Another Victory for the ACLU and its War on Christianity

Topic of debate: Is the ACLU and an anti-Christian cartel making war on Christianity?

Is the ACLU and an anti-Christian cartel making war on Christianity?
Yes, of course they are. That's why they defended a high school valedictorian who had a bible verse removed from his yearbook quote. cite.
And defended a church who ran "anti-Santa" ads.




And by the way, the defense of civil liberties is the exact freakin' opposite of fascism.

According to the source cited, it is. But then consider the source, a fundamentalist publication. Yes, the ACLU is against fundamentalists trying to cram their version of Christianity down our throats. And I applaud the ACLU for doing this.

Grendel72, excellent counterpoints.

Is the ACLU and an anti-Christian cartel making war on Christianity?

No, they are resisting a unfought War from the Religious Right.

My county in Oregon just passed an Anti-discrimination bill that makes it illegal to discriminate someone based on their sexual preferences. Basically, you can't deny someone housing, a job, a promotion because someone is Gay. Makes sense right. There is one group fighting this bill even though it has passed, It is the local Christian community.

"Talking Points" wants you to know that we are rapidly losing freedom in America. Judges are overruling the will of the people. And fascist organizations like the ACLU are imposing their secular will.

How can discriminating against homosexuals gain freedom?

Losing our Freedom???? The ACLU is helping to preserve freedom for ALL, not just Christians. A Jewish school girl shouldn't have Christian passages in her high school yearbook, and a Community in California does not need to promote Catholicism on its County seal.

So diminishing any Christian display in public is the goal. And encouraging alternative thought, like Muslim prayers helps that goal.

Just so that you can read what this highly predjudicial person said. Christian thought GOOD, Muslim thought BAD.

The ACLU and other groups help assure that bigots, such as the author of this document, aren't able to influence YOUR life if you so desire. If you do care to be influenced by such people, go to their church, attend their bake sales. But please keep your Holier Than Thou attitude to yourself, out of public schools, and out of Public property. The ACLU will defend your right to attend that church.

Is the ACLU and an anti-Christian cartel making war on Christianity?

No, they are not. The ACLU is about protecting the Constitutional rights of everyone. The first amendment to the Constitution states:



This principle is at the heart of the cases the ACLU chooses to battle when it comes to topics of religion, regardless of what the author of that article might believe.

As Grendel noted, the author conveniently chooses to ignore all the cases where the ACLU is involved to protect the religious freedoms we all have.



So that is why the ACLU fought to allow students to write biblical passages in their year books right?

This article is written by people that clearly have no understanding of the laws that bind our country and the principles upon which it was founded.

Is the ACLU and an anti-Christian cartel making war on Christianity?

I don't think so.

(I don't have time to research these cases today, but maybe someone already has the links available)

Didn't the ACLU Defend a high school student when the administration tried to prevent her from wearing religiously themed t-shirts at school?

Didn't the ACLU defend a teacher that was suspended when she refused to stop wearing a cross?

I take issue with the ACLU from time to time, but it seems to me that they take cases from both sides of this issue. The only requirement seems to be the little guy/gal vs. the establishment. Pro / Anti religious expression appears to be irrelevant in their choice of cases.

I agree with Overland Sailor here. I mean yeah, everyone's frustrated with the ACLU from time to time, but I believe they are consistent and steadfast in their purpose, to preserve the contemporary interpertation of the constitution and the liberties it provides to all Americans.

Was the LA County Seal a little excessive? Of course it was. There are obviously much more constructive things that could be done with it's time. However, it is consistent with the point of the ACLU, and shows how infuratingly objective the organization is. And damn it, I love them for it.

Good topic of discussion crashfourit, this is one my favorites that you have started. I have to say that Grendel and Overland Sailor have it pretty much wrapped up, all we need now is a moderator to seal the deal on it and problem of the world #4675 is solved.

Yes, the ACLU can be frustratingly consistent, and yes, sometimes those consistencies infrine upon our own ideas of how things should be run from time to time. I'm amazed though, how often the ACLU represents Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Jews, as well as Muslims in court cases. It's one thing if they just represented the likes of Michael Newdow, but they are very good at trying to be consistent as noted above. Heck, I think they defended the KKK at one time!

