Is The ACLU A PAGAN GROUP?

[Penny_Plain]

Lisa N:

I don’t believe someone has the right to force THEIR views on a private organization or be threatened with legal action by the ACLU. IOW were the BSA to embrace homosexuals and let the kids pledge to be morrally corrupt, I sincerely doubt if the ACLU would have the slightest interest in them.

I think the Boy Scouts should be able to keep out Asians and the left-handed, if they want to. Don’t you?

 

[gilliam]

Penny Plain:

I think the Boy Scouts should be able to keep out Asians and the left-handed, if they want to. Don’t you?

The Boy Scout handshake is left handed… I know… but I couldn’t resist

 

[Penny_Plain]

gilliam:

The Boy Scout handshake is left handed… I know… but I couldn’t resist

I know. That’s how they catch them; they watch verrryyy carefully to see who enjoys it.

 

[Michael_C]

The Anti Civil liberties Union picks and chooses where they make a stand. I’m sure throughout their history a couple of cases can be argued as actually being well founded. Recently their cases take an anti christian stance and I fail to see where they are protecting civil liberties and applying common sense. They serve their own self interest and nothing more.

 

[Lisa_N]

Penny Plain:

I think the Boy Scouts should be able to keep out Asians and the left-handed, if they want to. Don’t you?

Come on Penny, do we have to use ridiculous examples? You are like Catholic2003 in responding with some totally silly argument that is not even relevant.

This is a club. Clubs generally have rules. No one is compelled to join a club, particularly if they have a fundamental disagreement with the club’s philosophy or if they do not qualify for membership. I guess MENSA should be forced to admit people with double digit IQs? Is it fair to exclude people who are not of extreme intelligence? Gee I wonder why the ACLU hasn’t gone after MENSA?

It would seem more productive, as you suggested with the Christmas carols, that if you disagree with the club’s fundamental message, don’t join. There are many clubs that have various restrictions on membership. It just happens the BSA has run afoul of the ACLU’s recent pet cause, homosexual activists. Thus the seemingly endless attacks.

The BSA has an objective of developing morally straight young men. Something that would prevent this goal from being met seems counterproductive. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to restrict homesexual scoutmasters. Do you? I think it’s also reasonable to disallow male scoutmasters for GIRL scouts. Let’s not be so open minded our brains fall out. There is a REASON for this prohibition. Further when deciding on a moral issue, ask if some great evil is being promoted by the restriction. Preventing Asians from joining is promoting the evil of racism. Is there some great evil perpetrated by not allowing homsexuals to sleep in tents with boys?

This seems so obvious so I am assuming you are deliberately being obtuse.

Lisa N

 

[Lisa_N]

Catholic2003:

It’s pretty hard to do steps 2 and 3 without having a belief in God. I suppose addicts could fake it, but what’s the point in going into a program if you don’t intend to follow it?

This is from the website

Alcoholics Anonymous® is a fellowship of men and women who share their experience, strength and hope with each other that they may solve their common problem and help others to recover from alcoholism. The only requirement for membership is a desire to stop drinking. There are no dues or fees for AA membership; we are self-supporting through our own contributions. AA is not allied with any sect, denomination, politics, organization or institution; does not wish to engage in any controversy, neither endorses nor opposes any causes. Our primary purpose is to stay sober and help other alcoholics to achieve sobriety

---

Like the Boy Scouts they do refer to a ‘Higher Power’ but to say atheists cannot join or that they should be shunted off to other programs is not necessarily the right choice.

I recall a very interesting essay by CS Lewis in which he says there are no real atheists. EVERYONE has a god. Little g. I know people whose god is Science…my parents for example. Other people worship the god of money. Maybe alcoholics have alcohol or being an alcoholic as the thing they worship.

At any rate while this is off topic, I see many similarities between BSA and AA. I am surprised that the ACLU hasn’t attacked AA. After all many chapters meet in public buildings. OTOH since AA has no agenda with respect to homosexuals, I guess they are safe.

Lisa N

 

[Catholic2003]

I looked up the BSA on the ACLU web site; here is one of the cases. New Jersey passed a Law Against Discrimination which forbids discrimination based on sexual orientation in public accommodations. And the ACLU feels that the BSA should be subject to state laws, just like every other person and organization.

