Why I don’t like the ACLU

Because of how they target the Boy Scouts of America, and how fear of lawsuits by the ACLU spurs BSA sponsors stop those sponsorships:

(KSDK) – Threats of litigation by the American Civil Liberties Union is causing trouble for some Boy Scouts in St. Charles County.

Last year the ACLU complained the Boy Scouts were a religious group, because members were compelled to swear an oath of duty to God. When the ACLU began winning court cases, several sponsors pulled out.

Cub Scout Pack 530 was sponsored by Castlio Elementary School in St. Charles County for 20 years until the school pulled out after the ACLU’S nationwide threat to sue. Some parents are upset because the parent-teacher organization at Castlio decided not to sponsor the pack, after being requested to do so.

Jay at Stop the ACLU has more, including news about the 90 congressmen who are backing the U.S. Defense Department’s sponsorship of the Boy Scouts of America’s national jamboree – the ACLU is suing to have that sponsorship stopped because they claim it violates the First Amendment.

33 Responses to "Why I don’t like the ACLU"

Big Bang Hunter says:

November 10, 2005 at 5:42 pm

– The ACLU violates the 1st amendment daily, by forcing the wishes of an obnoxious, and loud minority, on the majority through activist judges.
dennis crews says:

November 10, 2005 at 7:41 pm

A few salient points:

1.) The ACLU has one purpose: to conserve the liberties guaranteed to individuals by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, which were authored by others. The ACLU’s activities cover a panoply of issues, but each in the end boils down to a point of existing law residing in these documents.

2.) If the ACLU brings suit over an issue, courts must resolve it – the only power the ACLU has is to call attention, via filing suit or through its writings and work in the public sphere, or to assist in defending accused parties. They have no power to change laws.

3.) The ACLU is a non-profit organization. It doesn’t accept taxpayer or government money, but is supported by members who believe in its charter and the work it does.

The range of issues covered by the ACLU are diverse and most of them are far more vital to the well-being of people than the Boy Scout suit (more on that in a moment). Poor defendants are entitled to effective legal counsel under the 6th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution. Not only does the ACLU speak up for the poor vis a vis legal defense, housing, health care and other necessities, they also defend minority rights, voters’ rights, immigrants’ rights, they monitor police brutality and work against prison abuses. Without the ACLU many wrongly accused people would be incarcerated, others would have been executed and countless indigent people never would have a fair defense in America’s criminal justice system.

Not only does the ACLU defend the poor, they also come to the defense of people over a wide range of religious issues – Sabbathkeepers who have been penalized by their employers or fired for not working on Sabbath, native Americans who use peyote in their traditional sacred rituals and similar issues. The ACLU has a long and distinguished record of defending people of faith when their beliefs come up against unsympathetic powers that be. In all these things they are honoring the intent of our nation’s founders, and proving themselves true American patriots.

It also happens that lately the ACLU has gotten itself embroiled in a series of what at first glance may seem like petty, divisive issues, which brings us to the Boy Scout case. I’m not a lawyer but suspect the idea of legal precedent is the principle motivating such cases. No matter how near and dear the Boy Scouts are to many Americans’ hearts, for public funds to be used to sponsor any organization that demands religious faith is a plain violation of the establishment clause. Public schools may not by proxy (i.e. by promoting Boy Scouts) engage in religious establishment or discrimination.

The clear and simple solution to this problem is either for the Boy Scouts to eliminate their religious criteria, or to follow the time-honored tradition of most religious institutions in America – get by without government sponsorship, however peripheral. Very important point here: it isn’t necessary for the state to recognize or honor religion at all, in order for citizens to be as devout as they please. The ACLU is endangering nothing here except the inappropriate commingling of government with religion.

