"Stop the ACLU"

"...Not exactly the paragon of truth...?"

ACLU invites Domestic Terrorists (and Obama's buddy) Bill Ayers and Bernadette Dohrn as speakers:


xrayspx's picture

--Edit after having written this. This is exactly why I love having these discussions. I have been reading and researching tons of subjects thanks to these threads. Yesterday I didn't know the history of the CT scan, I hadn't ever heard of the Cross in the Mojave, etc. Thanks for that, really.

I really never understood people's problem with the ACLU. They stand for everyone's right to say anything, at any time. Pat Boone saying they're "worse than the Taliban"? I don't get it. The Taliban would suppress free speech and free expression, the ACLU fights to defend free expression regardless of political nonsense.

The speak out on behalf of many non-"leftist" causes, here are some of them:

Oliver North

Rush Limbaugh

a student's biblical yearbook entry

My best guess as to the root of the problem is that they argue against speech which is not constitutional. They argue against government sponsorship of memorials in the shape of a cross, prayer in school, the teaching of Intelligent Design in schools, anything that would violate the separation of church and state.

The most popular recent example is that of a cross in the Mojave desert (Read: History of the Case) memorializing the sacrifice of Marines, erected in the 1930's.

This seems like a monstrously anti-American stance, until you dig into the particulars of why the case was filed, which none of the top hitting sites contained.

The suit was filed on behalf of a Roman Catholic National Parks Service park ranger because he saw it as promoting one religion over others, and the cross is on federally owned property.

There had been a request to build a Buddhist temple adjacent to and complementary of the cross memorial, but that request was denied by the federal government, which can be interpreted as favoring Christianity over Buddhism and others.

The case worked its way through the courts, the US District Court and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the display was unconstitutional and amounted to promotion of a particular religion. The Bush Administration appealed the case to the Supreme Court, which overturned the two lower courts rulings.

I agree with the ACLU on this case, since, as an Atheist, the First Amendment to the Constitution guarantees to me that the federal government shall not favor a religious viewpoint of any kind. The First Amendment guarantees me the right to "Freedom From Religion" just as it guarantees religious people the right to practice their chosen religion.

The cross could just as easily have been replaced with, I dunno, anything else, and the whole controversy would have gone away. Instead we have (that I saw), WND, NewsMax, Fox, Rush and others comparing the ACLU to some terrorist anti-soldier organization.

Get. The. Hell. Over. It.

The First Amendment is here for all of us. Just as many Christians would raise Hell if someone slapped up a Mosque on federal land, Atheists, and indeed this Catholic, are made uncomfortable by the display of Christianity on federal land.

Since when should a treasonist Domestic-Terrorist—and his murdering Domestic-Terrorist-wife—be listened to, or be PAID for anything?



xrayspx's picture

We do listen to Oliver North and G. Gordon Liddy, after all, as well.

Which of America's police have Oliver North and G. Gordon Liddy destroyed—with the intent to kill Americans??



flag@whitehouse.org will take any of your messages that "turn-in" any Americans opposed to Obama's initiatives to Nationalize your health care or to Socialize businesses.

And the ACLU is...?

xrayspx's picture

Whitehouse.org is not a government site. It's owned by "satire online, inc". So what should the ACLU be pissed at exactly?

"...Whitehouse.org is not a government site..."

No it is not.

The www.whitehouse site should end in .gov.

My error shows I should use more diligence with my fellow members.