Is the ACLU anti-Christian?

[Jae Onasi]

Spinning off from the Falwell thread since I'm uncomfortable discussing it there.

 

Does the ACLU protect the civil liberties of everyone? Or is it promoting an anti-Christian agenda in a slick package?

[True_Avery]

This is my opinion. And I personally do not know much about the ACLU, but I'll try with what I found.

 

Religious liberty: Defends the individual right of Americans of all religions to practice and/or display affirmations of their faith in public, but not on public property with government sponsorship or endorsement.

I fully agree. Freedom of speech and expression should be respected, but should not be forced onto others. Putting a cross on public property is a statement that does not need to be there, and if it -must- be there then it should be surounded by the symbols of a variety of other religions, from the Jewish to the Satanists, in order to be fair. Not everybody believes that Christianity is the absolute, and in the millions of Religions in history there is no proof at all that it is.

 

Separation of church and state; under this mandate, the ACLU:

* Opposes the government-sponsored display of religious symbols on public property;

* Opposes official prayers, religious ceremonies, and some kinds of "moments of silence" in public schools or schools funded with public money

Again with the cross in public. I am firmly, firmly, against putting prayer and religious ceremonies into public schools. In the hundreds of kids in schools, the chances that parents and students will be offended by a, lets say, purely christian prayer time would be astounding. I, personally, do not even say the pledge because of the line "One nation, under God." But Religion should be taught in schools as a reason of understanding, and I wouldn't be fully against leaning a bit about creationism in science class as long as the teacher stood specifially on what he/she is to teach... science, even though religion can be defined as a form of science itself.

 

Full freedom of speech and of the press, including school newspapers

Love freedom of speech, but should be exercised with respect.

 

Reproductive rights, including the right to use contraception and to have an abortion

Very touchy subject. If I, for instance, were to be raped and was made pregnant at the age of 13, I would want an abortion and for that it would need to be legal. Bringing a child into this world is EXTREMELY expensive and difficult and putting that onto a 16 year old who screwed up may seem like a punishment to you, but in reality you are doing nothing but punishing that child with a mother who is in no way ready to take care of it. Some women NEED abortions, even late, to save themselves from death or illness when a baby that is incomplete or seriously screwed up (Missing a brain, vital organs, ect) threatens their very life with it's problems. Now, I am not saying that I love to hang babies on a rope and beat them to death because I hate God and love Satan, but those that believe that abortion is wrong and should be outlawed... chill. Again, it is your belief and religious belief should not ever be allowed to interfere with the Justice/Law system.

 

Full civil rights for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender people, including government benefits for homosexual couples equal to those provided for heterosexual ones

This subject is very, very, very touchy for me and for very personal reasons I do not feel like sharing with any of you (no offense). Love is Love. I do not care for your opinion if you see it as an illness, or a mental disorder, or a disease. They are people, and people I know and love. Does that mean anybody who is different does not deserve to have the rights of others? Should dwarfs be taken away civil liberties because they were -born- shorter than you? Again, your personal beliefs and such should NOT be allowed to affect the lives of those who are just as much human as you are.

 

Affirmative action as a means of redressing past discrimination and achieving a racially diverse student body

Discrimination is wrong, and any attempt to lessen it is fine in my book.

 

The rights of defendants and suspects against unconstitutional police practices

Too often do I see police beating the hell out of someone for no good reason. Too bad they never really go to jail for it anyway.

 

The decriminalization of drugs such as heroin, cocaine and marijuana

I am pretty sure that means, make them legal. If it does, then I don't agree. I see too many lives ruined by them, and making them legal wont help.

 

I've also seen a bunch of other stuff that seem to go under rumor and urban legend, but that covers their basics as far as I can tell. Overall, not a bad setup, but I am not exactly sure how far they go for each of their beliefs.

 

I am not against, in any way, of the voicing of an opinion. But opinion is opinion and great thought should be taken before anything or the sort should be turned into law. If we really wanted the Bible to be our law book, America would have never been created and we would still be ruled by the Catholics in England. Seperation of Church and State happened for reasons, and those reasons are mainly due to the Church and the beliefs of some people taking control over everybody. Will America turn into this? No, probably not. Are we giving the Church a little too much power? Sometimes, yes.

 

Pretty much all of America has banned Gay Marriage, Abortion, and Health Care is worse than ever. Let this go on a little more and Canada is starting to look really inviting.

 

This does not look like an anti-christian league bent on destroying all of your beliefs. It looks like an organization that is trying to keep those beliefs where they belong... in your head, and from your mouth, but never inside a law book or on public property.

 

But this is all my opinion and I respect what you believe.

[Achilles]

ACLU's Defense of Religious Liberty

This is the first link that Google spat out after searching for "aclu christian cases". There are more current examples via the links on the right.

 

The ACLU's mission can be found here.

This is from their FAQ, which also links back to this page.

 

If that's too much clicking, I'll summarize by saying "Yes, the ACLU protects the civil liberties of everyone. The ACLU can only be considered anti-christian if your expectation is that they take christianity's side in every single case, regardless of whether or not that position is the correct one".

 

I have better examples from my time at EvC. I'll see if I can dig them up later.

