Whats wrong with this picture?

[Simonline]

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.

If this is correct then the ulterior motives of the ACLU in defending peoples rights as a means to the establishment of an American Soviet State should be opposed by all those who are seeking to establish and live by the Truth that sets men free.

Simonline.

[TWalker]

Taking this in small bites - Christian Communism in this one.

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.

Christian Communist is ineed a bit of an oxymoron, depending upon your definition of communism. If you are referring to the communism of the Soviet Union, and the communism of Marx (more properly called "Marxism"), they indeed repressed all religion. Communism predates Marx by at least 2000 years. Marxism is a sub-set of communism, as Soviet Socialist Communism is descended from, but not identical, to Marxism. I submit the following for your perusal and consideration:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_communism

http://www.casi.org.nz/publications/capcom.html (scroll down to "Communism")

http://www.megabrands.com/carroll/philo.html

http://www.tblog.com/templates/index.php?bid=Longshot&static=409407

http://latter-rain.com/general/commu.htm

http://www.osa.ceu.hu/galeria/com2000/concept/kautsky.html

http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/lpbr/subpages/reviews/esau205.htm (4th paragraph)

http://www.hutterites.org/ (current Christian Communist group - see http://www.hutterites.org/organiz.htm under Community of Goods)

http://www.landreform.org/boff2.htm - Liberation Theology, a fairly recent Christian Socialism which actually utilizes some of Marx's ideas, and is sometimes referred to as Christian Communism (it isn't)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_theology more on Liberation Theology

[Simonline]

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!

Interesting post. Let us not forget however, that 'Biblical Communism' is based upon voluntary participation at every level ['God loves a cheerful giver'] and never social or political coercion, as is usually the case with Humanistic Communism (as history bears witness). Annanias and Saphira (Acts.5) were judged, not for witholding what was theirs to withold (thereby indicating that Christianity is not fundamentally against private ownership) but for witholding some of the proceeds from the sale of their property and then lying in order to deceive the Church into believing that they were contributing all of the proceeds from the sale into the communal purse.

Simonline.

[TWalker]

Interesting post. Let us not forget however, that 'Biblical Communism' is based upon voluntary participation at every level ['God loves a cheerful giver'] and never social or political coercion, as is usually the case with Humanistic Communism (as history bears witness). Annanias and Saphira (Acts.5) were judged, not for witholding what was theirs to withold (thereby indicating that Christianity is not fundamentally against private ownership) but for witholding some of the proceeds from the sale of their property and then lying in order to deceive the Church into believing that they were contributing all of the proceeds from the sale into the communal purse.

Simonline.

I refer more to the communistic precepts in Acts, but the point is indeed valid that Biblical, or Christian, communism is very different from the communism we refer to today. My points were 1) Christians supported communism (and even Marxism, it seems!) at various points in history, so without something more on the beliefs of the two individuals quoted I cannot say this proves they are anti Christian or anti religious, and 2) Whether they were or not has no direct bearing on the question at hand - is the ACLU the supporter of everyone's civil rights, without discrimination, or are they anti-Christian ("bent on destroying God", I think someone said.) Maligning the founders, now dust, does not prove satisfactorily to me that the ACLU is anything but a defender of civil liberties for all.

[Soldier4Christ]

TWalker,

The article I gave you was from World Net Daily and may be a bit biased but it is biased from the point of a Christian not anti-christian. I have also read many articles both pro and con on this incident.

The group set up their club in accordance with the Equal Access Act which was put in place by the ACLU lawsuit that defended a group of homosexuals. Their law, their rules and now that a Christian group uses those same laws the ACLU decides their own laws are not good enough and wants them (the laws) recinded.

Now how much more plain can it be as to what their agenda is?

Their are also lawsuits by the ACLU to remove Bibles from the schools libraries yet they are supporting the implementation of the Koran into school libraries. Schools that refuse to allow any Christian organizations from speaking in schools because of the "separation" statement are suing to allow Muslim speakers to be admitted into school functions. This information is all over the 'net so you can look it up yourself.

Another problem that I have with the ACLU is their support of and association with CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations). They have assisted this group in lawsuits that permit Muslim prayer in schools. Force the admission of the Koran into school libraries while removing the Bible from these same schools. The ACLU has sued in their behalf to have one of their speakers admitted to a public school function as a speaker but refuse to allow a Christian speaker to participate.

