Replies

I don't know what the practice is regarding "sponsorship" of Boy Scouts or other groups by government bases. Just giving this a quick legal analysis, though, I would argue that forbidding the government to sponsor groups with a "religious" component, but sponsoring other groups without such a "religious" dimension, is clearly a discrimination AGAINST religion. (Just like Bush's faith-based initiative: my understanding is that Bush is seeking to "level the playing field" by allowing ALL groups, religious as well as secular, to receive government funds for their "charitable" work.) The danger of discrimination against the religious is much, much greater than any danger of a government "establishment" of religion. I thought the ACLU was in the business it's in to prevent discrimination against persons based on their beliefs.

On a personal level, of course, I am disgusted beyond words - or rather beyond words which I am allowed to use on this site.

Hey, if the ACLU wants a fat, juicy target for a government "establishment" of religion, I've got one. A federal holiday, signed into law by Ronald Reagan, named for an American citizen (Columbus was not an "American," and there's no longer a "Washington's Birthday" holiday, merely "Presidents' Day.") This holiday commemorates a CHRISTIAN MINISTER who used the moral authority of his religion to bring fundamental changes to American society. Oh my! Religious groups influencing the government! Isn't that what the liberals are afraid of?

So why is the ACLU not stampeding, immediately, to get rid of Martin Luther King Day?

Don't get me wrong, please. I think we SHOULD commemorate Dr. King. Without going into detail, I think at his best moments he exemplified some of the best qualities of "the American spirit." He gave his life rather than give in to violence or hate. (Wouldn't politics be transformed if we judged people on their BEST moments at least as much as we did based on their worst ones?) Dr. King's legacy is not my point.

But his actions didn't take place in a vacuum. Again, the term "moral authority" comes to mind.

So, if the ACLU sees the "danger" in a base sponsoring a Boy Scout troop, why do they not consider this holiday an impermissible establishment of religion?

My point is the absolute hypocrisy of the ACLU. If you hate Christianity, be up front about it. Don't hide behind legal principles that you don't even follow.

But the more they pull these stunts, the more the US turns red. Literally and figuratively.

If anyone has examples of the ACLU defending Christians I'd love to hear about it.

Very well stated.
Thank you

If anyone has examples of the ACLU defending Christians I'd love to hear about it.

They have defended obnoxious street preachers in Salt Lake City when they want to yell at Latter-day Saints (Mormons) attending their general conference, confront them on church-owned private property and desecrate sacred items in public.

Does that count?