Whats wrong with this picture?

[TWalker]

JudgeNot,

Thanks! I "get it" now.

This has been quite an experience so far. I registered and posted with two questions, and wow, what an avalanche! I am a little overwhelmed.

So, if I understand you correctly, you're saying that the ACLU defends "good guys" and "bag guys" (to use my terminology, above) and just because they defend "good guys" that doesn't excuse them defending "bad guys" - is that basically the point?

[JudgeNot]

This has been quite an experience so far. I registered and posted with two questions, and wow, what an avalanche! I am a little overwhelmed.

 That means we is doin' our jobs!!  

So, if I understand you correctly, you're saying that the ACLU defends "good guys" and "bag guys" (to use my terminology, above) and just because they defend "good guys" that doesn't excuse them defending "bad guys" - is that basically the point?

 That is a fair assessment of my right-thinking mentality.

I believe that the ACLU's ultimate goal is to undermine God, and their defense of religion in isolated instances is an attempt to veil their true intensions.  If I may again quote the founders of the ACLU:

"I seek social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and sole control of those who produced the wealth: communism is the goal." - Roger Baldwin, ACLU founder, Harvard Reunion Book, 1935

"The establishment of an American Soviet government will involve the confiscation of large landed estates in town and country, and also, the whole body to forests, mineral deposits, lakes, rivers and so on." - William Z. Foster, ACLU co-founder and former chairman, Communist Party USA.

[TWalker]

Thanks much, JudgeNot. This is exactly the kind of detail I was looking for.

That said, please bear with me as I ask a few more questions (I may not be the brightest bulb in the box, or the sharpest stick in the quiver, but I try to be careful and thorough to help make up for it!)

I feel I must disregard your quote from William Z. Foster, unless you have a compelling reason to consider it as an ACLU statement. It seems to be that without knowing in what context he made the statement, it cannot be taken as an ACLU intent but rather as a Communist Party intent. As he was co-founder of the ACLU and former chairman of the Communist Party I cannot help but think that a quote talking about the "American Soviet government" must be part of the Communist Party platform, not the ACLU platform.

The Roger Baldwin quote is presented as a Harvard Reunion Book quote, yes? Also not ACLU platform statement.

So you have quoted the founders of the ACLU, from back in the 1930s. Further, neither quote is attributed as a platform statement of the ACLU, but rather private statements from founders. This is certainly smoke, but thin and whispy smoke. Further, both quotes revolve around communism, not undermining God - bear with me a minute here please - and communism in the 1930s was a rather amorphous social idea, not what we think of today as communism. Many Christians believed communism was the best way for a Christian to live, because all would be brothers, there would be no "rich men" who couldn't get into heaven, no oppression, etc. They thought Christ's teachings supported communism. He told people to give up their worldly possessions and to follow him in a vow of poverty. He communed. He wanted everyone to share what they had. Communism is the elimination of private property, a system in which goods are owned as common property. That's all it really is. What is became, what is now called "communism" isn't what the communists of the 1930's thought they were talking about.

"And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common." - Acts 4:32

All of which means that a Christian in the 1930's could easily be persuaded that communism was the ideal way for a Christian to live. Not saying they all thought that, just saying that some did. Well, I guess it looked good at the time. That was before the communists decided religion was Bad, and so on, and it morphed into the communistic socialism we know today.  - I understand there are still some Christian Communists out there, who reject the whole "God is wrong" philosophy of most communists, I don't know much about them.

Now, Mr. Baldwin and Mr. Foster may well have been Atheists, or Christians, or anything, but my question is not, what did the founders of the ACLU espouse, or what were their personal beliefs, or had they been saved. It is, why do you think the ACLU's ultimate goal is to undermine God? To which you offer two quotes espousing communism, which I do not believe was anti-Christian at the time the quotes were made, and what appears to be a conspiracy theory. Well, it may be so - not all conspiracy theories are false, just as they are not all true. But I will need something more substantial than those two quotes to convince me that they have a hidden agenda. The ACLU's stated mission is to defend civil rights for all. Neither of these quotes shows otherwise.

So here are my questions - is there more to these quotes? Are they part of official ACLU literature, or do you have additional reason for thinking they are? Do you have anything more recent than 1935? Anything ACLU rather than people who founded or worked for the ACLU?


thanks again - If I start to annoy you, please let me know! But I really appreciate you taking the time to help me explore this and clear up this because it has been a big question mark in my mind for years!

[Soldier4Christ]

Pastor Roger,

Thanks for the clarification, I was confused when I read your post!