If you are not aware of what CAIRs objective is do a search on them. You will find that one of their speakers at a convention of theirs stated they wanted the Constitution done away with and rewritten for the Islamic community and to make Islam and the Koran the primary religion of the U.S.

[TWalker]

The group set up their club in accordance with the Equal Access Act which was put in place by the ACLU lawsuit that defended a group of homosexuals. Their law, their rules and now that a Christian group uses those same laws the ACLU decides their own laws are not good enough and wants them (the laws) recinded.

Now how much more plain can it be as to what their agenda is?

Their are also lawsuits by the ACLU to remove Bibles from the schools libraries yet they are supporting the implementation of the Koran into school libraries. Schools that refuse to allow any Christian organizations from speaking in schools because of the "separation" statement are suing to allow Muslim speakers to be admitted into school functions. This information is all over the 'net so you can look it up yourself.

Dear me, this is getting to be a huge topic...
I am sorry to have to correct you, but the Truth Bible group did not use the same rules as the Gay-Straight Alliance group. If they had, the argument would hold water. Since the Truth Bible Study group discriminated, and the Gay-Straight Alliance group did not, its only clear that the ACLU is against discrimination.

As far as the other claims, that the ACLU is trying to remove Bibles and replace them with Korans, this is again a charge with no evidence - do you have an article from a reliable source? and also this strikes me as contrary to the "anti-religion" charge which has been leveled at the ACLU. If they are pro-Islam, that is a bias, but it is not anti-religion. And I have looked, and not found. That's why I am asking. All I have found is stories about the ACLU defending civil rights, sueing to prevent discrimination, and generally upholding what they say they are for. If I could find any evidence of their targeting Christians unfairly on my own, I would already have the evidence I seek and not be asking here for help.

As far as CAIR is concerned, I may look into it later. Right now I'm as occupied as I have time for (and even more!) looking at this issue. Thanks tho, I'll keep it in mind.

[TWalker]

Small bite two - Smoke

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?

I don't really care what "modern liberals" think about private statements vs. public proclamation. I do not ever see the need to ask Teddy Kennedy his opnion on anything. And how the "modern liberals" use one Jefferson quote, or 20, really has no bearing. In short, I fail to see your point. If this is an argument that you have somehow proved your position on the ACLU by dragging out two old quotes from the 1930s, and your only support for this argument is Teddy Kennedy and the use of one Jefferson quote by people with whom you disagree, I respectfully submit that you don't have much of a case. And what Atheists do or do not do should, in my humble opinion, not be used as validation by a Christian. It kindof sounds like "Well, the atheists do it, so its ok for me!" if you see what I mean. I do not mean to imply that is what you meant to say, only that is how the bare words of your post come across.

[Soldier4Christ]

I have already given you information that is quite substantial but you prefer to believe what you will about it as being unsubstantiated. I get the impression that no matter what information I take the time to look up and give to you that you are going to do the same with it. Which means that you had your mind made up before you even came to this forum.


Corporate Holdings International ......  an interesting web site.

[Shammu]

TWalker, This is a matter of public record. So this should answer your question.
Part 1

The ACLU claims to be an unbiased, “neither conservative or liberal” organization devoted exclusively to protecting the civil liberties of all Americans. But their record proves just the opposite.

ACLU Founder Roger Baldwin admitted as much, saying for the record that; “Civil liberties, like democracy, are useful only as tools for social change.”

Although they claim to defend constitutional rights, they don’t even believe in the document as written. They say that, “The Constitution as originally conceived was deeply flawed.” They even go so far as to brag, “The ACLU was the missing ingredient that made our constitutional system finally work.”

Roger Baldwin was a student of communist Emma Goldman who tutored him in subversive ideology of Lenin, together with secular humanism. He claimed Emma as “one of the chief inspirations of his life”.

During World War 1 Baldwin worked in the Bureau of Conscientious Objectors, a division of AUAM, to help draft dodgers with resistance and provide legal and financial aid.

This resulted in controversy and Baldwin renamed the organization The Civil Liberties Bureau to avoid some of the flack. Roger refused to tone down his liberal talk and the AUAM sought a split, which resulted in the bureau renaming again; The National Civil Liberties Bureau.

