Skip to main content

The ACLU: American Civil Liberties Union

James A. Watkins is an entrepreneur, musician, and a writer with four non-fiction books and hundreds of magazine articles read by millions.



The ACLU Says You Have a Right to Child Pornography

In the Supreme Court case New York vs Ferber, the ACLU argued that child pornography was protected by the First Amendment. Photographs were displayed of children being molested by adult men; and violated by various objects. After viewing these, the lawyer from the ACLU argued that the possession of this material was the intent of the First Amendment. The Court did not agree.

In the United States vs American Library Association, the ACLU fought against the filtering of pornography when children are using computers in Public Libraries arguing that libraries should, "make that knowledge available to young and old alike."



The ACLU Destroys the Boy Scouts of America

The ACLU was extremely belligerent to the Boy Scouts of America. The Boy Scouts had an outstanding track record helping young boys—many without a father in their lives—to become good citizens, particularly in troubled big city neighborhoods where Scouting introduces some boys to nature for the first time.

The ACLU was against the Boy Scouts because they did not allow openly gay scoutmasters; and because the Boy Scout Oath mentions God. The Boy Scouts believe that homosexual pedophiles would naturally see Scoutmaster as a position with easy access to their prey. And any incidents of this nature would result in litigation against the Scouts for not protecting the boys.

The ACLU began suing the Boy Scouts in 1980—that first case went on for 17 years—at enormous expense to the Scouts. The root issue is Freedom of Association in the United States Constitution.

The ACLU relies on this very Right to exclude from leadership in their organization those who disagree with their views. To quote the founder of the ACLU, Roger Baldwin: "The ACLU is a private organization, like a church. You don't take nonbelievers into the church. We are a church."

In 1991 the ACLU sued on behalf of Atheists—who are free to start the Atheist Boy Scouts. But that was not the goal. The objective was to destroy the Scouts; along with all organizations that adhere to traditional morality.

They also sued the City of San Diego for leasing land to the Scouts for 46 years—land the Scouts spent millions of dollars improving by building an Aquatic Center they made available to the public. The San Diego City Council threw out the Boy Scouts and awarded the ACLU $950,000 of taxpayer's money—despite a Supreme Court ruling that the Scouts have a Right to select membership based on the scouting charter, in Boy Scouts of America vs Dale.

Additionally, the ACLU successfully pressured charitable organizations to exclude the Boy Scouts from funding. To quote the opinion of Jewish Rabbi Daniel Lapin, the ACLU is: "the storm troopers of secularism."





The ACLU Hates Christmas Because it is about Christ

Another enemy of the ACLU is Christmas. They have campaigned to make America into their version of Eastern Europe behind the Iron Curtain, through lawsuits in many states to prevent the singing of Christmas Carols and the display of manger scenes—which are American traditions.

The ACLU unceasingly sends threatening letters to municipalities to stop these traditions—and often succeed by financial intimidation. Jingle Bells, Santa Claus, poinsettias, and instrumental versions of Christmas songs have even been the target of threats by the ACLU.

Thousands of private and public companies, local governments, and media outlets, now ban "Merry Christmas" at Christmas! Happy Kwanzaa or Happy Ramadan is acceptable. The ACLU has never won a case concerning this issue. The cheapest thing to do is just cave in.

So we now have Winter Break and school children suspended for mentioning Jesus; wearing red and green scarves; writing "Merry Christmas" in letters to active members of the armed forces.



The ACLU Destroys Holy Matrimony

The ACLU set out to destroy traditional marriage. Incredible costs will now be borne by taxpayers for social programs, insurance, and Social Security.

Scroll to Continue

They advocated no-fault divorce, resulting in skyrocketing divorce statistics. It is well established that children do best in a traditional, two parent home. It is the children who suffer from these misguided ideologies. Children of single parent homes suffer from emotional impairments, and doubled rates of severe injuries and mortality.