Clearly a Satanic concept. Everyone knows that organizations like the BSA support God, so they shouldn’t have to follow the same rules as everyone else. Conversely, organizations like NAMBLA go against God, so they shouldn’t even have basic civil liberties, like the right to free speech or legal representation. And anyone who doesn’t see this doesn’t understand what the founding fathers really intended, and aren’t good Catholics to boot!

Wow. Do they even teach civics anymore? Or did everyone opt out because civil liberties are un-American?

 

[Catholic2003]

Brad:

NAMBLA is a group of perverts that dream about molesting and raping children. Their promotion of debauchery and wicked practices that are not only reprehensible in terms of morals but also prey on innocent children leaves one place for their non-repentant eternal souls - the worst level of Hell. If someone from this group ends up killing someone, it is a natural extension of the death of the soul and dignity that they promote. It took a lot of sympathy for evil for the ACLU to take the case. The people in this group should be in jail.

I guess John Adams, a founding father and our second president, had a lot of sympathy for evil as well:

Later that morning a thirty-four-year-old Boston attorney, John Adams, was visited in his office near the stairs of the Town Office by a Boston merchant. “With tears streaming from his eyes” (according to the recollection of Adams), the merchant, James Forest, asked Adams to defend the soldiers and their captain, Thomas Preston. Adams understood that taking the case would not only subject him to criticism, but might jeopardize his legal practice or even risk the safety of himself and his family. But Adams believed deeply that every person deserved a defense, and he took on the case without hesitation. For his efforts, he would receive the modest sum of eighteen guineas.

John Adams, in his old age, called his defense of British soldiers in 1770 “one of the most gallant, generous, manly, and disinterested actions of my whole life, and one of the best pieces of service I ever rendered my country.” That’s quite a statement, coming as it does from perhaps the most underappreciated great man in American history.

From here and here. This is what they taught in civics class back when I went to school.

 

[HagiaSophia]

Catholic2003:

I guess John Adams, a founding father and our second president, had a lot of sympathy for evil as well:

Anyone who could confuse an organization perpetrating such fiendish behaviior against children with the Judge Advocate’s Office arranging for the proper defense of military from the opposing side has clarity problems.

 

[Catholic2003]

HagiaSophia:

Anyone who could confuse an organization perpetrating such fiendish behaviior against children with the Judge Advocate’s Office arranging for the proper defense of military from the opposing side has clarity problems.

Anyone who thinks that there are some people or groups so evil that they do not deserve to have access to legal representation has problems understanding the concept of civil liberties.

 

[Exporter]

I asked if the ACLU was a Pagan organization. No one has said that it is Pagan, even though it’s fruits are Pagan.

To determine the root cause, validity, the essence of an organization or a concept, one needs to carry the actions of that organization to the extreme and see what the ultimate result would be. I will save time and start from the front end of that exercise.

The ACLU “IS” a pagan organization. It is directed by stooges of SATAN. The Communists helped the ACLU in the shaky early days. As the ACLU has started to recieve Federal funding, and a well-known billionaire Liberal has given millions - the ACLU has started to attack the thing that holds America together - Religion. The aim of the ACLU is to eradicate God, Jesus or any Christian vestiges from America. They have just begun. Once God and Jesus is removed from America, the SATAN can take over.

If it looks like a duck…etc IT IS A DUCK. If it promotes Satan’s objectives, then it is directed by Satan.

 

[Lisa_N]

Catholic2003:

I looked up the BSA on the ACLU web site; here is one of the cases. New Jersey passed a Law Against Discrimination which forbids discrimination based on sexual orientation in public accommodations. And the ACLU feels that the BSA should be subject to state laws, just like every other person and organization.

?

Except you aren’t acknowledging that BSA is a PRIVATE organization. No “public accommodations” involved. I believe that this was an issue with the BSA and they were deemed private and able to set their own standards in a court case. In fact I believe it was the Supreme Court that made this decision.

An analogy is that PRIVATE golf course that does not allow women. Remember they had some big golf tournament there and some wacko feminazis (sorry couldn’t resist) were determined to march on the organization and demand that they accept women? Even though discrimination based on sex is far more established than any state rules on sexual orientation, this club has been able to maintain its all male membership. Again it’s a private club.

If BSA were something other than a private club they would be subject to different standards. They are not.

sbcoral I think keeps making references to “government support” yet no one has indicated ANY government support for the BSA and I am still convinced the real agenda is the progay activists,not any legitimate concern about the BSA blocking others’ civil rights.