One paper Baldwin wrote for the Bureau was called “unmailable” by the Post Office because of “radical and subversive views” which resulted in a FBI raid on their offices. Shortly thereafter he was drafted and upon resisting and openly spouting social reform propaganda, was imprisoned for a year.

In 1920 he moved his offices in with the Communist Party’s paper, New Masses and renamed the group a final time to the ACLU. He developed many ties with the communist movement and even wrote a book, "Liberty Under the Soviets", which bragged about the “liberty won for anti-religion”.

Baldwin admitted in his book; "I joined. I don’t regret being a part of the Communist tactic, which increased the effectiveness of a good cause. I knew what I was doing. I was not an innocent liberal. I wanted what the Communists wanted…” The ACLU was founded at a party attended by Socialist Party notable Norman Thomas, future Communist Party chairman Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, and Soviet agent Agnes Smedley.

In 1920, Rev. Harry Ward, the 'Red Dean' of the Union Theological Seminary was Chairman, Baldwin was director, and Communist publisher Louis Budenz, who would later go on to testify against Communism, director of publicity.

Other Communist and radical founders included William Z. Foster, author of “Toward Soviet America,” Harold J. Laski, Morris Hilquit, A.J.Muste, Scott Nearing, Eugene V. Debs, and John Dewey.

The 1930’s membership would include such radicals and change agents as Vito Marcantonio, Haywood Broun, Corliss Lamont, and Bishop G. Bromley Oxnan.

The 1940’s roll would include George S. Counts, Norman Cousins, Melvyn Douglas, Robert M. Hutchins, and Freda Kirchwey.

Most prominent American luminaries of the left were, and are, members of the ACLU.

On January 16, 1981, President Jimmy Carter awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom to ACLU founder Roger Nash Baldwin, calling him 'a champion of human and civil rights.'

Under the guise of 'protecting American civil rights', Baldwin's ACLU has sued to;

- Halt the singing of Christmas Carols in public facilities.

- Deny tax -exempt status for Churches.

- Remove all military chaplains.

- Remove all Christian symbols from public property.

- Prohibit Bible reading in classrooms even during free time.

- Remove In God We Trust from our coins.

- Remove God from the Pledge of Allegiance

- Deny federal funding for Boy Scouts until they admit gays and atheists

The ACLU championed the gay rights movement and Roe v. Wade. In 1977, the ACLU created its "Reproductive Freedom Project" that, over the next 16 years, utilized 17 full-time employees and a budget of $2 million.

In 1986 the ACLU created its "Lesbian and Gay Rights" project.

Some other causes adopted by the ACLU include the rights of AIDS patients to keep their diseases confidential and denying freedom of worship in public places.

In 1986, 5th grade teacher Kenneth Roberts was ordered, following an ACLU suit, to remove his Bible from his classroom. (In 2001, it sued the Anahein public school system for refusing to put pro-homosexual propaganda in the district's high school libraries.)

In 1988, it barred a doctor from telling a Kansas man's former wife that her ex-husband had tested positive for AIDS. In the words of the director of the ACLU's Privacy and Technology Project, "The benefits of confidentiality outweigh the possibility that somebody may be injured."

In 1997, the ACLU convinced the Supreme Court to protect the rights of pornographers on the Internet - including the right to show their images to children.

In May 2000, Arizona Governor Jane Hull issued a proclamation celebrating the birth of Buddha. An ACLU spokesperson said, "Although we may think proclamations are inappropriate, they may not violate the Constitution."

(But two years earlier, when Governor Hull issued a proclamation declaring a "Bible Week," the ACLU sued, claiming a violation of the so-called "separation of church and state.")

Among the ACLU's pantheon of victories are cases involving the defense of Communists, anarchists, Ku Klux Klansmen, and those who sought to overthrow American government.

In order for the ACLU to tear down constitutional barriers to governmental power, they must extinguish America's fundamental belief in God, since such a belief is an essential denial of the supreme power of government.

According to the Declaration of Independence, rights come from God, not government. When God's presence in the American mindset ceases, however, people no longer look to God as the grantor of rights but to government.

