The ACLU: Lost without a compass
Posted on July 12, 2005
An article from a very wise man.
The ACLU: Lost without a compass
By Alan Sears
copyright 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
Some recent events would seem to indicate that the American Civil Liberties Union is lost in the woods without a compass. A moral compass, that is.
For the last five years, the ACLU has been fighting the federal departments of Defense and Housing and Urban Development because of their support for the Boy Scouts of America- support that has taken the form of raising money for their national jamborees, allowing military personnel to lead Scout troops in their personal capacities, and providing access to government facilities for free.
Now, a federal judge has sided with the ACLU and ruled that a Virginia military base can no longer host a Scout jamboree after this year’s event. Why? Because the Scout oath pledges duty to God - a supposed violation of the so-called “separation of church and state.”
The Boy Scouts of America is a federally chartered patriotic organization that’s recognized by Congress - one the Pentagon has been proud to be involved with for the last 50 years. The DOD and HUD are strongly defending the Scouts’ right to meet on military bases and receive funding.
But the whole ordeal shows us something ugly about the ACLU - its single-minded obsession with attacking the Boy Scouts of America. Not only do the Scouts ask their leaders to pledge their loyalty to God - always a no-no in the ACLU’s eyes, no matter how appropriate that might be for military troops and their children in harnessing aggression with restraint, particularly in wartime - but they have the audacity to conduct their business by a set of moral standards that runs counter to the ACLU’s. Namely, men who are openly and actively engaging in homosexual behavior are barred from leading Scout troops.
I’m referring, of course, to the landmark 2000 case Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, for which the Alliance Defense Fund funded friend-of-the-court briefs and assisted the Scouts’ lawyers, and in which the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed that the Scouts have a constitutional right to free, expressive association. But you’d never know it from reading about them in most of the mainstream media: Ever since that decision was handed down, the Scouts have been vilified as one of the most bigoted, hateful, intolerant groups in America. And the ACLU has been leading the charge against them, when in fact, the principles held by 3.2 million Boy Scouts - building character; training to become active, responsible citizens; and developing personal fitness - are a lot more like the values held by the rest of America than those held by the ACLU.
Whose values, then, are like the ACLU’s? Not Virginia’s. In addition to wanting the Scouts off a military base there, the ACLU is also attacking the state for enacting a law that keeps juvenile boys and girls from running around hotels or campgrounds naked without a parent or guardian in attendance.
The ACLU’s views do seem more in line with the North American Man-Boy Love Association, which fights to lower the legal age of consent so that sex between grown men and adult boys can become more “acceptable” to mainstream society. That may never happen - but the ACLU has signaled such a change is acceptable to them. Its lawyers stepped in to defend NAMBLA in 2000 after the group was named in a lawsuit against two homosexual men who frequented the group’s website - and who then raped and murdered a 10-year-old Massachusetts boy.
But a lack of moral standing is only one problem the ACLU has in its latest fight with the Scouts; the other is that they have very little legal grounds to challenge them. In fighting to have the military end its involvement with the Scouts, the ACLU chose the most humorous of excuses - taxpayer standing. This is the organization that has never met a government expenditure to advance its agenda it didn’t like. ACLU attorneys are not representing a child who was allegedly abused by a scoutmaster, one who was denied entry or any other kind of direct injury claim. They’re simply saying that taxpayer dollars were used for character building they don’t like. So not only is their case without merit - it was brought on grounds the ACLU itself disagrees with on other facts (for example, its support of public funding for abortion).
But, alas, that’s to be expected of a group that stands for nothing but absolute autonomy. Behave in the most hedonistic ways imaginable, the more immoral the better, and the ACLU will defend you to the death. The problem is that kind of self-centeredness doesn’t do much for society.
But the Boy Scouts - and their Christian values - do.
Alan Sears, a former federal prosecutor in the Reagan administration, is president and CEO of the Alliance Defense Fund, America’s largest legal alliance defending religious liberty through strategy, training, funding and litigation.
Blogger’s 1st Amendment Pledge
If the FEC makes rules that limit my First Amendment right to express my opinion on core political issues, I will not obey those rules.
» Filed Under 1st Amendment, Church And State
Trackback URL
Comments
17 Responses to “The ACLU: Lost without a compass”
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Donate
Steal Me
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
More blogs about the ACLU
I am sorry I forgot, isn’t it Congress that’s not supposed to establish a religion? And by allowing a “God” what religion are the Boy Scouts or the military establishing?
Yes Steve, the only restriction on any government agency or body from “establishing” religion is on Congress. But the lefties for some reason want to apply that restriction not only on all government departments, bodies, and agencies, but on the general public as well.
Their attack on the Boy Scouts is bordering on the criminal.
It’s not establishing a religion anyway. God is a generic term recognizing a creator. The same “Creator” the founders recognized as the giver of our inalienable rights in the Declaration of Independence.
Yeah, CL and these idiotic liberal atheist morons act like “The Man” is trying to create some right wing religion.
All these different ‘religions’ have been established for centuries, so what’s with all the crying?
Suck it up.
Why does Creator have to mean God? The DoI also says “Governments are istututed among men.” There are women in the government, what’s your point?
It’s more like “What’s YOUR point?”
Your question has already been answered and is totally irrelevant to the subject……once again.
You ask why creator has to be God. That is actually a very good question. It could be aliens for all I care in this particular argument. God, or alien, it is a higher authority than man. The point is that our rights are given by a higher power than the government, otherwise the government would have the right to take them away. If you study a little however, you will find that our founders did believe in a God, whether they were Christians, deists, or whatever…the fact remains…and from that one can logically conclude that their reference to “Creator” was a God.
Its “common logic” to conclude that.
We all know that man is fallen. Jay, I knew that most of the founding fathers believe in God. Still what’s the point? Just because they believed in God, then we all should?
For RV, you will need a God if you can see the point. Spelled out for you; just because the DoI refers to God, it doesn’t mean that God needs to be included in everything, hence my point. The DoI also says that our government is to be made up of men. Notice all the women in government? Point, not everything in the DoI is etched in stone.
You run to these documents to prove that God should be more involved in our country, yet I disprove your argument. Silly are you.
“Religion is love; in no case is it logic.” -Beatrice Potter Webb
I still fail to see your logic. Go to the post below.
Lol, MAN! CL is so ignorant. Women in govt. has no relation to having God in the DoI.
And I have the Lord. I don’t “need a God” to try and map out your senseless ramblings.
And CL, if you acknowledge man is fallen, why did you say you can define what a good life is? God doesn’t do that, remeber?
el write like evan. a lot of words meaning nothing.
Exactly like Ivan the Troll. I’m thinking it’s the same person. Ivan the Troll got ran off a bit easier. Twice.
I sure miss Evan! Glad to see dethanial!
RV, the point that the DoI says that we are to have a government of men, which we don’t, if proof that not everything in the DoI is etched in stone. Your creator argument is then frivilous because our forfathers wanted men and creator, right? Where did women come in? Why not leave out the creator too?
Your site is realy very interesting. http://www.bignews.com