The American Spectator : The ACLU's Not-So-Holy Trinity

Text Size

The Nation's Pulse

The ACLU’s Not-So-Holy Trinity

By Paul Kengor on 12.14.10 @ 6:08AM

There’s a reason why the Christmas season always brings out the atheist in the ACLU.

The ACLU seems unusually active right now. What gives? Maybe it’s the Christmas season, which always seems to spring the ACLU into high gear, more miserable than usual.

I tried to ignore the latest round of ACLU legal challenges against religious Americans, but they became too much. The surge has been remarkably ecumenical, not singling out Protestant or Catholic interests.

First, I got an email from Mat Staver’s group, Liberty Counsel, highlighting a bunch of ACLU lawsuits. Then I read a page-one, top-of-the-fold headline in the National Catholic Register, “Catholic Hospitals Under New Attack by ACLU,” regarding an ACLU request to compel Catholic hospitals to do abortions. Next was an email from a colleague at Coral Ridge Ministries, forwarding a Washington Times article. Then came another email from yet another Christian group on lawsuits somewhere in Florida. And on and on.

That was just a sampling of this year’s Christmas cheer, courtesy of the American Civil Liberties Union. At least the ACLU always finds a way to unite Protestants and Catholics.

In the interest of faith and charity, I’d like to add my own ecumenical offering — a history lesson. It concerns some fascinating material I recently published on the ACLU’s early founders, especially three core figures: Roger Baldwin, Harry Ward, and Corliss Lamont. I can only provide a snapshot here, but you’ll get the picture.

First, Roger Baldwin: Baldwin was the founder of the ACLU, so far to the left that he was hounded by the Justice Department of the progressive’s progressive, Woodrow Wilson. Perhaps it was a faith thing. Wilson was a progressive, but he was also a devout Christian, and Roger Baldwin was anything but that.

Baldwin was an atheist. He was also a onetime communist, who, among other ignoble gestures, wrote a horrible 1928 book called Liberty Under the Soviets. Notably, he was smart enough not to join Communist Party USA (CPUSA). Other early officials of the ACLU, which was founded almost exactly the same time as the American Communist Party, included major party members like William Z. Foster, Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, and Louis Budenz (who later broke with the party). Communists used the ACLU to deflect questions from the U.S. government over whether they were loyal to the USSR, were serving Joe Stalin in some capacity, and were committed to the overthrow of the American system.

That whole “overthrow-the-government” thing is something our universities tell us is baloney, a bunch of anti-communist, McCarthyite tripe. In fact, it took me mere minutes of digging into the Comintern Archives on CPUSA to find actual fliers and formal proclamations from the American Communist Party publicly advocating precisely that objective. (Click here to view some of the documents.) I also found the ACLU rife throughout those archives.

So bad had been the ACLU in aiding and abetting American communists that various legislative committees, federal and state, considered whether it was a communist front. The 1943 California Senate Fact-Finding Committee on Un-American Activities reported that the ACLU “may be definitely classed as a communist front.” The committee added that “at least 90 percent of its [the ACLU’s] efforts are expended on behalf of communists who come into conflict with the law.” That 90-percent figure was consistent with a major report produced by Congress a decade earlier, January 17, 1931.

Note the consistency: Defending communists secretly committed to Stalin’s Russia had been a central component of the ACLU’s work since its inception.

In my research, I also found constant approving references to the ACLU in CPUSA’s flagship publication, the Daily Worker. The Daily Worker loved the ACLU. Moreover, I was struck by how early the ACLU had been challenging not just Christians but their most joyous holiday, with the Daily Worker’s eager approval.

To cite just one example, Christmas 1946, one of the first for returning troops from World War II, the ACLU initiated legal action to stop the singing of Christmas carols in California public schools. For that, the communists were most grateful to Baldwin and the boys.

Aside from Roger Baldwin, there were two other especially influential figures comprising this not-so-holy ACLU trinity. They were Corliss Lamont and Harry F. Ward. Covering these two adequately here is impossible. I’ve devoted probably about 10,000 words to Lamont alone in my book, Dupes — both men were precisely that: dupes. The ways in which Lamont and Ward were rolled by communists is astounding, with Lamont granted a special Potemkin village tour of the USSR in 1932, guided by Soviet handlers, where he swallowed the most outrageous propaganda hook, line, and sinker.

Lamont was most inspired by the Bolsheviks’ militant atheism, especially the churches they converted into wicked atheist museums. Lamont had already written his atheist classic, The Illusion of Immortality, which had been his dissertation at Columbia University under John Dewey, godfather to American public education, who himself had made a Potemkin village tour of the USSR (1928).

Given his leftist atheism, Lamont was at home with the ACLU. Harry Ward, however, was a Methodist minister, and a professor at Union Theological Seminary. How could be possibly support the ACLU?

Page: 1 2 >

About the Author

Paul Kengor is professor of political science and executive director of The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College. He is author of the new book The Communist: Frank Marshall Davis, The Untold Story of Barack Obama’s Mentor. His other books include The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism and Dupes: How America’s Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (144) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Lullabys, Legends and Lies| 12.14.10 @ 7:00AM

I've always wondered, if behind closed doors, if this ACLU Fags celebrate Christmas with their kids, while at the same time, trying to ruin it for everybody else? You just know they do!! Friggin' hypocrites!! All I've got to say to them is "F" the ACLU, and Merry Christmas to everybody else!!

bob alou| 12.14.10 @ 9:48AM

L,L&L, You display a fine sense of Christian love that does credit to the season. I am sure your mother would be proud.

Mel Torme| 12.14.10 @ 11:08AM

Ann Coulter said something to the effect of: when you say "Merry Christmas" to someone on the street in New York City, it is the equivalent of saying "F. You!", as far as how they see it. So, the more "Merry Christmases", the merrier.

Merry Christmas to the ACLU, in that Ann Coulter sense!

Fuckin A!, LLL

Finbarr Moran| 12.14.10 @ 11:29AM

What is about the Christmas season that has you grossly under-endowed, obnoxious trolls scampering out from under your bridge to pour cold water on this festive time?

LLL is merely voicing this frustration. Like the chronic alcoholic relative who everyone hopes will not show up this year, you liberals do your level best to disrupt the good times. And when given the richly deserved “what for” they then, like you, bob alou, feign Christian principles in an attempt to stifle conflict.

When he’s not busy defending the gropers at TSA, RET makes the great point that you liberals are good for nothing but disturbing the peace.

Here’s wishing you and yours a thousand Merry Christmases – Ann Coulter style!

PsychoDad| 12.16.10 @ 9:18PM

Truthfully I suspect LLL is a troll from the other side, his (?) rant is so egregiously obnoxious.

Lullabys, Legends and Lies| 12.17.10 @ 8:32PM

Hey Psycho: I'll use your own words against you, although it took me quite awhile to find any, because you rarely post here, but "Do you have to practice being such an@$$hole, or does it come natural?"

Me a troll? Them there are fighting words Psych!! Look me up, as I did you, and then come back here again and call me a Troll. You in the search bar 2-pages, me in the search bar 10-pages, but this is the first time (that I remember) being called a Troll!!

Me a Troll? Me? Meaning a secret Liberal? What?

Now about me being egregiously (I had to look that word up-but it fits) obnoxious, it's just a natural trait I guess, and I've been called that many times (the obnoxious part, not the egregiously part), but a Troll? WTF Psych!!

PsychoDad| 12.16.10 @ 9:18PM

Truthfully I suspect LLL is a troll from the other side, his (?) rant is so egregiously obnoxious.

Dingus| 12.14.10 @ 12:24PM

I wouldn't know what homosexual ACLU members do, I don't personally know any.

I know this ACLU member goes to church, celebrates Christmas with his kids, and knows that the sentiments expressed in this so-called editorial are not based in fact.

http://www.aclufightsforchristians.com

But as always, there is no profit lost in telling fundamentalist right wing loonies what they want to hear, or in providing them with a convenient bugbear to justify their anti-American screed.

So have at it loonies. Reality will plod on happily without you.

Ted| 12.14.10 @ 12:38PM

Interesting URL link.... But for every one of those cited on that page, there are 10 instances of the ACLU trying to kick religious expression out of the public square. I also know for a fact, that the ACLU has been fighting to force Catholic organizations (such as hospitals and social service organizations) to perform abortions and provide birth control in their health insurance policies despite their religious objections. See the Becket Fund's site for the cases.

Merry Christmas to you, Dingus.

