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?…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments26 - 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.
27 - 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...
28 - 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...
29 - Michael J. West
Still wondering what "so help us God" proves...
30 - 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.
31 - 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.
32 - 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.
33 - 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?
34 - RogerMDillion
To the Fifth Dentist, the author should have been a dead giveaway.
35 - 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."
36 - 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.
37 - 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.
38 - 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?
39 - 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?
40 - 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?
41 - Shark
Ooooooh, Commies! Scary!
42 - 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.
43 - troll
So we agree - NGOs watchdogging the implementation of US law must all be banned
troll
44 - 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
45 - 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.
46 - 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
47 - 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
48 - 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...
49 - 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
50 - 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.
51 - 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?
52 - 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?
53 - The Searcher
Oh you win, Practical Joe, that's an irrefutable argumentum ad hominem...
54 - 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.
55 - The Searcher
Yes, it be that too.
56 - practical joe
"dalliance"?
Frivolous spending of time; dawdling.
Playful flirtation?
NO.
SCREWING!
57 - Michael J. West
Now he's engaging in a complete change of subject.
58 - 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
59 - 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?
60 - 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.
61 - 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
62 - 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.
63 - 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?
64 - 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.
65 - 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?
66 - 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".
67 - 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.
68 - 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.
69 - 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]
70 - 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.
71 - nugget
shark, your posts make me cringe.
72 - 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
73 - 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.
74 - 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?
75 - kender
Damn Cao.
That musta stung someone in here.....glad we are on the same side.