Unfortunately, I am again confused - In what way has the ACLU shown that it wants to destroy the Constitution, or support Communism? I would appreciate any links or facts you could provide. I prefer to be corrected, always, rather than adhere to an opinion once it has been shown to be wrong.

thanks again! and especially because you are answering one of my two questions in my post. I asked "why" and have gotten kindof blasted... so getting a "why" answer is really nice!

My intent was not to "blast" you but to give some friendly advice as to "what not to say". People can have opposing views without belittling others with comments such as .....  

Hating the ALCU because they defend the rights of those we disagree with is amazingly asinine.

The ACLU supports Christians when it fits their agenda to do so. The majority of the time they go against Christians. There was an event in one school (already posted somewhere here on this forum) where the ACLU sued in support of a homosexual club and won their lawsuit. Then when a Christian group got together using the exact same rules as the other club (rules that the ACLU had set forth)  the ACLU went to court to try to overturn the decision in order to shut down the Christian club.

[TWalker]

My intent was not to "blast" you but to give some friendly advice as to "what not to say". People can have opposing views without belittling others with comments such as .....  

Hating the ALCU because they defend the rights of those we disagree with is amazingly asinine.

I don't see that as belittling anyone, perhaps it is badly phrased, but I stand by it as not an attack on anyone nor a put-down of anyone nor in any way meant to belittle anyone. If anyone feels belittled by that statement, I will endeavor to correct that misapprehension of my meaning.

If you find the ACLU case you mention where the ACLU did one thing on the homosexual case, and something else on the Christian case, please let me know! I would be very interested to see that. I've looked but haven't found it yet - maybe I just haven't looked enough yet.

[nChrist]

Brothers and Sisters,

The reasons for my thoughts about the ACLU are all over the forum, in the news every day, and a dark portion of American history. In short, I view them as worse and more destructive than terrorists. If they've ever done anything good or decent for this country, they made a mistake, and the person responsible for it was probably fired.

Just do a search on the forum for "ACLU" and you will have a small sample. Their claim to fame is anti-Christ, anti-Christian, anti-God,  removal of religious liberty, and destruction of the principles America was founded on. Over 200 years of American history defines what the real America is. So, it really isn't a debate at all for the vast majority of Americans - the ACLU is anti-American and against just about everything this country stands for. As a result, the vast majority of Americans would contribute generously to purchase one-way tickets out of America for the ACLU and anyone who supports them. This would obviously involve a contract that they never come back.

I'm far too shy on this subject or I would have much more to say. There is only one thing that would change my opinion of the ACLU - that they cease to exist and give us some time to erase them from our memory completely.

Love In Christ,
Tom

Psalms 73:26 NASB  My flesh and my heart may fail, But God is the strength of my heart and my portion forever.

[TWalker]

blackeyedpeas,

Thank you for taking the time to post on this, especially as it is apparant this is an upsetting topic for you.

I have searched, and read, and ... I see many charges - you make some yourself - "anti-Christ, anti-Christian, anti-God,  removal of religious liberty, and destruction of the principles America was founded on, Anti-American". Very strong charges all. The reason I am asking my questions - and again, thank you for posting at all! I am not asking for more from you - is because there are all these strong charges, with absolutely no supporting evidence that I can find anywhere. It seems to be a case of "everyone thinks this, I don't need to explain" but I am, in fact, looking for why. For the evidence. Because all I can find on the ACLU is that they support religious freedom unconditionally, they support separation of church and state, and they defend everyone's civil rights, regardless of whether the individual is exemplary or reprehensible, because they are defending his or her rights, not his or her moral values etc. I am not trying to start a debate *at all*! I am asking in all honesty, why are so many Christians so anti-ACLU? and for evidence of the charges. So far I have gotten a partial answer to "why" but not much on "why do you think that about the ACLU" (evidence to support the charges against them.) But we're making progress (thanks JudgeNot and Pastor Roger!)

thanks much - to everyone who is helping me in this search. And thanks to those who don't have the time or inclination to participate, for understanding my question.

[Soldier4Christ]

This is a repost of a news article for TWalker,


LAW OF THE LAND
ACLU caught red-handed?
Changes view of precedent when it favors Christian group
Posted: April 23, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

The ACLU's support of a legal precedent used to gain recognition of a student homosexual group has reversed now that the ruling is being used to back the rights of a Christian club on campus, claims a public-interest law firm.

The Associated Student Body at Kentridge High School in Kent, Wash., has rejected the Truth Bible Club because it required all members to adhere to a code of Christian conduct and voting members to sign a statement of faith. Also, the name of the club was deemed "offensive" and "proselytizes."

The case is governed by the Equal Access Act, a federal statute that requires schools to treat student clubs equally, notes the Arizona-based Alliance Defense Fund, which is defending the Truth Bible Club.