Dingus| 12.14.10 @ 1:14PM

The problem is ignorance.

Most people do not understand the difference and interplay between the Free Exercise clause and the Establishment clause.

The ACLU fights - very hard - in favor of free exercise. It is only when it believes that the government is violating the Establishment clause that it takes up a position that people like the author of this piece can twist into what appears to be an anti-Christian sentiment.

It's complete baloney. The author of this is counting on his audience not knowing the difference between these two very different kinds of cases.

The ACLU fights for religious freedom, that means that it fights for the free exercise clause - that prevents government from meddling with religion - and fights for the establishment clause, which accomplishes the opposite.

Our Founders felt it necessary to work both ends of the equation to insure religious freedom in this country.

So when the ACLU takes up a case defending a Christian's free exercise rights, you ignore it.

And when they take up a case to keep religion out of government, you call them persecutors.

It's ludicrous.

Ted| 12.14.10 @ 2:28PM

"Our Founders felt it necessary to work both ends of the equation to insure religious freedom in this country."

But Dingus, I am referring specifically to cases where the ACLU is attempting to force religious institutions to violate their religious precepts.

Please forgive my ignorance, but was the ACLU involved in defending the Catholic hospitals in Connecticut who were/are being forced to violate their religious beliefs by prescribing the "morning after pill" in violation of their right of conscience?

As far as the establisment clause goes, how does putting a Menorah on a courthouse lawn establish a religion? Or the Ten Commandments?

As far as calling anyone a persecutor or anything else, I have not used the term here.

Dingus| 12.14.10 @ 3:06PM

No, they are forcing them to obey the same laws as everyone else. When you are in the business of serving the general public, you don't have quite the same scope of rights as you do sitting in your living room. And in fact I have seen quite a few cases where the ACLU stood up for the religious...when there wasn't another law involved (like anti-discrimination laws, the ADA, etc.)

People can disagree with the ACLU's position on individual cases - as I do sometimes - but I have seen from the extreme Right in this country an organized campaign to paint them as some kind of atheist crusaders, when that is simply not true. They are passionate about enforcing the Establishment clause, that's all. So am I, and I am a Christian myself.

Eric| 12.15.10 @ 1:41PM

I thank God that I won't be standing next to you at the moment of judgement...

(Not blasphemy! I really am THANKFUL.)

Dingus| 12.15.10 @ 1:46PM

Damn right.

I'm going First Class.

Nick| 12.14.10 @ 2:42PM

Dingus,

When did Catholic hospitals become part of the government?

Also, the founders had no problem with the people of the several States establishing state churches. The prohibition was against Congress establishing a national church.

Try reading some history.

Dingus| 12.14.10 @ 3:09PM

Do the Catholic hospitals receive Federal funding? Are they otherwise violating laws? It is not quite as simple as you would like it to be.

The Founders had little control over what the states did in the 1780's...but that was before the 14th Amendment, which made the Bill of Rights applicable to the states. So technically the states could argue that the Establishment clause didn't apply to them. After the Civil War the 14th Amendment was made to make it clear to all the states, and especially the South, that they had to meet the standards of the US Constitution - at a minimum.

This was a Republican idea, by the way.

Nick| 12.14.10 @ 3:29PM

Dingus,

Why are you liberals so slippery?

You wrote: "Our Founders felt it necessary to work both ends of the equation to insure religious freedom in this country."

The "Founders", Dingus. You didn't mention the 14th Article of Amendment. So, you admit you were wrong, trying to appeal to the Framers, to support your false position, right?

Also, that amendment didn't make the Bill of Rights applicable to the several States. Later SCOTUS decissions did. 80 years later, I might add.

Is it your contention that everyone who receives Federal funds cannot exercise their religous beliefs and tennets? Have you ever recieved an income tax refund? Then, I guess you can't practice your religion the way you want to, huh? Do Jewish hospitals have to stop performing bris's, if they accept Federal funds?

You are the one who is thinking simplistically, Dingus.

Dingus| 12.14.10 @ 4:16PM

What is slippery about explaining that things are more complicated than you represented?

Argue semantics all you like. You asked a question, the answer is the 14th. I was never wrong, though you may have forgotten some of your history.

Yes, the SCOTUS sorted out the details, but today, in 2010, it is the case. Again you are arguing pointless semantics.

Also, I would appreciate it if you didn't misquote me. Federal funds *may* subject an institution to additional legal obligations, it may not. Again, it is not that simple and to give a real legal opinion I would have to have all the facts. But it would make no sense for the lawsuit you mention to exist without a Federal tie-in, and in my experience with hospitals, that's going to mean Federal funding of some kind. It is merely the logical implication of your example.

As for your bris example, it's a poor one. A better analogy would be a hospital that refused to perform circumcisions because it was against their religion.

Nick| 12.14.10 @ 5:17PM

Dingus,

The slippery part was invoking the "Founders" as if they would support the ACLU's, and your, false interpretation of the establishment clause, and, when shown (with an example from hisory) that premise is false, you appeal to the 14th Article of Amendment, ratified in 1868, long after the Framers were dead. An amendment wrongly interpreted by subsequent Supreme Court justices much longer after the founders had left this earth. Is that logical?

You can't invoke the Framers, and then, when called on it, explain it away by citing people who had nothing to do with the Framers. That is slippery. It is also called changing the premise.

Stick with your original assertion about the Founders. An assertion that was wrong, as I pointed out, and which you had no rebuttal.

Why do Federal funds have any role in the free exercise of someone's religion tennets and beliefs? You have failed to make this point clear. Tax dollars are used all the time in ways people don't like. That is why we elect people to decide how to spend our tax dollars, so we can vote them out when we don't like it.

But, violating someone's freedom of conscience because they accepted Federal tax dollars, monies they were entitled to under Federal law, violates the 1st Article of Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.

As you don't like my bris example because you have no argument against it, how about this one: Does a Catholic doctor, in the military, have to execute abortions if he is ordered to? O'Bama got rid of the ban against killing unborn babies (fetus in Latin) when he assumed the office of President.

A Catholic hospital is an institution made up of men. And they have a right to freely exercise their Catholic beliefs and principles in running that institution.

Those who would impose their will over someone else's conscience are un-American.
(I learned calling people un-American from liberals, by the way.)

Nick| 12.14.10 @ 5:51PM

Dingus,

p.s. What law demands that hospitals execute abortions?

Dingus| 12.15.10 @ 12:31PM

Depending on the facts and circumstances, the Equal Protection clause is implicated in such a situation.

Nick| 12.15.10 @ 1:33PM

Dingus,

Depending on the facts and circumstances?

I won't even get into the fact that the administration of hospitals and medical services are not in the purview of the Federal gov. under the COTUS. I will deal with reality and the way things are today.

Also, I thought you were familiar with the ACLU's request to HHS to investigate an Catholic hospital in Phoenix for demoting a nun, after she let an abortion be executed.

There is a federal law that states all hospitals in the nation have to perform emergency care for anyone reguardless of race, ability to pay, or legal status.

There is also the Church amendment, which states no federal agency can force hospitals to perform abortions, contraceptive procedures, or provide artifical contraceptives.

So, the question becomes: Is abortion ever medically necessary to save the mother's life in an emergency?

I've heard many doctors say, "No, it is not." I'm sure you can find many doctors who say the opposite. Neither of us being a physician, we are at an impasse.

But, I would leave you with this. If killing the unborn baby was ever truly necessary to save the mother's life, why would so many doctors risk malpractice lawsuits by not perfoming them?

By the way, I'm glad you abandoned your fruitless defense of your "Founders" assertion. That shows growth, and the ability to learn.

Dingus| 12.15.10 @ 1:48PM

EVERY case turns on its facts.

You should probably know that I am not a fan of abortion, so save it for someone who is.

And you can declare victory all you like, it matters not to me.

Nick| 12.15.10 @ 2:38PM

Dingus,

Save what, exactly, for someone who is?

I thought lawyers like to argue?
Why won't you answer my question about malpractice suits?

Also, did I not explain adequately enough how you were being slippery? Why did you change the premise of your assertion concerning the Founders?

Dingus| 12.16.10 @ 11:19AM

Because I am not here to engage in another tiresome and pointless abortion debate. It's off-topic.

Pardon me for being not very interested in your line of argument.

Nick| 12.16.10 @ 3:11PM

The lawyers way of saying he's been utterly defeated.

Negro X| 12.14.10 @ 5:42PM

Dingus, keep paying those dues, the ACLU always appreciates useful idiots.

