowing the demonization of all anti-liberals (conservatives) as anti-Semites.

For this reason, the ADL declined to support then Jewish Dr. Laura Schlesinger in the attempts by the homosexual community to destroy her broadcasting career. The ADL also flouted Jewish tradition and values by taking public positions in favor of homosexual marriage and in favor of aggressive gun control, arguing against the conventional understanding of the 2nd Amendment. In the attack against the Boy Scouts of America mounted by the homosexual community, the ADL backed the homosexual plaintiffs all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. In its nationwide partnership with Barnes and Noble in the program Hate Hurts the ADL endorsed the books Heather Has Two Mommies and Steve Has Two Daddies as suitable tools for teaching tolerance to young children. In short, as anti-Semitism declined in America, the ADL found a new reason to exist and a new reason to raise large sums of money for its headquarters and staff. (Abraham Foxman, national director of ADL earns annual compensation of about half a million dollars and was disgraced by his role in persuading President Bill Clinton to issue a pardon for tax fugitive Marc Rich, a major ADL contributor.)

In conclusion, few of prominence and respectability in the Jewish community today regard the ADL as a responsible voice for Judaism. Wags dismiss the ADL as the circumcised wing of the Democratic Party.

The reputations of all those maligned in the hateful 1994 report have suffered no setbacks and if anything, the Jewish community looks toward those named with appreciation and gratitude for their staunch defense of those values that have made the United States of America the most tranquil and prosperous haven Jews have experienced in the past two millennia.

As someone who has been a rabbi and Jewish community leader for several decades, the undersigned wishes personally to thank David Barton of Wallbuilders along with the other leaders defamed in that sixteen-year-old mistake for all they have done for Judeo-Christian values in America and to express his willingness to be contacted personally by anyone seeking further information on this shameful episode in the history of a once proud and valuable organization, the Anti-Defamation League.

Rabbi Daniel Lapin

The American Alliance of Jews and Christians.