Lisa N

 

[Digitonomy]

Lisa N:

OK so tell me exactly what civil liberties are being thwarted by the Boy Scouts? They do not have to believe in God, as we Christians perceive God.

Scout Oath
On my honor, I will do my best, to do my duty, to God and my country, to obey the Scout Law, to keep myself physically fit, mentally awake, and morally straight.

Atheists are excluded from Scouting, as are some Hindus and others that cannot in good conscience pledge that oath. The Boy Scouts are not generally thwarting anyone’s civil liberties. They are a private organization, and their right to exclude members that are gay, atheist, or left-handed was upheld in Boy Scouts v. Dale.

When the Scouts get government support of some kind, however, the government is required to provide that support within the narrow limits of the establishment clause. I haven’t followed things closely, but I’m not aware of any cases since Dale where the Scouts have been defendants in a case brought by the ACLU. Because the BSA isn’t doing anything wrong. It’s the government that is sometimes providing unconstitutional support for religious activity.

-Digitonomy, former Scout and proud of it

 

[Digitonomy]

I should point out that besides the establishment clause in the US Constitution’s First Amendment, there is also state and city non-discrimination legislation which sometimes applies to the Boy Scouts.
Lisa N:

sbcoral I think keeps making references to “government support” yet no one has indicated ANY government support for the BSA

The Department of Defense issued a statement the other week prohibiting the direct sponsorship of Scout troops by military bases, implicitly admitting that this sponsorship had been a practice.

I’ll arbitrarily divide government support into three categories.

1. 
   *]Direct sponsorship. When I was in Cub Scouts, the pack was chartered by my elementary school. I assume our meetings in the gym were free of charge, although I could be wrong on that.
   *]Simple use of facilities. This is generally permitted, so long as every group has equal rights to use the facilities. For instance, there is a “church” that uses my old high school gym on Sunday morning. I’m sure they pay for the priviledge. However, as I mentioned above, I think sometimes state and local law can prohibit groups that discriminate (in whatever way the law spells out) from using public property. So if such a local law were in place, that “church” might not be able to lease the gymnasium for an hour every week. There is no such federal law, so Scout troops can continue to use military bases on the same terms that any other private group does.
   *]Finally, sweetheart deals that effectively support a group. The example I noticed at the ACLU site was San Diego leasing some prime park with a boating cove to the Scouts for $1 per year. When I was in middle school, I had to sit through a 45-minute recruitment talk for the Boy Scouts. It was a drag, as I was already a member. In both these examples, a government body is giving up something (fair market value of park, classroom time of students) because it feels the benefit to that organization will also benefit society. In both these examples, such actions are no longer permitted because courts have ruled they violate the establishment clause. It should be noted that cities and schools will often make sweetheart deals with organizations - leasing some old building at reduced rate to a museum, for example - but they are not permitted to act preferentially when it is a religious organization involved.
   
   A pity really, but that’s the current state of constitutional law. I don’t fault the ACLU for holding parts of the government accountable to the law.

 

[JMJ_Pinoy]

ACLU is anti-Christian

Monday, December 13, 2004

In response to the ACLU athiest who said the American Civil Liberties Union works to protect all Americans (December 3)"ACLU right to block Boy Scouts on military bases,"], history shows that this couldn’t be further from the truth.

I cannot think of one time where the ACLU, or as I call them, the Anti-Christian Liberal Union has ever stood up for the rights of Christians.

Why is it that no response is given from the ACLU concerning other faiths besides Christianity?

Why is the ACLU working so hard to get the cross on the seal of the county of Los Angeles removed, but refused to say anything when children of a California school district were forced to read the Koran, and recite Muslim scripture and prayers as part of the school curriculum?

The ACLU passionately maintains that the 1st Amendment of the United States is meant to make the US completely “non-religious”. This couldn’t be further from the truth.

People can practice their faith whenever, and wherever they choose. But in a double-standard, the ACLU has never, that I can remember, blocked Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Taoists, or people from any other faith from practicing their religion, except for Christians.

Why do they work so fervently to get nativity scenes removed from city halls and county courthouses, but have said nothing about the star of David on the back of the United States seal?

I have no problem with the star being there, but it strikes my curiosity that this ACLU athiest who believes the ACLU works for all Americans didn’t mention one time where the ACLU has blatantly attacked Christian symbols and the Christian faith.

The author of the previous letter stated that he can’t turn a corner on a military base to be reminded that Christians are in the demographic majority, and aren’t afraid to exploit it.

