Today on Blogcritics
Home » Culture and Society » Spirituality » Interview With A Former ACLU Lawyer

Interview With A Former ACLU Lawyer

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone
“For God And Country Forever
Surrender To The ACLU Never”

I had the benefit of getting an interview with Mr. Reese Lloyd, a former ACLU lawyer affiliated with the largest Veterans Organization in America, the American Legions. When I called the media relations department there and inquired about their support for Public Expression of Religion Act of 2005 , this is the man they referred me to. I soon found out why. This was a very passionate, wise, and well spoken man.

I first inquired of his history with the ACLU, how he became employed with them, and why he eventually disassociated himself with them. He informed me that he had worked two janitor jobs while attending law school. One day the ACLU did some kind of fellowship interview, and he was given an internship with them. He eventually went on to be on their staff. He focused in the area of worker’s rights with special attention to the deprivation of speech in the workplace…such as whistleblowers.

So why did he leave them? He said, “it was in part because around that time they established a separation of Church and State Staff Position.” He informed me that, “This was funded by Norman Lear and several other Hollywood millionaires.” It seems even back then that Hollywood sided with the secular left. He went on to say that, “the very purpose of this staff position was to push “establishment clause” lawsuits against the government.”

At this point he got pretty fired up, and dominated the conversation for a while. I didn’t mind…what he had to say was passionate and cut right to the truth of things.

“I think it is important that we shouldn’t forget that we had a civil rights movement that was needed in our history at the time. I was around to see segregated bathrooms. There were black and white water fountains. You could sit at a lunch counter next to someone like Charles Manson because he was white, but not someone like Martin Luther King Jr. because he was black. The ACLU played a helpful role in the civil rights movement defending these people, and I can’t turn my back on that. I have to give credit where credit is due.”

But….that being said, what they have done in the past is completely eviscerated by what they do in the present. The ACLU has become a fanatical anti-faith Taliban of American religious secularism.”

I don’t think I could have come up with a better more colorful description myself. But wait…he was just getting warmed up! He went on to say….

“I have done more cases for minorities and civil rights violations myself than the whole bunch of them put together. I was in the trenches of the Civil Rights movement. They can’t tell me anything about civil rights. We did that 40 years ago, and we accomplished that goal. There are now laws protecting people from those things we fought against. The Civil Rights movement has now taken some crazed “Jesse Jackson” turn to the point that often it is now the white people that are being discriminated against.”

I must say that in this world of political correctness this guy was bold, blunt, and to the point. Keep in mind this is coming from a guy who fought the battle of Civil Rights, a soldier who fought for them, and an esteemed former Commander of an American Legions post in Banning, California. He continued…

The ACLU is an elitist organization bent on the social engineering of our Country in defiance of both the legislative and executive branches. What they are involved in is secular cleansing of American History.”

He asked if I were familiar with how Stalin airbrushed people like Trotsky out of photos in order to rewrite history. He went on to compare that to how what the ACLU is trying to do with Christianity in American history. He pointed out many similarities.

Then he got to the good stuff! He repeated….

“The ACLU is involved in the secular cleansing of our history. This is not just a fight about free exercise, but about the protection of our American history. The ACLU want to deny America the knowledge of their Christian heritage.”

“For example, the Ten Commandments in Court Houses. I don’t think this is an “endorsement” of religion. It is an acknowledgment of our history. I don’t care if it causes discomfort to Islamic terrorists, Islamic terrorist sympathizers, or Hindus and their holy cows.”

At this point I felt like saying, ….Bwhahahahah! However I restrained myself like the nice guy that I am. I’m glad I did, cause this is when he got the really good stuff.

This is a Christian Nation! And we ought to be damn proud it is! Because it is only in Christian Nations where you will find freedom of religion. We are a Christian Nation, and the U.S. Supreme Court said so. The Supreme Court in HOLY TRINITY CHURCH v. U.S. that this is a Christian Nation. That is our history. The history the ACLU wants to erase.”

Secular Humanism is a religion. Again, the Supreme Court ruled this in Torcaso vs. Watkins. If this is true, then it is being given precedence over other religions in our nation today.”

