Today on Blogcritics
Home » Culture and Society » Spirituality » Is the ACLU Anti-Christian?

Is the ACLU Anti-Christian?

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

Many people view the ACLU as anti-Christian (Anti-Christian Lawyers Union, etc). With all the cases they take beating away any symbol of Jesus in the public square, it’s hard to think they AREN’T anti-Christian. As the new symbol of Los Angeles shows, they don’t seem to have a problem with other religions, just Christianity it appears. The question is, are they really anti-Christian?

The ACLU says they are the guardian of liberty who works to defend and preserve individual rights. However, they are less fighting for something than fighting against something. They fight against intelligent design and abstinence education not because they infringe on rights, but because they are part of an order they believe needs to be abolished.

Being anti-Christian implies that they intend to specifically attack Christianity as an end of itself. As 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 don’t 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.

The ACLU’s actions are a part of a political worldview they hold. It was founded by communists and though many members and lawyers would say they aren’t communist today that foundation influences the way they look at things. They are militant privacy advocates and anti-government to the point of wanting to take away valid tools from law enforcement. This is why they helped Rush Limbaugh, not because they support his speech, but because their causes temporarily aligned when the Florida prosecutor’s office seized his medical records unjustly. That is not to say that the government is lily white when it comes to privacy, but to say that monitoring phone calls of suspected terrorists leads to a police state is ludicrous and scare-mongering.

The ACLU attacks the traditional foundation of the family in society. This is why they fight against parental notification of abortions, school choice, and the parent’s role in educating their children. In fact, they attack traditional forms of authority beyond that of the state. In communist nations, the state is the highest authority and all needs and actions must be made in connection with what is best for the state. That is why you can talk about purges and gulags and communists don’t flinch. Communism requires them.

Their attacks on Christianity aren’t designed to eradicate Christianity, per se. They are designed to establish a social order (or more appropriately destroy the existing order) and customs that advance their ideas and Christianity isn’t a part of it. In short, they aren’t anti-Christian in intent, they are anti-Christian in effect.

Powered by

About John Bambenek

John Bambenek is a political activist and computer security expert. He has his own company Bambenek Consulting in Champaign, IL that specializes in digital forensics and computer security investigations.
  • http://murasaki.blog-city.com Purple Tigress

    Why, by being Anti-Christian in effect, does this mean that the ACLU might be communist? Aren’t the ideals of communism close to what Jesus Christ preached?

    And as for Anti-Christian, do you mean also Anti-Catholic? When you talk about traditional, what traditions are you talking about? The WASP traditions of the 1950s or the 1600s?

    And why should I as a non-Christian care? Basically, you seem to be saying that the ACLU is making sure that people like me–Mormons, Hindus, Muslims, Jews, Buddhist, Baha’is–will not be force-fed Christianity because of the ACLU, that although the US is predominately a Christian society, the ACLU is attempting to enforce the Bill of Rights, watching out for the civil rights of people who are non-Christian.

    For that reason, the ACLU is, in effect, ever so much more American than perhaps some Christian Americans.

  • http://babylonandon.blogspot.com wayne

    I’m sure purple tigress, when the government mandates that your little son/nephew/cousin has to peform fellatio on one of his classmates in order to pass sex-ed so he can graduate, you will wonder what happened.

    Maybe you think that is a good thing and that we all should have to do these things. Gosh, I wonder why my freedom NOT to be performing fellatio on somebody is to be oppressed in favor of your ideals?

    Why is it that you support the freedom of religions that think a woman is free only if she is kept in a bourka with her clitoris scraped off?

    No body in any part of Christianity I have ever know has anything like this kind of oppression in mind. We just think murdering babies might not be nice and we believe that there is someone out there who avenges these sorts things and we don’t want him pissed at us for not trying to stop this from happeneing.

  • http://www.markiscranky.org Mark Saleski

    so what this guy wrote in a college yearbook becomes the goals of the aclu?

    is blogcritics morphing into a freeper mirror site?

  • Realist

    Is the ACLU Anti-Christian?

    Of course.

    Those who claim the ACLU is attempting to enforce the Bill of Rights, are ignoring rights that are not being enforced because they have no bearing on the Christian Religion.

    Take for example, Article VII of the Bill of Rights.

    Is Article VII being enforced?

    No.

    Does he ACLU care?

    No.

    Q.E.D.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    I don’t see any evidence that the ACLU is specifically anti-Christian. They seem to be anti-religion in general.

    Dave

  • Realist

    “I don’t see any evidence that the ACLU is specifically anti-Christian.

    Evidence abounds if you just open your eyes a bit.

    “They seem to be anti-religion in general.”

    “Seem to be” doesn’t cut it.

    The ACLU focuses on the Christian religion because it is the religion that predominates and because it has been here since the founding of the country.

    Where do you that other religions had a bearing on our Constitution?

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    I don’t see that ANY religion had a bearing on our Constitution, aside from a general belief in a supreme power of some sort.

    But your point that they appear anti Christian because Christianity is what there’s the most of out there to be opposed to is perfectly valid.

    Dave

  • Realist

    Dave says:

    “I don’t see that ANY religion had a bearing on our Constitution, aside from a general belief in a supreme power of some sort

    Dave, wake up and see the clues.

    “belief in a supreme power” is a clue.

    How about “Creator”.

    More clues…

    The predominant religion at the time of the founding of the country was Christianity.

    The accepted “national religion” of the country was Christianity up until the mid-1960’s.