Well, sir, I cannot turn on the TV without being reminded by secular humanists and athiests that sex, drugs, money, power, and fame motivate this society we live in which has completely forgotten the moral fibers that this country were founded on. The homosexual agenda is being shoved down our throats.

The Boy Scouts of America is about teaching boys how to be men, to respect society, and to love their families. How can they learn to be men if their scoutmasters are homosexuals who act like women? I don’t mean any disrespect to homosexuals, but I do not understand this.

He also stated that he doesn’t want a private organization that discriminates against non-believers and homosexuals finding shelter where he lives and works.

Well, sir, I don’t want the agenda of the secular humanists, homsexuals, and athiests being forced upon me like it is now on television. Everytime I turn on the TV, some person on there is saying how we should be more tolerant of those who are different than us, yet the ACLU has absolutely no tolerance for Christians. None at all.

I’m a Democrat. I voted for John Kerry. And I think the reason why Bush won is because people are sick and tired of liberals shoving their ideas down the throats of the citizens of this country.

If the ACLU, or again, the Anti-Christian Liberal Union is an organization to protect ALL Americans, why do they refuse to protect the rights of Christian-Americans?

We have rights too.

Don’t forget that there are God-fearing, honest, truth-driven people who care about what happens to this country. But I guess because we are in the moral-majority, according to the ACLU, we should have no rights.

Adam Deadmond
Centralia

illinoisleader.com/letters/lettersview.asp?c=21438

 

[JMJ_Pinoy]

For those card carrying ACLU members, I have some reading material for you:

“No purpose of action against religion can be imputed to any legislation, State or national, because this is a religious people…this is a Christian nation.

From the discovery of this continent to the present hour, there is a single voice making this affirmation.

The commission to Christopher Columbus…that “it is hoped that by God’s assistance some of the continents and islands in the ocean will be discovered,”etc. The first colonial grant—that made to Sir Walter Raleigh in 1584—…and the grant authorizing him to enact statutes for the government of the proposed colony provided that “they be not against the true Christian faith…”

The first charter of Virginia, granted by King James I in 1606…commenced the grant in these words: ”…in propagating of Christian Religion to such People as yet live in Darkness…”

Language of similar import may be found in…the various charters granted to the other colonies.

In language more or less emphatic is the establish of the Christian religion declared to be one of the purposes of the grant. The celebrated compact made by the Pilgrims in the Mayflower, 1620, recites: ”Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and advancement of the Christian faith…a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts…”

The fundamental orders of Connecticut, under which a provisional government was instituted in 1638-1639, commence with this declaration: ”…And well knowing where a people are gathered together the word of God requires that to maintain the peace and union…there should be an orderly and decent government established according to God…to maintain and preserve the liberty and purity of the gospel of our Lord Jesus which we now profess…of the said Gospel which is now practiced amongst us.”

In the charter of privileges granted by William Penn to the province of Pennsylvania, in 1701, it is recited:”…no people can be truly happy, though under the greatest enjoyment of civil liberties, if abridged of…their religious profession and worship…”

Coming nearer to the present time, the Declaration of Independence recognizes the presence of the Divine in human affairsin these words: ”We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…”; ”…appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions…”; ”And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the Protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.”

We find that in Updegraph v. The Commonwealth, 11 S. & R. 394, 400, it was decided that,”Christianity, general Christianity, is and always has been, a part of the common law…not Christianity with an established church…but Christianity with liberty of conscience to all men.”

And in The People v. Ruggles, 8 Johns. 290, 294, 295, Chancellor Kent, The great commentator on American law, speaking as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of New York, said:”The people of this State, in common with the people of this country, profess the general doctrines of Christianity, as the rule of their faith and practiced…We are a Christian people, and the morality of the country is deeply engrafted upon Christianity, and not upon the doctrines or worship of those imposters (other religions).”

And in the famous case of Vidal v. Girard’s Executors, 2 How. 127, 198, this Court…observed:”It is also said, and truly, that the Christian religion is a part of the common law.”

There is no dissonance in these declarations. There is a universal language pervading them all, having one meaning; they affirm and reaffirm that this is a religious nation.

These are not individual sayings, declarations of private persons: they are organic (legal) utterances; they speak the voice of the entire people.