Anyone who wishes to stop the ACLU might also remember the many worthy deeds for the helpless that would come to an end, if they were to succeed. “And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.” Matthew 25:40

dennis
Brian says:

November 10, 2005 at 8:12 pm

Sister Toldjah,

Would you find it acceptable for your tax dollars to be used directly or indirectly to subsidize an organization that refused to allow Christians to join them?
steve says:

November 10, 2005 at 8:13 pm

Dennis, is right, if we didn’t have the ACLU we would need to invent it. And don’t you all believe that a free people form the organizations that they most need to continue they’re freedom? I don’t like worms but, they help the soil which helps the grass grow. Peace
Baklava says:

November 10, 2005 at 9:41 pm

Dennis wrote, “The ACLU has one purpose: to conserve the liberties guaranteed to individuals by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, liberties guaranteed to NAMBLA members is their purpose?

Dennis wrote, “The range of issues covered by the ACLU are diverse Do you know one case in the last two years that the ACLU worked on someone’s second ammendment rights? 😎

Dennis wrote, “Public schools may not by proxy (i.e. by promoting Boy Scouts) engage in religious establishment or discrimination. That would be NEW opinion. School give access to all sorts of groups, even those who are more religious. Discriminating against groups based on religious activity is a violation of the 1st ammendment because Congress shall make no law restricting the freedom of exercise thereof.

Dennis wrote, “get by without government sponsorship, For public square places like schools to offer their facilites to only non-religous oriented entities woul dbe against the constitution and NEW PRECEDENT.

Dennis wrote, “might also remember the many worthy deeds for the helpless” Yes. Those NAMBLA members were the helpless.

Steve wrote, “And don’t you all believe that a free people form the organizations that they most need to continue they’re freedom? You mean like the NRA? Peace!
Lorica says:

November 10, 2005 at 10:15 pm

In regards of religous expression I personally think the world would be better off without the ACLU. If you would actually read the 1st amendment it says:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ”

So in all actuality there is not separation clause. You see the government must provide a place for all religions in the public place. So removing Christianity from the public place is not a correct interpretation of the amendment. What I really find funny is when the Government declared a native American burial ground as a holy place and the ACLU didn’t say a word about it. I could of sworn it is not the place of the Federal Government to declare anything holy. – Lorica
Baklava says:

November 10, 2005 at 11:36 pm

I did a college paper on the “separation of church and state”.

The phrase was brought about by Thomas Jefferson the 3rd president when he was writing a letter to someone. After that letter the court mentioned it a few times and the press really picked up on it.

Now here’s a question for Norah: Most people believe (according to polls) the separation of church and state exists in the Bill of Rights or the Declaration of Independance or some other founding document. Does that make it so?
dennis crews says:

November 11, 2005 at 12:24 am

Lorica, I only spoke of the establishment clause (not any “separation” clause – separation is implied by the establishment clause, however).

You are correct that “it is not the place of the Federal Government to declare anything holy.” Please cite when and where they did this – I would strenuously object to any such presumption on the federal government’s part.

Removing the government from any and all religious oversight is the only way to keep any religion untainted by carnal values. My concern for the purity of religious expression is my very reason for wanting to keep the government as far from it as possible.

You apparently are unconcerned with the many times the ACLU has defended the right of believers to practice the fundamentals of their faith in the face of workplace and other discrimination. Those are specific human crises in which the ACLU intervened to the benefit of religious believers, whereas the Boy Scout case (and most likely the native American case you referred to) are more symbolic than personal – but they establish the ground principles upon which the personal cases can be fought and won.

Once you give the government any leverage in religion, they will begin to tell you what is orthodox and what is not. Whenever church and state have become entangled, right and wrong ultimately come to be defined by whatever happens to be either expedient or inconvenient for the government. Madison and Jefferson knew this, and so should we all.
PCD says:

November 11, 2005 at 7:58 am

I see steve and Brian have a new buddy who also hates Christianity and ignores the abuses and blackmail that the ACLU regularly participates in. I think every member of the ACLU ought to live in Zimbabwe for 5 years as a normal white Zimbabwean. Then they’ll understand oppression and not having basic rights.
PCD says:

November 11, 2005 at 8:59 am

Dennis, if the ALCU were so even handed, why aren’t they suing the Federal Government and the Army Corps of Engineers for allowing Muslims to build a “camp” (I don’t know why it is called a camp when it has permanent buildings including a Mosque with a prayer tower.) on Federal park land here in Iowa? If this were the Boy Scouts or any Christian group, the ACLU and ICLU would be screaming bloody murder.