[SilentScope001]

Religious liberty: Defends the individual right of Americans of all religions to practice and/or display affirmations of their faith in public, but not on public property with government sponsorship or endorsement.

 

Separation of church and state; under this mandate, the ACLU:

* Opposes the government-sponsored display of religious symbols on public property;

* Opposes official prayers, religious ceremonies, and some kinds of "moments of silence" in public schools or schools funded with public money

 

Okay, somewhat non-conterverisal. Somewhat. Altough I would like churches (or at least, the preachers inside of churches) to partake as lobbying groups and endorse candinates to try and influence governments. Not that I am pro-Religious Right...but because I am a 1st Amendment Defender, and I don't like things that restrict it.

 

Full freedom of speech and of the press, including school newspapers

 

Yes! Still, not really that compelling when it realizes, well, uh, you don't have the right for people to listen to you.

 

Reproductive rights, including the right to use contraception and to have an abortion

 

...

 

Fine. It's defintently Pro-Choice. This does knock it a bit away from Jae's position, so it does back her point.

 

Full civil rights for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender people, including government benefits for homosexual couples equal to those provided for heterosexual ones

 

Uh.

 

Jae, you are right. I cannot believe this. All this time, I thought the ACLU concered itself with freedom of speech and getting Churches off Public Property. Not, THIS.

 

Forget your views on gay marriage or such. I don't care if you consider it a mental illness or if you consider it an expression of great joy. I want you to look at Jae's question...does this promote an agenda that goes against Jae? Well, it can promote any agenda, and it sometimes defend religious people, but it is also against religious people when it wants to as well.

 

So much for netruality. By the way, I do side with their position, but I don't think I could join their organization.

 

What is the ACLU's position on affirmative action?

The ACLU supports affirmative action as one of the most effective tools for redressing injustices caused by our nation's historic discrimination against people of color and women.

 

...Uh. Civil liberties? Civil liberties? This is a Social Justice issue, not a Civil Liberty issue!

 

And, I'm fine with "reverse discrimination". Still, doesn't sound like it helps civil liberties any.

 

The rights of defendants and suspects against unconstitutional police practices

 

Horray!

 

The decriminalization of drugs such as heroin, cocaine and marijuana

 

I am pretty sure that means, make them legal. If it does, then I don't agree. I see too many lives ruined by them, and making them legal wont help.

 

Actually it means decrease the pentalies asociated with the crimes. For example, decrease jail time.

 

The ACLU is calling for decriminalizing drugs? Bah. Right of happiness isn't inscribed in the Consitution.

===

Overall, um. I wanted to defend the ACLU, to ease Jae's concerns, guess like I can't.

 

It looks like an organization that wants you to keep your beliefs in your head and in your mouth...except when it doesn't. For example, their beliefs on abortion and gay marriage are beliefs that I think some Americans accept. But they are beliefs, and they want to enforce that belief upon the government, which is totally fine, except they are also preventing religious people from enforcing their beliefs on the government as well.

 

Some beliefs are fine, but other beliefs are not? What sort of organization can go and censor beliefs at will and violate the 1st Amendment? Looks to be all of them, even the ACLU. Jerry Falwell could be more blatant, but the ACLU is more hypocritical.

 

/sigh. Listen, if everyone (including me) really wanted civil liberties, they should get out of the USA and form their own nations.

[GarfieldJL]

Thing of getting Churches off of Public property you've neglected to mention that they had no problems with other Religious symbols being in schools, but they blew a gasket over Christian Religious Symbols being in there with symbols from other Religions. Sorry, but that's Religious Persecution on the part of the ACLU.

[Achilles]

Which case is this regarding?

[GarfieldJL]

It would be more than one case:

 

This one is O'Reilly whom is a news commentator

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,191492,00.html

 

----------------------------------------------------------------

 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,165644,00.html

 

----------------------------------------------------------------

A book

http://www.acluvsamerica.com/about/default.aspx

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rabbi Daniel Lapin believes that "saying Merry Christmas is NOT Offensive" and complains that "We see obsequious regard for faiths like Judaism and even Islam, while Christianity is treated with contempt". [6] Further, Lapin says that "Nationwide, Christmas Nativity scenes are banned from city halls and shopping malls but Chanukah menorahs are permitted. (They are only cultural symbols, not religious, you see.)" and concludes that "Religious Freedom is for Everyone - Not Just Minorities"

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Christmas

 

 

 

Took me about 5-10 minutes and I could probably find a lot more.

[Prime]

Does the ACLU protect the civil liberties of everyone? Or is it promoting an anti-Christian agenda in a slick package?

Being on the outside looking in and not to familiar with the organization, I would say that the ACLU has an impossible task. If the Christian "agenda" is to denounce others and advance its views over others, then the ACLU can't really promote that and still protect the rights of others. So I guess the answer is yes to both questions. The same could probably be said if it was any other organization.

 

Maybe a different question is, does the ACLU strike a good balance for all groups, or does it cater too much to one specific group?