Therefore, the ACLU argues that the more power the government has, the better off the people under it are. If one looks at the history of the Soviet Union and any other Communist country, one will be apt to find Communist leaders who predicated their form of government on atheism and a secular state religion.

The ACLU has been so successful that even the Declaration of Independence can be interpreted as unconstitutional, if the argument is framed properly.

A San Franscisco suburban teacher was forbidden to give out copies of the Declaration of Independence to his students by the school's principal, Patricia Vidmar, because it refers to God. Principal Vidmar has also required that Mr. Williams clear all his lessons first with her.

This has led to other materials that refer to God or Christianity being rejected, such as George Washington's journal, John Adams' diary, Samuel Adams' "The Rights of the Colonists," and William Penn's "The Frame of Government of Pennsylvania."

The Barna Research Group found in a recent poll that 40% of all Americans claimed to have read the Bible in the week preceding the poll. Fully 80% admitted to praying to God in the previous week, while 83% said that religion had 'changed their behavior'.

Two-thirds of Americans claimed they attend church at least once a month. Interestingly, more Americans believe in God than Israelis do. The National Opinion Research Center found that 62.8% of Americans believe in God, as compared with only 43% of Israelis.

Given these numbers, how can it be that the ACLU can impose such a 'through the looking-glass' worldview on the majority of Americans?

In the natural, there are plenty of reasons; the careful installation of anti-Christian activists judges, ninety years of brainwashing, the imposition of secular humanism as America's state religion, and the domination of professions like the law and teaching by secularists and homosexual activists.

Cont., in next post.

[TWalker]

I have already given you information that is quite substantial but you prefer to believe what you will about it as being unsubstantiated. I get the impression that no matter what information I take the time to look up and give to you that you are going to do the same with it. Which means that you had your mind made up before you even came to this forum.

I asked a question in good faith. I received one story which was not any evidence of anything stated. My mind is not made up, but I need a heckuva lot more than one story which didn't pan out to call it "substantial".

I would appreciate it if you would not dismiss me by saying my mind was made up, basically calling me a liar. If you have anything else to offer, I am asking, as I have been from the first, for the information. If you do not have the time or the inclination to help me with this, say so. I will completely respect that - I know this takes time and effort. But don't accuse me of lying, or presume to tell me what I think or do not think.

Bear in mind: we must test all things (1Thessalonians 5:21)
One witness does not make an accusation true (Deuteronomy 19:15)
A thorough investigation is called for (Deuteronomy 19:18)
We should not listen to everything that is said (Ecclesiastes 7:21)
But investigate and seek out wisdom (Ecclesiastes 7:25)
and knowledge (Proverbs 18:15) or we are a fool (Proverbs 15:14)

I have not even expressed disagreement with the basic argument put forth: that the ACLU is anti-Christian. I have asked for help in understanding how you came to that conclusion. I have expressed my desire to learn. I have confessed my ignorance. I do ask for clear evidence, not scorn and ridcule, of the ACLU's alleged anti-Christian bias.

[Shammu]

Part 2

But the Bible says that it is more than that.

Romans 1:28 says, "And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient."

2nd Timothy 3:5,8,13 say that, "Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof", "evil men and seducers will wax worse and worse" eventually resulting in their becoming "men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith."

Note that Paul begins this passage by warning, "This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come." (2nd Timothy 3:1)

The word 'reprobate' means 'without moral scruples' and carries with it the sense of being morally blinded to the degree that one is unable to think clearly, even when it is in one's own best interests.

Clearly, espousing the idea that the Declaration of Independence is unconstitutional because it mentions God, particularly in the context of PROTECTING religious liberties, cannot logically be squared with the concept that religious liberty is guaranteed by God.

Webster's 1913 Dictionary defines 'reprobate' theologically as "Abandoned to punishment; hence, morally abandoned and lost; given up to vice; depraved."

Romans 1:28 says God 'gave them over' to a reprobate mind.

2nd Thessalonians says that the antichrist (that 'Wicked' v.2: would be revealed after the restraining influence of the Holy Spirit is 'taken out of the way' (v.7) after which, Paul writes, "God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie," with the ultimate result that, "they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness." (v. 12)

The ACLU exists, openly and it all its glory, for the express purpose of propagating the lie that God does not exist, and therefore the worship of God is a crime, even though, apart from God, there is no guarantor of the civil liberties the ACLU claims to protect.