Don’t weasel or side step. Answer this directly Dennis, why does the ACLU not sue to stop any government involvment in establishing Islam?
PCD says:

November 11, 2005 at 9:02 am

Dennis, can you explain why the ACLU accepts, if not solicits, donations from groups associated with Al Qaida? The Junkyard blog and California Conservative have different posts on this.
dennis crews says:

November 11, 2005 at 10:20 am

PCD, I’m unaware of the situation you describe in Iowa. Nobody is calling the ACLU perfect, and I don’t think any non-profit has the resources to address every injustice that happens. My point is that they have done work of great value for many people.

I have worked and traveled in Zimbabwe, but that was before the land grab by Mugabe began. I fail to see how what is happening there now has any relevance to religious and political separation in the US. Our standards should be justified by Constitutional principles, rather than any other nation’s abysmal practices.

I will research your claim of an ACLU/al Qaeda connection after finishing my work this evening. What is the case for “association”? If it’s no stronger than your claim that Steve and Brian’s buddy “hates Christianity” then you are on thin ice.

And finally, it also sounds a bit to me as if you trust your government to dictate your religious practices, whereas I frankly do not. Neither did our founding fathers.
PCD says:

November 11, 2005 at 10:49 am

Dennis, nice backpeddaling. There have been many cases where Muslims have gotten government funds to advance their religion in prisons and these socalled camps across the country, yet not one peep from the ACLU. Now if the ACLU can sue in San Diego to remove and destroy the cross on Mt. Soledad, sue the government to stop any endorsement of the Boy Scouts by the “Pentagon”, then it should be johnny on the spot to stop the government establishing Islam.

Also, Dennis, there’s public schools forcing students to learn Islam. The ACLU defended the school districts. Do some Googleing. I want to see how honest you are about this.

The ACLU is anti-Christian. Read the articles linked to by the other blogs, but take off your Rose colored glasses first.
Brian says:

November 12, 2005 at 1:05 am

PCD,

Religious activity is permitted on government property regardless of whether it is Moslem, Christian, or any other religion. The ACLU has defended the rights of Christians to practice religious activities on government property (see link)
http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=15897&c=141

If the ACLU is anti-Christian, why have they defended the rights of Christians, as in the case above, and many other cases?

You said, “there’s public schools forcing students to learn Islam. The ACLU defended the school districts.”

Can you please provide references for this?

You asked, “can you explain why the ACLU accepts, if not solicits, donations from groups associated with Al Qaida?”

Can you please provide references showing the ACLU accepts and solicits donations from groups associated with Al Qaeda?
dennis says:

November 12, 2005 at 1:48 am

The ACLU has defended Native Americans, Seventh-day Adventists, Muslims, Amish as well as other less sympathetic groups with equal zeal when they have been discriminated against for their beliefs. If provisions have been made for Muslims to practice their faith in prisons, Christians have been accommodated for many years. But I haven’t yet heard of any Muslim facility commensurate to the Lawtey Correctional institution in Florida, a Christian prison where inmates get more lenience and enjoy better surroundings in exchange for their professed Christian faith.

The fact is, evangelicals demand and receive more consideration from the American government than any other religious group. As for why the ACLU doesn’t sue to stop the US government from establishing Islam – the anecdotal stories I’ve heard seem to not meet the legal criteria for bringing suit, but I could be wrong. Have you queried the ACLU itself regarding this question?

