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.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - 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.
2 - 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.
3 - 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?
4 - 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.
5 - Dave Nalle
I don't see any evidence that the ACLU is specifically anti-Christian. They seem to be anti-religion in general.
Dave
6 - 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?
7 - 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
8 - 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.
9 - 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.
10 - 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...
11 - 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."
12 - 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
13 - 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.)
14 - 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.
15 - 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?
16 - 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'.
17 - 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.
18 - DrPat
Big difference between a national religion and a national leader with a religious preference, Searcher!
19 - 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.
20 - 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."
21 - 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.
22 - 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.
23 - 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.
24 - 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
25 - 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.