I'm not sure where O'Reilly is coming up with this stuff, sometimes he has good shows like the ones he did on Jesse Jackson and calling him on some personal inconsistencies. This campaign however, appears to be like the one in which he picked on Ludacris. He looked like some curmudgeonly, old-moralistic fart who plays records backwards looking for the "hidden messages" or something. I think he really backfired on this one.

Hey now, I don't think calling Curmudgeon names is really necessary.

You gotta love the irony that O'Reilly likes to sell himself as a consistent, fearless straight-shooter without partisan devotions, and decides to pick on the wildly unpopular ACLU based on false accusations. Calling the ACLU fascist reminds me of rightwingers who support the Patriot Act and call the ACLU communist- I didn't realize Hitler and Stalin were so rabidly pro-civil liberties and citizens' right's limiting gov't's power.

Essentially, I think the ACLU's devotion to a consistent application of the Bill of Rights, popular or not, really irritates those who'd like to see themselves as consistent, courageous defenders of the Constitution. I can understand, and often have, disagreements with their particular stances, but they both serve a necessary role and remind us what happens to political entities who really are consistent and unconcerned with popularity.

God bless America, and the ACLU's defence of her ideals.

You gotta love the irony that O'Reilly likes to sell himself as a consistent, fearless straight-shooter without partisan devotions, and decides to pick on the wildly unpopular ACLU based on false accusations. Calling the ACLU fascist reminds me of rightwingers who support the Patriot Act and call the ACLU communist- I didn't realize Hitler and Stalin were so rabidly pro-civil liberties and citizens' right's limiting gov't's power.

Bad analogy Hitler and Stalin were obsessive about enforcing the "rights" of their respective constituents. Wether it was defending the grain from the greed and malice of the Kulak or defending the rights of decent Germans who were taken advantage of by Jewish mercantilism both claimed to be "defending the rights" of their populace by trampling the old system, customs and traditions.


Essentially, I think the ACLU's devotion to a consistent application of the Bill of Rights, popular or not, really irritates those who'd like to see themselves as consistent, courageous defenders of the Constitution. I can understand, and often have, disagreements with their particular stances, but they both serve a necessary role and remind us what happens when political entities who really are consistent and unconcerned with popularity

Baloney they refused to defend the head of Aryan Nations even though he was convicted of the same thing NAMBLA is accused of. Could it be that the ACLU declined because their ideological sister The Southern Poverty Law Center was suing them or maybe they prefer pedophiles to skin heads. Then again I think pedophiles are more likely to give them donations than skin heads.

Neither Hitler nor Stalin were supportive of citizen's rights against their governments, a concept antithetical to Soviets or Nazis. Comparing the ACLU to either group remains a crass, immature slur on level with calling them "a bunch of poopy-heads".



If you're referring to the cases I'm familiar with, the accusations were quite different. The SPLC had Aryan nations dead-to-rights on well established principles of law- in a case where guards AT the Aryan Nations HQ attacked two people. In the NAMBLA case, a child murderer had some NAMBLA publications with him. The legal claims were also different, as far as I've been able to find in 5 minute's worth of research- negligence in "the selection, training and supervision of the security guards" versus inciting the murder in the NAMBLA case. It's much easier to sue someone for actions of employees supported by the group's ideology than to sue a publisher of material indirectly related to the main crime (murder, not the statutory rape pushed by NAMBLA- hence the difference with suing people for publishing books on how to be a hitman, etc.).

Anyway, the ACLU defended the Nazi right to march in Skokie. So if you're a disgusting group who wants to practice a 1st amendment right, they'll defend you, regardless of who you are- but there's no constitutional right to commit gross negligence in a manner likely to lead to murder.

I wasn't able to find the specific case that you mentioned but I did find other cases where the bourgeoisie-Jesus hating secularists at the ACLU did a rather poor job in promoting the atheist agenda. Check it out:

Good News Clubs vs. Milford Central

-The ACLU helped an after-school bible club operate in a school whose administration said that they couldn't. The ACLU reminded the administrators that DUH!, after chool religious groups are permitted. Of course, I could've told you that back then and I'm not exactly Louis Brandeis.


-ACLU helped a christian valedictorian in an out of settlement agreement with the Utica school district. From the site:



The school district censored her comments that were religious in nature. The school now has to :



Not bad!