As for your appeal to honesty, PCD, to accuse anyone of hating Christianity with as little basis as you have, betrays a fundamental lack of respect for truth and objectivity that doesn’t even merit a reply. You got one anyway – call it simple grace. If it matters to you, I’ve been a Bible-believing Christian most of my life, I remain one to this day and my faith in Jesus never has required any government coddling, intervention or affirmation in order to thrive. I also worked for years in Christian prison ministry. What have you done for anyone that entitles you to dismiss the ACLU’s efforts on behalf of the least of these my brethren?
Pam says:

November 12, 2005 at 9:00 am

dennis- one need not do anything to have the right to speak out against the ACLU. The ACLU picks and choses which civil rights cases they take. The ACLU stands on both sides of many issues. The ACLU is funded by the loser in the lawsuit. They target the suits that way.

Christians have been accommodated for many years. No kidding! Can you guess why?
Pam says:

November 12, 2005 at 9:12 am

And dennis, you said; Lawtey Correctional institution in Florida, a Christian prison where inmates get more lenience and enjoy better surroundings in exchange for their professed Christian faith. This facility was housing for those on work release until it was converted in 2003 to a 24 hour lock down prison for the low security needs of the prison system. What is the question about it.
dennis says:

November 12, 2005 at 3:04 pm

Pam, maybe you didn’t read my first post above. Of course the ACLU picks and chooses – they’re not funded by endless government money, but a non-profit. The point of what they’re doing is not to elevate one religion over another, but to defend Constitutional principles that pertain to individual rights and freedoms.

The cases that sometimes appear as a slap in the face to evangelicals (such as the Boy Scout case) only establish the principle of keeping the government out of organizations or activities that can legally be construed as religious. If the ACLU appears to be anti-Christian it is largely because evangelicals receive more consideration from government than any other religious group. When those considerations are opposed on Constitutional grounds, hackles are raised and an adversarial climate is created.

All this begs the question of why so many evangelicals reject Jesus’ admonition that “My kingdom is not of this world.” Any religion that takes favors from government or relies on state power to legitimize or convenience it, gives the state an handle by which it can be manipulated and ultimately corrupted. The greatest favor government can do for religion is to keep hands off altogether.

James Madison in his “Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments” denounced omnibus support for all teachers of the Christian religion:

“Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess and to observe the Religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us. If this freedom be abused, it is an offense against God, not against man: To God, therefore, not to man, must an account of it be rendered.

“[The bill] is not requisite for the support of the Christian Religion. To say that it is, is a contradiction to the Christian Religion itself, for every page of it disavows a dependence on the powers of this world…. It is moreover to weaken in those who profess this Religion a pious confidence in its innate excellence and the patronage of its Author; and to foster in those who still reject it, a suspicion that its friends are too conscious of its fallacies to trust it to its own merits.”

Later Madison – author of the U.S. Constitution – honed the principle of separation of church and state to an even sharper edge, sounding almost like an ACLU lawyer:

“Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom?

“In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the U.S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion. The law appointing Chaplains establishes a religious worship for the national representatives, to be performed by Ministers of religion, elected by a majority of them; and these are to be paid out of the national taxes. Does not this involve the principle of a national establishment, applicable to a provision for a religious worship for the Constituent as well as of the representative Body, approved by the majority, and conducted by Ministers of religion paid by the entire nation?

“The establishment of the chaplainship to Congs is a palpable violation of equal rights, as well as of Constitutional principles: The tenets of the chaplains elected [by the majority] shut the door of worship agst the members whose creeds & consciences forbid a participation in that of the majority… The object of this establishment is seducing; the motive to it is laudable. But is it not safer to adhere to a right principle, and trust to its consequences, than confide in the reasoning however specious in favor of a wrong one.”

Unfortunately this kind of clear legal reasoning is characterized by many on the right nowadays as “hatred” of Christianity.
Pam says:

November 12, 2005 at 10:02 pm

dennis said-Pam, maybe you didn’t read my first post above. Of course the ACLU picks and chooses – they’re not funded by endless government money, but a non-profit. The point of what they’re doing is not to elevate one religion over another, but to defend Constitutional principles that pertain to individual rights and freedoms. But I did read it and my point stands. The ACLU picks and choses which case they take and have been known to argue on 1 side of the fence for one case and turn right around and take the opposite stance in another case. They are funded by the loser in the case. A 1976 law assured them of that and they have taken full advantage. Please save the religious blather and your attempt at a history lesson. I am not taking my stance against the ACLU based on religion.
Here is a link for you to reference. It is James Madisons writings from the Federalist Papers.
dennis says:

November 12, 2005 at 11:09 pm

Pam, if you’re not taking your stance against the ACLU based on religion many others are, and a religious issue lies at the heart of the Boy Scout case which began this blog. The purported “anti-Christian” aspect of the ACLU is the basis of most of the propaganda emails I’ve received reviling the organization.