Do you follow? The 'reprobate mind' suffering from the 'strong delusion'.

It is here, it is now and it is in your face. And it will continue to get worse.

Until He comes.

"But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth . . . Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle." (2nd Thessalonians 2:13,15)

How is it that so many Americans can be deceived into allowing themselves to by tyrannized by the minority? A reprobate mind.

Why hasn't it affected the True Church?

"For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a SOUND MIND." (2nd Timothy 1:7)

Which is why the Red States earned the nickname, "JesusLand."
America's Communist Lawyers' Union
_____________________________________________________
Roger Nash Baldwin was the founder of the American Civil Liberties Union and a notable American Communist.

"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."—Harvard Class Book of 1935, spotlighting Baldwin's class of 1905 on its thirtieth anniversary

"Do steer away from making it look like a Socialist enterprise...We want also to look like patriots in everything we do. We want to get a good lot of flags, talk a good deal about the Constitution and what our forefathers wanted to make of this country, and to show that we are really the folks that really stand for the spirit of our institutions."—Baldwin's advice in 1917 to Louis Lochner of the socialist People's Council in Minnesota

Wikipedia
_____________________________________________________

Tough Questions about ACLU Positions
1. Why do you defend Nazis and the Klan?
The ACLU’s client is the Bill of Rights, not any particular person or group. We defend its principles – basic rights of citizens –
whenever these are threatened. We do not believe that you can pick and chose when to uphold rights. If a right can be taken
away from one person, it can be taken away from anyone. When you deny a right to someone with whom you disagree, you
pave the way for that right to be denied to yourself or someone whom you strongly support. For example, the principle by
which the Ku Klux Klan has the right to march is the same one that allows civil rights activists to march against racism.
2. You’re all a bunch of liberals, aren’t you?
The ACLU is a nonpartisan group. We have defended and worked with people all across the political spectrum, from Rev. Jerry
Falwell and Oliver North to radio host Rush Limbaugh and former Republican member of Congress Bob Barr. The ACLU
strongly supports women’s right to choose abortion, yet we have also assisted anti-abortion activists when police used excessive
force in arresting them. The ACLU has won support from women’s groups for our stand on women’s rights, but has angered
some feminists for our First Amendment stand on pornography.
3. Why does the ACLU support cross burning?
The ACLU condemns all forms of racism. However, the ACLU does believe that in some specific cases, the First Amendment
protects the burning of a cross. People have the right to be bigots and to make extreme, symbolic statements of their bigotry.
Burning a cross on one’s own lawn in the middle of the day without making specific threats against anybody is an example of
this. That’s why the ACLU opposes laws that say any and all instances of cross burning are illegal. Such laws are too broad and
vague and have the result of preventing people from exercising their rights to free speech. As an answer to racist speech, the
ACLU advocates more speech directed against racism, not the suppression of speech.
4. Why does the ACLU support pornography? Why are you in favor of child porn?
The ACLU does not support pornography. But we do oppose virtually all forms of censorship. Possessing books or films
should not make one a criminal. Once society starts censoring “bad” ideas, it becomes very difficult to draw the line. Your idea
of what is offensive may be a lot different from your neighbor’s. In fact, the ACLU does take a very purist approach in
opposing censorship. Our policy is that possessing even pornographic material about children should not itself be a crime. The
way to deal with this issue is to prosecute the makers of child pornography for exploiting minors.
5. Why doesn’t the ACLU support gun ownership/gun control?
The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control. We believe the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited
right upon individuals to own guns or other weapons, nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation of gun ownership, such as
licensing and registration. This, like all ACLU policies, is set by the board of directors, a group of ACLU members.
6. Why does the ACLU support the rights of criminals but not victims of crime?
The ACLU supports everybody’s rights. Citizens are outraged by crime and understandably want criminals caught and
prosecuted. The ACLU simply believes that the rights to fair treatment and due process must be respected for people accused of crimes. Respecting these rights does not cause crime, nor does it hinder police from pursuing criminals. It should, and does in
fact, cause police to avoid sloppy procedures.
7. Why is the ACLU against God/Christianity/the Bible?
The ACLU strongly supports our country’s guarantee that all people have the right to practice their own religion, as well as the right not to practice any religion. The best way to ensure religious freedom for all is to keep the government out of the business of pushing religion on anybody. The ACLU strongly supports the separation of church and state. In practice, this means that people may practice their religion – just not with government funding or sponsorship. This simple principle in no way banishes or weakens religion. It only means that no one should have somebody else’s religion forced on him or her, even if most other people in a community support that religion.