Ted| 12.14.10 @ 3:42PM

Dingus,

It's really quite simple. There are people in the ACLU that want to force Catholic institutions to follow laws that violate Catholic precepts. Nothing particularly difficult about the concept. And yes, they are passionate about enforcing the Establishment clause and expanding it to exclude religion in general and religious people from the public square. Not as passionate as you would like to believe about standing up for religion, although they do on occasion.

However, what you fail to see is that on balance, they are for excluding religion far more often than they are for including it, so far as Christianity goes generally.

Dingus| 12.14.10 @ 4:26PM

What they are doing is trying to force the Catholic hospitals to obey the same rules as everyone else.

This one is tricky. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that there is a governmental nexus present - Federal funding or whatever you like that means certain legal standard apply to the hospital.

Now you have the court having to do a delicate balancing act. Since the hospital is acting in some governmental capacity (if it isn't, there would be no case), does it violate the Establishment clause because it refuses to treat people on religious grounds, or is it permitted to do that under its own free exercise rights?

Not an easy case to decide, and frankly I'm not entirely sure how it should be decided.

But there is a very simple reason the ACLU has more Establishment clause cases involving Christians that it does Free Exercise cases.

Demographics.

Christians are far and away the majority religion. Logically it will nearly always be Christians that will run afoul of the Establishment clause by virtue of this fact (and the fact that they proselytize). If you look at the cases, it really isn't mainstream Christians getting into these messes. When was the last time the ACLU sued because the United Methodist church was up to something? Probably never. Because? They aren't aggressive fundamentalists trying to push their agenda using the organs of the state. So part of has to do with Christianity being very much the majority religion, and part has to do with those certain Christians who think God wants them to bug the hell out of everyone else on Earth.

On the flip side, Free Exercise is also indicative of demographics, but there is a difference - free exercise is much more likely to involve a MINORITY religion, because of its very nature - but will still mostly have to do with Christians since there are so many of us.

Look at the cases I linked. Most of them involve the ACLU defending Christians on free exercise clause and most involve some kind of minority sect as well.

It's just demographics, not some kind of national atheist conspiracy.

Ted| 12.14.10 @ 4:38PM

They are trying to force Catholic hospitals and other Catholic organizations to compromise their religious beliefs and obey laws that specifically targeted those Catholic institutions.

And this is one reason among many that I ceased being a member of the ACLU and ceased giving them money. They are all about civil liberties when it "suits" their purpose.

Dingus| 12.15.10 @ 12:35PM

...and you take this situation as an indictment of everything the ACLU does?

You make subjective argument from the point of view of the hospital. The ACLU does not see it that way. They see it as making the hospital obey the same laws as everyone else.

You may disagree with their legal reasoning - and I am not sure I agree with it myself - but you are utterly wrong about their motivations.

Since you were a member, you no doubt understand that the ACLU is not some monolithic, homogenous organization. State and local chapters disagree all the time.

So let's not paint the whole ACLU with the same brush so simplistically. It might make for pithy remarks in a WND article, but it isn't accurate.

Nick| 12.15.10 @ 1:45PM

Dingus,

"State and local chapters disagree all the time."

Yes, I'm sure they do.

I'm sure they argue about which sytem to implement (when the workers and proletariate finally rise up,) Mao's re-education camps, Stalin's gulags, or Hitler's "Final Solution" implimented on Christians and Orthodox Jews.

I exagerate, of course, to make my point. Ha-ha!

Angel| 12.15.10 @ 11:49AM

Forget Catholics Dingus and forget about atheists. You are talking about a very dangerous organization whether you agree or not. Representing Christians in court is just more smoke and mirrors. You could probably count on one hand how many Christians they have represented. Their primary goal is to get rid of God and any form of religion in this country. Without either they feel they have a better chance of transforming this country into a Socialistic form of Communism. If I had children in school and they were told they could not pray because "little Sarah" would be offended, I would fight it tooth and toenail. If "little Sarah" is offended she could be allowed to leave the classroom. It is offensive to me that God is not allowed in the classroom when the Holy Bible was part of the curriculum when this country was just a baby. It also was part of government. Prayer was said at every meeting and church was even held in the White House and in the Capitol building. There are biblical readings and statues and carvings all over the architecture in all the memorials and buildings in Washington D.C. There is nothing in the Constitution about separation of church and state. That phrase was coined by Thomas Jefferson and it has been so grossly misinterpreted by some people, that it doesn't resemble what was meant by it. Jefferson meant that the government was not to interfere with the church in any way. The first amendment states it clearly and anybody who interprets it any other way is wrong. Our founders were wise enough to know that someday someone would try to subvert the Constitution and they wanted it to be clear what their intentions were. I think it's pretty clear. I think it would be wise of you to get a copy of the Constitution and The Bill of Rights and study them. When you looks at things from this perspective you will understand why people object so strongly. The ACLU is trampling on the Constitution and I for one resent my rights being taken away by some subversive organization. It's time we all stood up for our Constitutional rights, which I might add are God given rights and not something given to me by Congress. You see, Congress cannot give us rights. Rights are only given to us by God.

Angel| 12.15.10 @ 11:49AM

Dingus| 12.15.10 @ 12:29PM

I considered a meaningful response to this post - but frankly it's just misguided, misinformed ideological screed.

And I have a copy of the Constitution in my office, where I have been practicing law for 20 years. But I'll read it again if it makes you happy.

As well as the hundreds of SCOTUS decisions interpreting it that you conveniently ignore.

Christopher| 12.14.10 @ 9:03PM

The 14th amendment does not state in any manner that the Bill of Rights applies to the states. The supreme court using the theory of "incorporation" has ruled in a case by case basis that certain amendments apply to the states because of the rights guaranteed by the 14 th. In fact, the issue in the current second amendment litigation has been wheter the second amendment applies to the states.
This is the danger of accepting "federal" money, the governement then controls you, and most people, like you, agree.

Dingus| 12.15.10 @ 1:51PM

Yes, I oversimplified it, but my point still stands.

You shouldn't assume what I agree with and what I don't. Much of what I post here is not really my personal opinion, it's based on my understanding of the law.

Accepting Federal money *can* create a "sufficient governmental nexus" vis-a-vis the Establishment clause. That doesn't mean it always does or does in this particular case.

Tom| 12.15.10 @ 12:25PM

Dingus,

The first amendment says nothing about anyone other than CONGRESS making laws about religious activity. Many of the original states had clauses in their Constitutions that provided for an official requirement of religious affiliation in order to hold office. It has only been since the progressives and communists got into the Democrat party and began appointing progressive judges that there have been ruling coming out of the SCOTUS that create law where there should be no law. CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW...does not mean that others can't, that religion cannot show its face publicly, or that people cannot pray in a public school. All of those rulings are created out of progressive distortion of a very simple statement of law. Until we can get some of these judges removed from the appelate courts and add a few more constructionist judges on the SCOTUS, we will continue to be plagued with ACLU attacks that have no business in a Christian Country...yes, there I said it....a Christian Country. This is fact that can be backed up through many sources of historical nature. The ACLU has no place in America. Period.

Dingus| 12.15.10 @ 12:37PM

You need a time machine to go back to 1803, when your side lost this argument.

This issue was settled then.

The rest of your post is just laughable.

Steve A| 12.14.10 @ 12:39PM

Hey Dingus, Your X Wife chose not to abort your children, you go to church & you celebrate Christmas.....Your ACLU membership is hereby under review pending a sanity check.

Dingus| 12.14.10 @ 1:15PM

Stay classy, tard.

Finbarr MOran| 12.14.10 @ 1:31PM

Oh so now you are marginalizing special needs people or “tards” as you call them.

Is there no end to the hypocrisy of the Left?

By the way, do you also go by the name bob alou?

In either case, here is wishing you too a thousand Merry Christmases – Ann Coulter style!

Dingus| 12.14.10 @ 2:50PM

I find your selective outrage amusing. Now you are going to get all politically correct on me for taking an obvious troll to task?

Ann Coulter is not an image I want associated with Christmas. She makes me throw up, as do all empty-headed ideologues, Right or Left.

Finbarr Moran| 12.14.10 @ 3:22PM

My outrage is far from selective. One of my oldest and dearest friends has a nephew with Down’s syndrome. The love radiated from that kid on the worst day of his life exceeds what a poltroon like you could do on the best day of your vapid life, Dingus (an apt handle if I ever heard one because you do impress me as a consummate pud).

Here’s ten thousand more Coulteresque Chrismas greetings!