[Allronix]

Decriminalizing drugs fits in with Amendment 4 against search and seizure. The "War on Drugs" has given police departments excuses to stretch it, if not outright break it in the name of finding and arresting drug users. It also fits in with the Repealment of Prohibition (Amendment 24, if memory serves)

 

Gay and lesbian marriages, as well as affirmative action, actually fits in with the Declaration of Independence more than the Constitution. ("Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"). Of course, I'd argue that race is probably should be less of a factor than economic class. However, class and race have had a really thorny relationship. The assumption ACLU makes is that gays are not "choosing a lifestyle," but are biologically wired that way. Taking that view, to allow one class to marry and another to not is discrimination by the state. A religion needn't sanction the marriage, but the state hasn't got much reason unless they are endorsing a religion...and see Amendment 1

 

Abortion and contraception? Well, Roe vs Wade and Griswold v. Connecticut (allowing married folks to use contraception) were ruled on using the 14th amendment. Granted "Right to Privacy" is not explicitly spelled out. However, Amendment 14 and Amendment 10 also establish that a right needn't explicitly be spelled out to be valid.

 

As for anti-Christian? Well, religious discrimination against non-Christians is still alive and well, I'm afraid. See the examples I gave in the Falwell post, the fight the Wiccan soldier's family had to have to get his faith recognized, and the headache that happened last year when a rabbi requested a menorah be put at Sea Tac airport...which quickly got WAY the heck out of hand.

[mimartin]

Okay, somewhat non-controversial. Somewhat. Although I would like churches (or at least, the preachers inside of churches) to partake as lobbying groups and endorse candidates to try and influence governments. Not that I am pro-Religious Right...but because I am a 1st Amendment Defender, and I don't like things that restrict it.

 

They can do that now, but they lose their tax except status for doing it. Which I believe is fair. When I use to go to church I went for the lesson and not to hear the preacher’s political views. I vote the way I vote because of my beliefs and I don’t need a preacher telling me who to vote for. You know who they want you to vote for anyways. If Charles Manson was running against any democrat the preacher would tell you to vote for Charles Manson.

 

The ACLU is an important origination and they have done some very good things for this country. That said they do tend to go to the extreme way to often. I whole heartedly support the separation of church and state, but more and more they seem to be trying to interfere with our personal religious freedoms. I don’t know if they are purposely anti-Christian, but they step to that side way to often for my taste. Due to that fact I am unable to support them.

 

 

So to answer your question Prime as an outsider got it right. I’d say yes to both also.

 

Maybe a different question is, does the ACLU strike a good balance for all groups, or does it cater too much to one specific group?

 

I’d have to say no to this question. I don’t know about any one group they cater to, but they do seem to go against Christians a bit often.

[GarfieldJL]

Decriminalizing drugs fits in with Amendment 4 against search and seizure. The "War on Drugs" has given police departments excuses to stretch it, if not outright break it in the name of finding and arresting drug users. It also fits in with the Repealment of Prohibition (Amendment 24, if memory serves)

 

Alcohol isn't the same as cocaine, crack, marijuana, opiants, etc. Also catching a drug dealer selling drugs on the street is hardly a violation of the 4th amendment.

 

Gay and lesbian marriages, as well as affirmative action, actually fits in with the Declaration of Independence more than the Constitution. ("Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"). Of course, I'd argue that race is probably should be less of a factor than economic class. However, class and race have had a really thorny relationship. The assumption ACLU makes is that gays are not "choosing a lifestyle," but are biologically wired that way. Taking that view, to allow one class to marry and another to not is discrimination by the state. A religion needn't sanction the marriage, but the state hasn't got much reason unless they are endorsing a religion...and see Amendment 1

 

Seriously, they don't have to call it marriage, they could just call it a Civil Union, because by definition marriage is between a man and a woman. If we twist things, then we open the door to polygamy.

 

Abortion and contraception? Well, Roe vs Wade and Griswold v. Connecticut (allowing married folks to use contraception) were ruled on using the 14th amendment. Granted "Right to Privacy" is not explicitly spelled out. However, Amendment 14 and Amendment 10 also establish that a right needn't explicitly be spelled out to be valid.

 

So not allowing a state attorney general to find out if someone under the age of consent comes in to have an abortion involves the Right to Privacy. What about statuatory Rape where an adult rapes a minor and then the minor has an abortion.

 

As for anti-Christian? Well, religious discrimination against non-Christians is still alive and well, I'm afraid. See the examples I gave in the Falwell post, the fight the Wiccan soldier's family had to have to get his faith recognized, and the headache that happened last year when a rabbi requested a menorah be put at Sea Tac airport...which quickly got WAY the heck out of hand.

 

Thing is the ACLU is a bunch of hypocrits. As I've pointed out where religious symbols for Islam and Judaism is allowed in public schools but not Christian ones, that's due to the ACLU and that's a violation of the 1st Amendment.

 

Furthermore, the ACLU routinely gets involved in politics and they are tax-exempt. Seems to me they should lose their tax-exempt status.

[SilentScope001]

They can do that now, but they lose their tax except status for doing it. Which I believe is fair. When I use to go to church I went for the lesson and not to hear the preacher’s political views. I vote the way I vote because of my beliefs and I don’t need a preacher telling me who to vote for. You know who they want you to vote for anyways. If Charles Manson was running against any democrat the preacher would tell you to vote for Charles Manson.