The philosophies of the ACLU have led to increased premarital sex, dysfunctional families, out-of-wedlock births. The public health consequences are enormous. 65 million persons in America today live with an incurable sexually transmitted disease. 15 million more will be infected each year.

The ACLU has backed polygamists and will eventually challenge in court for the 'Rights' to marriage of multiple partners, child marriage, incestuous marriage, and bestiality. The ultimate goal is the abolition of marriage.

The ACLU seeks to completely reorder our society. They fully intend to force religious organizations to violate their core beliefs regarding sexuality, abortion and marriage.

The ACLU is contemptuous toward Democracy. They fought for homosexual 'marriage' despite the fact that voters soundly voted it down. To quote former ACLU Executive Director Ira Glasser: "These results prove that certain fundamental issues should not be left up to a majority vote."

The ACLU fully intended to impose same-sex "marriage" by judicial fiat over the will of 75% of the People. They filed lawsuits against many states—defended with taxpayer's money—and lost every one.

The ACLU issued a statement in the case of Lawrence vs Texas that said: "The religious beliefs of Americans have nothing to do with reality."

ACLU Board Member, Franklin E. Kameny said this in 1993: "I view homosexual activity as moral, virtuous, right, and desirable."



The ACLU Opposes Parental Rights

The ACLU has filed lawsuits to block legislation requiring Parental Notification before a minor child has an abortion. They believe girls age 12 should be taken for abortions without their parents knowledge. They say Parental Notification Law “diminishes a minor woman’s constitutional right of privacy.

The ACLU has sued school districts to force children to undergo 'training' designed to make them reject their parent's religious beliefs regarding sexual conduct. In a Kentucky case, the school wrote a handbook for students that prohibits them from expressing opposition to homosexual behavior—a violation of their Free Speech Rights.

The ACLU has opposed School Choice or Vouchers—against taxpaying parents who want their children to receive a good education.

The Texas ACLU issued this statement about children: "They will be molded by whatever education they receive." The only curriculum approved by the ACLU is one that rejects patriotism, traditional values and religious faith.





The ACLU Hates God

The ACLU views Free Speech and the Free Exercise of Religion as enemies of their agenda for America. In public schools, children have had Valentine cards confiscated that mentioned God; wall tiles for a fundraiser removed because two said "God Bless" on them; clergymen banned from school property; students stopped from praying at graduation; football teams cannot pray together before a game; invocations, benedictions banned.

The ACLU sued two school board members for reciting the Lord's Prayer at a public meeting (They lost). With a budget of $50 billion dollars a year, they file suit after suit as financial intimidation.

In Iowa, a valedictorian was told he could not mention Jesus during his speech. The Alliance Defense Fund came to his aid and the school learned what they did not know: it is his constitutional right to thank Jesus for his success in his speech.

America as envisioned by the ACLU will not sing "God Bless America" "My Country 'Tis of Thee" and "The Star Spangled Banner" in public; will remove the Ten Commandments from all public buildings ending with the Supreme Court; fire congressional and military chaplains; remove "In God We Trust" from our currency; public documents; and National Motto; excise "Under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance.

The ACLU will want crosses and Stars of David removed from the military cemetery at Normandy, and all other military cemeteries, and Arlington National. Then they may demand their removal from all citizen's graves—since they are obviously in public view. Finally, the Declaration of Independence must be changed to remove those offensive words "God" "Creator" "Supreme Judge" and "Divine Providence."

The ACLU has sued over gospel concerts; over public space rented to a church to store hymnals; over a teacher who taught Bible lessons for 30 years off school property; over teachers for meeting on their own time to pray together; over prayer at a high school baseball game—which they called "Immoral" and asked the judge to send school officials to jail.

The ACLU seeks to eradicate public acknowledgement of Christianity. They sued the National Park Service because of a cross in the Mojave Desert in honor of veterans of World War One. In countless cities, the ACLU demanded tiny crosses be removed from city seals. They all caved in to save legal expenses except Los Angeles. The ACLU spokesperson, Ramona Ripston, says the cross makes non-Christians feel "unwelcome" in Los Angeles.