I finally asked the question that I primarily called for. Knowing that the American Legion is supporting The Public Expression of Religion Act of 2005 would it affect the ability of a poor person to defend their religious liberty by having to pay attorney fees out of pocket? To this question he answered….

“Absolutely not! This legislation would only apply to “Establishment Clause” cases. This would help to keep organizations from being paid attorney’s fees in cases such as the ones where the ACLU is fighting to take down our Veterans’ Memorials. It would only affect these kinds of suits. The “Free Exercise” is not affected at all. So someone defending their right to express religion could still collect attorney’s fees.”

“The ACLU crossed the damn line when they denied the Boyscouts charter on U.S. Military Bases. People need to stand up on this. The American Legion has a creed we say now…“For God and Country Forever! Surrender To The ACLU, Never!” We have 2.7 million members and we are stepping up. And when we step, we march, we don’t mince.”

What a great man, and a great organization! We all need to stand up, and demand of our representative to “represent” us! Mr. Lloyd is going to keep in touch with me, and I’m sure we will hear more from him in the future. I hope so.

STAND UP! TELL YOUR REPRESENTATIVE TO SUPPORT THE PUBLIC EXPRESSION OF RELIGION ACT OF 2005

Sign The Petition To Get The ACLU Off The Taxpayer’s Dole

Read more of my stuff at Stop The ACLU Blog

Powered by

About Jay

  • Eric Olsen

    thanks and welcome Jay! I don’t necessarily agree with the premise, but well done.

  • http://www.templestark.com Temple Stark

    These STOPTHEACLU people are, well, very evangelical.

    Just what nobody really needs …

    Funnily enough through the whole piece I thought it was a send up mocking of the guy – until the “hail Mary” URL link at the bottom.

    But good job on representing your 1600s POV. Makes me feel better about myself, somehow. And everyone needs a self-esteem boost now and then.

  • http://www.templestark.com Temple Stark

    See I thought it was funny that this guy became an ACLU lawyer without realizing the separation of church and state was, kind of important to them. I bet they had more than one SOCAS position, and I didn’t quite realize Bob Barr and others were “lefties.”

  • http://www.stoptheaclu.com Jay

    I feel for those that are fooled by the ACLU.

  • Nancy

    Why does it never occur to ‘christians’ there’s reasons non-christians consider them so distasteful & un-American? Very likely they don’t care, however, as long as in the end everyone is forced to think, worship, & live in lockstep according to their rules. In my experience, ‘christian’ is synonymous with ‘fascist’ in the most classical sense of the word. I’d be willing to bet most christians are completely unaware that the catholic church did, in fact, invent fascism. Good basic article on fascism in Wikipedia, if one is needed.

  • http://www.landofthefreehomeofthebrave.org/wp/ Margaret Romao Toigo

    I was wondering when you’d get around to posting your articles on Blogcritics, Jay. You’re one of Stop the ACLU’s better writers/debaters.

    I do hope that you remembered to bring your asbestos gear as most of the viewpoints here, like the rest of America (including President Bush), are to your left. And some are just as far to the left as you are to the right. But that’s half the fun, isn’t it?

    For example, my viewpoint is that the separation between church and state is essential to our religious freedom as well as our civil liberties.

    When mere mortals who are unfit to judge sin start attempting to not only judge sin but to punish it as well, then religion is reduced to a political tool, making it a questionable source of spiritual and moral guidance.

    Not to mention that the specific politicization of the Christian faith has made spreading the Word more difficult.

    Because of the political machinations of the Religious Right, it has become risky to even quote Scripture because of the potential for nasty rebukes and condescending looks that say, “Oh, you’re one of them,” loudly and clearly.

    When religious doctrine is used as justification for state authoritarianism, we cease to have free will. How can any of us repent sincerely if we are deprived of our free will?

  • http://www.stoptheaclu.com Jay

    Thank you for the compliment Margeret. I must say you are one of the best debaters that come to my site too. Most of the ones that come over to my site don’t have much talent in that area. It’s refreshing when you come over…very coherent, even though we disagree on most issues.

    I don’t want state authoritarianism! Thats what the Islamist fanatics want. I want freedom of religion to cease being supressed under the lie of seperation of church and state. The ACLU is radically far left, and in my opinion anything that extreme, elitist, and absolutist is dangerous to America, whether it be left or right.