    It wasn’t ANY religion, it was Christianity.

  • Paul J. Marasa

    I was just wandering around blogcritics.com–I’m a new member–and stumbled on this topic. Three comments:

    (1) The original post seems a bit contradictory; how can the ACLU be “militant privacy advocates and anti-government” while also Soviet-style communists who believe that the state is the “highest authority and all needs and actions must be made in connection with what is best for the state”? WHICH state? A someday-communist one that replaces the current one? Please clarify.

    (2) As far as absolute religion-state separation is concerned, that’s fine by me, as it was for the Founding Fathers. They saw (and OK, some even participated in) religious persecution up close; and they knew, like Jean de Crevecoeur (the man who first called America a “melting pot”), that the safest attitude of the State toward religion is indifference, only taking advantage of the “reasonableness” of most religious beliefs–you know, loving neighbors, obeying commandments, discerning moral from immoral behavior–to contribute to peace within society. (By the way, let’s not forget that the State still runs pretty well despite a long history of a laissez-faire attitude toward “local” religious persecutions–segregations, restrictions, and so on–particuarly of Jews and Catholics, but now Muslims as well.) As a devout believer in my God, I’m sick of secular institutions using Him–or Someone like Him–to justify their wars, domestic oppressions, prejudices, and so on.

    (3) On a related issue, calling the ACLU communist implies that democracy–and by extension capitalism (and one can argue that it was the proto-capitalists of the 17th and 18th centuries–John Locke and Adam Smith, to name two biggies–who paved the way for democracy’s ascension as THE government system that would allow for the personal freedom and protection of property rights necessary for free trade) is the best hope for religious freedom. Of course, the religious have been brutalized under historical communisms–and there’s no love lost between Marx and religion–but let’s keep in mind that every major Western religion–Judaism, Christianity, Islam–proscribes usury. And, as C.S. Lewis once pointed out, capitalism is founded on usury. You couldn’t run a bank or play the stock market without it. So, my fellow believers, cast out the money-lenders–while dining with the tax collectors–and let’s keep the government out of our churches/synagogues/mosques/temples/prayer circles/meditation gardens/whatever. Render unto Caesar, gang, but don’t give him God.

  • http://paperfrigate.blogspot.com DrPat

    Welcome, Paul!

    I doubt the medieval religious laws against usury would apply in modern capitalism, since they weren’t even applied in merchantilist societies (even with a stronger religious component to government).

    I suspect ACLU-bashing results more from whose ox is being gored today, rather than a philosophic difference with the organization…

  • http://jmaximus.blogspot.com John Bil

    >>>”I am for socialism, disarmament, and ultimately, for abolishing the state itself…
    <<<<

    How can you be for socialism and against government at the same time? Thats like saying “I against obesity, and my goal is to become fat.”

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

    Extremely inaptly named ‘realist’ wrote:

    “Dave, wake up and see the clues.

    “belief in a supreme power” is a clue.

    How about “Creator”.”

    Ok, tell me what religion doesn’t feature a creator. Also, explain to me how the concept of a creator is unique to Christianity.

    “More clues…

    The predominant religion at the time of the founding of the country was Christianity.:

    True, but the guys who WROTE the Constitution specifically stated that the document was not intended to be religious or Christian in any way.

    “The accepted “national religion” of the country was Christianity up until the mid-1960’s.”

    We have never had a ‘national religion’.

    “It wasn’t ANY religion, it was Christianity.”

    No, it wasn’t any religion or Christianity.

    Dave

  • http://yourhumbleviewer.blogspot.com/ Paul J. Marasa

    To “Dr. Pat”: You wrote that the laws against usury “weren’t even applied in [medieval] merchantilist societies.” I know, but the point I was making was moral/philosophical rather than legal/”practical”: the State is “religiously challenged” in so many ways the religious are better off ignored than “institutionalized” by a State whose interests are indeed mercantile–which is fine, as far as it goes–rather than moral or spiritual. (And thanks for the welcome. And sorry all for the accidental double-posting.)

  • Nancy

    I must admit the ACLU puzzles me; they have no set policies, it seems to me, but are all over the social/legal map. What do I make of people who defend the “rights” of child molesters? I frequently think they’re all insane, or at the very least out of touch with reality.

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com Michael J. West

    “belief in a supreme power” is a clue.

    How about “Creator”.

    I just pulled up an online text version of the U.S. Constitution and did a word search for “belief in a supreme power.” Then I did another one for “Creator.” Neither search turned up anything.

    More clues…

    The predominant religion at the time of the founding of the country was Christianity.

    So what?

    The accepted “national religion” of the country was Christianity up until the mid-1960’s.

    According to whom/what? Accepted by whom/what? I’ve never heard that even once. I presume you have some evidence to back up this claim?

  • Realist

    “We have never had a ‘national religion”

    Never?

    Consider the reliance of the country and President Roosevelt on religion during WWII.

    ON BOARD THE USS AUGUSTA, AUGUST, 1941.

    8-10-41 – From midnight to 10:30 A.M. the President remained aboard the USS Augusta in Ship Harbor, Newfoundland. At 10:30 AM the President transferred to the USS Mayrant and at 11:00 AM boarded the HMS Prince of Wales, where he attended Divine Services on board, received the Officers of the Ship and attended a luncheon in his honor given by the Honorable Winston Churchill Prime Minister of Great Britain. At 5:35 P.M. the President returned to the USS Augusta and remained aboard until midnight.