Dingus| 12.14.10 @ 4:28PM

Frankly I don't give a damn if you are offended or not.

Don't trip over your thesaurus and break anything important.

Finbarr Moran| 12.14.10 @ 4:46PM

You win, Dingie.

I feel like Samuel Johnson when asked to for his opinion of the plot of Shakespeare’s Cymbeline. He is said to have responded that it is impossible to criticize unresisting imbecility.

A genuine Merry Christmas to Mel et al who endured you today.

Dingus| 12.15.10 @ 12:38PM

yes, we are all very impressed with your name-dropping and vocabulary.

GDH| 12.15.10 @ 11:39AM

Now I find that an interesting comment. As a Christian, and as part of the majority you say, when my belief structure says "I don't give a damn if you are offended or not" you will not hesitate to call me biggoted. Maybe as John Kerry stated there is a hugh divide in America now and there is no coming together while one group wants a utopia in la la land and the other recognizes hard work, God and family as reality.

Dingus| 12.15.10 @ 12:39PM

I said I was a Christian, I didn't say I was particularly GOOD at it.

Mel Torme| 12.14.10 @ 4:00PM

Who's the classy one, Dingle, when you refuse to even say "Merry Christmas" back to the nice Mr. Moran. Or, it is that you are too politically correct to say it? Is that what it is? You call someone politically correct for coming down on you for the word "tard". Fair enough, though you know he was making fun of you. However, from your views of the ACLU, I believe you are steeped in political correctness, like a bag of Celestial Seasonings (not Celestial Christmas, mind you) Orange Zinger herbal tea.

Then, you starting telling me that the 14th amendment has incorporated all of the Bill of Rights onto the states. Yeah, how come I can't carry my firearm in Massachusetts (legally, I mean.)? Answer me that one, Constitution-boy?

I liked the ACLU back when they defended the Illinois NAZI's right to march, but where were they during the Federal Gov't seige and murder in Waco, Texas. Not a damn peep out of them. I could come up with 100 other cases. They will never defend a conservative constitutional cause, as their defense of the US Constitution is only a front. They and the SPLC are Communists, even if they won't say it, yet.

Dingus| 12.14.10 @ 4:30PM

So now I'm in trouble for not saying Merry Christmas to an add-on troll?

However will I sleep tonight. Gee I hope Santa doesn't bring me a lump of coal.

Pfft.

Do you want me to cite a string of cases to you where they defended conservatives and Christians?

Oh wait, I already did.

Dismissed.

Ted| 12.14.10 @ 4:42PM

You proved your point only to yourself. The only religion that the ACLU as an institution will defend all the time is that of secularism.

Mel Torme| 12.14.10 @ 5:17PM

It'd be great to hear about a case or two where the ACLU defending the 2nd Amendment, which, according to Dingus, has been incorporated onto all the states. I guess the ACLU 2nd Amendment working group never made it back from that "holiday" bonus trip to Fiji, eh?

I did read over the links at the page you pasted in above. Looks like good work, but your arguments are not working for me.

I don't wish you a lump of coal, Dingus, but you ought to watch out for whatever Santa delivers at the ACLU office. I am pretty sure the ACLU has been on Santa's shit list for quite a while.

DRed| 12.14.10 @ 5:36PM

How does an ACLU lawyer count to 10?

1, 3, 4, 5 . . . .

In all seriousness, there have been a few cases in the last few years where some chapters of the ACLU have taken on cases defending the rights of gun owners.

Here's an example, if you're interested:
http://tinyurl.com/2auzshp

Dingus| 12.15.10 @ 12:44PM

Yes, and I am glad they are getting involved, as a gun owner myself.

But to indict them because they don't get as involved in Issue X that you care about is silly.

Why doesn't the NRA care about my 6th amendment rights, damn them!

See how silly?

Mel Torme| 12.15.10 @ 10:29PM

Not so silly, really, as the NRA is an abbreviation for "National Rifle Association". None of the others of the Bill of Rights mention anything else about any types of guns, Constitution-boy. Granted, the NRA does get involved in 1st Amendment issues but only when they themselves are targeted.

ACLU stands for "American Communists and Left-Wing Urchins", wait, well you know, something about "civil liberties", of which one of them is the right to bear arms, which is basically the last resort to defending the rest of the civil liberties that have been taken away over the last 40-60 years.

I hope you are not another one of those Affirmative Action constitutional lawyers, like, you-know-who.

Dingus| 12.16.10 @ 11:21AM

OK, let's examine an organization more on topic, like the ADF, which purportedly fights for religious freedom.

Can you show me an example of them defending someone that WASN'T a Christian?

Should that invalidate the work they do?

See how silly?

The rest of your post is unworthy of comment.

Mel Torme| 12.16.10 @ 6:11PM

I never heard of the ADF. I guess I don't run in the same constitutional lawyer circles as you.

Your logic escaped you, either way. You now say that the ADF (whom I've never heard of) should fight for religious freedom for people who are other than Christian. I gave an example of the NRA, who fight, basically, for the 2nd Amendment only (when they don't compromise, as they are prone to).

What do those 2 groups have to do with the ACLU? I just said that the ACLU should defend all of the US Constitution, as "Civil Liberties" is in their name. You should not ever go to trial on something, my man, as you will get eviscerated by someone with logic, even if you were on the right side.

Tell us what you really do for a living, Dingleberry.

Dingus| 12.22.10 @ 12:04PM

The Alliance Defense Fund is the ADF. Google them. They are a supposed civil rights group that defends Christians in (mostly) Establishment clause cases.

Christians only. Just as the NRA deals with the Second Amendment only. The fact that they are selective shouldn't invalidate what they do, should it?

So why not apply the same standard to the ACLU? It is not a logical argument against the ACLU that they don't take up cases that other people think they should. It doesn't invalidate what they do choose to do.

The logic was there, you just missed it.

And my litigation success rate speaks for itself, thank you very much.

Troll.

Steve A| 12.14.10 @ 1:58PM

Hey, You hurt my feelings! Someone call the ACLU!

Mel Torme| 12.14.10 @ 4:06PM

Steve, I'm still on hold with them - trying to help you out, but they are very busy this week defending some taxpayer-supported artwork that people are all upset about just because it denigrates their religion*.

* Hmmm, can't remember which religion it was even - it can't be Islam, or the museum curator's head would be also soaked in urine (without the body). It can't be Judeism or we would have heard about it on all channels on TV for the last month. hmmmm... I just can't remember .... it'll come to me.

ejp| 12.14.10 @ 5:13PM

On the issue of "reality" let's see you, a big ACLU apologist address the documentary evidence regarding the founders of the ACLU and their peculiar infatuation with Soviet Russia at a time when they were a murdering regime committing atrocities equal to that of Hitler if not greater. Seems to me this is the thrust of the article (as well as the outstanding book Kengor has written and which I highly recommend) that you should be addressing because it speaks volumes as the ACLU's deeper credibility to presume to speak for its ability to understand the essence of the American System.

Dingus| 12.15.10 @ 12:47PM

The founders of the ACLU were idealists, looking around for what they thought, sometimes wrongly, were good ideas to improve society.

It does not mean the same thing to say someone dabbled in communism in the 1940's than it does to say that they did in the 1970's.

As this article - for once - honestly relates, once they got a good glimpse of Soviet Russia they renounced communism and undertook to purge the ACLU of its influences. Live and learn.

At any rate, it is completely irrelevant now, or would you like to explain how a libertarian organization that fights AGAINST the government could possibly be "communist.?"

You either do not understand what the ACLU does, or you don't understand what communism is.

Russ| 12.15.10 @ 2:07PM

with a name like Dingus I can somewhat see your problem. If as you say you really go to church and it doesn't cave in, then you can see how kind God is because if it were I,you, would get your just deserves

Dingus| 12.15.10 @ 2:24PM

God has an opinion on constitutional law?

Where can I find that in Scripture. Do tell.

Alan Brooks| 12.14.10 @ 11:59PM

Televangelists make atheists seem like saints.

Appleby| 12.14.10 @ 7:17AM

The clamour of busybodies at this time of year is exceeded only by those at the subway stations shrieking for money to *GIVAKIDACHRISTMAS* -- expensive, unwrapped, anonymous loot for which the shriekers will take all the credit, naturally.

Let us go back to the time when Christmas was a time to be quiet together and think of the miracles around us. And stop making Christmas just another Entitlement.

Mel Torme| 12.14.10 @ 11:10AM

Fuckin- A, Appleby. Absolutely.

