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

Is the ACLU Anti-Christian?

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin 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.

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.
  • 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…

  • 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


    Frivolous spending of time; dawdling.
    Playful flirtation?



  • 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


  • 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]”


    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?

  • 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.

  • 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.


  • 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.

  • 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?

  • 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.

  • 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?

  • 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.

  • 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


    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]

  • Ogre

    Is the ACLU Anti-Christian?


    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.

  • 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.


  • 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.

  • 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?

  • kender

    Damn Cao.

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

  • 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.”

  • Cao

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

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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,

    PS: take a number and get in line.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.