    What the legislation I am promoting ask for is simply for our tax money not to be given to people or organizations that sue on the grounds of the establishment clause. Being offended is not injury. They can still sue…but I don’t want to pay for it.

  • Nancy

    OK, I need some information: what, exactly, do you refer to as the establishment clause? I don’t back any kind of establishment of public religion or recognition of same, but at the same time I spend a good deal of time wondering what kind of lunacy has infected the ACLU; sometimes they seem to pick their cases on the basis of how bizarre it can get. Thanks.

  • http://www.stoptheaclu.com Jay

    There is the establishment clause…Congress shall make no law..and the freedom of expression clause. There is a law that pays attorneys fees to the winners in all first amendment and civil rights cases. This legislation would ammend that to exclude establishment clauses. You could still sue, but the taxpayer’s wouldn’t pay for it.

    So if you are offended by someone’s baby Jesus display…sue…but use your own money, not mine.

  • Nancy

    Thanks. Whose baby Jesus display? In your own church or yard? No, certainly not. In front of town hall, paid for by everyone’s taxes, well … iffy, but unless lots of money is involved, who cares? Altho actually I’d love to see an ‘equal opportunity’ scene of – instead of Jesus in the manger – Mohammed in the cave w/Gabe hovering outside dictating! THAT would be pretty amazing. Just as well muslims aren’t permitted to portray persons, I suppose.
    Actually, I love other peoples’/cultures’ holidays: colorful & generally lots of fun & interesting food, etc.

  • PseudoErsatz

    Ahh! It is so welcoming to hear (read) the confessions of an ACLU Lawyer! Thanks for your work, Jay. Many not-so-gullible individuals have long discerned and identified the actual intents of the ACLU by the fruit they have borne, so this is not really a surprise, but more like, “Ahha! We knew it all along!”

  • http://www.stoptheaclu.com Jay

    That is what is beautiful about freedom of religion. On the public square the Muslims should be able to display their faith along side everyone else. If that right is denied, then they should sue. But don’t sue over someone elses religion being displayed and expressed.

    In the article it points out that human secluarism was ruled by the Supreme Court to be a religion, and if that is true…it is being forced on people much more than any other religion today.

  • Maynard

    I can get behind some of this, but not other parts: INstance, Bob Barr is left wing?

    On another note, as for public money, as soon as churches pay taxes, then I will gladly listen to them as groups of concerned citizens. Exempting them causes a bit of an “iffy” situation in the establishment clause. The positive side is that the church of satan can also be tax exempt, thus providin gequal opportunity for all. That may be the sole redeeming factor in the policy.

    Take away any other taxpayer subsidies to organized religion, and then I have no difficulty with removing the same from the ACLU. Both can find a way to fund themselves.

  • Sister Ray

    “So if you are offended by someone’s baby Jesus display…sue…but use your own money, not mine.

    If you want to put up a baby Jesus display, use your own money, not mine. That’s what the Establishment Clause is getting at.

    Not that I support all the ACLU’s positions…or am all that offended by baby Jesus displays for that matter.

  • Maynard

    Nicely said Sister Ray. Adding to that, the bulk of this Post seems to be obsessed with the erroneous thought that the US is a “christian” nation. Many people in the US are christian, of course, and some of our national culture stems from that fact. However, it is a decidedly secular nation. The establishment clause does not say anything about christian religions or hindu religions or buddhist religions etc.

    I can’t seem to find the word “christ” anywhere in the Constitution or even the Declaration of INdependance, nor any amendments in the Bill of Rights.

    It has always seemed to me that the establishment clause was set out the way it was to NOT allow this country to become any kind of “christian”, “hindu”, “buddhist” , or any other variation of religious, Nation.

    Hence my personal dilemma when certain factions make sense half the time, then turn around and toss in malarky like “this is a christian nation”

    However, I do stand with my previous statements about tax money.

  • Nancy

    Yes, I think it’s about time anyway for churches to pay taxes. Poorer institutions or those that could prove they actually did fund charitable activities wouldn’t end up paying much if anything anyway, while those dedicated mainly to “evangelizing” aka propaganda/advertising, or maintaining their leaders in a comfortable lifestyle, like Oral Roberts or Jerry Falwell, would be subject to audit & penalties if cheating, just like anyone else.