Darrow| 12.14.10 @ 8:11AM

During the War an ACLU bigwig had leaders vetted by J.Edgar himself. Recently Elizabeth Gurly Flynn et al were rehabilitated by the ACLU.
Corless was the sun of U.S. Steel Thomas Lamont. I believe he did spy. His son "Red" Ned Lamont is
pushing Connecticut leftwing politics.

Ralph| 12.14.10 @ 9:12AM

Aha! That would explain why all the DKos kids were so rabidly supporting Ned Lamont against Lieberman a few years ago.

Anthony| 12.14.10 @ 11:39AM

Interesting background, thanks Darrow. Somehow, the reliably liberal Hartford Courant never got around to mentioning this fact to the citizens of Connecticut, as Neddy the Red made his challenge against Lieberman, and recently, as a Democrat candidate for governor, who lost a nasty primary to (D) Gov-elect Malloy.
However,thanks to the intrepid reporting of the Courant, we knew all about steriods use in the WWF, as a slam on Linda McMahon, and of course, we are treated to a daily dose of Palin Derangment Syndrome from the sclerotic lefties on the Courant's editorial board.
So many diaper baby "Reds" have silver spoons in their mouths, yet they are for the "people".

MikeD| 12.14.10 @ 12:40PM

Just another example of the "Trust Funders", "Heirs and Heiresses"; and Academic "Self Supremecists" spewing their intellectually bankrupt garbage. Of course, they have to use other people's money to sooth their own social consciences, but hypocricy is one word that doean't have a place in their limited vocabularies, unless they can find some way to throw it at their intellectual superiors, that is, any sentient life form that believs in self reliance and American Exceptionalism.

Melvin| 12.14.10 @ 8:12AM

Absolutely Lullabys, Legends and Lies. Hypocrisy used to be a trait that was looked down up. Nowadays, it is looked upon as a resume enhancer of the ruling class. "It OK to lie to the masses they don't know any better anyway."
You damn straight these unholy warriors celebrate Christmas. I bet a bright and shiny Susan B. Anthony that a whole lot of them attend Midnight Mass to. Being a hypocrite has so much became a way of life for the ACLU types that they would even do it in the house of God and not think twice about it.
Many but not all litigators are loathsome creatures whose thinking processes have been so corrupted by the Lawyer Mills, that I guess it could be said, that they become less of a human being, and more of a mouthpiece for a alien philosophy to most of us.
This is why ALCU types are such a close knit society within themselves because no one else will have em.

Redstateboy| 12.14.10 @ 8:29AM

Dey ain't called the "Anti-Christian Lawyers Union" for nut'n.

Dingus| 12.15.10 @ 12:49PM

Actually they do call them that for nuthin', or rather out of ignorance.

http://www.aclufightsforchristians.com

You will note that this link is more than a handful of cases.

Redstateboy| 12.14.10 @ 8:30AM

Jihad with a Law Degree

Petronius| 12.14.10 @ 9:33AM

The ACLU members I've known are mostly rotten spoiled trust funders who see God when they look in a mirror. Their egotism, coupled with appetites for power, social standing, and notoriety lead them straight into the tentacles of the ACLU when they get what they have coming; rejection.
Maybe Bill Maher is right about one thing when he says, "it's the ones who can't get laid who cause all the mayhem."
An aside to those interested. We are having our annual Humbug Swarming this weekend at the White Castle in Fenton.

CharlieEcho| 12.14.10 @ 11:34AM

Here is a little story about Christmas, and White Castle. I love their hamburgers, they don't love me. Many years ago, I'll say twenty, I was working between the holidays of Christmas and New Years. My crew and I, railroaders, were waiting for our train at the White Castle in Dyer, Indiana.

I'd gotten coffee and had taken a seat in a booth to read a paper and just, wait. I looked across the booth and there sat a little boy. This boy looked very much like Ralphy (sic), from the movie "A Christmas Story". The movie hadn't been out all that long and was already a favorite and classic.

I couldn't stop looking at that little boy and read my paper. He was with his father and older brother. They finished their meal and had gotten up to leave. I excused myself and said to the father, "I just have to ask, this is Dyer after all. Did that young man get a BB-gun for Christmas?" The father smiled and said, "No he has recently had corrective eye surgery. But that movie is a good one isn't it." I agreed and wish the family well.

So, Merry Christmas one and all.

mejamom| 12.14.10 @ 9:40AM

There's always talk (print, too) each year about how Christmas is losing it's religious meaning. I've noticed it more this year and I'm very glad. Our pastor gave a very spirited homily about using the phrases, "happy holidays" and "seasons greetings." He reminded us that since Christ is the center and only reason for the holi(y)day, the phrase,"Merry Christmas" shouldn't be considered offensive even to a non Christian. Ben Stein wrote a wonderful essay about that, btw. Anyway,maybe I don't get around much, but I've always used that greeting in public during the season and no one has ever responded with anything else. Well maybe I've gotten a "Same to you" but no one has ever challenged my refusal to bend to the secular.
So I'm curious. Has anyone out there actually been confronted for using Merry Christmas?
Also, please excuse my ignorance, has the ACLU ever defended a Christian or Jew's religious rights as defined by the Constitution?

Mel Torme| 12.14.10 @ 11:17AM

Answer to 1st question: Not me. People are usually glad to hear it - I wrote above about what Ann Coulter said in re: NYC, but sometimes I think NYC people get a bad rep. Bostonians make New York City people look downright Southern and hospitable.

Answer for 2nd question: Yes, but only when trying to elevate Chanuka over Christmas. That was mostly in the past. They have moved on to bigger and better "Holiday" struggles now, like preventing trees from being set-up and keeping the white-bearded man down.

MikeD| 12.14.10 @ 1:25PM

Not only do I say "MERRY CHRISTMAS!" to everybody I see during the holidays, I also follow it up with: "Did I manage to offand any liberals? If so, get over it!" Invariably, the response is laughs and comments like: "F**k 'em if they can't take a joke!"

So, in the spirit of the season, and in my own pathetic attempt to nail the morons in the aclu (I refuse to dignify certain words and acronyms with capitalization; like: aclu, demoncrap party, obama, reid, pelousy, etc.) I say "MERRY CHRISTMAS!"

Dingus| 12.15.10 @ 12:50PM

They do it all the time. Look at their website under free exercise.

There are not a lot of cases involving Jews these days, since they aren't often persecuted in modern America. Also, they don't proselytize, which is a major factor.

Mel Torme| 12.15.10 @ 10:44PM

Is there something in the Constitution about proselytizing, Dingus? That does not comprise "establishment of a state religion". I'm not sure why you bring that up, unless it's as an excuse as to why they ACLU is all over Christianity like flies on shit.

Evangelical Christians are pretty good about leaving you alone once you indicate that you don't want to hear it. Talk to the Moslems giving out Korans at the fair in Dearborn. The ACLU won't defend a Seattle reporter against Moslems putting a death-threat on her (now in a witness-protection-program type deal) for publishing a draw-Mohammed day announcement on a blog.

That's because the ACLU is chicken about seriously defending civil rights. That's really the reason they pick on Christian activity a lot - as the Christians will turn the other cheek. Well, I may show em some cheeks next time that they wish me a Happy Holidays. It'll be my third and fourth cheeks, the ones not mentioned in the King James version.

Dingus| 12.16.10 @ 11:26AM

That Christians, especially evangelical ones, proselytize is a factor in how often they get entangled in Establishment clause cases.

There are millions of Jews and Buddhists in this county but you hardly ever hear of them running afoul of the Establishment clause because they don't "recruit" the way Christians and Muslims do.

Christianity and Islam, by there very nature, are going to get into more trouble with the Establishment clause because they both believe they have a divine mandate to recruit people.

It's already happening that the ACLU is getting into lawsuits against Muslims trying to teach their religion in publicly funded schools. (Just Google "ACLU Tiza" and you'll see for yourself).

You of course ignored every point I made, but I am not surprised.

Suffice it to say you are seriously misinformed.

Nick| 12.16.10 @ 3:05PM

Dingus,

Christians are mandated to "spread the Good News (Gospel) of Jesus Christ." It's in our by-laws.

You would know this if weren't a member of atheistic, commie organization. Now, go read the Bible. Ha-ha!

Merry Christ-mass!

Dingus| 12.22.10 @ 12:07PM

Your post makes no sense at all.

A communist organization would be working for the government, not against it. Epic fail.

An atheist organization wouldn't have me as a member, since I am a United Methodist. Epic fail.