-Kansas City Metro Roman Catholic father uses the ACLU to get the school district to stop handing out Bibles. O.K., maybe this isn't a goood example, I mean the guy is practically an atheist.



I provide these cases to highlight what Overland Sailor and others have maintained-that the ACLU is hardly an anti-christian entity. Rather, it is one that is interested in constitutional balance. Yes, the ACLU battles prayer at graduation and other issues like that, but that is only because they are constitutional purists. When the religious rights (as listed in the first amendment) are violated, they are quick to help those who ask for help. All of the information I quoted can be seen at the ACLU website

What most of the religious right can't fathom is that the ACLU would be the first organization to take arms up to protect their right to worship in their church!

If anyone tried to stop you from worshiping in your home guess who would protect you? The ACLU!

I am a card carrying member of the ACLU, and contribute as much as I can!

Its exactly this kind of thinking that is the problem. From the perspectives of those who believe this sort of crap-propaganda anyone who isn't christian would be defined as secularist. It also of course sets the stage that all the above mentioned things are horrible by not acknowledging the fact that there are legitimate arguments for all those things. Yeah, I guess us secularists do want a free America, and christians who want a christian state similar to the Jewish state in Israel can move to Iraq when were done blowing it up, and set up christian camp there.

Is the ACLU and an anti-Christian cartel making war on Christianity?

A war? Whaddya mean war? No, not like a war on 'terror' (They're not blowing up christians like we are muslims). Any resistance that the christians noted are feeling is well deserved, considering GM story about the anti-descrimination stuff, it's exactly these people that deserve the resistance. I heard several stories through my G(ay)S(traight)A(lliance) of gay students, who when they were thirteen-fourteen and lived in a smaller city or eastern oregon city (like Bend) were publicly ridiculed by church-goers for being a 'fag' or 'homo' or 'queer.'

This is a very odd topic...

From the ACLU website:

"The ACLU is our nation’s guardian of liberty. We work daily in courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States. Our job is to conserve America’s original civic values - the Constitution and the Bill of Rights."

Nothing they have ever done is contrary to that mission.

The Calvinist inspired Christianity in this country seem to be offended by the idea that Liberty and not their version of morality is the central tenant of our legal system.

The ACLU believes that the only reason to suspend liberty from a citizen is when that citizen’s behavior violates another’s rights or causes harm. In contrast, the Christian movements in this country believe that it is acceptable to legislate "morality" and suspend rights even when no harm can be proved.

The constitution reinforces the ACLUs mission and actions - you can question specific cases they do or don't take, but their actions are consistent with defending liberty. Many American Christian organizations actions clearly oppose liberty and seek broad conformity to their own subjective morality. This is the only “war” I see, constitutional logic in law vs. irrational, fear based, "moral" legislation.

No, but if they truly cared about freedom they would be. I, however, am. Because I am sworn to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic, I am at war with all religions or their adherents which would seek to undermine it by attempting to give the force of law to their particular superstitions' prejudices and hatreds.
(As an aside:Our Constitution and legal system is not based on either set of Ten Commandments. In fact the first four are unconstitutional.)

Is the ACLU and an anti-Christian cartel making war on Christianity?

No. This claim, espoused by Bill O'Reilly (which automatically makes it dubious in my eyes), is preposterous. The preponderance of evidence disproves this case outright; nonetheless, I am sure that some will continue to make this ridiculous assertion. If only these people would realize that the First Amendment does not apply solely to them and they do not have a monopoly on religion. The First Amendment does not ensure that the Christians are permitted to fill our schools and courthouses with their "propaganda": it prevents the government from endorsing a religion-- any religion, even if a "majority of Americans are Christians".



Yes, their "secular agenda". Perhaps if they were trying to impose some sort of agenda, it would be one thing. They do have an agenda, and it is one of protecting civil liberties for all the people; not just the white male Christians.



Perhaps if judges were supposed to rule based on the will of the people: they aren't. They rule based on law and the Constitution, and if that is contrary to the will of the people, so be it. Mr. O'Reilly seems to be upset that his view of the world just so happens to be one that is unconstitutional. And no "fascist organization like the ACLU" will change that.