The ACLU may demand the names of innumerable American places be changed such as Los Angeles (City of Angels); Corpus Christi (Body of Christ); and places named after Saints (San Fransisco, San Diego). They have filed many suits over public displays of the Ten Commandments, some of which have been there for 100 years.

The ACLU has sued Catholic Charities to demand they provide contraceptives in direct violation of Catholic doctrine. They sued the Salvation Army to force them to hire non-Christians. They sued Yeshiva University to demand they allow two lesbians live together in student housing against their Jewish Faith. They sued the Virginia Military Institute to stop cadets from saying Grace before their meals.

The ACLU pockets millions of dollars from taxpayers in these lawsuits. They use the Civil Rights Attorneys Act to collect their attorney fees in cases they win or settle. Municipalities have to pay the ACLU for the pleasure of being sued.

The ACLU could not care less how much it costs taxpayers to revise the history, heritage, and faith of America. None of these cases are about violations of the First Amendment clause that the federal Congress shall not establish a national religion. The First Amendment was never intended for the government to censor public religious expression.



The ACLU Loves Abortion

The ACLU has filed several briefs in favor of banning pro-life advocates from exercising their right to Free Speech. They also have supported infanticide—the killing of living babies. Babies born with defects have been left to starve to death and in each of the cases the ACLU has supported the parents' "right to privacy."

A spokesman for the ACLU said this "I don't know what all this fuss is about. Dealing with these handicapped infants is really an extension of women's reproductive freedom rights, women's right to control their own bodies."

The ACLU fought the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, despite the fact that standard medical texts state, "The fetus is an individual patient, and to be viewed as much a patient as any other patient."

The ACLU has long advocated against any restrictions whatsoever on abortion right up to the moment of birth, playing an influential role in Roe vs Wade; Doe vs Bolton; Griswold vs Connecticut; and U.S vs Vuitch. They issued this statement in 1980: "Our litigation strategy has been to challenge every statute restricting reproduction freedom."

They have successfully argued that the health of the mother includes her psychological health and that means if having a baby would upset her, she can kill it in the very place designed to keep it safe during gestation: the womb of its own mother. A survey in 2005 shows that 91% of abortions had nothing to do with the health of the mother or the baby. It is just a matter of inconvenience.

One of the early leaders of the ACLU fight for abortion—which has now killed 55 million living babies in America—was attorney Harriet Pilpel. She wrote in 1964 that abortion was needed to discourage "births among low income groups" so we can breed a "better human race."

It is now admitted that Pilpel used highly inflated numbers of 'back alley abortions' and deaths from them, to sway public opinion. In 1965 she claimed over one million illegal abortions were performed each year in America resulting in 8,000 deaths. Research shows that the real numbers of illegal abortions averaged 124,500 per year, and 197 deaths—meaning these figures were inflated by 700%.

She dismissed pro-life persons as "intellectual inferiors." There was also racism involved in the her views and those of her colleagues. ACLU meeting minutes show this statement: "A woman has a right to a dead fetus."

An ACLU press release says this: "Abortion providers are honored and upheld as the heroes they are."

Abortion is a big business. Planned Parenthood reported $104,000,000 in earnings.

"In the second trimester, the kindly doctor uses forceps to pull the baby apart inside the uterus, bringing it out piece by piece, throwing the pieces in a pan. In the third trimester, the doctor pulls out the baby's legs, arms and torso—everything but the head. The baby's little fingers are clasping and unclasping and its feet are kicking. Then the doctor jabs the baby in the back of the head with scissors. The baby jerks and flinches. A suction tube sucks the baby's brains and finally, the brainless head is removed." (From testimony before Congress by a former abortion nurse, Brenda Pratt Shafer.)





The History of the American Civil Liberties Union

The founder of the ACLU, Roger Baldwin said these words: "We are for Socialism, disarmament, and ultimately for abolishing the state itself. We seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and the sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal."