Cont next post

[TWalker]

JudgeNot:

I have never in my life been on this forum before. If I remind you of someone, I can understand you suspecting I *might* be that person, but all I can do is assure you I am not. This is the second time today I have been accused of falsehood, on no evidence whatsoever. I am beginning to think this is not a very friendly place.

As far as whose civil rights the ACLU defends, I've already said several times I think some of their cases are defending the rights of the truly reprehensible. That has no bearing on whether they are anti-Christian.

and I confess confusion as to your question "TW - Just what IS IS?" what are you talking about?

and my only agenda is the truth. I'd like to know it. I'd like some help. I'm getting flamed and false accusations hurled at me.

TWalker is my real name, btw. I am Tracy Walker, and whatever my many faults, I do not lie.

EDITED to say this is in response to a post which seems to have disappeared - was it a hack? If so, my apologies. If not, what happened to it?

[TWalker]

DreamWeaver:

Many thanks for your exhaustive post. And many apologies - I am getting tired and don't have the energy to fully read your posts and give them the attention they deserve. I will do so at the earliest opportunity.

[Shammu]

Tough Questions about ACLU Positions
_______________________________________________________

Part 3

The ACLU is at it again. Most people know the ACLU as the American Civil Liberties Union. I believe the appropriate identifier is the American Communist Lawyers Union and they're at it again on their anti-God crusade. There can be no mistake: the ACLUs philosophy is in complete harmony with the Constitution of the United Soviet Socialist Republic (1922-1991), which stated, "Article 124: In order to ensure to citizens freedom of conscience, the church in the U.S.S.R. is separated from the State and the school from the church." The same position was adopted by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1947 in their famous 'separation of Church and State' ruling.
Think about those three words: freedom of conscience (freedom from conscience) and what it represents to a civilized, moral society. Turn the people into zombies with no conscience or appreciation for their own actions. Take a look out there at America, at the moral behavior being displayed and the tragic consequences. You are looking at the slow, spasmodic death of a great nation committing national suicide.
______________________________________________________

At the local level, the ACLU often involves itself in cases involving the separation of church and state. Therefore, one of the most consistent critics of the ACLU is the conservative Christian community in the United States. Many in this community contend that the ACLU is part of an effort to remove all references to religion from American government.

In 2004, for example, the ACLU of Southern California threatened to sue the city of Redlands, California if it did not remove a picture of a cross from the city's seal. The ACLU argued that having a cross on the seal amounted to a government-sponsored endorsement of Christianity and violated separation of church and state. The city complied with the ACLU and removed the cross from all city vehicles, business cards, and police badges. Then the ACLU threatened Los Angeles County, California if it also did not remove an image of a cross from its seal. As in the Redlands case, the county board complied with the demands and voted to remove the cross from its seal as well.

After the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack, Jerry Falwell remarked that the ACLU, by trying to 'secularize America' had made God mad, and that is why God allowed the terrorist attacks to happen. Other critics of the ACLU do not make such strong accusations, but claim that the organization pushes the concept of separation of church and state beyond its original meaning.
_________________________________________________

America's Godly Heritage in Government

CONSTITUTION

Surely the people who wrote and signed the Constitution of the United States of America can be trusted to tell us what it means. Original letters written in their own words give us a much truer understanding of their intentions than third party commentaries written a hundred years later.

Listen to the original writers, especiallly when new historians contradict the original intent of those original authors of the law of this great land.

Those letters and speeches made by the Signers of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence are available through this network.

You can download more complete information files to your computer and read them at your leisure.

Please feel free to share them with your friends. The purpose of this is to spread the truth and give understanding of the truth, so that our children and our children's children can live by the truth.

LIFE, LIBERTY, AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS

President Abraham Lincoln reminded the nation of that great truth contained in the Declaration of Independence when he said, "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

The Supreme Court declared in 1897, the Constitution is the body and letter of which the Declaration of Independence is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence.