    “where he attended Divine Services on board..”

    What “Divine Serices”?

    Christian.

    Roosevelt and Churchill PRAYED CHRISTIAN PRAYERS together before a full deck of officers and sailors.

    That might give you a clue as to a ‘national religion’.

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com Michael J. West

    It says that Roosevelt attended divine services on board. It says nothing about being before a full deck of officers and sailors. It says nothing about HOW MANY people were at services, where they were held (how do we know it wasn’t just Roosevelt and Churchill and the chaplain in a private chapel?), or who officiated.

    In fact, it doesn’t even say that the service was Christian.

  • http://paperfrigate.blogspot.com DrPat

    Big difference between a national religion and a national leader with a religious preference, Searcher!

  • Realist

    “It says that Roosevelt attended divine services on board. It says nothing about being before a full deck of officers and sailors?”

    There are newsreels showing Roosevelt and Churchill praying along with the full deck of officers and sailors.

    Go look it up.

    Don’t expect others to do all your research.

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com Michael J. West

    I’m not expecting anyone to do my research, Realist. I’m expecting you to demonstrate your research. You can’t really give me only the information you presented and expect me to believe, based on that information, that Christianity was ever a national religion.

    It’s a bit unfair to give me patchy information, then, when I tell you it’s patchy, to say “don’t expect ME to give you better information.”

  • http://www.fifthdentist.blogspot.com The Fifth Dentis

    This “article” is the single most non-sensical piece of shit I have had the misfortune of reading on this site. All of us are stupider for having listened to you.

  • Realist

    “Big difference between a national religion and a national leader with a religious preference, “

    Not so.

    The nation was behind Roosevelt’s Christian religious preference, and completely supported him in his public prayers.

    If Roosevelt had a different religious preference, he never would have been elected to four terms in office.

    The nation fully supported Roosevelt, his Christian religion, and publicly praying Christian prayers.

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com Michael J. West

    On the other hand, maybe I SHOULD have done research. I found this:

    On 9 August [1941], Prime Minister Churchill arrived at Argentina in HMS Prince of Wales, the arrival of the battleship viewed by the President and his party, Churchill visited the President at 1100 that day, and lunched with him in his cabin….The following day, McDougal (DD-358) came alongside and embarked the President and his party, transporting them to Prince of Wales for divine services, an inspection of the battleship’s topsides, and a luncheon. (from a History of the USS Augusta).

    Realist, Divine services were held on the HMS Prince of Wales. A British ship. If Roosevelt prayed with a full deck of soldiers and sailors, they were English soldiers and sailors.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Realist, we’ve had two Quaker presidents. Quakers are vehemently opposed to public prayer and politicization of religion. Oddly, they both played along with other peopel who were having religious ceremonies and invited them. The principle of ‘when in rome’ seems to apply here.

    Trying to argue that a president attending a religious service on a foreign ship 64 years ago shows we had a state religion is really a new definition of delusional.

    Dave

  • Realist

    “Divine services were held on the HMS Prince of Wales. A British ship. If Roosevelt prayed with a full deck of soldiers and sailors, they were English soldiers and sailors.”

    Don’t gloat.

    There were many American officers and sailors along with President Roosevelt. You thought he traveled alone?

    Also, keep in mind that President Roosevelt ended each of his radio addresses with —

    SO HELP US GOD…

    At the beginning of WWII, Roosevelt concluded his speech with:

    “We are going to win the war, and we are going to win the peace that follows. And in the dark hours of this day-and through dark days that may be yet to come-we will know that the vast majority of the members of the human race are on our side. Many of them are fighting with us. All of them are praying for us. For, in representing our cause, we represent theirs as well-our hope and their hope for liberty under God.”

    Under God?

    YES!

    Under God!

    AND there is more…

    Roosevelt also said…

    “As Americans, we go forward, in the service of our country, by the will of God.

    And no one complained.

    Now we have revisionists who want to rewrite our history.

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com Michael J. West

    “There were many American officers and sailors along with President Roosevelt. You thought he traveled alone?”

    What does that have to do with it? It still doesn’t prove anything.

    Also, keep in mind that President Roosevelt ended each of his radio addresses with —

    SO HELP US GOD…

    So Roosevelt believed in God. What of it? (Notice he didn’t say anything at all about Jesus.) Does that say anything about any other person in America?

    Roosevelt also said…

    “As Americans, we go forward, in the service of our country, by the will of God.

    And no one complained.

    No one complains when Bush says “God bless the United States of America,” either. And they shouldn’t. Because those aren’t examples of anybody forcing his/her religion upon the people.

    The fact that “no one complained” does not equate to “no one complained because they accepted that Roosevelt was mentioning God in order to promote Christianity as the national religion of the United States.” Which is what you’re implying.

  • Realist

    PEARL HARBOR DECEMBER 7, 1941

    From the transcript of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s “day of infamy” speech:

    “With confidence in our armed forces – with the unbounded determination of our people – we will gain the inevitable triumph – so help us God.”

    Quakers notwithstanding…

  • Dr. Kurt

    Further proof of devolution, right here, today! As for the ACLU? I always figured that if they are making me happy half the time and pissing me off the rest of the time, then they are probably doing their job. For instance, protecting me from pinheads who want to somehow ex post facto establish a State religion…

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com Michael J. West

    Still wondering what “so help us God” proves…

  • Realist

    No one complains when Bush says “God bless the United States of America…”

    When Bush says, “God” it’s a code word for Christianity…

    Don’t you think the ACLU is working on that one?