In Prince v. Jacoby, ADF argues, the Ninth Circuit held that denying official sponsorship of a club violates the Equal Access Act.

ADF points out that in 2003, shortly after Prince v. Jacoby was decided, the ACLU sent an information letter to school officials in Washington state explaining the case "makes it clear that student clubs promoting tolerance for gay students are entitled to the same resources as other clubs."

But now, the ACLU has filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the Truth case that takes the opposite position.

The ACLU now wants to strike down the Prince case if it will be used to allow a Bible club on campus, the ADF's Tim Chandler told WorldNetDaily.

"This goes to show how far the ACLU will manipulate the legal system to further their radical agenda," said Chandler, a litigation specialist who is working on the case.

"They are backtracking," Chandler said. "They used these laws to get what they wanted – equal rights for the gay-straight alliance – and now that they've gotten that, they want to retriact it so the Bible club doesn't get the same benefits."

An ACLU of Washington lawyer did not respond to WND for comment by press time.

The ACLU argues that the Equal Access Act only requires schools to allow clubs to meet on campus but does not require them to have equal access to all other benefits, such as funding and yearbook recognition.

The ACLU insists Prince should be overruled to avoid giving Truth any benefits beyond the right to meet on campus.

ADF spokesman Greg Scott said Truth applied for ASB status three times and was rejected each time. After numerous requests and demand letters to the principal and district counsel went without response, ADF filed suit.

ASB status is required to receive funding from the school, recognition in the yearbook, and access to the public address system and other forms of on-campus advertising. Non-ASB groups are permitted to meet on campus during non-instructional time, but cannot receive any other benefits.

Scott notes that in the Prince case, the successful petitioners were part of a religious club seeking Equal Access.

"The ACLU is obviously engaged in religious bigotry – in cases concerning homosexual groups, they argue that Prince fully applies, but now, when it clearly applies, using the ACLU's own standard, to a religious club, they are seeking to overturn the Prince decision," he said.

[JudgeNot]

So you have quoted the founders of the ACLU, from back in the 1930s. Further, neither quote is attributed as a platform statement of the ACLU, but rather private statements from founders. This is certainly smoke, but thin and whispy smoke.

Wispy smoke?  According to modern liberals, past “private” statements carry the weight of public proclamation.  Just ask Teddy Kennedy about he and his cohort's “litmus test” for judges.

Wispy smoke?  Modern liberals went through literally thousands of founding father documents to find one sentence written by Tom Jefferson with the words “separation of church and state”.  That one statement out of thousands is now the ACLU’s number one quote out of context to use against God fearing Americans.

Am I not allowed to use similar tactics, or are those ploys reserved for defenders of atheism only?

…communism in the 1930s was a rather amorphous social idea, not what we think of today as communism.

Not true.  Marx wrote his manifesto some 80 years earlier.  Marx’s intent was to replace God.  Anyone who understood communism knew this.

Many Christians believed communism was the best way for a Christian to live…

Is that your opinion?  Name one Christian who believed this, please...

All of which means that a Christian in the 1930's could easily be persuaded that communism was the ideal way for a Christian to live.  

Again, is that your opinion?  I don’t think you give 1930’s era Christian enough credit.  I believe they were at least as intelligent as we are today.

I understand there are still some Christian Communists out there, who reject the whole "God is wrong" philosophy of most communists, I don't know much about them.

“Christian Communist” is an oxymoron.  In the Soviet union, practicing Christians were “allowed” to continue practicing.  However, to convert was strictly forbidden and punishable by death.  The ACLU is content to allow practicing Christians to continue practicing – even to the extent of “defending” that right.  However, they are purposely and overtly limiting our rights to pass on our values to our children through their false “separation of church and state” agenda.

See any parallels there?  Do you believe it just coincidence?  

The ACLU's stated mission is to defend civil rights for all…

Yea – and the “advertised” communist agenda is ultimate utopia on earth… for the common good… etc.etc.

So here are my questions - is there more to these quotes? Are they part of official ACLU literature, or do you have additional reason for thinking they are? Do you have anything more recent than 1935? Anything ACLU rather than people who founded or worked for the ACLU?

Please see the thread I started earlier:
http://forums.christiansunite.com/index.php?board=28;action=display;threadid=8392
You will find quite a few links there that may answer your question as to why I think as I do.

Happy reading!  

God bless all,
JudgeNot

[Simonline]

I see that this is your first post here. Welcome to Christians Unite.

I can also see that you have not been in the Military to understand how such services are conducted. No one is forced or even persuaded to join into any sort of worship service. All beliefs are accepted and all individuals are given the opportunity to practice their beliefs within the confines of the law. Even those that may have the duty on the day of their worship are afforded the time to their worship service if at all possible.