The Constitution itself connects itself to the Declaration of Independence by dating itself from the date of the Declaration of Independence, thereby showing clearly that it is the second great document in the government of these United States and is not to be understood without the first. How many today say the Constitution stands alone devoid of all reference to the Declaration? Let them see hear and understand what those who wrote the Constitution said about our American government. See Article VII.

The Founders believed the Declaration was the foundational document in our Constitutional form of government. The Founders dated their government acts from the year of the Declaration rather than the Constitution. The date of the Declaration of Independence was the recognized date of Sovereignty and Independence of the United States.

In the Declaration, the Founders established the foundation and the core values on which the Constitution was to operate. The Constitution was never to be interpreted apart from those values expressed in the Declaration.

Samuel Adams pointed out: Before the formation of this Constitution this Declaration of Independence was received and ratified by all the States in the Union, and has never been disannulled.

Well into the twentieth century, the Declaration and the Constitution were viewed as inseparable and interdependent. While the Court's change of standards has perhaps been a display of poor judgment, the Court's actions have actually been illegal under the standards of original intent. Furthermore they have violated the value system of "the laws of nature and of nature's God" established in the Declaration of Independence.

The First Amendment was clearly understood and explained by the man who wrote it and the man who first applied it as law. Fisher Ames wrote the First Amendment. He also wrote that the Bible should always remain the principle text book in America's classrooms. John Jay, original Chief-Justice U.S. Supreme Court, said it is the duty of all wise, free, and virtuous governments to help and encourage virtue and religion.

The Constitution of the United States of America was penned by the man who was head of the committee which created the final wording. That man, Governor Morris of Pennsylvania, was also the most active member of the Constitutional Convention. He spoke 173 times. He also advocated that "education should teach the precepts of religion and the duties of man towards God."

An early House Judiciary Committee affirmed the Founder's lack of pluralistic intent when it declared: "Christianity ...was the religion of the founders of the republic, and they expected it to remain the religion of their descendants."

Words and sentiments of other founding fathers can be given to fill a library; but these few show the whole idea to anyone to is willing to hear.

" You do well to wish to learn our arts and our ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. Congress will do everything they can to assist you in this wise intention." George Washington

" Let...statesmen and patriots unite their endeavors to renovate the age by...educating their little boys and girls...and leading them in the study and practice of the exalted virtues of the Christian system." Samuel Adams

"History will also afford frequent opportunities of showing the necessity of a public religion...and the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern." Benjamin Franklin

"Only one adequate plan has ever appeared in the world, and that is the Christian dispensation." John Jay, ORIGINAL CHIEF-JUSTICE U.S. SUPREME COURT

"The United States of America were no longer Colonies. They were an independent nation of Christians." John Qunicy Adams

A page of history is worth a volume of logic. History shows the intent and purpose of our founding fathers. Contemporary logic is wrong whenever it contradicts the clear explanations of those men who wrote the Constitution.

97% of the founding fathers were practicing Christians and exercised their faith in public office, at work, at home, and had it taught to their children in their schools. 187 of the first 200 colleges in America were Christian, Bible teaching institutions. Entrance to Harvard required strong knowledge of the Bible. The money was printed, "One Nation Under God." Noah Webster wrote the dictionary with Bible verses explained so children could understand the words of God and know the truth of Jesus Christ. Webster even wrote a translation of the Bible for the American speaking people.

cont next post

[JudgeNot]

JudgeNot:

I have never in my life been on this forum before. If I remind you of someone, I can understand you suspecting I *might* be that person, but all I can do is assure you I am not. This is the second time today I have been accused of falsehood, on no evidence whatsoever. I am beginning to think this is not a very friendly place.

As far as whose civil rights the ACLU defends, I've already said several times I think some of their cases are defending the rights of the truly represhensible. That has no bearing on whether they are anti-Christian.

and I confess confusion as to your question "TW - Just what IS IS?" what are you talking about?

and my only agenda is the truth. I'd like to know it. I'd like some help. I'm getting flamed and false accusations hurled at me.

TWalker is my real name, btw. I am Tracy Walker, and whatever my many faults, I do not lie.

Taken at Truth's value (which rules all)!
Thanks, Tracy.
God bless!
 
Jim