    To repeat for those with poor eyesight:

    The predominant religion at the time of the founding of the country was Christianity.

    The accepted “national religion”* of the country was Christianity up until the mid-1960’s.

    It wasn’t ANY religion, it was Christianity.

    * don’t forget to take note of the quotes.

  • http://yourhumbleviewer.blogspot.com/ Paul J. Marasa

    I’m not sure what we mean by a “national religion,” if the evidence is based on services attended by Presidents. Did Kennedy ever attend Catholic services? I’m pretty sure he did. Does that make Roman Catholicism the “national religion”? Or the possibly Anglican service FDR attended? (The word “divine” hints at this.) What if we ever get a Jewish President? Will the national religion change, making Saturdays the Sabbath?

    This is all a bit silly. As I said earlier, governments have done so many things–OK, some wonderful, others horrible–“in God’s name” that I shudder whenever a politician even implies he’s tuned into God. Consider the current President. He’s in favor of capital punishment, while the previous Pope changed the Catholic Catechism in such a way that his own anti-capital punishment position is stronger, if not solidified. Naturally, Catholics can’t get one another to agree on capital punishment, so how can we assume a “Christian” ANY-one, President, Pope, or whatever, embodies a universal belief? It’s wishful thinking.

    And whether the ACLU is anti-Christian means nothing in light of the “mutli-Christians” yammering their way through the halls of government. Again, let’s breathe a collective sigh of relief that we do not have a “national religion.” Unless you count the Constitution, which opens another can o’ worms.

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com Michael J. West

    When Bush says, “God” it’s a code word for Christianity…

    Don’t you think the ACLU is working on that one?

    No, I do not.

  • Realist

    Let’s not overlook the fact that until 1964, a Christian prayer was said in public schools each morning, along with readings from the Bible.

    Now is that “national” or not?

    Just how much history do you revisionists want to write?

  • RogerMDillion

    To the Fifth Dentist, the author should have been a dead giveaway.

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com Michael J. West

    Let’s not overlook the fact that until 1964, a Christian prayer was said in public schools each morning, along with readings from the Bible.

    Now is that “national” or not?

    Not.

    Because a Christian prayer was NOT said in EVERY public school in America until 1964. Public schools are state-controlled. and Massachussetts made it illegal to require prayer or readings from the Bible in public schools back in 1890.

    By 1950, South Dakota, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, Ohio, Connecticut, New York, and California had all made similar laws.

    So no, it’s not “national.”

  • senior citizen

    “Massachusetts made it illegal to require prayer or readings from the Bible in public schools back in 1890.”

    THIS HAS TO BE A BIG CROCK OF SHIT.

    Are you saying the Massachusetts schools I attended never got the word?

    Get your facts straight — junior.

  • http://murasaki.blog-city.com Purple Tigress

    It’s always nice to know that when a woman makes a statement about religion, she’s still open to attack on the basis of sexual practices.

    Dear Wayne:

    I have had sex education classes. The women who went to jail over sex education and birth control education such as Margaret Sanger were from a Christian background put in jail by other so-called Christians. That was because education about human reproduction was once considered pornography.

    Sex education is not a practicum. In any case, laws would preclude this since sexual activity at that age usually amounts to statuatory rape. Further, there is nothing to even support your argument because at no time has the government argued to enforce sexual activity. Instead it has limited or prohibited certain practices.

    No religion that I referenced supports the female circumcision. The places where female circumcision is practiced are places where the practice actually pre-dates Islam and the Christian women are also subject to the practice.

    Similarly, the burka is part of a cultural practice. Both Islam and Christianity support modesty in men and in women. What is modesty is, of course, relative.

    Christians have murdered babies as well. Infanticide is not something that only occurred in non-Christian areas.

    However, you have shown what the ACLU does do. It protects Muslims and other religions from small-minded people like yourself. We do need that sort of protection and those people who safeguard non-Christians against the Christian majority are not necessarily communists or lesser Americans.

    Further, the word God is also used in all the religions that I named. We can be Buddhist, Muslim or Baha’i and believe in God.

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com Michael J. West

    I stand corrected. Massachusetts’s law passed in 1890 forbade the purchasing of public-school textbooks that inclined towards any religion in favor of another.

    It was Wisconsin that banished compulsory prayer in school in 1890.

    There was also a state missing from my list of states that outlawed compulsory prayer in school: Louisiana. The law was passed in 1912.

    Really, Senior Citizen, was the diminutive necessary?

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com Michael J. West

    There has, of course, been a Federal Amendment proposed (about ten years ago), one whose text I think would solve all the problems that people claim:

    “Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to prohibit individual or group prayer in public schools or other public institutions.

    No person shall be required by the United States or by any State to participate in prayer.

    Neither the United States or any State shall compose the words of any prayer to be said in public schools.”

    This looks pretty good to me. Anyone got any reason why this is a bad idea?

  • http://www.scoopstories.typepad.com Scott Butki

    How is keeping church and the state separate a bad thing? I thought that was the way it’s supposed to be legally and the ACLU just sticks to its guns?

    As far as being communist remind me again why the ACLU has taken cases for Republicans like Ollie North if they are communist?

  • Shark

    Ooooooh, Commies! Scary!

  • Cunning linguist

    Does the pope shit in the woods?