    I live in a very little town. At a meeting, someone proposed spending $200 for materials to make a “Town Manger”. It got passed, & I admit I didn’t object that much, because it wasn’t worth carping about $2 to make most of my neighbors happy. I also went along the next year w/expenditure of about the same amount for an outdoor menorah. Both look nice, both are festive, & yeah, I guess my principles are screwed up & inconsistent, but in small communities you have to live w/people. Now if I were in a big city, and it were $2000, or $20,000, or more, it would be another matter. As pure principle, I should have nixed it. Given the situation, I didn’t because it made everyone pretty happy. Sometimes you have to just excercise common sense as well as pick your fights.

  • JR

    One difference between physical science and social science is that in social science, there are no absolutes. That also means that there are no absolutes “in the law.” We’ve seen SCOTUS decisions reverse earlier rulings, and in many cases common sense does not prevail. Nevertheless, the First Amendment does appear to be clear — Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Not being able to erect a religious display at the court house does not preclude citizens from erecting them on the front lawn of local churches. So then, I have to ask . . . what is the issue here? Now, if we assume that at some point SCOTUS might rule the other way (highly unlikely) how would Christians, Jews, Buddhists, or Hindus feel if they drove by the court house and saw some kind of a display celebrating Ramadan? With regard to prayer in public schools, would Christian parents be happy to learn that classes were interrupted three or four times every day to allow Muslims the opportunity to put out their prayer rugs? Getting back to common sense, if parents want their children to have prayer periods in school, then they ought to simply look for parochial schools, rather than placing them into public schools and then bitching about the prohibition of prayer.

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com/ andy marsh

    Nancy – isn’t what you’re talking about above how a democracy is supposed to work? If the majority of the folks in your town watned it and were willing to pay for it then shouldn’t they have it?

    That’s the problem I have with all this…why is it that if ONE person bitches about something then that means that some group is being disenfranchised?

  • Nancy

    This all gets back to common sense & common courtesy. If we exercized those, and applied the much-vaunted but seldom-used Golden Rule, we wouldn’t HAVE these problems w/people inserting themselves & their private beliefs where they don’t belong. Ain’t gonna happen, tho.

  • http://www.landofthefreehomeofthebrave.org/wp/ Margaret Romao Toigo

    How is freedom of religion suppressed when there is a [theoretical] separation between church and state?

    This assertion makes no sense to me as my understanding of it has always been that a lack of a separation between church and state is detrimental to religious freedom because under such a system, the state would have the right to regulate and restrict the practices and doctrines of any religions seen as being contrary to the goals of the state.

    Conversely, a lack of a separation between church and state leaves us all open to the prospect of a state established religion via the justification of authoritarian laws against acts and behaviors that might be sins (being mere mortals, we are unfit to judge what is and is not sin), but are definitely not crimes because they do not violate or deny civil/human rights.

    When libertarians speak out against such laws, we are not speaking out against the doctrines from which they originate, but rather against the freedom-eroding cultural disease known as authoritarianism.

    And, because I find partisanship unseemly, I will point out that there are infectious carriers of authoritarianism on the far left, too. You know them, they’re the folks who cannot seem to comprehend that the Second Amendment secures and guarantees our right to keep and bear arms and that it is just as essential to our freedom as the First Amendment.

    And some of those people are members of the ACLU! So, it is a good thing that we also have organization like the NRA to pick up the slack with regard to our Second Amendment rights.

    Jay writes: “What the legislation I am promoting ask for is simply for our tax money not to be given to people or organizations that sue on the grounds of the establishment clause.”

    What about those individuals and groups who get that same pool of tax money to file the counter suits on the basis of their contrary interpretation of the establishment cause?

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Jay: “What the legislation I am promoting ask for is simply for our tax money not to be given to people or organizations that sue on the grounds of the establishment clause.”

    So, if the state of Utah decides to make Mormonism the state religion and outlaw all other forms of Christianity in the state, requiring attendance at Mormon services, tithing to the church, and supplementing church funds with direct taxation by the state, you’d prefer not to have the ACLU sue them and you wouldn’t want the federal government to back them up?