Steve O’Connor
Rochelle

illinoisleader.com/letters/lettersview.asp?c=21438

 

[Brad]

Penny Plain:

Temper, temper. I’ll settle for American laws based on the American Constitution, a document that appears to embrace religious pluralism. I still don’t understand why the founding fathers’ private lives and private writings have anything to do with what’s written in black and white.

Why can’t you play a Christmas song in a school band? Depends on whether we’re talking about a public school or a private school. Depends on whether we’re talking about “The First Noel” or “Frosty the Snowman.”

I would say you cannot play “The First Noel” in a public school Christmas concert because it deals specifically with a religious matter, and religious matters are not for the public schools.

If you don’t like it, form your own band, send your child to a private school, or wear a walkman and listen to music that you find more pleasing.

The fact that we’re having this conversation at all, Brad, shows that you place value on dialogue and the freedom of people to express differing views on topics that are important to society. That’s exactly what the ACLU does; you just denounce it because you don’t like the views it expresses.

I think the ACLU would be happy for you to do that, and they probably even would defend your right to call them a bunch of satanically inspired morons.

What a funny world we live in.

You are right. I am being extremely patient with you and allowing diaglogue to continue.

The reason I’m being extremely patient is that you proclaim to be Catholic and yet you have not problem with the ACLU taking AWAY the rights of Christians.

You have yet to address the entire first ammendment. It says that goverment should not establish a religion NOR prohibit free excercise thereof. How is singing “Noel” as part of a school concert establishing a religion? I can tell you how it is restricting the free excercise thereof. This is against this constitution that you seem to hold so dear. I truly believe in the constitution - not something that you want to misinterpret as such.

So, let’s review:

1. You are wrong on your interpretation of the constitution
2. You are wrong suggesting that a Catholic should support the right to exist of an organization that promotes the benefits of molesting and raping children.

 

[Catholic2003]

Lisa N:

Except you aren’t acknowledging that BSA is a PRIVATE organization. No “public accommodations” involved. I believe that this was an issue with the BSA and they were deemed private and able to set their own standards in a court case. In fact I believe it was the Supreme Court that made this decision.

It’s the courts that do the acknowledging, not me. The BSA needs to figure out if it wants to be considered a public accomodation, with the benefits (access to military bases, etc.) and responsibilities (compliance with non-discrimination law), or not. All the ACLU-bashers here seem to think that the BSA should have all the benefits but none of the responsibilities, just like Christianity should be given preferred treatment under the law.

Here is an excerpt from the ACLU web-page on the BSA case:

Dale sued, charging his expulsion from the Boy Scouts violated New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination, which forbids discrimination based on sexual orientation in public accommodations. The trial court granted summary judgment to the Boy Scouts, holding that: (1) the organization was not a public accommodation under New Jersey law; (2) if it were, it would meet the law’s exception for organizations which are distinctly private; and (3) in any case, subjecting the Boy Scouts to New Jersey’s antidiscrimination law would violate the organization’s freedom of expressive association. Id. at 580.

The Appellate Division reversed on all three points, holding that the Boy Scouts is a public accommodation under the L.A.D. and is not distinctly private. It also rejected the Scouts’ freedom of intimate and expressive association claims. 308 N.J.Super. 516 (1998). That decision was in all respects affirmed by the New Jersey Supreme Court. 160 N.J. 562.

If you don’t like the law, then fine. If you don’t like the court’s decision, then fine. That’s what the U.S. Supreme Court is for. But accusing the ACLU of Satanism merely because it wants organizations to obey the laws of the states is utter nonsense.

<DRAMATIC OVERSTATMENT WARNING>
People who are easily offended by dramatic overstatement should not read the next paragraph.

What will you guys come up with next, accusing the “feminazis” of witchcraft, and put them through trial by fire or trial by water?
<END DRAMATIC OVERSTATEMENT>

 

[Trelow]

It all comes down to: Why would someone who claims to be a Christian promote an organization who seeks remove any references to religion from our country?

Have you collected your silver yet?

 

[Catholic2003]

Trelow:

It all comes down to: Why would someone who claims to be a Christian promote an organization who seeks remove any references to religion from our country?

Have you collected your silver yet?

It’s becoming clear to me that your problem isn’t so much with the ACLU as it is with the idea of civil liberties themselves, in particular, as they are embodied in the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution. Well, you’ll be glad to know that there are plenty of countries that don’t have civil liberties, and what’s more, you are perfectly free to move to any of them. God bless America, land of the free!