    Of course the ACLU is anti-Chrisitan. They are not only anti-Chrisitan, but also seek to destroy everything traditional and decent about American history.

    This nation was founded by Christians who relied in Judeo-Christian values to guide them.

    This is a fact that the ACLU cannot stand and they will do anything at all they can to ignore and deny it as they push thier far left perverted, twisted, degenerate agenda on America.

    As for those of you claiming the ACLU defends Chrisitans by taking thier cases. If you want to go case for case I can cite 20 cases where the ACLU has defended child sex offenders, illegal alieans, and muslim terrorists for every 1 case you can cite where they defnded a Christian’s rights.

    Anyone who says that the ACLU isn’t anti_Chrisitan either shares the ACLU’s degenerate agenda or is extremely oblivious to the American culture around them.

  • troll

    So we agree – NGOs watchdogging the implementation of US law must all be banned

    troll

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

    >>This looks pretty good to me. Anyone got any reason why this is a bad idea?<<

    Junking up the Constitution with unnecessary stuff is generally a bad idea. Plus the amendment in question doesn’t address the pledge of allegiance issue, since it wasn’t written by the government, but is still being promulgated by the government.

    Dave

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com Michael J. West

    Plus the amendment in question doesn’t address the pledge of allegiance issue, since it wasn’t written by the government, but is still being promulgated by the government.

    The “Under God” part was written by the government.

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com Michael J. West

    This nation was founded by Christians who relied in Judeo-Christian values to guide them.

    This is a particularly misleading statement. The religious beliefs of the Founders were as varied as anything else about them.

    A number of them were deists, who believed in God but rejected the Bible and the idea that Christ was divine.

    Here are some of their names and beliefs:

    John Adams – Unitarian
    Samuel Adams – Congregational Christian
    Benjamin Franklin – Deist
    Alexander Hamilton – Episcopalian
    John Hancock – Deist
    Patrick Henry – Episcopalian
    John Jay – Anglican
    Thomas Jefferson – Deist
    James Madison – Deist
    Thomas Paine – Deist
    Roger Sherman – Congregational Christian
    George Washington – DEBATED: some evidence of Episcopalism, other evidence of Deism

  • practical joe

    Samuel Adams – Christian
    Alexander Hamilton – Christian
    Samuel Adams – Christian
    Alexander Hamilton – Christian
    Patrick Henry – Christian
    John Jay – Christian
    Roger Sherman – Christian
    George Washington – Christian

    Not bad for starters…

    No Islam
    No Judaism
    No Buddhism
    No Animism
    No Hinduism

  • Shark

    “No Islam
    No Judaism
    No Buddhism
    No Animism
    No Hinduism”

    Will you people STOP IT?!

    Freedom of Religion = no official State religion = major reason founders fled Europe and wrote Constitution

    so shut up with this shit.

    Thanks in advance —

    and

    God Bless Ameri… wait… gotta run… major hurricane heading this wa…

    …glurb…

  • practical joe

    This nation was founded by Christians who relied on their values to guide them.

    Not to offend some of the others:

    No Sikhism
    No Juche
    No Spiritism
    No Baha’i
    No Jainism
    No Shinto
    No Cao Dai
    No Zoroastrianism
    No Tenrikyo
    No Neo-Paganism
    No Rastafarianism
    No Scientology

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com Michael J. West

    The list I gave is actually pretty evenly divided between Christians and deists. (I did say George Washington’s religion was debated, so as far as I’m concerned he counts as both.)

    So it can, of course, be equally said that:

    “This nation was founded by Deists who relied on their values to guide them.”

    Some of those values?

    -God created the world, and that’s the last time he interfered with anything that happened in the world.

    -Jesus Christ was a respectable and profound teacher. That’s all he was.

    -“I detest the Bible as I detest everything that is cruel.” -Thomas Paine.

    I’m not saying that THIS is what the nation was founded on. I’m just pointing out that there was a pretty wide divergence in the beliefs of the people who founded this country.

  • The Searcher

    I’ve very much enjoyed reading this thread!

    When Dr. Kurt wrote about “pinheads who want to somehow ex post facto establish a State religion” I think he was dead-on.

    I must say, I’ve seen some pretty piss poor arguents made here in support of Christianity being the national religion.

    May I add a quote to Michael West’s already good selection:

    “Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.”

    –[Thomas Jefferson,letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper February 10, 1814]

    “The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion”

    –[Treaty of Tripoli, 1797]

    I would say that I am surprised to find anyone seriously disputing these words, but what do you expect from people who are conditioned all their lives to view blind faith as the paragon of human virtues?

  • practical joe

    “Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.”

    –[Thomas Jefferson,letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper February 10, 1814]

    What else could good ‘ole Tom say after screwing Sally Hemmings?

    That he believed in Nine of the Ten Commandments?

  • The Searcher

    Oh you win, Practical Joe, that’s an irrefutable argumentum ad hominem…

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com Michael J. West

    Not so much an argumentum ad hominem as it is a non-sequitur. Practical Joe is using Jefferson’s supposed dalliance with Sally Hemmings in a way that’s supposed to fool us into thinking it’s at all relevant to the discussion at hand.

  • The Searcher

    Yes, it be that too.

  • practical joe

    “dalliance”?

    Frivolous spending of time; dawdling.
    Playful flirtation?

    NO.

    SCREWING!

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com Michael J. West

    Now he’s engaging in a complete change of subject.

