As far as the ACLU goes, based on my limited personal experience with them, the only part of the first Amendment they seem to care about is the "free speech" part, but when it comes to the "free exercise of religion" they patently ignore it.

If you have any *specific* cases which are documented which show a religious (or anti-religious) bias I would appreciate you posting it - thanks.

On second thought, given how often I seem to be misunderstood here, maybe I'd better clarify what I meant by my post about Google: I meant that however many thousand hits you get on Google on any topic is just how many times Google finds it on the 'net. It might show how popular a subject is, or how many idiots there are in the world, or how contraversial a subject is, but it is not proof of anything except how often it appears on the web.

Hello TWalker,

     Surely you jest. The ACLU being anti-Christian is a well-known fact for anyone living in America. It's all over the news and just about every media known to man. Try a Google search on of the following and see how many thousand hits you get:

"anti-Christian ACLU"

It's not any secret or mystery, it's said because they ARE and have over a 50 year track record to prove it. Any Christian would be aware of these facts, not "if's". You might also try television, newspapers, radio, books, etc., etc., etc. - more than 50 years of them. If you look at several thousand cases and arrive at a different opinion, we can agree to disagree.  

My very first post here acknowledged that a lot of Christians feel that the ACLU is anti-Christian. I already know that. I want to know *why* and *what reason* and whether they are correct or mistaken, and I don't care how many people hold this opinion if there is no proof. On the other hand, if I find definitive proof, I'll post it here if you are interested, and then you can post it when someone who looks for facts not bias and opinions and questions almost everything (like me!) comes along.

As far as Google hits, that's not even remotely valid.

38,700 results for anti-Christian ACLU

15,900,000 results for God is Dead

need I say more?

[A New Slavery, Forced Labor and the Communist Betrayal of Human Rights]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45959

Thanks much, I had actually seen that when I went looking for the whole Baldwin-communist connection. From what I've found so far, some of this is taken out of context and it doesn't tell the whole story - Baldwin apparently became disillusioned with the American Communist Party in the 1930's, left the party, and removed all communists from membership in the ACLU in 1940. I'm still looking for any details on that - how much is truth, what is documented, whether he did this out of fear of the HUAC, etc. This is a really complex bit, and most of what I've found is highly divergent - completely opposing views being presented as absolutes. Since there are a lot of quotes which make it clear at one point Baldwin was a communist and strongly opposed to capitolism, that's not a question or an issue - right now I'm trying to put together a timeline, get information on Baldwin post-1940, and find out whether he changed his position. Anyone can hold one idea and then change his mind, but did Baldwin, or not? All of which is really just a footnote to the ACLU as an organization, really.

http://www.harvardsquarelibrary.org/unitarians/baldwin.html

there was another article about Baldwin leaving the communist party but I cannot find the link right now.

There was a bit on a blog I ran across:
"The founder of the ACLU, Roger Baldwin, was indeed a Communist in his early years: he stated "I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control by those who produce wealth. Communism is, of course, the goal.

However, he became somewhat disillusioned and claimed to break ties with Communism in 1939 due to the Nazi-Soviet pact, and did become openly critical of the Soviet Union. In 1953 he wrote A New Slavery, Forced Labor and the Communist Betrayal of Human Rights, a polemnic against rights abuses in the USSR.

In 1947, Douglas MacArthur, no "red" himself, invited Baldwin to help establish a civil rights program in Japan. In 1948 Baldwin did the same in Austria and American Sector Germany.

The organization has also been active in promoting freedom to read, arguing against censorship of Ulysses, The Canturbury Tales, and even Harry Potter among others.

But the ACLU, though slightly more moderate than in its earlier days, has remained decidedly left of center. "

but I haven't had time to research the book Baldwin purportedly wrote, which would be strong evidence he broke completely with the communists. I mean, calling communism "slavery" would be strong evidence that he had changed his mind.

edited to add: the book is
Baldwin, R. N. (1953). A New Slavery, Forced Labor: The Communist Betrayal of Human Rights. New York, Oceana

and I cannot find the ISBN or anything else about it, if you do will you let me know? thanks!

[one]

TWalker,

I won't apologize for something I didn't do. I asked if you were recruiters for the ACLU and compared the dialog to a 3 Stooges episode. Go back and read it again for comprehension. In case you don't know, the 3 Stooges was a very old show on television and they made many episodes. You should expect comments like that when you come onto a Christian forum with a barrage of nothing but posts about the ACLU. What I said, I would say again. Typically, someone who starts like that is looking for trouble. I think that all but one of your posts fits into that same category - looking for trouble.

Moderator

Dear me, I don't know whether to laugh or to cry or to ask your definition of "looking for trouble" or ask which one post wasn't in that category.

Since you seem to have the most problems with my asking questions about the ACLU, it sounds like anyone who confesses ignorance and seeks truth is "looking for trouble."

[like]

The only thing my question causes is a separation between Christian and non-Christian. I did not ask your denomination or any dogmatic absolutes. I know many Christians that go to many various different churches of various denominations.

I know, which is why I answered your question. I'm sorry if I gave the impression of anything else - my bad communication if I did. My commentary before answering the question was just that it sounded like a catechism type question, and that type of question can sow discord.