His mentor, Emma Goldman, was credited with providing Baldwin with the ideology for the ACLU. She was an anarchist who was deported to Russia. Baldwin learned from Goldman how to keep secret his true ideology in order to enlist wealthy intellectuals to financially support his cause. Essentially, he intended to destroy Capitalism using the Capitalists own money!

Baldwin almost married a Communist before issuing this quote: "the present institution of marriage among us is a grim mockery of essential freedom."

According to Earl Browder, head of the American Communist Party, the ACLU was created to transmit their ideology. Baldwin said, "I want what the Communists want." He was infatuated with the Soviet Union and wrote a glowing account of it in Liberty under the Soviets where he stated that the abolition of class privilege was more important that civil liberties.

Baldwin explained his strategy to dupe the American Public with these words: "We want also to look like patriots in everything we do. We want to get a good lot of flags, talk a good deal about the Constitution and what our forefathers wanted to make of this country."

He also developed the strategy of defending a few ultra conservative nuts here and there such as Nazis or the KKK to create the appearance of non-partisanship. Baldwin realized this could also "open up" the courts to find "rights" to radical ideas in the Constitution someplace—presumably in emanations from penumbras.

The ACLU was behind the Scopes Monkey Trial to get the theory of evolution taught as fact to our schoolchildren. The real agenda was not about monkeys; but to destroy religious beliefs—to demonstrate the ignorance of the masses compared to the superiority of intellectual elites.

In Everson vs Board of Education in 1947, the ACLU proposed to the Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black that he include the words "The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach."

Judge Black did use these words in his opinion at the suggestion of the ACLU, but they do not appear in the Constitution of the United States of America. The ACLU has been so successful at promoting this phrase that most Americans believe it is in our Constitution! (This Court ruled in this case that Catholic School students had to pay to ride on public buses.)

In Engel vs Vitale in 1962, The ACLU persuaded the Supreme Court that teachers could not pray in class.

In Abington Township vs Schempp in 1963, the ACLU persuaded the Supreme Court to outlaw the Bible in public schools.

In Wallace vs Jaffree in 1985, The ACLU persuaded the Supreme Court that a "moment of silence" for voluntary prayer or meditation in public schools should be prohibited.

In Lee vs Weisman in 1992, the ACLU persuaded the Supreme Court that having a prayer at high school graduation ceremonies violated the Constitution.

In Jacobellis vs Ohio in 1964, the ACLU convinced the Supreme Court that the First Amendment protected exhibiting pornography in public.

In Romer vs Evans in 1996, the ACLU convinced the Supreme Court that they should override the democratic vote of the citizens of Colorado who had overwhelmingly passed an amendment to the Colorado Constitution banning special rights and privileges—above those granted ordinary citizens—to those who practice homosexual behavior.



What Does the ACLU Stand For?

The ACLU has fought to destroy America for 80 years under the pretense of protecting Constitutional Rights. They plan their lawsuits for jurisdictions where they sense a judge sympathetic to their world view.

Their real aim is to legalize Child Pornography; kill Judeo-Christian Values; abolish marriage; eliminate the traditional concept of "family"; diminish Parental Authority; dismantle individual autonomy; debunk the Sanctity of Life; end Free Expression of Religion; demolish Private Property Law; impose International Law on America, thus ending our National Sovereignty; and destroy Democracy.


James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on January 18, 2020:

Kelly Ann Christensen ~ Thank you for taking the time to read my article. It was demonetized because of the subject of my first section.

It is a tragedy what the ACLU did to the Boy Scouts, who lost 20% of their members in recent years and will probably go extinct one day because it bent its will to the darkness that is creeping across our land. The old saying is, He who marries the spirit of his times will soon be a widower.

I appreciate your gracious compliments, and you are welcome.