  • troll

    what’s the problem with adding some hominy to our arguments anyway – ? It all becomes part of the overall stew

    take your culinary restrictions off my bridge

    troll

  • practical joe

    “Now he’s engaging in a complete change of subject.”

    The subject introduced was Thomas Jefferson and his attitude toward Christianity.

    “Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.”
    –[Thomas Jefferson,letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper February 10, 1814]”

    SO…

    I replied…

    What else could good ‘ole Tom say after screwing Sally Hemmings?

    That he believed in Nine of the Ten Commandments?

    Get the connection — Doofus?

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com Michael J. West

    The subject introduced was Thomas Jefferson and his attitude toward Christianity.

    Nice try, but that wasn’t actually the subject introduced.

    The subject had to do with what Thomas Jefferson thought was Christianity’s role in the structure of the United States government. Not Jefferson’s personal religious beliefs.

    So either you changed the subject or you confused one subject with the other. Calling me names may relieve your frustration, but they won’t change the discussion so that your Jefferson-and-Hemmings remarks are on point.

  • http://www.magnaveritas.com Vox Populi

    Why is it so difficult to grasp that people who were at least nominally Christian wouldn’t want a government run on religious principles, not only for the protection of the government, but also for the preservation of the independence of religion itself?

    You can be a Christian and still want a secular government. In fact, if you’re a Christian from a minority religious background who just had a revolution against a theocratic state you’re likely to really not want religion and government mixed together in your new nation.

    Vox

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com Michael J. West

    In fact, Vox Populi, that sounds a lot like something James Madison said (Since we’re discussing quotes from the Founding Fathers):

    An alliance or coalition between Government and religion cannot be too carefully guarded against. Every new and successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters is of importance…religion and government will exist in greater purity, without rather than with the aid of government.

  • http://kendersmusings.blogspot.com kender

    Dave? If they were anti-religion in general then why do they “seem to” support and defend terrorists against the safety of America and her citizens?

  • http://www.stoptheaclu.com Jay

    I’m actually suprised at how many are defending this article here, its usually just a lot of liberal spewing, and of course there is still a lot of that going on here at blogcritics as always.

    I will actually crique this article by saying that I don’t just believe the ACLU are anti-Christian in effect, but also designed this way.

    The ACLU is transparently a liberal organization with a secluar agenda in mind. If it were truly there to protect civil liberties it wouldn’t ignore the second amendment, and wouldn’t trump the freedom of expression clause with the establishment clause.

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com Michael J. West

    If it were truly there to protect civil liberties it…wouldn’t trump the freedom of expression clause with the establishment clause.

    Can you give a specific example of this? A case, perhaps?

  • http://kendersmusings.blogspot.com kender

    To get this back on track….

    Purple Tigress?

    “Sex education is not a practicum. In any case, laws would preclude this since sexual activity at that age usually amounts to statuatory rape.”

    Then why does the ACLU defend pedophiles (NAMBLA) and state that “molestation is wrong but child porn, once produced, should be protected free speech”?

    That stance is legitimizing the creation of child porn, as it basically says “Once you have it you should get to keep it”, which says to the sick buggers that create and peddle this crud “Just don’t get caught and we will help create a legal market for you”.

  • The Searcher

    I see two threads going on here, one that the ACLU is anti-Christian and the other than the USA was explictly founded as a Christian theocracy.

    The ACLU clearly has their own agenda.

    The proponents of the second thread have only the single word “Creator” from which to make a huge dicto simpliciter jump to the specificity of Christanity. An abundance of explicit, unequivocal statements from the founding fathers themselves which clearly refute this idea, are either rebutted with lame reasoning or ignored altogether.

    One side is armed with a single word and a tangled web of inferences and guesses as to the intent of the people who used the word, whereas the other is armed with explicit, unequivocal STATEMENTS of intent from the same people.

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com Michael J. West

    There are, in fact, points in Bambenek’s post that are hard to argue with.

    Was the ACLU founded by Communists? Yes.

    Does that Communist foundation influence their direction today, even among the membership that is overwhelmingly not Communist today? Undoubtedly.

    Do the ACLU’s legal positions and defenses get a bit extreme at times? Probably.

    But as Dave Nalle pointed out in Comment 5, none of this, and none of Bambenek’s other points, indicate that the ACLU specifically targets Christianity as something that’s not part of their “world order.” Now, if Bambenek had said, “They are designed to establish a social order…and organized religion isn’t a part of it,” or something of that sort, the point would probably be better.

    Bambenek, you say that the ACLU is “anti-Christian in effect” and to some extent I think that’s true…but you neglect to mention that they’re anti- every other religion in effect, too. It’s not as though they’re ONLY interested in moving Christianity aside and letting every other religion shove its way through…if the Muslims were trying to get Islamic prayer in school and demanded that all women of every persuasion wear brkas in public, the ACLU would be just as combative toward that idea.

  • Shark

    EDITORIAL NOTE:

    PraticalJoe: “…I replied…
    What else could good ‘ole Tom say after screwing Sally Hemmings? That he believed in Nine of the Ten Commandments? Get the connection — Doofus?”

    DOOFUS: Christian term of endearment, Latin for “brother”, often used in place of “friend”, “companion”, and “I condescend to you, asshole”

    Now back to your regularly scheduled semi-literate ramblings trying to justify a *fundamentalist theocracy at home while we try to exterminate ’em abroad.

    * [see definition of “Irony” for more]

  • http://www.ov.mu.nu Ogre

    Is the ACLU Anti-Christian?