 

You do have the right to not listen to the Preacher's stupid calls to vote for Charles Manson. It's not as if your Church is saying, "You must vote for Charles Manson OR ELSE", maybe only just your preacher, and your preacher should have the right to speak whatever he wants. Freedom of speech, you know. Prehaps the Preachers should have the right to say whatever they want, but the actual Church itself should not endorse any candinates, thereby keeping the Church out of politics, while keeping human beings inside of politics.

 

Sometimes, political views are tied into the life's lessons. I really don't want churches to turn into political rallies, but it could happen, and if people want it to happen, so be it. It's their right.

 

Thing is the ACLU is a bunch of hypocrits. As I've pointed out where religious symbols for Islam and Judaism is allowed in public schools but not Christian ones, that's due to the ACLU and that's a violation of the 1st Amendment.

 

I don't see any religious symbols for Islam and Judaism anywhere. Though if you are talking of religious expression, it seems the ACLU defends all forms of it, wearing crosses or head-dresses.

 

I think we need a new organization. I don't want the ACLU to be bogged down worrying about these sort of murky issues like abortion and marriage and legal drugs, or whatever. I think what we need instead is a new organization, prehaps some sort of "First Amendment Supporters", where its main goal is to defend that organization's broad interpertion of the 1st Amendment...NO MATTER WHAT. And that is all it's going to do, no comments on anything that does not concern the 1st Amendment.

 

Protests? Okay. Preachers (not the Church itself) endorsing politicans? Sure. Governments endorsing religion? No way! Basically, focus on defending the issues that matter rather than all these other...er...issues. Maybe this new organization might be better suited for promoting civil liberties than the ACLU. I don't know.

[mimartin]

your preacher should have the right to speak whatever he wants. Freedom of speech, you know. Prehaps the Preachers should have the right to say whatever they want, but the actual Church itself should not endorse any candinates, thereby keeping the Church out of politics, while keeping human beings inside of politics.

 

Everyone has the right to speak to their personal option including the preacher. I don’t have a problem with one telling me who he/she is going to vote for and why. My problem is when they tell their congregation who they must vote for or they will burn in hell. That is when they step over the line. I live in the Bible belt and this in not an uncommon event here. This has happen to me in more than one church and in more than one denomination of church.

 

The rule now is they can not over step their bounds or they do risk losing their tax except status, so by all means they have the right to do what every he/she feels is right. Certain actions should and must have consequences. I also do not think you can separate the churches endorsement from the preachers. The preacher is the head of the church and the congregation so this person’s view is assumed the same as the church’s view.

 

That said you are right the preacher has every right to express his/her views, but just not from the pulpit. If the preacher wants to travel to every member home and speak personally to each member of the congregation that is his/her right. If they want to call a special meeting to state the case for voting for their candidate that is their right too. My problem is when they dismiss a candidate just because of the party without knowing fully the facts on both candidates. I also do not see why I’m going to hell for researching the candidates and making an informed vote.

[Achilles]

It would be more than one case:

<snip>

Took me about 5-10 minutes and I could probably find a lot more.

I'm afraid you lost me here.

 

The first link is a commentary made by O'Reilly (I'm glad you said "news commenator" and not "journalist"), in which he makes several references to the ACLU but does not appear to site any reference to a specific case in which the ACLU was involved in religious persecution of Christians.

 

The second link is a marketing site of a book which has a clear conservative bias. That doesn't mean that none of their points are valid, however I haven't read the book (and it doesn't look like something I would buy) so I can't speak to any specific references that it makes to the ACLU's religious persecution of Christians.

 

The third link takes me to a wikipedia site on the subject of The War on Christmas. The only specific mention of ACLU was in the external sources section which takes me to an ACLU "pro/con" website. On said site, I see many baseless claims (read: not sited) made by right wing "news commentators" on the left of the page and several comments made by ACLU representatives denying said baseless claims. Score 1 for attempted unbiasness. Score 0 for success of attempted unbias.

 

In summary, you made a claim that ACLU participates in religious persecution of christians. I asked you for an example of a case in which an ACLU lawyer did such a thing and you replied with biased rhetoric. None of the links you provided actually did this. The rhetoric I would be able to forgive if it had made reference to a specific case, but 2 of the 3 sources (can't speak for the book) clearly did not. Would you like to present an example of a case or are you willing to concede the point?

 

I’d have to say no to this question. I don’t know about any one group they cater to, but they do seem to go against Christians a bit often.

Do you think this is because they have an unfair bias against christians or do you think it's because christians sometimes push the envelope too far in the interest of their agenda and the ACLU has to step in? It's one thing to say that the ACLU is going after christians and quite another to say that christian groups need a lot of supervision. Just interested on your take on this.

 

Alcohol isn't the same as cocaine, crack, marijuana, opiants, etc. Also catching a drug dealer selling drugs on the street is hardly a violation of the 4th amendment.

I think the point is that we don't have enough room in the prison system for all the violent offenders because of all the non-violent offenders that probably don't need to be there. By decriminalizing drugs (not the same thing as legalizing their use), the idea is to find alternative consequences so that we can save the cages for the truly dangerous wackos. At least that's my take on it.