Nor would they defend religious groups if they were, as the ACLU does regularly.

Epic fail all around.

Mel Torme| 12.16.10 @ 6:20PM

"You of course ignored every point I made,..." I recall it was you who mentioned the proselytizing - you could refer to Exhibit A, your post above mine. That's why I responded about this subject.

It seems like, for every subject you mention regarding Amendment 1, you bring up the federal money. The problem is that nowadays our Fed. Gov't is so huge and out of hand that you can connect anyone or anything with government money. Maybe a private school got some grant for some program years ago, and now that means they can't teach about the Bible. You're pretty damn far from the Constitution at this stage.

There is no doubt in most American's minds that the ACLU is a left-wing organization and that it tries to tear down Christianity over any other religion.

Maybe you could answer my question about the Seattle reporter in permanent hiding. Does the ACLU care about that, or are they chicken? I think you all are scared of anyone who will not meekly turn the other cheek.

Your organization sucks, and that doesn't say much for you as a card-carrying member.

Dingus| 12.22.10 @ 12:10PM

Proselytizing is the real-world factor that makes Christians run afoul of the law more than other religions that do not recruit. Islam has similar issues.

This really is a very simple point. I cannot understand why you people aren't getting it.

For the Establishment clause to even apply, there has to be what the courts call a "sufficient governmental nexus" - there has to be some connection with the expression of religion and the government. SOMETIMES, Federal funding provides that nexus. SOMETIMES it doesn't. It all depends. Again, this is a VERY SIMPLE IDEA that you guys just don't seem to grasp.

As for what you think most Americans believe, all I can say is that is a real condemnation of our education system.

It's your ignorance that sucks here.

davelnaf| 12.14.10 @ 9:45AM

For most of the last century the professional Left got away with defining the meaning of fascism like they had a copyright on the definition. So, it’s not surprising the ACLU still exists and still receives its necessary political cover. But times are changing and slowly, but surely, their past is catching up with them and 2012 could go down in ACLU lore as the beginning of the end, if not their year of apocalypse.

Caped Crusader| 12.14.10 @ 10:02AM

To all indignant unhappy unbelievers I have only one thing to offer you in this holiday season from my favorite bumper sticker:

"Jesus Loves You - Whether You Like It Or Not"

So Merry Christmas to all Christians and a Happy Hanukkah to all Jews and know that all true Christians love all true Jews and are appreciative of you.

And if I was a sure as you atheists are I would just keep my mouth shut and snicker on the inside as you see we foolish and unenlightened Christians and Jews going about our supposed foolishness and be merrily amused by it all, rather than being so hostile and unhappy.

Any chance the person you are really trying to convince is yourself?

YeloStalyn| 12.14.10 @ 10:18AM

Ditto!!!!!

Maryland Lady| 12.14.10 @ 12:41PM

Amen!

ACynic| 12.14.10 @ 10:09AM

The ACLU - the American Communist Lawyers Union - has always been the legal arm of the CPUSA. And they still are.

Dingus| 12.15.10 @ 12:51PM

Gosh, they must have accidentally let this capitalist, gun toting, anti-union libertarian in when no one was looking.

Heh.

Mel Torme| 12.15.10 @ 10:46PM

It's your money, Dingus - I'm sure they don't care too much what you think, so long as you pay your dues.

Really, I hope you can have a positive effect on that organization, so good luck.

Dingus| 12.16.10 @ 11:27AM

And what makes you think paying dues is my only involvement with them, eh?

I do far more than that.

Mel Torme| 12.16.10 @ 6:22PM

Who gives a shit what you do with them, Dingus? I just don't think you see the truth about that organization. You deserve your money and your time back.

Dingus| 12.22.10 @ 12:13PM

You care, evidently.

You are shockingly ignorant about the organization you malign so readily.

But it is hardly suprising, considering where you likely get your information.

Maybe you should try reading actual court documents from cases in which the ACLU is involved instead of having your opinions spoon fed to you by stupid editorials like this one.

Betina| 12.14.10 @ 10:13AM

Why don't you talk about the real elephant in the room: most of the loud mouthed bigots in the ACLU are Jewish. In fact, what is being done to Christianity from this group and others would NEVER BE TOLERATED if it were aimed at the Jewish religion. It's about time there was an anti-Christian Defamation League. And someone stood up and asked why Christianity is so offensive to Jews who devote a lot of time to sniffing out bigotry against their own while simultaneously stomping on others. Too many are covert Marxists who use this issue to advance their agenda which begs the next question: why are so many Jews in America fellow travelers? People are not afraid to point this out anymore. The threat of being called an anti-Semite for pointing out that those doing the name calling are bigots is laughable. Here is the phony game being played: I point out that a group of people famous for calling everyone else a bigot and is practicing bigotry themselves, but the one pointing out the hypocrisy is the bigot. Get it? Some people get to do all the bashing of others but are immune from being called bigots just because they have created a protection racket for themselves. The internet is a wonderful tool. In the past few years many who share the same troubling observations and experiences have an outlet to discover they are not alone in their thinking. Where once this game had no end in sight, too many are seeing it for what it is and speaking up about it. There is too much Christian bashing going on in America, and a disproportionate number of Jews are leading the charge.

RCV| 12.14.10 @ 12:16PM

Disgusting.

Steve A| 12.14.10 @ 12:46PM

Betina, If Jews have created a "protection racket" for themselves as you state, it certainly has not been historically successful. Get a grip on yourself. Your generalizations display nothing but pure ignorance.

Ted| 12.14.10 @ 2:44PM

If the Jews in the US have a protection racket, they need to change the leadership, because they aren't doing a very good job.....

More to the point, some in the ACLU who are loudmouthed bigots probably are Jewish. So what? No religion has corned the market on stupidity or sinfulness.

And remember, some of the biggest defenders of freedom and also Christianity in the US are Jews. Don't believe me? Check out the writings of people like Dennis Praeger and Michael Medved, for example. They are serious Jews....

sinanju| 12.14.10 @ 11:25AM

Betina, this has been observed many times by Jewish conservatives. But make no mistake, it is always the guilt-crazed lefty jews whose judaism consists of (at most) keeping kosher, worshiping the Holocaust and taking the NYT editorial page as the word of God. These are the people who go out of their way to pick fights with white Christians and think that everyone who watches Joel Osteen has a Cossack saber and white hood in their closets--while studiously ignoring Islamists and black anti-semites. The whole self-hating Jew phenomenon is of a piece with the culture of envy, guilt, and the fear of and urge to deflect envy by taking on the coloration of the perceived threat. This is also where we get our rich-kid terrorists and socialist billionaires.

(Jack Wheeler: "The Secret to the Suicidal Liberal Mind" http://archive.newsmax.com/arc.....1252.shtml)

Michael Medved has observed that Jews who actually practice their religion (as opposed to fetishizing it) tend to be far more conservative and comfortable in their own skin, get along fine with Christians, and know who our real enemies are.

Expel "The Ruling Class"!| 12.14.10 @ 11:48AM

An interesting historical rundown of the ACLU. As one who used to get highly ticked off when the ACLU started it's seasonal persecution of Christians through the removal of symbols like crosses, manger scenes, etc. I now as a Christian look at this differently. One, the Triune GOD does not need me acting in an uncivil, sinful manner to defend Him. Two, Jesus Christ has already defeated Satan, death, & evil on the cross on Calvary. Those doing Satan's work & Satan himself have already lost the battle. Three, there is nothing, I repeat nothing the ACLU, leftists, & atheists can do to remove the Triune GOD from my life. Period. They can remove all the symbolism they want, try to prove GOD doesn't exist (good luck with that), etc. It just won't work. The only person who can remove me from the grace of GOD is me through unrepentant sin. Christ warned His disciples they would be persecuted for their faith & belief in Him & that still holds true today. GOD's name is glorified through the persecution of His people. What I believe He does not want is His people out there sinning out of frustration & anger toward those who persecute them. That is playing into Satan's hand. I dislike the ACLU highly & don't believe the Federal Government should give them funding, but there is nothing they can do to spoil Christmas or wipe out it's true meaning unless you let them. Let 'em persecute Christians all they want. If a Christian is truly one with The Lord GOD who created everything, there is nothing they can do to separate that Christian from Him. Merry Christmas all, even those who believe differently than I do & GOD bless!

darcy| 12.14.10 @ 11:09PM

Points taken to heart. Thanks for writing, Expel.