    Yes.

    Next question?

    Not enough of an answer? Okay, how about:
    Absolutely, 100%, most certainly, without any doubt whatsoever. And it’s one of their primary goals.

  • nugget

    shark, your posts make me cringe.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Now the real question, Ogre. Why should anyone care if the ACLU is anti-Christian? They’re a private group, not a government agency.

    Dave

  • http://caosblog.com Cao

    No, Jesus Christ wasn’t a communist, for crying out loud…people who preach that pacifist crap are also anti-military and anti-soldier, and Christ was in support of soldiers and the job they have to do. That’s why he said:

    “Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one’s life for his friends” (John 15:13).

    There is so much more on self defense and the right to kill someone if he’s coming after you, your family or your property, but leftists only take certain passages and twist them to use them for their own ends…

    Liberal commie lies, which fit totally in with what the ACLU does. The ACLU is going after all of the values that make us who we are. That’s pretty widely accepted; even the American Legion has declared a war against the ACLU. They’re anti-God, anti-military, anti-war-on-terror, you name it.

    And they’re pro pedophile, pro terrorist, pro NAMBLA, pro prostitution, pro decriminalization of drugs like marijuana (along the same lines as George Soros who is helping dems dive for dope dollars).

    They are ultimately about destroying American values and erecting a commie utopia in the vacuum. If you’ve ever seen one of the old posters from the Soviet Union about the evils of Christianity–the opiate of the people–and heard comments made by–Ted Turner, for example–not to mention that he’s an admirer of Castro-it’s not a difficult thing to bend your mind around if you look at the facts.

    The ACLU is all about defending well-known terrorists like Padilla and his non-existent rights, and the terrorists who are at Club Gitmo being treated as though they’re at some kind of resort. They’re not being treated as enemy combatants; the terrorists complain about having to listen to Christina Aguilara music. That’s no torture–torture is what the commies did to the POWs and Christian missionaries in Vietnam.

    What’s frightening to me is what our country will be like if this isn’t put to a rapid and immediate halt.

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com Michael J. West

    The ACLU is all about defending well-known terrorists like Padilla and his non-existent rights

    Now you’re treading on dangerous ground. Why are the rights of Padilla, an American citizen, non-existent?

  • http://kendersmusings.blogspot.com kender

    Damn Cao.

    That musta stung someone in here…..glad we are on the same side.

  • http://caosblog.com Cao

    Oh what I say always bugs the libs. That’s why you told me the name of my blog was perfect. To people who speak Gaelic, it’s Cao’s blog. To liberals, I make chaos in their minds…so it’s Chaos’ blog, lol.

    At any rate. The question is when is an American born citizen without rights?

    In the case of Padilla, it’s when he’s plotting to overthrow the government, covorting with members of Al Qaeda, and learning to make bombs. You know, like Richard Reid, Terry Nichols and Timothy McVeigh. Notice how far those guys got?

    In the first trial, it was found by the judge that there wasn’t enough evidence to detain him.

    Here’s the evidence that the government has on him that connects him with Al Qaeda and terrorist activities.

    According to the summary of evidence, Al Qaeda leaders had assigned Padilla and an accomplice to blow up as many as three high-rise apartment buildings by detonating natural gas explosions in two apartments rented in each building. One of his contacts, Adnan el Shukrijumah, was among seven suspects Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft asked Americans to be on the lookout for last week.

    During interrogation, Padilla admitted that he had been asked to target buildings in New York, Washington, D.C., or Florida, although he said he never intended to carry out the plan and it was merely a ruse so he could return to the United States, according to the Justice Department document.

    Other detainees interrogated about Padilla described the combination of targets as being in Chicago and Central United States, in California, or in Texas and along the Mexican border, according to the document.

    Padilla and an accomplice allegedly received training from an explosives expert in Afghanistan on assembling improvised detonators and timing devices. The training also included instruction on techniques for sealing an apartment so natural gas would build up inside, Comey said.

    When apprehended at O’Hare, Padilla was carrying more than $10,000 in cash allegedly provided by Al Qaeda and telephone numbers and e-mail addresses of alleged Al Qaeda operatives, Comey said.

    Padilla originally approached Al Qaeda leaders with a proposal to attack a U.S. city with a nuclear bomb that Padilla claimed he had learned how to build through the Internet, Comey said. But a skeptical Al Qaeda leader reportedly suggested Padilla build a simpler “dirty bomb” that would spread radioactive material through a conventional explosion.

    Al Qaeda leaders had doubts about the plots to use radioactive material and instructed Padilla to pursue the attacks against apartment buildings instead, Comey said.

    Padilla’s intentions doubted

    He added that the Al Qaeda leaders were never sure whether Padilla would follow his instructions or press forward with a radioactive bomb.

    Comey said much of the information the government obtained on the alleged plots came from the interrogation of Padilla after he was transferred to military custody and stripped of normal protections given criminal defendants.

    Comey, who was the chief federal prosecutor in Manhattan when Padilla was transferred to military custody, said that at the time he would have been unable to convict Padilla without endangering intelligence sources.

    He added that he thought it unlikely Padilla would have provided details of the alleged plot had he been allowed access to the court system.

    Comey said Padilla’s statements have been “heavily corroborated” by other detainees held as enemy combatants.

    Much of the summary outlining the case against Padilla mentions only his admissions. But the document cites statements from Al Qaeda operations chief Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and several other unnamed detainees corroborating elements of the alleged plot to blow up apartment buildings.