[political question]

TWalker,
You now have 2 or 3 posts out of over 50 that are at least on Christian topics.

Silly me, I thought I was on the Politics and Political Issues forum. I asked a political question (Why do so many Christians have such animosity to the ACLU?) which is Political and a Christian concern both. If the ACLU is anti-Christian, then I want to know about it. But I'm wanting to know why people say they are.

Also on the subject of baptisms, I think the best thing I ever heard on the subject was Mark Lowry, who said "Whether you got sprinkled or you got dunked, if you weren't baptised in the Holy Spirit, you just got wet!"

I have met a lot of Christians who feel only their Christianity is the "true" Christianity. This sounds like that kind of catechism question, and I think ithat kind of thing serves only to sow dissent among Christians, which I don't think is a good idea. However, in answer to your question, I am a Lutheran (ELCA, not Missouri Synod) in good standing, and we believe:

in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
  the only Son of God,
  eternally begotten of the Father,
  God from God, Light from Light,
  true God from true God,
  begotten, not made,
  of one Being with the Father.
  Through him all things were made.
  For us and for our salvation
    he came down from heaven:
  by the power of the Holy Spirit
    he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
    and was made man.
  For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
    he suffered death and was buried.
    On the third day he rose again
      in accordance with the Scriptures;
    he ascended into heaven
      and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
  He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
    and his kingdom will have no end.

This makes me a Christian according to most standards, but I cannot take communion in a Catholic Church because they don't recognize my baptism, and my husband (who was a member for some time) tells me my baptism is no good in the Baptist Bible Fellowship International Church, either. I am sure a lot of churches wouldn't recognize me as a "true" Christian, which is a pity, isn't it? Which is why the name "ChristiansUnite" so attracted me, because it sounded like a group who were above such in-fighting and dogmatic absolutes.

Well, since you left out "Christian" I guess I'll have to say none of the above.

I almost didn't reply to this. Since you called me and my husband stooges and recruiters for the ACLU, and since your own rules state that "You agree, through your use of this forum, that you will not post any material which is false, defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing..." and you have never said in any way that you are willing to make peace, I was waiting patiently for you to realize your hypocrisy and offer the olive branch.


Luke 5:
   22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

   23 Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee;

   24 Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.

[not]

OK...legalistic hair splitting.

And I'm not so sure saying Christianity isn't a "Judeo-Christian" isn't veiled anti-semetism.

Denying the Christain religion has its roots in Judiaism is a step in the same direction. After all, Jesus was a Jew.

Its grammatical hair-splitting, and the whole point of it was to try to prevent this kind of misunderstanding.

I did not say Christianity isn't part of a  "Judeo-Christian" tradition.

I did not deny the Christain religion has its roots in Judiaism.

I said a person, singular, cannot be a "Judeo-Christian"

Sounds to me like a bunch of legal hair-splitting, and perhaps even some veiled anti-semetism....

legal no, hair-splitting I'll grant you - but I'd prefer to be precise and accurate rather than have misunderstandings. They are too common as it is.

Anti-semetic? Definately not!

This is a hoax from 2002. Please check before posting, you can cause needless worry.

It might help to read http://truthminers.com/hoaxarticles/virus_hoaxes1.htm

this hoax:

http://www.symantec.com/avcenter/venc/data/life.is.beautiful.hoax.html

http://vmyths.com/hoax.cfm?id=277&page=3

http://www.breakthechain.org/exclusives/lifevirus.html

http://us.mcafee.com/virusInfo/default.asp?id=description&virus_k=99307

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/l/lifeisbeautfiul.htm

http://www.snopes.com/computer/virus/life.asp

http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_life_is_beautiful.htm

[being]

And there is no such thing as a "Judeo-Christian" unless you are speaking of Messianic Jews, who are by definition not Christian. I am well aware it is almost as popular a buzz-word as Neo-Nazi or Girly Man, but it is an oxymoron and has no intrinsic logical meaning.

Then how come the the Christian Bible includes the sacred Hebrew Text (Old Testament), and Christains use the Messianic prophecies of the OT to demonstrate Jesus is Messiah?

You are referring to the concept of a "Judeo-Christian tradition" whereas if you read the post carefully you will see that JudgeNot (not Pastor Roger as I erroneously stated earlier, apologies to both!) referred to being Judeo-Christian. I responded saying that there is no such thing as a "Judeo-Christian". We are talking about a person, not a concept or tradition. One can say I am a Christian, or I am a Baptist, or I am a woman, but one cannot say I am a Judeo-Christian because its not a religion.

[being]

JudgeNot: Not only did you not at any time confuse me, I never even responded to your post. I responded to, and quoted, Pastor Roger's post.

Well, shut my mouth.

I was certain I typed

Oh – except for being Judeo-Christian

In the first post I mistakenly made in this thread.  

So you were simply using words from my post to reply to PR.

I understand.  You're not confused.

Oh sorry I was thinking that was from Pastor Roger!
In that case, allow me to correct myself:
No, you didn't confuse me (although I missed who the author was, apologies!)

There is no such religion as "Judeo-Christian" ergo there is no such thing as being Judeo-Christian.