As many of my longtime readers know, I am generally a supporter of the ACLU. That doesn't mean I support everything they've ever done or will do - I do think they take on some cases that are pointless and even damaging to the cause of liberty - but on the whole, I think it's a very valuable organization that has done much to keep America free. And I occassionally find myself being even more supportive of them just because many of the attacks on them that come from the right are so utterly dishonest and emotionally overwrought. The ACLU has become the favorite whipping boy of the religious right, and as I've documented many times they often engage in outright lies to distort the record of the ACLU.
You all know the familiar rhetoric - that the "American Communist Lawyers Union" or the "Anti-Christian Lawyers Union" or whatever other quasi-clever acronym solution they've come up with this time, are out to "destroy Christianity" and "drive religion from the public square". The halfwits at the Worldnutdaily have called them worse than terrorists, Bill O'Reilly says they're the most dangerous group in America, and Jerry Falwell says they're to blame for 9/11. This ridiculously shrill rhetoric never fails to win applause from the mob, but more often than not it's backed up by distortions at best and outright lies at worst. There are dozens of blogs that do almost nothing but bash the ACLU, most notable StopTheAclu. So I have decided to do a series of posts countering the most common anti-ACLU rhetoric. This will be an ongoing series, so I have given it its own category. So stay tuned for more of that. But first, I must finish my long essay on Clarence Thomas' establishment clause interpretation, which is only about half finished.
- Log in to post comments
Good! The lies about ACLU coming from the US right have considerable effect on mainstream opinion about them, and it will be great to have a one-stop shop to point people to if misconceptions need to be cleared up...
I see you've opened a new category for the posts. Could you start off the series with a quick list of links to earlier postings about ACLU? That will help a lot.
I'm looking forward to the series.
Its gonna be difficult to refute their actual policies like where they advocate the legalization of distribution and possession of child porn. Feel free to search my archives.
"Feel free to search my archives."
You have a kiddie porn archives? Lucky!
Jay wrote:
I have. That's what prompted me to start this series. I have no intention of defending every position the ACLU has ever taken, but I will be pointing out the many distortions and falsehoods that are contained in those archives and in many other places around the net. There are areas where I think the ACLU can legitimately be criticized, like any other large group that has been around for a long period of time. But the standard "it was founded by commies who hate God" nonsense that you and hundreds of other people peddle is pure demagoguery.
I'll merely note that I get sincerely disturbed when someone who I consider a conservative Christian lambasts the ACLU when they do not represent a plaintiff in a religious rights case, when that plantiff is being represented by, for example the ACLJ. I have seen conservative Christians complain about the ACLU in this regard on the Internet message boards over and over over the last decade.
The fact that the ACLU does not represent the plaintiff does not mean that the ACLU does not agree with their position. But they cannot represent a client if the client does not ask them to. They can, and have, filed briefs, but they can't represent a party if they are not requested to.