Just because a person is in uniform does not mean that they have no rights to their own beliefs and worship. Although Christians are the majority I have also worked along side Jews, Buddhists, JW's, Satanists and many more. Each was afforded their own time to worship as they would or not to any worship at all if that was their choice. It has been this way for many, many years.

Sometimes there would be some prejudicial treatment in this area but it was the exception not the rule.

To change this by preventing it would then be the government controlling religious rights. Taking religious freedom away from them instead of protecting the right to religious freedom.

Please specify to whom your post is addressed? Thank you.

Simonline.

[Simonline]

Whoa! A liberal invasion!  

I suggest some actual research into the ACLU's history before defending the indefensible.

For the record, I am a 'strict and particular' orthodox conservative Evangelical Christian and definitely not a liberal. Furthermore, I am not defending the ACLU. I am defending the Truth.

Simonline.

[TWalker]

JudgeNot:
You have given me a *lot* to think about and read, so it will probably take me a bit to respond - I just wanted to say I've seen the post and am giving it my attention and will be answering, so you don't think I'm being rude. Thanks for your detailed and exhaustive rebuttals/responses.

Pastor Roger:
thank you, this is exactly the kind of firm reporting I'm looking for! Upon reading the WorldNetDaily article, it seems clear there is anti-Christian bias being applied. Further research casts some doubt upon that. An article in SeattlePI, explored more thoroughly in SoundPolitics, states that there is, indeed, a difference in the Truth Bible Club and the Gay-Straight Alliance. There is discrimination in the Truth Bible Club, none in the Gay-Straight alliance, and that is the reason the ACLU states that the rule for one does not apply to the other - because the rule is for non-discriminatory groups. The Truth Bible Club allows both Christians and non-Christians to be members. But then they discriminate in requiring that all officers must be Christian, and in requiring all members to adhere to a "Christian Code of Conduct" (unspecified in any article I have found so far.)

Apparantly the school also finds the name offensive, as calling the club the "Truth Bible Club" implies there is no truth to be found outside the Bible, or that the Bible, a religious book, is the only source of Truth. This is not, however, ever the position of the ACLU in any of the articles.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/116449_bible08.shtml

http://www.soundpolitics.com/archives/004257.html

So yes, this is what I'm looking for, but this particular case does not convince nor compel - the ACLU in this case is not being "anti-Christian" they are being "anti-discrimination" which is in line with their stated purpose.  

[nChrist]

Whoa! A liberal invasion!   ;D

I suggest some actual research into the ACLU's history before defending the indefensible.

For the record, I am a 'strict and particular' orthodox conservative Evangelical Christian and definitely not a liberal. Furthermore, I am not defending the ACLU. I am defending the Truth.

Simonline.

Hello SimonLine,

It's a good thing you aren't defending the ACLU because anyone doing so would be immediately viewed as ultra-liberal and ultra-left. That's just one of the reasons why I never defend or support the ACLU on anything.

Love In Christ,
Tom

Psalms 113:4 NASB  The LORD is high above all nations; His glory is above the heavens.

[TWalker]

Whoa! A liberal invasion!  

I suggest some actual research into the ACLU's history before defending the indefensible.

For the record, I am a 'strict and particular' orthodox conservative Evangelical Christian and definitely not a liberal. Furthermore, I am not defending the ACLU. I am defending the Truth.

Simonline.

I could be wrong but I think that was directed at me. I also am not "defending" the ACLU - I am however asking for evidence to convince me the ACLU, whose stated mission is to defend civil rights, including religious freedom and freedom from discrimination, is considered "anti-Christian" and reviled by so many. I prefer not to condemn on hearsay, and the kind members of this board are attempting to "make the case" so I can understand why they have formed this opinion of the ACLU. As the virulent hatred of the ACLU by so many Christians has been a puzzle to me for some time, I am very grateful to them for taking the time and effort to do so.

[Simonline]

JudgeNot,

Thanks! I "get it" now.

This has been quite an experience so far. I registered and posted with two questions, and wow, what an avalanche! I am a little overwhelmed.

So, if I understand you correctly, you're saying that the ACLU defends "good guys" and "bag guys" (to use my terminology, above) and just because they defend "good guys" that doesn't excuse them defending "bad guys" - is that basically the point?

But isn't the whole point of the ACLU to defend the legal rights of all U.S. citizens irrespective of their personal religious or political stance? Doesn't the constitution exist to uphold the rights of all US citizens and not just those of any one particular section of American society (including Evangelical Christians)?

Surely, if the UCLA were only defending the legal rights of certain sections of U.S. society (or even worse, just one section of U.S. society) then wouldn't they be guilty of a grave dereliction of duty?

Simonline