No I don't need the government to maintain my cultural identity, I just don't like the idea of the ACLU using the judicial system ( all they need is 1 sympathetic judge which came easily be found by venue shopping ) to force their interpretation of the constitution on me. Since many of these so called activists groups DO NOT have popular support as shown by the whopping 30 people that came out, the judicial system is all they have.
I'm glade the supreme court will now be a harder nut for the ACLU and others to crack. Hopefully the end of judicial activism as we knew it!

Got this from The American Legion web site

Combat ACLU Legal Abuse
"For God and country" has been the creed of The American Legion since its inception by GI's in 1919 after World War I. It is our creed today. It will be tomorrow.

That creed, our American values, our religious history and heritage, the Boy Scouts and the public display of seemingly all other symbols of our American religious history and heritage, including at the Mojave Desert Veterans Memorial, are under attack by the ACLU, and aligned special interests.

The American Legion is committed to fighting these fanatical attacks. I commend you all for your efforts to save the Los Angeles County Seal from revision -- from “secular cleansing” -- by the ACLU.

American Legion Resolution 326 which calls on Congress to end the outrageous exploitation of the Civil Rights Act by the ACLU in seeking and receiving millions of dollars in judge-ordered, taxpayer-paid attorney fees in Establishment Clause cases. It is the threat of such judge-ordered fees that has terrorized local elected officials into surrendering to the ACLU’s demands.

The American Legion is in full support of the Public Expression of Religion Act of 2005, H.R. 2679, sponsored by Rep. John Hostettler (R-Ind.), which would end this abuse by amending the Civil Rights Attorney Fees Act of 1976, 42 United States Code Section 1988, to withdraw the authority of judges to award attorney fees to the ACLU, or anyone else, in lawsuits under the Establishment Clause. I urge you to join us in calling in on Congress to pass H.R. 2679.

We must never relinquish the public expression of the symbols that represent who we are as a people. We must not surrender to such demands. Standing together, we will overcome.

God bless you all; God Bless our troops; and God bless America.

THOMAS P. CADMUS
National Commander
The American Legion

November 20, 2004: ACLU of Nevada supports free speech rights of evangelists to preach on the sidewalks of the strip in Las Vegas.

November 9, 2004: ACLU of Nevada defends a Mormon student who was suspended after wearing a T-shirt with a religious message to school.

July 10, 2004: Indiana Civil Liberties Union defends the rights of a Baptist minister to preach his message on public streets.

June 9, 2004: ACLU of Nebraska files a lawsuit on behalf of a Muslim woman barred from a public pool because she refused to wear a swimsuit.

June 3, 2004: Under pressure from the ACLU of Virginia, officials agree not to prohibit baptisms on public property in Falmouth Waterside Park in Stafford County.

May 11, 2004: After ACLU of Michigan intervened on behalf of a Christian Valedictorian, a public high school agrees to stop censoring religious yearbook entries.

March 25, 2004: ACLU of Washington defends an Evangelical minister's right to preach on sidewalks.

February 21, 2003: ACLU of Massachusetts defends students punished for distributing candy canes with religious messages.

October 28, 2002: ACLU of Pennsylvania files discrimination lawsuit over denial of zoning permit for African American Baptist church.

July 11, 2002: ACLU supports right of Iowa students to distribute Christian literature at school.

April 17, 2002: In a victory for the Rev. Jerry Falwell and the ACLU of Virginia, a federal judge strikes down a provision of the Virginia Constitution that bans religious organizations from incorporating.

January 18, 2002: ACLU defends Christian church's right to run "anti-Santa" ads in Boston subways.

OK. Now I got it. You want to force your interpretation of the constitution on all of us.

The "venue shopping" phrase you picked up somewhere, by the way, is simply not appropriate with regard to most First Amendment cases -- it's usually not very easy to shop for a sympathetic venue because multiple venues aren't usually available. As for the "1 sympathetic judge" claim, you got that wrong too. Lots (most?) of these cases end up in appeals courts, which means multiple-judge panels hear them.

The one thing you do have sort of right is "the judicial system is all they have." Actually, it's the Bill of Rights that they have, and its protection of certain individual rights deemed by the framers of the Constitution as well as the first members of Congress to be so important as to be worthy of special protections. In your resentment that you can't have the government impose your religious preferences on everyone, you don't seem to grasp that the minority status of the groups seeking protection is the point. It's the very fact that they are in the minority that requires that their rights be granted Constitutional protection because we know that doofuses with attitudes like yours will run roughshod over them if allowed to do so.

stanwills:

This legislation is particularly absurd. Why should First Amendment cases be singled out for this treatment? I can't imagine this would survive its first court test, should it pass.