Citizen Jerry| 12.14.10 @ 12:38PM

Kind of informative that Roger Baldwin, in his own writings, said the ultimate goal of the ACLU was communism, under the guise of civil liberties. It's insanity that our government keeps funding them.

Dingusmcnasty| 12.15.10 @ 1:02PM

Ah yes, let's pretend that's the only thing he wrote and never changed his mind.

Because it would be pretending, you do know that, right?

Jimbeaux| 12.14.10 @ 1:05PM

The nice thing about being a Christian, and celebrating Christmas, is that nothing the ACLU, et al can do can keep you from celebrating Christ and His monumental, salvific work on earth. Ask a Chinese Christian, any one of which has more bravery and goodness then the whole ACLU lot put together. Ignore the ACLU (a.k.a., Useful Idiots) and praise your God, and no matter what happens, He will be with you. God knows those who hate Him, and he also allows them to exist, perhaps to refine believers' "gold." Don't hate the ACLU types, just resist them, and even if they "win", it will be a pyrrhic victory at best in the end. God bless all, including those who don't (yet) believe in Him.

Tony in Central PA| 12.14.10 @ 2:32PM

On the basis of no authority, the ACLU somehow considers itself the determiner of what is " offensive ". This is why a gay pride parade in the middle of the the day in NYC on a route lined by police can feature nudity and sex acts while a naitivity scene at Christmas on the same public property is strictly verboten.

John II| 12.14.10 @ 5:33PM

My favorite has always been the spectacle of the ACLU leaping to the defense of a gaggle of skinhead nazis marching in a Jewish neighborhood.

Commie or no, anti-religious or whatever, the keynote for me about the ACLU has always been its prim, undeniable sophomorism. The people attracted to such an organization exhibit all the reasoning capacity, all the maturity and nuance and subtlety, all the sense of history and the literary and moral sense of a smug college activist addicted to causes celebres and student government.

For all its deception and clownish self-importance, I suppose the ACLU at least serves the useful purpose of keeping many such people off the streets.

And now back to the original "Manchurian Candidate" (1962), in which the character Senator Thomas Jordan (John McGiver) makes a pretty bit of talk about the glories of the ACLU just before the brainwashed commie operative Raymond Shaw (Laurence Harvey) puts a bullet into Jordan through the half-gallon milk carton the latter is holding in his kitchen. Boy, that's what I call putting your all into being duped.

Dingus| 12.15.10 @ 1:03PM

The ACLU has no such power or ability.

The courts do.

As for your example, the LAW makes the distinction, NOT THE ACLU.

John II| 12.15.10 @ 2:44PM

But Dingie--haven't you noticed? The LAW is presently dominated by the same degenerate culture as is the ACLU. The Greeks isolated an informal fallacy which the legal-eagle Romans came to call "ignoratio elenchi." Perhaps you should brush up on your Greek.

And now back to my Perry Mason collection.

Dingus| 12.16.10 @ 11:27AM

I do not agree with a single thing you say, and I hope that you seek professional help soon.

Mel Torme| 12.16.10 @ 6:24PM

This guy is some type of affirmative-action lawyer. How else did he get through the 3 years without learning any latin and greek? He goes by the name of Jackie Chiles in real life.

Dingus| 12.22.10 @ 12:14PM

All of your guesses are wrong.

I got an A in Latin by the way, but that was 30 years ago.

I have no idea who Jackie Chiles is.

Any other complete misapprehensions of reality that I can clear up for you today, Mel?

Nick| 12.14.10 @ 3:03PM

Mr. Kengor,

"Could it be that the ACLU's alleged onetime "90-percent" commitment to defending communism has shifted to a 90-percent commitment to defending atheism?"

Doesn't atheism and communism go hand in hand, like Fred and Ginger, and Lester and Earl?

From the time of Rousseau and the French Revolution; to Hagel, Marx, Freud, Nietzsche , Lenin; to our own time with the U.N., global warming, and the bleeding heart liberal scourge; these people all have the same master: Satan.

This is why they hate Christ so much. And repeatedly attack His birthday.

As I've written many times here at AmSpec, liberals are modern day vampires. They're afraid of the sight of a crucifix, and suck the blood from society.

Merry Christmas atheists.

Ted R.| 12.14.10 @ 4:53PM

I'm afraid you're a little confused. It's the God Mithra's birthday on Dec. 25. Jesus was born back in October (6 B.C., to be exact).

Nick| 12.14.10 @ 5:39PM

Ted R.

Do you have Christ's birth certificate?

Otherwise, everything else is speculation.
Or, Tradition.

Merry Christ-mass.

elephant4life| 12.14.10 @ 7:39PM

He has it stored right next to Obama's long-form certificate from HI.

Anommynous| 12.14.10 @ 4:02PM

If the ACLU had their way, we would have followed the path of Mexico. Look up the brutal oppression of Catholics under President Calles (and the Cristero War). We all see how the decades and decades of rule by the godless PRI worked out for Mexico.

Marc Jeric| 12.14.10 @ 5:31PM

ACLU was until the 1930 the official legal arm of the Communist Party USA. For political reasons ACLU separated from that association.

PeterK| 12.14.10 @ 6:44PM

What happened to the 1946 case and is there a link somewhere to information about it

Tom Baxter| 12.14.10 @ 8:28PM

Let's not forget the ACLU was instrumental in providing undeserving criminals, communist union organizers, communist rights workers and other untermensch protection from the law by giving them the same rights as REAL AMERICAN citizens.
We will again know true freedom when just as a century ago states were allowed to determine who qualified as a REAL AMERICAN and who didn't.

betty | 12.14.10 @ 8:32PM

MERRY CHRISTMAT TO YOU ALL .
GOD STILL IS IN POWER........

albert constantine jr.| 12.14.10 @ 10:06PM

Twas 10 days before Christmas
Or perhaps it was later
As I read through the blogs
Of American Spectator

I learned of a history
Of ACLU’s reds
With visions of Uncle Joe
Alive in their heads

I thanked God for Freedom
And the vets who helped win it
And America’s Founders
And how they begin it

With a strong constitution
To withstand the destroyers
Of the organized left
And its vanguard of lawyers

But the Spirit of Christmas
Was with me today
With that 1st Amendment
And freedom to pray

Along with a right
To read any books
And all inane comments
Made by Mr. Brooks

As Dingus adds comments
That go through cyberspace
And RCV jumps in
In DRed’s place

But just when we’ve seen
What was thought the whole lexicon
Here comes the response
From Ken (the old Texican)

Then to our delight
And sweet as brown sugar
Again from the right
It’s a letter from Booger

And just like in heaven
Where they have Cherubim
We have an exchange
between Margie and Tim*

and up on the roof
there was heard such a clatter
and another fine lim’rick
from the wise old Mad Hatter

as I watched all of this
I forgot all the danger
Jumped in with the wise men
In front of the manger

So I wish one and all
Without guile or fear
Merry Christmas to All
And Happy New Year!

(I hope the line breaks work).

John II| 12.15.10 @ 2:32PM

Well--not exactly. The predominantly anapestic rhythm in the Clement Moore poem you're imitating (cf. also Bill Peet's "Caboose that Got Loose") requires a more leisurely stretch in the individual verses. Without the line breaks you've imposed on the rhythm, you'd probably have caught the intermittent irregularities and made the necessary adjustments.

Take, for example, your seventh stanza:

As Dingus adds comments
That go through cyperspace
And RCV jumps in
In DRed's place

The anapestic rhythm normally would require two verses rather than four. Under that discipline of composition, you would likely have teased out a less awkward expression, such as:

As Dingus adds comments through cyberspace well
And RCV jumps in for DReddie to spell

It's interesting that you added the parenthetical hesitation about the line breaks. I think that's precisely the trouble. The lyric form can't very well sustain the narrative movement. When the form and the rhythm are better suited, you get the advantage of a sharper critical ear in your composition.

