HIS SECOND RESPONSE

There is more to the story than your spin. :-) The Catholic church shouldn't go against it's moral preaching. If the workers didn't like the rule, they should have quit. Just because a corrupt, kangaroo court in California comes up with another yet again, anti-Christian law, doesn't make it right to change the history of religion in our country, or history of Christianity and it's practice. Should Catholic churches allow orgies also?

Not on their property, but they should not be allowed to prevent an employee from participating in one of their own free will. That's what they were trying to do with the birth control issue, keeping birth control from non Catholic employees simply because the church is against it. Their religious beliefs give them the right to not use birth control, but not to right to prevent others from using it.

It's against their belief and practice, but if a California Kangaroo Court makes it a law, doesn't make it right. And you forgot this tidbit regarding the case. Justice Janice Rogers Brown dissented, writing that the Legislature's definition of a "religious employer" is too limiting if excludes faith-based nonprofit groups like Catholic Charities. "Here we are dealing with an intentional, purposeful intrusion into a religious organization's expression of it religious tenets and sense of mission," Brown wrote. "The government is not accidentally or incidentally interfering with religious practice; it is doing so willfully by making a judgment about what is or is not a religion."

When you hire employees you must abide by federal law, if the Catholic Church doesn't want to abide by federal law then they should depend on volunteers from within their church to fill necessary positions, rather than hiring nonCatholics and then attempting to force them to abide by Catholic tenets.

The government would only be interfering in the Catholic churches religious tenets if it tried to force Catholics to take birth control.

Actually our country and schools had prayer instituted as a study method.

Our Public school system wasn't in place until almost 1900, with the first state having mandatory elementary school attendance in 1852, and it taking until 1918 before the public elementary school system was fully in place. With mandatory attendance came the issue of religious education in public schools. Once public schools became funded by federal dollars it became unconstitutional to combine mandatory attendance with religious education in the classroom.

The first case was brought in 1948, only 30 years after public elementary schools with mandatory attendance became nation wide. So, yes , technically speaking, there was prayer and bible study in the nations first schools, however it was quickly recognized as unconstitutional when combined with mandatory attendance.

God and Christianity were deeply rooted in our country's founding, and government, and school systems. If we pass a law today where it's ok to rape women on Wednesdays, that doesn't make it right, or what our founding fathers intended.

Exactly right, and when some states attempted to pass laws requiring school children to pray in a certain way and attend classes that taught them religion in a certain way, it was still wrong.

And there is more to the story, in addition, to the demand for jail time, the ACLU cites a prayer it says was recently given at Amite High School, over a loudspeaker, at an awards banquet. The prayer ended with the words "In Jesus' name we pray," violating the ban; the principal of the school sat silently by. Sounds pretty anti-Christian to me.

That's not anti-Christian, it's pro first amendment. The first amendment protects your right to have whatever religion you choose, it never gave you the right to subject other people's children to it.

Freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.

You cannot have freedom of religion without freedom from religion. IOW, if I choose to raise my children Catholic I must be free FROM the requirement to have them be Baptist, correct? And if I am raising them Catholic then it goes against our first amendment rights to have them taught Christianity by Baptist standards in their schools.

You are correct, Freedom of religion. The founding fathers established, rather clearly, that Christianity was and is to be a part of our government and way of life.

Where did they do this?

These cases show the anti Christian bias with the Anti-Christian Liberties Union. Regarding the Tangipahoa case, Joe Cook , the ACLU head in Louisiana said, "The federal court must rein in religious extremists who have taken over the Tangipahoa Parish school system by hijacking Christianity and using it to carry out their agenda of indoctrinating and proselytizing captive students under their control." Just more anti-Christian proof for you. :-)

Again, not anti-Christian, pro-first amendment.

Captive and control are the key elements here. The Tangipahoa school was REQUIRING students to participate in the prayer and the bible study class. Children who did not show up were chastised. Let's put the shoe on the other foot for an example. You send your child to school and the school requires him to pray to Allah, kneeling on a rug facing East, and to attend Koran study class. When he says, but I'm not Muslim, they chastise him for not cooperating. Isn't your child free FROM participating in the Muslim religious practices, or does he only have freedom OF religion, but not freedom FROM religion?

And how does this prove that the ACLU, as an organization, was founded on communism? It proves it's founder was a communist. Pretty damning evidence. Usually an organization doesn't do a complete 180. Founded upon Communism then, means right off the bat, the possibility they are not pushing a communist agenda is slim. Also, Baldwin's closest friend, one of was Margaret Sanger, who founded Planned Parenthood. This established the early link for ACLU and Abortionists, both anti-Christian.

Actually the founder's political views aren't damning against the ACLU itself.

By your argument America is a Deist nation because several of our founding fathers were deists.

During the period of time that the ACLU was founded many people in the world were communist supporters

The concept of communism did not have the flavor of evil to it that we associate with it now, people still believed utopia was possible.

Most people know better now.

The ACLU itself was established to defend the rights of Americans, with different political views from our government, from unwarranted attacks.

Abortion may go against most Christian groups beliefs but I would hardly call Margaret Sanger antiChristian.

The ACLU was founded to defend the civil liberties of American citizens, including those that believed in communism. There has been no effort by the ACLU , as an organization, to promote communism as public policy in America. BTW, Roger Baldwin was not the only founder.

This is correct. The other founders were supporters of Communism, also. In 1924, Baldwin wrote regarding his Committee for Political Prisoners (with members and board members a member of) 'Many of the members of the Committee for Political Prisoners as individuals regard the Russian Revolution as the greatest and most daring experiment yet undertaken to recreate society in terms of human values. Many of them look upon Russia today as a great laboratory of social experiment of incalculable value to the development of the world.' William Donohue, an expert on ACLU history writes in 'The Politics of the ACLU' -Baldwin..not only failed to question the abuses of freedom in Russia, but actually defended the repressive regime.' Throughout the 20's and 30's the ACLU had prominent Communist Party Members and loaned money and provided bail for Communist Party members.

That's true, they did, but it still does not make them a communist organization. They have made no attempts to advance the cause of communism in America,and furthermore they expelled Elizabeth Gurley Flinn in 1940 because she was a member of the communist party. They avoided defending communist leaders when they were charged under the Smith ACt and stayed out of the Ethel and Julius Rosenberg case altogether, citing that the case did not involve a civil liberties violatioN

You've stated that the ACLU was founded as an organization to promote communism as public policy in America, I'd like some examples of activites by the ACLU that do that.

Nesta