 

Seriously, they don't have to call it marriage, they could just call it a Civil Union, because by definition marriage is between a man and a woman. If we twist things, then we open the door to polygamy.

Slippery slope fallacy. First, why not call it marriage? Or we could just change all "marriages" to "civil unions". What's in a name? You quote the definition, however you fail to mention that this is an arbitrary definition used by a very specific group of people. Since that word can have any value that we assign to it, there's no reason it can't be "a committment between two people".

 

Second, (and this is way off-topic), if it's consensual, why not allow polygamy? Not a lifestyle I would want, but if someone else wants to do it, what give me (or you) the authority to stop them?

 

So not allowing a state attorney general to find out if someone under the age of consent comes in to have an abortion involves the Right to Privacy. What about statuatory Rape where an adult rapes a minor and then the minor has an abortion.

Requiring the disclosure of personal information could place an undue burden on the woman. I'm afraid there aren't any "right answers" on this one. Best guess aka lesser of two evils.

 

Thing is the ACLU is a bunch of hypocrits. As I've pointed out where religious symbols for Islam and Judaism is allowed in public schools but not Christian ones, that's due to the ACLU and that's a violation of the 1st Amendment.

You've made the claim but have not provided any real evidence. In other words, saying it doesn't make it true. You very well may have an air-tight case that supports you comments, but we've yet to see it.

 

Furthermore, the ACLU routinely gets involved in politics and they are tax-exempt. Seems to me they should lose their tax-exempt status.

ACLU gets involved in politics by backing political figures and/or parties or ACLU gets involved in legal cases which happen to have political impact?

 

@mimartin's post: QFE/T

[lukeiamyourdad]

Thing of getting Churches off of Public property you've neglected to mention that they had no problems with other Religious symbols being in schools, but they blew a gasket over Christian Religious Symbols being in there with symbols from other Religions. Sorry, but that's Religious Persecution on the part of the ACLU.

 

I agree that it's exaggerated to demand removal of Christmas trees and such, especially that Christmas is now as Christian as Kwanza. However, I'm unaware of cases where religious symbols, worn by the kids for example, have been banned, at least in North America. As such, on a personal and private level, religion is still perfectly allowed.

 

Personally, I would not use Bill O'Reilly in any kind of serious discussion. Ever. Or any American news commentator. Or every news commentator as a matter of fact.

[SilentScope001]

Everyone has the right to speak to their personal option including the preacher. I don’t have a problem with one telling me who he/she is going to vote for and why. My problem is when they tell their congregation who they must vote for or they will burn in hell. That is when they step over the line. I live in the Bible belt and this in not an uncommon event here. This has happen to me in more than one church and in more than one denomination of church.

 

Ah, but that's the preacher's view that "If you do not vote for [such-and-such], you should go to Hell", and if so, should he not express that? It's not the Church's view, but the preacher's view, and I think that preacher should be able to say that.

 

It probraly does step over the line of decency, and it makes me wonder if this preacher is attempting to use religion to back his political party and rally his supporters. But it works. Freedom of speech exist because it allows for people to rally others to their cause, and screaming that voting for a party is your religious duty encourages people to vote. And because it works, I think he could be able to say that, from the bloody pulpit.

 

However, there are limits to free speech, and I believe that it is okay for those limits to occur, as long as the preacher is able to communicate his message in some way, shape or form. All the other ways you mention are okay as well...

 

I also do not think you can separate the churches endorsement from the preachers. The preacher is the head of the church and the congregation so this person’s view is assumed the same as the church’s view.

 

Not in my Church. We got several preachers, and while some of them share the same views, not all actually do. (Then again, now that I look back, I could understand that they were vague in their statements, possibly to avoid the tax-man, but I know the underlining political message inherent in their speeches. I wonder if they are walking that fine line of using the bloody pulpit to present a lesson...and using the bloody pulpit to present subliminal messages to vote for a candinate or not.)

 

I think my Church is somehow going through a period of splintering. On the one hand, most of the preachers are against the Iraq War, so they are becoming pro-Democrat and pro-ACLU. On the other hand, they are going to have to accept whatever the Democrats say...which includes gay marriage, abortion, etc. Not to mention that some preachers has allied with another Church to wage a protest march against Planned Parenthood, as a way of showing inter-religious unity. As long as there are preachers on both side of the divide, as long as some preachers say, "Abortion is wrong!" and other saying, "Abortion is wrong, but it's a woman's right to choose wheter to do wrong!" and possibly even others saying, "Abortion is right!" (this is an example...I expect much more division in the near future though), if the Church is basically divided (like I predict my Church is), then I don't see any problem. The Church's many factions will all hate each other, and present their views as "truth".

 

After all, preachers are humans too.

 

But, maybe mine is a very special case. If a church is indeed unified in what the preachers believe, it could also be possible that the followers of that church may already agree with what the preachers believe, or at least close to it, and make a political statement by staying within that Church and accepting his views. Prehaps, in that case, it might be better for the Church's leader to create some sort of Political Action Committee, where the Church's leader make in big disclaimers: "This PAC has nothing to do with The Church. Nothing at all. Nada." When making his arguments, he quote the Bible or any Holy Book at hand, but he must state that the Church DOES NOT endores it, just merely that Church's leader. It might also be nice for the Church's leader to use evidence other than from the Holy Books, to provide a more robust argument for supporting the PAC.