Kelly Ann Christensen from Overland Park, Johnson County, Kansas on January 16, 2020:

This is a good article, James. The ACLU has been at it for many years, and it seems a lot of people bought their press. However, I always say only if it is politically correct, and maybe ripe. It really is infuriating to look back on what the Boy Scouts of America went through during all of that. Thanks for another interesting, articulate article.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on July 05, 2012:

J. Juis— You are most welcome. I can never thank you enough for the encouragement and affirmation you provided with your insightful comments and gracious compliments. You have made my day! :)

Please know that I agree with everything you wrote in your remarks and I am quite proud that you said what you did. God Bless!


J. Juis on July 01, 2012:

Thank you for all this information about ACLU. It is well documented so none might say it is just a personal opinion. I don't understand how Americans can not see the tru intentions (which are completely extremists) of this evil organization. It is so simple: just see what type of agenda they have. ACLU advocates for the worst: abortion, homosexuality, anti-rleigion, terrorists and killers, and so on.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on August 25, 2011:

KC Santiago— You are absolutely right. That is sickening to me.

Thank you for taking the time to read my work. I appreciate your insightful remarks. Welcome to the HubPages Community!

KC Santiago from Texas on August 25, 2011:

And the bulk of ACLU money is taxpayer funded from all the settlements they get from government agencies aqt all when they sue. Most often these government agencies do not put up any kind of fight and just pay them off.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on July 30, 2011:

peanutroaster— I appreciate you taking the time to read my article. Thank you very much for your comments.

peanutroaster from New England on July 28, 2011:

The ACLU stands up to anyone who tries to take away our civil rights as outlined in the Constitution. Sometimes you agree with them, sometimes you won't but they exist to protect all citizens not just the ones who believe they are morally superior to others.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on December 28, 2010:

parrster— You are quite welcome, my friend. Thank you for coming by to read my Hub. I appreciate your compliments. Every word you wrote I agree with. It is good to hear from you about this topic. Thanks again.

Richard Parr from Australia on December 28, 2010:

You have allowed the evidence to speak for itself. I found this hub informative but disturbing; that so many have been deceived into calling good evil and evil good. At many levels the world seems to be at a crossroads, as those who love darkness seek to eradicate the light. Great hub. Thank you

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on December 27, 2010:

chad prillwitz— Thank you very much for saying so. It is good of you to come. I appreciate the accolades.

chad prillwitz on December 26, 2010:

Great understanding and writing.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on October 29, 2010:

HealthyHanna— Thank you for visiting one of my favorite Hubs.

To fight the ACLU, changes in attorney compensation need to be made. Then we can end the worst thing they do, which is financial intimidation. We need to repeal the Civil Rights Attorneys Act.

I agree with you and I appreciate your comments.

HealthyHanna from Utah on October 28, 2010:

I just have to add my voice to applaud this hub. What can we do? How do we fight against the ACLU? It is time for some type of action on our part. The nation is polorizing and it is important we know where we stand because sooner than later the laws will affect us individually.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on December 09, 2009:

tony0724— Well, praise the Lord! All is not lost . . . yet. :)

Thank you for sharing this with me. Good news indeed, that I had not heard.

tony0724 from san diego calif on December 08, 2009:

James I just wanted to share some good news with you. Anthony Romero acknowledged that the ACLU will not get an endowment from ahedge fund investor named David Gelbaum who normally gives them 20 mil every year plus a couple of other orginizations will have to downsize their donations because of market conditions. So they are losing some serious money . Many of these contributors lost alot of money because of Madoff. Excuse me if I do not feel a whole lot of pity for them at this moment.

I saw this reported in the NY Times

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on November 28, 2009:

Mr. Wilson,

Thank you for that link. I will review your Hub soon. I appreciate you for providing balance.

William R. Wilson from Knoxville, TN on November 28, 2009:

A hub you might be interested in:

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on November 25, 2009:

Michael Ray King— It reminds me of DoubleSpeak; up becomes down and down means up. I suppose it depends on what your definition of is is. :)

I understand what you are saying. I feel the same way. I have spent many years in business, and therefore I am results oriented. We try these radical programs but we never step back to assess the results and say: Hey! This is not working for the best.

Instead nearly every failed program gets expanded: we need MORE of what has been a miserable failure. That's the problem: we don't have enough of it.

I do believe the ACLU, as stated by its founders, intends to destroy America so a Totalitarian state can be built on its ashes, featuring persecution of the religious that rivals Stalin's reign of terror. Why? The Destroyer and Deceiver of mankind is behind it, Brother. That's why.

Thank you for your outstanding insights. I am so glad to receive someone here with your intellectual powers.

Michael Ray King from Palm Coast, Florida on November 25, 2009:


Thank you for directing me to this and another of your hubs. It amazes me (although it shouldn't) how people can listen to all the 'sound bytes' and truisms the liberal left has been planting for many, many decades and assume these falsehoods are true. The separation of state issue is a prime example of this. More people (including myself) need to educate themselves on EXACTLY what was written and intended in our Constitution. If not for stalwart people like you, liberalism, socialism and tyranny's of evil would have already destroyed what once was a great nation. Another amazing thing to me is that as our country continues to decline into chaos - which nearly everyone agrees on - few if any liberals note the fact that with all the increased liberalism this country "enjoys" this same liberalism coincides with our decline. The ACLU is weilded as a weapon seeking the killing blow to a nation that no longer knows its roots and where it came from. We've lost touch with our soul nationally. The ACLU is beyond slick. They couch themselves into a liberal mindset that once was difficult to find but now flourishes. The harm of what the ACLU pushes in its agendas do far more damage than it could ever do good. Christians can no longer ride the fence of silence. Either accept Sodom and Gomorrah or stand up and oppose evil. The time is now, and it has been "now" for quite some time. Thank you for your educational post and for your dedication to bringing truth to light.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on August 08, 2009:

calfcreek— You volunteered?! Bully for you! They probably have a satellite trained on your home right now! :D

calfcreek on August 08, 2009:

LOL James, I just sent my name straight in and told they could watch me all they wanted!

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on August 08, 2009:

muley84— Nice to hear from you, my friend. I love your analogy from the "Wizard of Oz." That is spot on, dude. Thanks.

Michael A Muehleisen from Miami,FL on August 08, 2009:

A very informative hub. This is a real eye opener for people who have not bothered to look at who is behind the curtain at ACLU.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on August 07, 2009:

Bibowen— Yea, that name is a cruel joke, isn't it?

I appreciate the accolades. Thanks for the affirmation.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on August 07, 2009:

calfcreek— not to mention decent fish and chips. But we could talk. Unless one says something contrary and finds one's name on that new list at White House. I'm probably on it already! :D

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on August 07, 2009:

Alfred Rex— Burn it? That would be a disappointment to the multitude of nations who have copied it!

I agree with your basic premise. Once lawyers get involved, trouble seems to follow.

I appreciate your visit and your comments. I love the UK! :D

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on August 07, 2009:

calfcreek— You are absolutely right. There it is in the 1947 "opinion" by Justice Black. I just wanted to note that his exact words came from the ACLU brief. Coincidence? I think not. :-)

Thanks for your insight.

Bibowen on August 07, 2009:

James, THE hub on the ACLU. Great information and it looks great. A real mark of excellence. You were even kind to them; they are even worse than you portray them. The great irony of the twentieth century is that it was an organization called the "American Civil LIBERTIES Union" that did more to undermine freedom in America than even fascist or communist parties.

calfcreek on August 07, 2009:

...burn that constitution...

(Ducking) LOL

Talk? We don't have the nice pubs and bad weather you fellers got over there.

Alfred Rex on August 07, 2009:

Separation of Church and State in the UK has been a basic feature of political life for five hundred years. Of course we don't have a written constitution, merely conventions that are endlessly debated, revised and revised again (though only ever so slightly).

No one has a problem with the head of state (the Queen) also being the head of the Church of England. No one worries that Westminster Abbey is right next door to the Houses of Parliament.

Nobody asks if the Queen believes in God or whether her successor will. Its thought rude and intrusive to inquire about religious beliefs.

Without lawyers, agreements are more easily reached and accomodations made.

You need to burn that constitution and start taking to each other more.

calfcreek from Republic of Texas on August 07, 2009:

While I typically hate to disagree with to separation of church and state; it is not specifically in the Constitution but it has constitutionally been codified by SCOTUS opinions. Until SCOTUS takes on and rules FOR freedom OF religion in public/government places, separation is the law of the land. There are caveats. If the display is historical in nature and intended to acknowledge the root of civil and common law in religious law it is allowed.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on August 06, 2009:

pylos26— Thank you. I don't censor people. You certainly livened things up by your visitations. And you have every right to your own beliefs, of course. Thank you for visiting and your kind words.

pylos26 from America on August 06, 2009:

sensoring, sorry

pylos26 from America on August 06, 2009:

mr. watkins, i see you to be an intelligent man and i want to thank you for not cencering my comments. pylos

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on August 06, 2009:

opinion duck— You make excellent observations. Thank you. I appreciate the intelligence of your comments. Thanks for visiting.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on August 06, 2009:

blangrehr— Good riposte.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on August 06, 2009:

pylos26—Nice recovery. I am glad you finally went and looked it up before insisting for the fifth time that the words "separation of church and state" are in the Constitution. If you read my article above that you are so busy denigrating, you would know I addressed this issue right on this page. The Supreme Court never saw this "separation" for 160 years—until the phrase was given to Justice Hugo Black in 1947 BY THE ACLU lawyer and Black used it. They never saw it because it is not there as you undoubtedly now know after insisting for three days that it was.

For the record, the term as used by Thomas Jefferson was in a private letter to a friend who was worried about the STATE interfering with the CHURCH—not the other way around as the ACLU snuck past HUGO Black in 1947.

I would be interested in having you provide the quote from Alexander Hamilton and the one from George Washington saying we should have a national religion.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on August 06, 2009:

Hxprof— We are already seeing it. How about those unelected, unaccountable to Congress, Czars running half the country. It will get worse but this can be reversed after this bunch gets booted out.

Though, I would not put it past them to banish elections and name Obama President for life like his friends Chavez and Castro. I'll bet 9 out 0f 10 Leftwingers would approve of that right now. That is how little they think of America and our Constitution.

opinion duck on August 06, 2009:


I agree with you in principle and I can't seem to agree with the comments that support the ACLU.

As for the Religious Constitutional Topic

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ." The phrase "separation of church and state" is generally traced to an 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists, where Jefferson spoke of the combined effect of the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.

The key in the Constitution refers to "No Law" and it is not applied to any specifics. So, it is ambiguous as to its target, whether internal to the government or to outside of the government.

The real problem is that the Constitution has been mutated over the centuries to become disconnected from the goals intended by the founders.

The current version of the Constitution as morphed by the Supreme Court and Congress is totally a different animal.

The ACLU could try Afghanistan and the Taliban for religious change.

Hamilton Forrester from Myrtle Beach, SC on August 06, 2009:

Pylos, You just make stuff up, and since you really believe you are smart, you think because you said it; it’s true. The Constitution, Bill of Rights or God never declared there should be a separation between Church and State. Personally, I’m glad there is and wish the government and progressive demons would just leave religion alone. We’ve had enough of disregarded evil; you scary mean people have had free reign far too long. Your leader, our President has waked a sleeping giant….Christianity.

pylos26 from America on August 06, 2009:

Mr. watkins, The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion; or prohibiting the free exercise thereof….” The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted this clause to mean that religion and government must stay separate for the benefit of both. The government holds no religious viewpoint and leaves all decisions about faith and religious practice to its citizens. i am afraid there is no pictures to clairify this more for those who have narrow minds. read your history sir and realize that washington and hamiliton advocated a state church and thomas jefferson pressed for freedom of religion and overturned the other two founding fathers.