If you don’t care much about church-state issues, I really don’t care much who pays the ACLU’s bills as long as there’s no fraud, money-laundering or extortion involved. What I do care about is that somebody is out there fighting for at least a few people who otherwise would be defenseless, and relentlessly battling the unconstitutional commingling of government and religion. I certainly haven’t agreed with the ACLU’s priorities in every case, but am able to table my feelings on those because they have been doing an indispensible job in other areas.

The Avalon Project is where I referenced the quote in my prior post, I’m already familiar with it. If you disparage the history lesson please remember it’s not mine, but comes courtesy of James Madison, who devoted considerable energy to arguing why government has no place in religious affairs. They are arguments that will matter even more greatly in months to come.
Pam says:

November 13, 2005 at 9:16 pm

dennis, the point is, I didn’t ask you for a lesson on James Madison, I was familiar with it and based on your words, you have no idea what he is talking about. Religion is not the only issue that the ACLU handles. Nor are the Boy Scouts. They pick and chose the case based on the likelyhood of a win which assures them the money. Here is what Sister said her reason were for not liking the ACLU; Because of how they target the Boy Scouts of America, and how fear of lawsuits by the ACLU spurs BSA sponsors stop those sponsorships. I caught that thanks!
PCD says:

November 14, 2005 at 10:11 am

dennis and brian are both lazy. The ACLU is crowing about their “Victory” in the San Diego suit filed on behalf of a disgruntled atheist activist who hates Christianity. It isn’t hard to find the story from the San Diego Union-Tribune online or via google, but dennis and brian want specific instances to ignote, dodge, and weave around.

Neither are really honest in their debate. Dennis, just admit you are an ACLU supporter and activist, and that you are trying to dampen the raging and growing fire of public discontent with the ACLU and their ANTI-AMERICA lawsuits.
Baklava says:

November 14, 2005 at 11:27 am

A fair article about the ACLU from a CATO institute writer
Norah says:

November 14, 2005 at 3:32 pm

Now here’s a question for Norah: Most people believe (according to polls) the separation of church and state exists in the Bill of Rights or the Declaration of Independance or some other founding document. Does that make it so?

Uh, OK, not really sure how I got involved in this. But:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; “

To me, that suggests that there is to be no “official religion” of the United States; neither is there to be any prohibition of practicing one’s chosen religion, be it Christianity or Wicca.

And what is it that anti-ACLUers want, anyway? You claim the ACLU is anti-Christian-what does that actually mean to you? You’re mad that you can’t have the ten commandments in a public building? You need God in the Pledge of Allegiance? You think laws should be made based on biblical accuracy? It isn’t enough to just be a Christian? You have to force everybody else to worship Jesus too?

I respect Christianity as a religion, but I don’t respect those who use religion to club others into submission (act like me, talk like me, be like me or you’ll be sorry).
Baklava says:

November 14, 2005 at 4:00 pm

You got involved because you believe that if the majority in a poll think Bush misled then Bush must’ve misled.

I’ve tried to helpful in that discussion by saying, “If most people thought the world was flat – is it flat” No.

If most people think that “separation of church and state” exist in our founding documents, it doesn’t.

It’s helpful to understand that polls aren’t an indication of what IS.
Norah says:

November 15, 2005 at 10:21 am

Polls? Oh, I’m sorry, I was looking at the Constitution.