 

[EDIT: By Church, I actually mean any Religious organization (regardless of religious oriention), or even a whole religion itself. I do not specfically single out Christianty when I say the term "Church". Sorry for the confusion.]

[Allronix]

Alcohol isn't the same as cocaine, crack, marijuana, opiants, etc. Also catching a drug dealer selling drugs on the street is hardly a violation of the 4th amendment.

 

However, siezing and auctiong off the propterty of those ACCUSED of drug crimes (notice that it's ACCUSED not CONVICTED) was common practice in Washington State. It was proposed as a good idea because it cut off drug dealers' assets...the problem was that people acquitted were being told "sorry, charlie. Just because the court let you off doesn't mean you can get your property back." Needless to say, the ACLU got in on that.

 

Seriously, they don't have to call it marriage, they could just call it a Civil Union, because by definition marriage is between a man and a woman. If we twist things, then we open the door to polygamy.

 

The same BS argument was trotted out 50 years ago regarding interracial or interfaith marriage. The Bible was even trotted out saying that God had put the races of men on different continents and nations, and therefore it was ordained by heaven that they shoudn't mix, lest thew whole idea of marriage implode. The rather appropriately-named Mr & Mrs Loving challenged the state of Virginia on this point and won the right to have their wedding recognized. Now, interracial marriage makes up about 7% of all US weddings and the world ain't ended. Canada, Belguim, and the Netherlands have legallized gay unions and we don't see people lining up with their cattle or pet rocks yet, so the idea that letting a gay person have the same civil rights will cause the four horsemen to saddle up seems kinda silly.

 

So not allowing a state attorney general to find out if someone under the age of consent comes in to have an abortion involves the Right to Privacy. What about statuatory Rape where an adult rapes a minor and then the minor has an abortion.

 

If there's a crime, deal with the crime, but don't go punishing the victim by denying her medical caren Two wrongs aren't making a right here.

 

Furthermore, the ACLU routinely gets involved in politics and they are tax-exempt. Seems to me they should lose their tax-exempt status.

[/Quote]

 

They're a lobbying group, so donations to them don't fall into tax exemption.

[Jae Onasi]

This is by no means anywhere near exhaustive. It would take me an entire book to list all the cases where the ACLU targeted religion (almost exclusively Christian), or did not defend the civil liberties of a religious organization that was clearly having its constitutional rights violated. I did get these cases from conservative sites, yes, but the briefs are public record and speak for themselves.

 

Has the ACLU looked in the mirror lately?--admittedly conservative, but the six cases listed here are the kinds of things that disturb me in regards to free speech and freedom of religion. I can look up and link all the cases at some point if you're dying for me to do that. Otherwise, you can certainly google the cases yourself.

 

Kerrigan Brief--The Conn. Governer signed legislation allowing benefits to same-sex couples, but also defined _marriage_ (not civil unions) as being between one man and one woman. The state legislature passed it, and the governor signed it, and same-sex couples have the same benefits as married couples. Why are they now suing? Regardless of what you think of homosexuality (I'm fine with civil unions, btw, just so you know), if it's the decision of the majority of people, _and_ same-sex couples are afforded the same rights except for the one name, why is the ACLU not defending the will of the people?

 

ACLU sues Pentagon to keep Boy Scouts off bases--speaks for itself. Heaven forbid we allow places for wholesome groups like the Boy Scouts to meet.

 

Gray vs. Kohl --Why did the ACLU decide not to defend what clearly is a violation of the First Amendment and was improper arrest by police? If this was any other religion besides Christianity, certainly any other non-religious group, they would have jumped all over it. I think it's hypocritical to say you defend religious rights, but only if you're not Christian.

 

The ACLU defends NAMBLA and the wiki link I'm not sure how the ACLU can possibly defend an organization that explains in detail how to molest young boys. Even with their little 'disclaimer', it's astonishing that they'd defend a group that willingly violates laws and more importantly, children. What about the young boy who was molested and died? Did the ACLU care about _his_ rights? Apparently not. That says just about all that can be said about this group.

[SilentScope001]

The ACLU defends NAMBLA and the wiki link I'm not sure how the ACLU can possibly defend an organization that explains in detail how to molest young boys. Even with their little 'disclaimer', it's astonishing that they'd defend a group that willingly violates laws and more importantly, children. What about the young boy who was molested and died? Did the ACLU care about _his_ rights? Apparently not. That says just about all that can be said about this group.

 

Uh.

 

That wiki link shows that NAMBLA is an association, not a corproation, therefore, it is not repsonsible for anything, since it is merely an association. THAT isn't a free speech issue, this is an issue of responsiblity. Since anyone can join an association, it is merely the fault of the people inside of the association. If NAMBLA was a corporation, then it could be held responsible for the actions of people inside of the organization, but it is not. It is an association, therefore, the people who should get punished are the people inside of the organization.

 

Which is exactly what is happening now. They are suing the leaders of NAMBLA, not NAMBLA itself. Just held up in court, that's all.

 

Yes, yes, this misses the whole point of the lawsuit. But it's true, it's merely an association.

 

(But, ACLU was worried about the prosecution of political groups just because they are unpopular, hence why they went to defend it. Unpopular viewpoints need to be defended and all. Why? Because if you say you can censor certain viewpoints because we hate them, then it leads to precentent. Why must I censor that one viewpoint? Why not censor others?)

 

Now, of course, if they have DONE illegal actions, then all that free speech issue get thrown out the window. It's illegal to throw a bomb and then hide under free speech. It is also illegal to rape a child or commit pedophilia (without the consent of the child, but according to law, a child cannot give consent, so this is moot). But, the burden of proof is on the prosecutors to prove NAMBLA's leaders are guilty rather than on NAMBLA's leaders to prove innocence. And NAMBLA's leaders can whine that it's being done as a way to supress them, so the ACLU is defending those leaders. Not only that, but it seems that the only evidence they got is NAMBLA's phamplets, meaning that it will be a hard case for the prosecutors to nail NAMBLA's leaders.

 

NAMBLA, the association, advocates a position that many people dislike, no doubt about it, which is Legalization of pedophila. But, well, it does not advocate breaking the law, at least in public. There is no evidence that NAMBLA's leaders has broken the law, therefore, it looks to be a crusade against NAMBLA's right to free speech. Innocence before proven guilty...

 

[EDIT: now that I think about it, I must clarify, I wasn't defending NAMBLA, only whatever ACLU is doing.]

 

Listen, if you really want to go and make the ALCU look bad, bring this up:

 

Spam

The ACLU's stance on spam is considered controversial by a broad cross-section of political points of view. In 2000, Marvin Johnson, a legislative counsel for the ACLU, stated that proposed anti-spam legislation infringed on free speech by denying anonymity and by forcing spam to be labeled as such: "Standardized labeling is compelled speech." He also stated, "It's relatively simple to click and delete."[50]

 

This analysis is rejected by many Internet service providers and system administrators as failing to address the uninvited costs of spam, which are borne by the owners of the mail servers that have to filter or handle it.[51] One legal comparison used in criticizing the ACLU's position is to compare spam to junk fax, which is illegal because of the cost of fax paper and other limited resources on the part of the recipient.[52] Spamming not only imposes costs on the recipient, but is most often sent through stolen computer resources, such as by use of computer viruses to send spam through home computers.

 

This debate found the ACLU joining with the Direct Marketing Association and the Center for Democracy and Technology in criticizing a bipartisan bill in the House of Representatives in 2000; already by 1997 the ACLU had taken a strong position that nearly all spam legislation was improper,[53] although it has supported "opt-out" requirements in some cases. The ACLU opposed the 2003 CAN-SPAM act[54] suggesting that it could have a chilling effect on speech in cyberspace.

 

ACLU is for Spam? Gah!

 

EDIT2: As for that Gary case, it seems he did not contact the ACLU, since there are also numerous cases where the ACLU does get involved...cited by Achilles. Do remember that this is a pro-ACLU site though, and it does not give much descriptions on what cases they are doing.

[Jae Onasi]

Uh.

That wiki link shows that NAMBLA is an association, not a corproation, therefore, it is not repsonsible for anything, since it is merely an association.

 

I'm not about to go click on Nambla's site to find out its exact legal status. There are associations that also have corporation status, even if it's an LLC and not an s-corp.

 

The Nambla folks didn't call the ACLU, either. The ACLU volunteered for the job.

[SilentScope001]

I'm not about to go click on Nambla's site to find out its exact legal status. There are associations that also have corporation status, even if it's an LLC and not an s-corp.

 

Well, no, it's not on their website, it was on the wikipedia article you cited about the court case. The courts ruled it was an association. I also wonder if the LCC or such usually are for businesses, and the NAMBLA seem to be a political organization...

 

The Nambla folks didn't call the ACLU, either. The ACLU volunteered for the job.

 

NAMBLA just probraly being a bit too pro-active in their defense of the 1st Amendmnet for their own good, what with the slippery slope, and the cause of precedent (If we can destroy one organization because we hate them, we can destroy others). While censorship is distasteful to me and I hate it, I wonder if having a bit (or a lot) of political censorship could be pretty useful in helping keep society in line and in check with social norms. I rather society choose either no censorship or all censorship...not pick and choose.

[GarfieldJL]

The fact is the ACLU does target Christians, and only conservative sites will report on it because the ACLU promotes the left wing agenda of the Left wing liberals in the media.

[Prime]

But does it target Christians because the Christians target everyone else? I don't know.

 

And is the right conservative Christians agenda-free?

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Does the ACLU protect the civil liberties of everyone? Or is it promoting an anti-Christian agenda in a slick package?

When the ACLU rails against things like organized prayer in public schools and ten commandment displays outside of public courthouses, it certainly easily appears so to many Christians. However, the ACLU does indeed defend religious peoples' rights. You have the right to pray in school as long as it does not interrupt class for everyone else. You have the right to pray at extracurricular events. You have the right to put as many crosses as you want to on your own lawn. And so on. The ACLU is everything but anti-Christian.