    The questioning of Padilla was done by the FBI and Defense Intelligence Agency, Comey said, adding, “I have great confidence that those folks did it the right way.”

  • http://caosblog.com Cao

    As far as I’m concerned the guy can rot in hell/jail and they can throw away the key.

  • http://caosblog.com Cao

    The fact that a guy like that can be supported by the ACLU–is funny and ridiculous. Most of the folks that the ACLU defends should be rotting in prison or sitting on death row. They SUPPORT and DEFEND domestic terrorists like Padilla who are working with Al Qaeda.

    We’ll see more bombings and eventually a nuke attack if this crap doesn’t stop. As far as I’m concerned in the WOT, the ACLU is in collusion with the Islamists and the Americans who are converting to Islam in prisons (and there are quite a number of them) who are looking and salivating to commit these acts.

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com Michael J. West

    Guess what, Cao? I agree. He SHOULD rot in jail, and they SHOULD throw away the key.

    They should also charge him with a crime.

    I don’t dispute that Padilla is a terrorist. I don’t dispute that he was involved in truly evil plans against America. I don’t dispute the evidence you put in your comment(s).

    What I dispute is the precedent that this case sets. If we have one American citizen who we are allowed to detain indefinitely without charging him with a crime, why not two? Or ten? Or ten million?

    If they don’t have to charge you with a crime, they don’t have to prove you committed the crime. So this sets a precdent that, in essence, allows the government to keep you incarcerated for as long as they want without having to demonstrate that you did anything to deserve it.

    You could be next, Cao. It doesn’t even matter if you’ve never had anything to do with any terrorism. They can say you did, lock you up for it, and have no need to prove that you’re guilty.

    As far as I’m concerned, Jose Padilla can (and should) go to our worst maximum security prison and die behind bars. But there’s a way to go about doing that, and if they don’t go by the book — by the Constitution — it undermines the very foundations of the United States of America.

  • http://www.ogresview.blogspot.com Ogre

    Dave — the reason one should care is that the primary source of funding today for the ACLU IS taxpayers — the ACLU sues government for CASH, and the government gives it to them — and government cannot give away money unless they first take it from taxpayers.

  • Shark

    nugget: “shark, your posts make me cringe.”

    Back atcha, babe.

    BTW: nugget, of all the insane, garrulous, obnoxious people on BC, why have you picked Shark to follow around and fuck with?

    Thanks in advance,
    S

    PS: take a number and get in line.

  • http://jcb.pentex-net.com John Bambenek

    Ok ladies, point to me one government in the history of mankind that has EVER treated people who engage in warfare against the state as criminals?

    It hasn’t happened because it’s stupid. You wage war, you get treated according to the rules of war.

    That’s not unconstitutional, Congress approves those treaties and writes the UCMJ.

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com Michael J. West

    Ok ladies, point to me one government in the history of mankind that has EVER treated people who engage in warfare against the state as criminals?

    It hasn’t happened because it’s stupid. You wage war, you get treated according to the rules of war.

    Bambenek, the rules of war assume that the person engaged in warfare against the state is not a member of the state.

    When the person engaged in warfare against the state is a CITIZEN of the state, OUR government has historically treated them as criminals. Timothy McVeigh, for example. Or, if you wish, Jefferson Davis, who was tried for treason against the United States. So were Julius and Ethel Rosenberg. All of whom engaged in some form of warfare or another against the state.

    Jose Padilla should also be tried for treason. And convicted for treason. As a U.S. citizen.

  • Sarah

    Can you imaginae a world without christians? There would be no love and compassion.

  • Jason

    There was a certain court case in a certain state in which the aclu was suing because of a cross which was a war memorial. The whole city voted to keep it. The aclu won the case(because of the liberal judge) and they tore it down. The aclu doesn’t even care about the people anymore. They must be stopped!

  • Nancy

    Actually, yes, I can: there would be less bigotry, less smearing of non-christians, less insistence on everybody living & believing as THEY believe … I could go on & on but I can’t help but think it might be a better world without them. Or muslims, or any other organized ripoff group, come to think of it.

  • uh60l

    I think John Lennon said it best:

    Imagine there’s no Heaven
    It’s easy if you try
    No hell below us
    Above us only sky
    Imagine all the people
    Living for today

    Imagine there’s no countries
    It isn’t hard to do
    Nothing to kill or die for
    And no religion too
    Imagine all the people
    Living life in peace

    I don’t think the world will ever know peace while it still embraces religion, national or otherwise.

    I don’t knwo much about the ACLU, but if they keep relion from being forced on me or my family, then I say more power to ’em.

  • http://catholicview.wordpress.com Disciple

    In response to those who think that Christianity is somehow akin to communism, I invite you to pick up a paperback copy of the Catechism and see what the Church actually teaches. And read what the popes have written about communism, socialism and the like. There is only the most superficial resemblance between the teachings of Christ and the ideologies of oppression that were responsible for so much suffering in the 20th century and continuing in the 21st.

  • http://catholicview.wordpress.com Disciple

    And as for nations where religion was outlawed, I invite you to look at the number of mass murders that took place in these lands that should be paradisical places of peace in the absence of oh-so-oppressive religion. Stalin’s Russia? Hitler’s Germany? These leaders crushed religions because the leaders and followers of those religions dared to stand up to them in defense of human rights. They were murdered by the millions for their trouble.

%d bloggers like this: