Nedd Kareiva
May 14, 2006
The ACLU is evil
By Nedd Kareiva

The following article in Christianity Today, The ACLU is not Evil, is the impetus for my commentary. I encourage you to read it as well as this one (linked at the close of the article) and this one in PDF (also linked at the end). You need not click the links inside the PDF piece just yet but do familiarize yourself with the synopses of these cases.

It is not my intent as a Christian nor that of the Coalition to criticize a fellow believer and it is not something that I planned to address. However, due to the glaring errors in Professor Carter's piece, I must take exception to his writing and I am about to outline my case as to why the ACLU is indeed evil and should be shunned at all costs.

Although I am not in the business of telling people what to and not to subscribe to, if you get Christianity Today, I would encourage you to write them for an explanation as to how to reconcile the professor's piece with the mission of the magazine and perhaps reconsider renewing your subscription if you don't receive a satisfactory response.

If you are not a Christian (contact me if you wish to be one), you will still glean a lot of information here that factually backs up my assertions.

The statement, "I think the ACLU is wrong to oppose religious expression in the public square, but being wrong is not the same as being evil.," is one that needs to be dissected.

Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 10th Edition, defines evil as "morally reprehensible; sinful, wicked." The word "wrong" has many connotations but one of them, according to Webster's is "not according to the moral standard; sinful, immoral."

Now granted, wrong isn't 100% of the time evil but evil is 100% of the time wrong. However, let's take one issue of the ACLU that some people of faith may take as right while saying that I'm wrong. And that is the death penalty.

While I firmly support the execution of all convicted murderers and terrorists, some of my Catholic friends view the death penalty as revenge and that the government has no business putting to death such individuals. I believe my Catholic friends who oppose the death penalty are Biblically misguided, yet I understand and respect their support of life for all human beings. Though they may be in agreement with the ACLU on this position and in my opinion wrong, they could hardly be classified as evil. My Catholic brothers and sisters have been stalwarts in the cause for the protection of the unborn and because of that, I'm honored to align myself with them.

However, the ACLU's position on abortion, which, to be blunt, is the brutal taking (slaughter) of the life of an unborn child in a mother's womb. The ACLU has defended abortion on demand without exception at all costs. They have defended partial birth abortion in the courts with their Planned Parenthood allies. How anyone can defend the barbaric procedure of PBA and not call it evil? The brutal torture of an unborn child this way is something that no one with common sense can defend. Most law firms would not want to touch this one with a 10 foot pole. The same cannot be said of the ACLU.

It is most notable that Professor Carter cites free speech cases in his article such as the case of a Michigan valedictorian who was denied putting a verse of scripture in her spot in the school's yearbook and the 2nd grade girl in New Jersey who was denied the right to sing "Awesome God" in a school talent show. He even cites a case where the ACLU filed a friend of the court brief on behalf of a pro-lifer who had his sign confiscated by police because it was too graphic. However, in that case is a very telling statement from the Cleveland, Ohio ACLU legal director "We may disagree with the sort of society Mr. Tatton would construct but we support his right to say what he wants."

This phrase, We may disagree with the sort of society Mr. Tatton would construct, is the key point here. And that is what the ACLU wants to do, reconstruct what this protester wants to see preserved.

The ACLU's director says they take on all comers when it comes to free speech. But while the above Ohio situation may be a good example of it, the ACLU has suppressed free speech as well. One would do well to obtain the book ACLU vs. America by our friends at the Alliance Defense Fund to see how the ACLU has denied free speech as well as done severe damage to our moral infrastructure.

In one section of the book, the chapter "The ACLU vs. Human Life," some ACLU members have defended using RICO (the Racketeer Influenced & Corrupt Organizations statute) against pro-lifers' 1st Amendment rights. The statute was created in Congress in 1970 to deal with the mafia and organized crime, not pro-life activities. But the free speech lovers of the ACLU have been divided on this issue.

Here is a classic case of where the ACLU ignored the 1st Amendment rights of pro-lifers. More details of the case can be found here and here. The ACLU of Oregon opposed the free speech of the defendants which half of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, arguably the most liberal appeals court in the country, sided in favor of them and against the ACLU.

And historically, the ACLU has never, to my knowledge, filed suit or a friend of the court brief in favor of any pro-lifers suing to remove "bubble zones" surrounding many of America's abortion clinics. Though some in the organization support the freedom of pro-lifers to hold signs and approach women heading to the clinics, the ACLU is compromised between free speech and its no restrictions stance on women getting abortions.

Can any Christian or decent American say that abortion is not evil? If the brutal killing of unborn children is not considered evil, we have a real problem on our hands. If it is, Professor Carter's separating evil from wrong has to be called into question.

Simply put, the ACLU may defend free speech of Christians (and pretty much anyone) but they will not defend morality. As such, if the defense of free speech is why the ACLU is not evil, I would like to know the professor's definition of the word.

Let's take pornography. More and more studies are out today of how pornography corrupts minds, destroys marriages and families, perverts the meaning of sex and creates near indestructible addictions to the user and abuse to those in contact with the user.

Websters defines porn as "the depiction of erotic behavior intended to cause sexual excitement." As such, should that alone be considered as evil? Some people might say no and that if it harms no one, it should be permitted. However, plenty of it exists in the form of pre-marital, group and extra-marital sex, not to mention homosexual sex and yes, even sex with children. Most people would consider at least adultery, homosexuality and child sex as evil since it harms others.

Read what the ACLU says in its policy manual on pornography and ask yourself if the ACLU is evil. Most decent attorneys wouldn't want to defend those promoting it. But not the ACLU which has Hustler pornographer Larry Flynt on the board of directors for the ACLU of Southern California, according to a 2005 report from the paid subscription of the National Journal.

It should be noted that ACLU president Nadine Strossen has an affinity for porn which may help explain the ACLU's position. This article (warning: sexually graphic descriptions) is a repudiation of her love for porn. No normal mind could read this and not equate the ACLU as evil.

Another chapter in ACLU vs. America devotes appr. 6 pages in a subsection titled "Making America Safe for Pornographers and Dangerous for Children." Rather than detailing some of the graphic details here, I would suggest you (and Professor Carter) get the book, read the chapter and then I challenge anyone to tell me with a straight face that the ACLU is not evil.

Another subsection in this book details with NAMBLA (the North American Man/Boy Love Assn.). Even many ACLU supporters cringe when their organization is identified with them. The ACLU chose to defend an extremely perverted organization in the name of free speech. The case is still in the courts today 9 years later. Google has a lot of info on it if you don't want to wait for the book. Deroy Murdock's article on National Review Online has one of the best summaries on the case.

Who in their right mind would want to defend NAMBLA? Who would soil their reputation to defend male homosexual sex with children than the organization that would rather see the Boy Scouts out of business because they refuse to admit homosexual (and atheist) Scoutmasters? Is it arguable that a defender of NAMBLA like the ACLU is not evil?

If you read the ACLU's web page here, the ACLU says they don't advocate sex with adults and children but "robust freedom of speech for everyone." If anyone is pro-free speech and pro-First Amendment, it is yours truly. However, free speech ends when it tells someone how to break the law which NAMBLA's web site (which I will not list) does. To call such speech robust is not only offensive, it is wrong and evil.

I hope our professor friend here at Yale would reconsider his thoughts on what evil is. Perhaps he should talk to Bob and Barb Curley in neighboring Massachusetts whose son was murdered as a result of info posted on NAMBLA's web site on how to lure young boys into sex. Perhaps the ACLU should as well. Don't hold your breath, however.

The ACLU's staunch defense of the homosexual agenda should easily identify the organization as evil or as defined, "immoral; sinful." Most religions Christianity, Orthodox Judaism, Islam, Buddhism condemn homosexuality (the act, not the person) as evil (sinful or immoral). There are a few factions of these religions (e.g. Reform Judaism, United Church of Christ) that embrace it but those are far in the minority. Yet this is one of the tenets of their agenda as seen when the ACLU announced in May of 2005 for a national campaign for same sex marriage.

While states were busily working last year (and again this year) to affirm the historical definition of marriage as between one man and one woman, the ACLU ignored the will of the people (as they frequently do) and proclaimed national same sex marriage in the name of their buzzword, fairness. As an example, the ACLU sued the state of Nebraska to overturn its voter enacted marriage law and obtained a lower court ruling striking it down (currently on appeal).

Can it be described as evil when a filthy rich organization such as the ACLU sues to overturn a Constitutional amendment to protect marriage and children in the confines of it? Isn't it evil to promote an agenda consisting of not only sinful behavior but disease laden as well?

If Professor Carter and you aren't convinced of the ACLU's wickedness, I bring to you the words spoken in 1935 by the ACLU's founder, Roger Baldwin:

I am for socialism, disarmament, and, ultimately, for abolishing the state itself... I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class and the sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal."

Who except the likes of George Soros, MoveOn.org and his ilk can say Communism is anything but evil? The promotion of homosexuality in the name of equality and its agenda to control the public schools with the teaching of homosexuality and evolution are prime examples of the ACLU's socialist (Communist) agenda.

If you have not checked this link and this one that I posted at the start of this piece and that are listed in Professor Carter's piece, do so now. Allen Asch lists in the first 23 cases where the ACLU defended Christians. In the second (many of the cases overlapping with Mr. Asch's), the ACLU of Utah lists 39. However, those cases listed by the ACLU of Utah are spread out back to the 1990s and one of them, the 2005 intelligent design case in Pennsylvania, goes against the Christian faith. Two of them concern Mormons (for which we have several of them in our database and welcome them), one a Muslim and another a Jehovah's witness.

In one of the cases listed concerning the Mormons, Joe Cook, ACLU director of Louisiana, defended a Mormon's right (correctly so) to be accommodated in the practice of his faith. Yet Mr. Cook showed hostility to Christians by urging a court to jail school administrators for permitting a prayer over a school's PA system and by comparing such to terrorists.

Would you not consider Mr. Cook evil, Professor?

Discover the Networks reports that the ACLU handles roughly 6000 cases annually. Now take the cases where the ACLU has defended Christian expression (and occasionally church zoning) 30-35 cases over a 10+ year period, in all 50 states as well as nationally and ask yourself if the ACLU really devotes time to defending Christians. Basically they're throwing an occasional bone. Contrast that to all the suits for unrestricted abortion, same sex marriage, homosexuality in the schools, pornography, removing the 10 Commandments, religious symbols and prayers from the public arena and you see how one sided this organization is.

Now I have no problem defending Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses in the same light as Christians as we all have the right to worship under the 1st Amendment. I'm only pointing out the fallacies of the ACLU's claims to defending Christians. But again, please remember the ACLU will defend on occasion your right to free speech but if it concerns morality, they'll turn tail and run.

So let me ask you, my friends as well as you ACLU supporters (I know you're reading this): If your Congressman's voting record for one year contained 25 votes and he voted with you only once or twice, would you want to retain him as your elected official in the next election? If not, why would you want the ACLU on your side to defend you?

Yes, I know some of you will tell me the ACLU defended Jerry Falwell and yes, they have. However, filing a friend of the court brief is not the same thing as actively defending you in court. And filing the brief is what the ACLU did.

The professor closes his article with this line "The next time a fellow Christian disparages the ACLU , try answering with something like this: 'Sure, they're on the wrong side sometimes, but I thank God for the times when they're right.'

Sometimes? Try in excess of 99% Thank God for when the ACLU is right? Sure isn't often.

I close with this: If Christianity Today thinks the ACLU is even occasionally good for America, I have a bridge to sell them. And it's marked with the word "NOT."

© Nedd Kareiva

 

The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)

Click to enlarge

Nedd Kareiva

Nedd Kareiva is the founder and director of the Stop the ACLU Coalition. He is a 45 year old man from Chicago... (more)

Latest articles