    Sounds like a brilliant plan. There are a lot of Wiccans in Colorado. Perhaps we can change the state name to EarthMotherParadise and organize the whole population into covens. All the Christians from there can move to nearby Utah and become Mormons, or perhaps flood into Idaho and make it the Old Testament Law State of Idaho and start executing homosexuals and stoning adulterers.

    Sounds like a bundle of fun. I’m moving to the Voodoo Republic of Louisiana and changing my name to Captain Ogu. Start lining up virgins for my newly legal sex magic rituals.

    Dave

  • http://www.templestark.com Temple Stark

    Virgin elitist pigs, of course.

    I’ll provide a :-)

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    All rituals will, of course, include servings of Cochon de Lait

    Dave

  • Sister Ray

    “why is it that if ONE person bitches about something then that means that some group is being disenfranchised?”

    Ask Rosa Parks.

  • http://lonewacko.com The Lonewacko Blog

    On the immigration-related front, see How much more can the ACLU discredit itself? for more on that fine organization’s efforts.

    Follow the links, and see especially Kristin Sinema’s attempts to catch Sean Hannity coming over the border. It’s a trivial thing, but trivial things help illustrate the problem to lots of people.

  • Maynard

    re: comment 25 – tangent coming

    As for Hannity. Were you aware that he made his bones in broadcasting as an announcer for the WWF wrestling organization? And that this upstanding advocate for tort reform and against frivolous lawsuits left there after receiving a huge settlement for his lawsuit alleging sexual harrassment?

    I guess it makes Lonewacko’s point: trivial things do illustrate a point sometimes.

  • BillB

    RE Sister Ray’s # 24

    Pretty amazing that one would have to respond to # 18. Great response though. Said in three words what would have taken at least a well constructed sentence or two to convey.

    That is providing he knows who Rosa Parks is.

    RE Margaret Romao Toigo’s # 20

    As usual I agree with just about all you say but I’m curious about the following.

    >And, because I find partisanship unseemly, I will point out that there are infectious carriers of authoritarianism on the far left, too. You know them, they’re the folks who cannot seem to comprehend that the Second Amendment secures and guarantees our right to keep and bear arms and that it is just as essential to our freedom as the First Amendment.

    And some of those people are members of the ACLU! So, it is a good thing that we also have organization like the NRA to pick up the slack with regard to our Second Amendment rights.<

    I know you’re attempting to level the playing field here but I have a question or two.

    First I’m pretty well left of center and know no one who believes that all guns should be outlawed. I’m certainly not saying they don’t exist because they surely do but I would posit that they are a pretty small minority.

    Most liberals would acknowledge one’s right to keep a handgun, shotgun, rifle or some comparable weapon for they’re own protection.

    But assault weapons?

    Did you support the Bush adm allowing the ban to expire? If so, where do you draw the line? What about the 50mm rifle? A bazooka? Surface to air missle systems? A tank? A nuclear bomb?

    Of course it’s illegal to privately own some of these and similar weapons already. Obviously the issue is where is the threshold?

    I believe the nra is out of step with the majority of Americans when we get to assault weapons and that the “far left” you cite is somewhat of a straw man.

    It should be noted that your cental point is well taken. The authoritarian nature on both sides of the political spectrum of those who (mostly out of fear, ignorance, self-righteousness etc.) can not see beyond their own narrow perspectives.

  • Bunny

    BillB, the second Ammendment issue is a strange one, because it was settled by the Civil War. The intention of the founders was to allow for the citizenry to have the final say, not the politicians. The Federal government was to have as much power only as the Constitution allowed, and the citizens and States collectively had the authority and duty to enforce the arrangement. When push came to shove, Federal Government won, and States lost. It transformed what was originally the United States (sovereign states) into the United States (sovereign federal government).
    Most 2nd Ammendment advocates either don’t realize that its a dead issue, or they want to re-arm the citizenry/states with the intent to establish equal power with Washington DC. The latter being politcal lunacy.
    I grew up in the South, but it ain’t gonna rise again. Wouldn’t be prudent…

  • RMcEwen

    Bunny:

    there is a lot of truth to your comment… and, certainly, you’ve hit the main purpose of the 2nd amendment right on its head… but, inspite of the out-of-control increase in Federal power, we can STILL buy Guns, ammo… and even the superior shotgun shells that my friend sells.