And now back to the peculiar 1956 Paramount spectacle "Omar Khayyam," starring Cornel Wilde as the Persian poet. Some themes just don't translate well on the screen.

albert constantine jr.| 12.15.10 @ 10:23PM

Actually, the parenthetical line breaks remark was a reference to my fear that the spacing would not be reflected in the manner that I wrote my post, making my work seem jumbled by poor punctuation or formatting, instead of the limits of my own poetic skills (or deficit thereof). With respect to the seventh stanza, I read (and wrote)DRed as three sylables (Doctor Ed). Read in such a manner, my meter may seem less fractured. In the spirit of the constructive criticism, though, between stanzas eleven and twelve, allow me to insert:

"And John II breaks in with his brilliant insight
and goes back to watch films in black & white
and other examples of Hollywood epics
in his own collection that surpasses Netflix"

Lullabys, Legends and Lies| 12.14.10 @ 10:18PM

I thought about my earlier post for more than 15 hours now, and maybe I came off as a little malicious when I wrote it, but then again, it "was" very early at the time!! So here's my updated version after working all day, "may all you ACLU-Hypocritical Hippie Tree Hugging Fag Liberal Commies have a very Merry Coulteresque Chrismas, each and every one of you!!" I hope this cleared up my earlier post, it was very early you see, and I was tired from PT, and I didn't sleep well last night, and I knew I had a lot to do today, and I ran out of coffee on top of all that!! So I'm very sorry if I came off as unpleasant, I meant to be!!

But I'm still sticking to my "F" the ACLU, and yes, my Mom is very proud of me, but thanks for being concerned enough to wonder!!

Mel Torme| 12.15.10 @ 10:50PM

Now that there is some of that civility we've all been told about!

REB| 12.14.10 @ 11:35PM

LLL youre right. I tried for years to get aclu to stand up for farmers rights here in USA only to be told everytime that it was animals rights that were at issue,not peoples rights(I guess farmers arnt people to the aclu) they didnt defend animals....Oh contrare... they do...just the vilest two legged kind ,not real people...so yeah, they suck! AACLU=Anti American Civil Liberties Union

Dingus| 12.15.10 @ 1:05PM

The ACLU is not PETA.

Did the farmers have a CONSTITUTIONAL issue?

Chuck| 12.15.10 @ 12:09PM

To the a.c.l.u.: WHERE ARE MY AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES??? YOUR WELCOME!

JerryF| 12.15.10 @ 5:44PM

If you take comfort in the mindless rant that is this essay, you are pathetic. It is tantamount to "I received a bunch of biased crap in the mail so now I'll malign the founders of an organization whose sole purpose is to defend the Bill of Rights, and I'll do it with a bunch more mindless crap." NEWS FLASH: the ACLU is not anti-Christian. It is anti-government endorsement of Christianity. If you don't understand the difference, I can see why you'd enjoy this essay. The saddest thing is that the clown who wrote it is actually a professor somewhere. Yikes!!!

REB| 12.15.10 @ 9:07PM

"The ACLU is not PETA."

Of course they arent.... But both are as useless a tits on a boar hog!
The issue was simple,the govt requiring that the animals of farmers and animal owners be implanted with chips(RFID proven to cause cancer) and that the premises be registered with the govt and their corporate sponsors,this violates private property rights of farmers / people NOT animals.
It was called NAIS,it didnt fly but now the dems hid it in S-510 and hid S-510 in the omnibus spending bill,again a flagerant violation of the constitution,and again no aclu...but then whats new?

Dingus| 12.22.10 @ 12:16PM

I am no fan of PETA, and to compare them to the ACLU is just ludricrous.

That does not sound like an issue the ACLU could or even should get involved in. It's not really the kind of constitutional issue they handle.

platitudinarian| 12.16.10 @ 1:16AM

In the spirit of Christmas, can't we all feel a little sorry for dead atheisits? There they lie, in their coffins, all dressed up and no place to go.

platitudinarian| 12.16.10 @ 1:19AM

Before the resident spelling bee cop responds - it it A-the-ists, atheists.

Flatulus Ancien II| 12.16.10 @ 9:22AM

After reading the Constitution, and The Declaration of Independence, and some of the Federalist Papers, and dwelling on the First Amendment, I have a great difficulty in understanding the distorted interpretations the
ACLU gives of the establishment clause.
The display of the Manger Scene on a courthouse lawn is not there by a decree of Congress.
A Holy Bible brought to school by a student is not done in response to a law passed by Congress.
Being unlearned in the ways and wiles of the law, and being of a simple mind, I cannot comprehend that a prayer at a school football game is in violation of the "Establishment Clause".
The Constitution is written in such terms as to be understood even by the simple minded such as I, but has been so twisted and entangled by liberal lawyers and activist judges as to be unrecognizable.
Using the same logic and inversions to interpret the Second Amendment, everybody in the country would be required by law to own and carry a gun
I'd like to see that.

Denise Porter| 12.16.10 @ 11:39AM

Plenty of supposed 'Christians' ---or simply biblically & doctrinally ignorant Christians---have been made use of for diabolic purposes throughout the ages. We wouldn't be so taken by surprise if we were reading & remembering God's Word & our Founders' wise & historically unique stance on the potential corruptibility of every person --which in turn was rooted in the realistic assessment of man's condition & needs from biblical & historical reality.

There have always existed two 'lights' and two sources of 'knowledge'. Which we choose is what determines everything, including the filter through which we interpret the world, its events & people, and the measure by which we evaluate & interact with them.

It's only when we embrace humanist hubris separated & uninformed by Revelation that Babylon flourishes undetected & unresisted in her prostitution. When the individual members of the church & their leaders cannot discern science falsely so-called, Satan's so-called 'deeper knowledge' and the captivating hollow & deceptive philosophies which depend upon human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ ----- LOOK OUT, prepare & resist... A false authority, god or idol is being embraced. But also LOOK UP ---- praise God -- for guidance, empowerment, protection & finally deliverance.

Whatever one does ---do not LOOK solely WITHIN (my will be done) which is one of the biggest spiritually blinding & disarming lies & deceptions of our day ---the lie & deception that these men fell prey to & in turn used to prey upon others.

These men and their activities are very well detailed in the work of John Taylor Gatto, Charlotte Iserbyt, Berit Kjos & others ---for further study, self-education & preparation for the new 'emergence' of rising Babylon with her change agents & purposeful 'guiding' of the flock. The Fabian Socialists' insignia is not a wolf in sheep's clothing for nothing!

Paterfamilias| 12.16.10 @ 9:55PM

It's really funny to read how wrought up Christians are over the biggest commercial holiday of the year. I'll bet they think that Jesus was born on December 25, 0000.

Paterfamilias| 12.16.10 @ 10:03PM

Flatulus (gotta LOVE that name):

Don't blame it all on the AACLU. Blame people with IQs greater than 75, who read books and actually do some serious thinking about issues instead of accepting the Gospel According To Coulter.
In your reading of the Constitution, etc., did you ever come across something called the 14th Amendment? It might conceivably provide an answer to your questions.

BTW, it's not "liberal and activists" alone who are offended by the offering of Christian prayers in public schools; it's libertarians such as I, who feel that you have no more right to impose your brand of Christianity on the public than I have to impose the theology of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (may you be touched and blessed by his noodly appendage). So, SEASON'S GREETINGS, everybody.

china law firm | 12.17.10 @ 8:23AM

Latest Headlines

Foreign Policy as Farce

Jed Babbin|83 comments

Revenge of the Fruitcakes

Peter Hitchens|16 comments

The Biggest Fool of All

Doug Bandow|114 comments

When Did Matty Tell Hatty?

Frank Schell|18 comments

Can Liturgical Music Be Saved?

Patrick O'Hannigan|50 comments

Shah Na Na

Mark Tooley|22 comments

The Mole in Don Draper

James Bowman|31 comments

Jeff Sessions’ Conservative Populism

Matthew Walther|68 comments

The Spectacle Blog

High Court Strikes Down Arizona Voter Law

Jordan Gonzalez | 6.17.13

Waiting for the Middle East to Combust over Syria

Kaylin Bugos | 6.17.13

Snowden’s Online Q&A Leaves Many un-Aed Qs

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 6.17.13

Hannity: Secure the Border First

Jeffrey Lord | 6.17.13

A Grave New World: The Political Price of Overpopulation

Anne Hobson | 6.17.13

Serious Welfare Reform…in Massachusetts

Claire Healey | 6.17.13

Pelosi Misuses the Word “Sacred”

Rich Lizardo | 6.17.13

Keep the IRS Scandal Alive

Matt Purple | 6.17.13

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Pope Culture

By George Sim Johnston

A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck

By P.J. O'Rourke

Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
Dames at Sea

By John Corry
In the Absence of Guns

By Mark Steyn

In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The Metaphysical Martini

By Werner J. Dannhauser
Counting the Costs of Clintonism

By Robert H. Bork

The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
Chuck McHagel

By George Neumayr

It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted

By Douglas Bartholomew
It’s the Best Time of the Year

By Mark Steyn

The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
The Bush Crack-Up

By Brit Hume

Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?