So, Baklava, when Bush had aproval ratings in the 90’s after 9/11, does that mean he really didn’t? It must, according to the logic you’re using. It’s funny how it doesn’t matter what the majority thinks…unless they agree with you, eh?
PCD says:

November 15, 2005 at 11:25 am

Norah, I don’t believe in the Liberal revisions to the Constitution. They’re written in invisible ink.

Try the Constitution AS WRITTEN for a change.
PCD says:

November 15, 2005 at 11:29 am

Norah and Dennis,

I just copied this from a post by Sandy on “The Right Politics” blog. Sandy didn’t leave a URL I could use. Forgive the cut and paste.

Roger Baldwin (a co-founder of the ACLU) said of the goals of the ACLU:
“I am for socialism, disarmament, and ultimately, for abolishing the state itself I seek social ownership of property, the abolition of the properties class, and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal. I dont regret being part of the communist tactic. I knew what I was doing. I was not an innocent liberal. I wanted what the communists wanted, and I traveled the United Front road to get it.”
Baklava says:

November 15, 2005 at 1:00 pm

Norah wrote, “Polls? Oh, I’m sorry, I was looking at the Constitution.”

Your interpretation of the constitution is different than mine. The words “separation of church and state” do not exist in the constitution. The first ammendment isn’t a commandment to the government to weed out anything religious in public buildings like schools. The reason why I tied it to polls is because most people think that phrase is there and… it isn’t.

Norah wrote, “So, Baklava, when Bush had aproval ratings in the 90’s after 9/11, does that mean he really didn’t? It must, according to the logic you’re using.

I try. Honestly Norah. I took a critical thinking class as one of my many humanities type classes in college and I just don’t know how you interpret things the way you do. — That isn’t an attack. What I said again was that just because a majority thinks Bush misled or lied or whatever the poll question was doesn’t mean that Bush lied. If it is simply a question of his popularity like you suggested, yes the poll is reflecting something worth saying. But to say that someone lied because a majority think he did DOESN’T MAKE IT TRUE as you were saying before. This is very simple logic that you questioned.
Norah says:

November 15, 2005 at 1:58 pm

Baklava, and it doesn’t make it not true, either. However, it does mean that a majority believe he’s an untrustworthy liar, and it does blow huge holes in your fantasy that everyone luvs Bush except a tiny band of miscreant liberal.

PCD,

Norah, I don’t believe in the Liberal revisions to the Constitution. They’re written in invisible ink.

So do “liberal revisions” cover the Bill of Rights, too? I think you’ll find that the ink is quite easy to see.
PCD says:

November 15, 2005 at 2:22 pm

Norah, I read the Constitution quite well, and the 2nd Amendment says any citizen can own a firearm.
Baklava says:

November 15, 2005 at 2:38 pm

Norah wrote, “However, it does mean that a majority believe he’s an untrustworthy liar”

What was his lie? And if a majority thought the world was flat – was it?

Norah wrote, “and it does blow huge holes in your fantasy that everyone luvs Bush except a tiny band of miscreant liberal.

I never wrote about my fanstasy and you incorrectly think you know about my fantasy. (You are 100% wrong and I’m in the position to know what I think and know and fantasize about). It’s funny how liberals like yourself think you know what is in people’s heads. You talk about what we want, wish for, think, feel, know, etc easily and often.
Brian Westley says:

November 17, 2005 at 11:28 pm

Some of the people here haven’t been distinguishing between a school SPONSORING a Scout unit, vs. a school allowing a BSA unit to meet in school on the same basis as any other outside group.

The ACLU brouhaha was only over schools that SPONSORED a Scout unit – and any organization that sponsors a Scout unit has to practice religious discrimination, because they are supposed to keep atheists out, and make sure that leaders of the unit subscribe to the BSA’s “Declaration of Religious Principle”.

Public schools can’t legally do that, because they are government entities and can’t discriminate on the basis of religous beliefs.

You can read the ACLU letter to the BSA and the BSA’s reply here. You’ll notice the BSA didn’t even try to fight this, because they knew public schools couldn’t legally sponsor packs and troops, because the BSA requires them to exclude atheists.

Comments are closed.