 

Jae, you are right. I cannot believe this. All this time, I thought the ACLU concerned itself with freedom of speech and getting Churches off Public Property. Not THIS.

It concerns itself with all civil rights, not merely those of religious people and atheists.

 

Forget your views on gay marriage or such. I don't care if you consider it a mental illness or if you consider it an expression of great joy. I want you to look at Jae's question...does this promote an agenda that goes against Jae? Well, it can promote any agenda, and it sometimes defend religious people, but it is also against religious people when it wants to as well.

It's not 'against religious people' to allow homosexuals rights. That's like saying that the ACLU should not defend Christians' rights to pray in school because that'd be 'against Satanism', or that universal suffrage is 'against chauvinism'. Your rights go to my nose.

 

So much for netruality. By the way, I do side with their position, but I don't think I could join their organization.

It is neutral in that it defends everyone's civil liberties. Homosexuals fall under the 'everyone' category. Again, your rights end at my snout. If your religious teachings prohibit gays from marrying, it can't be respected if it's not morally sound to allow gays to marry.

 

Fine. It's defintently Pro-Choice. This does knock it a bit away from Jae's position, so it does back her point.

No. It disagrees with the Christian perception that abortion is evil, but it's not targeting Christians.

 

Seriously, they don't have to call it marriage, they could just call it a Civil Union, because by [current] definition marriage is between a man and a woman.

Marriage is not an absolute, solid definition that's remained unchanged forever. It was once illegal for a white man to marry a black man - should they have to call their pact a 'civil union' too? After all, marriage was once defined as being between a man and woman of the same ethnicity. Or social class. Or nationality.

 

Thing is the ACLU is a bunch of hypocrites. As I've pointed out where religious symbols for Islam and Judaism is allowed in public schools but not Christian ones, that's due to the ACLU and that's a violation of the 1st Amendment.

I can't think of a single such case.

 

The ACLU defends NAMBLA and the wiki link I'm not sure how the ACLU can possibly defend an organization that explains in detail how to molest young boys. Even with their little 'disclaimer', it's astonishing that they'd defend a group that willingly violates laws and more importantly, children. What about the young boy who was molested and died? Did the ACLU care about _his_ rights? Apparently not. That says just about all that can be said about this group.

The ACLU defends freedom of speech, and while NAMBLA shouldn't be protected if they described in detail how to commit rape, their position on pedophilia, while culturally and morally backwards, should be defended. Same with neo-nazis and other people who really tick me off.

 

The fact is the ACLU does target Christians, and only conservative sites will report on it because the ACLU promotes the left wing agenda of the Left wing liberals in the media.

1. It targets Christians who seek to infringe on others civil liberties, or violate the Constitution.

2. ACLU views coincide with the 'left wing agenda' because said agenda happens to promote civil liberties and freedom. There's nothing more to it than that.

[SilentScope001]

It concerns itself with all civil rights, not merely those of religious people and atheists.

 

Hm. Well, not with the civil right to disagree with another person.

 

It's not 'against religious people' to allow homosexuals rights. That's like saying that the ACLU should not defend Christians' rights to pray in school because that'd be 'against Satanism', or that universal suffrage is 'against chauvinism'. Your rights go to my nose.

 

And your rights goes to my nose.

 

Listen, I agree with ACLU, but they are declaring their beliefs to be "true", thereby making Jae mad. They are forcing their beliefs on all these other people, by claiming that they are the defenders of "civil liberties". You are basically telling them that gays could get married, and these people personally disagree. What the ACLU wants to do is metaphorically punch these people in the nose, by telling them that they are wrong and that they should not use their civil liberties to speak out against this suppression of a civil liberty.

 

The most important civil liberty is the ability to speak, to speak out against your enemies. And the ACLU wants to silence people who are against gay marriage because they are going against what they see as a civil liberty. I do not want to curtail one civil liberty in order to support some other civil liberty, thank you very much.

 

You have the right to campagin for gay marriage, and they have the right to curse gay marriage.

 

It is neutral in that it defends everyone's civil liberties. Homosexuals fall under the 'everyone' category. Again, your rights end at my snout. If your religious teachings prohibit gays from marrying, it can't be respected if it's not morally sound to allow gays to marry.

 

It does not respect everyone's civil liberties to call them wrong.

 

Teachings cannot be respected if you believe something that other people do not? Sounds like a person punching another person in the snout right there.

 

This is why there should be an organization soley devoted to the protection of the 1st Amendment, specifically the freedom of expression and speech. Many people, in using the 1st Amendment, ends up trying to prevent other people from using the 1st Amendment.

 

No. It disagrees with the Christian perception that abortion is evil, but it's not targeting Christians.

 

Does the ACLU protect the civil liberties of everyone? Or is it promoting an anti-Christian agenda in a slick package?

 

Jae never said that it was targeting Christians, just that it had an anti-Chrisitan agenda. If you are Jae and you believe that abortion is wrong, and that message of abortion is a key part of Christanity, then it seems anti-Christan, even if it is not purposely targeting Christanty.