Hxprof on August 06, 2009:

James, the lie that our constitution provides for the separation of church and state has been repeated so many times that you absolutely can't convince those who've bought into it otherwise. No matter now-the constitution is toast and we're soon to see things in America most of us never thought possible.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on August 06, 2009:

pylos26—That is technically incorrect. As an American Patriot, I naturally keep a copy of the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and the Bill of Rights on my desk at all times. On what line or in what clause do you see the words "separation of church and state?"

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on August 06, 2009:

pylos26— Jefferson did no such thing and the "separation" you keep claiming is not in the Constitution. It does say that the Federal Congress shall not create a National Religion as the Founding Fathers were well acquainted with the Church of England—or interfere with the free exercise of religion by all people in public or private; or interfere with the free exercise of religion by a State Government. You could read my Hub "Founding Fathers" for direct quotes from them as to the subject at hand.

Anybody can read the Constitution. I have a copy right in front of me right now. It is also on line. Tell me where these words are in the Constitution: "Separation of Church and State."

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on August 06, 2009:

DJ Nash— Regurgitation is the perfect word for it. As I researched the words spoken by the founders and leaders of the ACLU; or written in legal briefs by ACLU lawyers; I did vomit them onto this page because their views are sickening.

Thank you for reading and leaving your wisdom.

pylos26 on August 06, 2009:

I mention the u.s. constitution, but if one wants to be technically correct, the provision is lodged in the "bill of rights"

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on August 06, 2009:

calfcreek— Thank you! Welcome to the Hub Pages Community!

It is too long. The subject was so appalling that I never wanted to revisit it again, or I would have done it in 2 or 3 chapters (Hubs). I actually cut 1/4 of it just before publishing.

pylos26 from America on August 06, 2009:

Extremist and fundamentalist, for whatever reason, do not seem to understand that the separation of church and state in the u.s. constitution is for their own benefit. If Jefferson had not managed to fix such language in the constitution that separates church and state a state church would exist today. Imagine having a “church of America” where everyone is required to worship under strict guide lines set forth by the government. Why not enjoy your “freedom religion” and leave the government out of it.

DJ Nash on August 06, 2009:

Defend the Constitution said: "But I guess you understand this and simply like rousing the rabble."

Honestly I don't think he did. Or much else either. Quark had it right way back up the line there. This is just regurgitation.

calfcreek from Republic of Texas on August 06, 2009:

A little long but informative. The ACLU has always been a socialist organization from it's inception. Nice writing.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on August 06, 2009:

emohealer— You are welcome and thank you for your smooth remarks.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on August 06, 2009:

sneakorocksolid— Thank you for your comments.

The ACLU could sing that song by Cream with updated lyrics "If it wasn't for bad mores; I wouldn't have no mores at all"

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on August 06, 2009:

Defend the Constitution— Thank you for reading and expressing your reasonable point of view.

My intention was not to "rouse the rabble" or offend. My intent was to make people aware of who these people are and what their public statements are, many in the courtroom, and what they believe. Because, based on many conversations I have had, even people who send them money don't know. And they should—shouldn't they?

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on August 06, 2009:

pylos26— In my Hub, I declared that the San Diego lawsuit was over Atheism. You are accusing me of not acknowledging what is right there in my article! Most of the other suits—there have been many in an ongoing campaign of harassment—were about gay scoutmasters.

I would be pleased to correct any false quotes or dishonesty on this page. Tell me specifically what they are and I will change them.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on August 06, 2009:

SweetiePie— Thank you for your insights. I don't visit the forums of any kind. Not my thing and I lack the time. But I do enjoy the banter on these threads. It is always a pleasure to hear from you, as you are strong but well mannered. :D

Sioux Ramos from South Carolina on August 06, 2009:

James, have been looking forward to finding time to really read this hub rather than skim it. As always very thought provoking, I am very familiar with the ACLU, no organization is bad although they can do bad things in addition to their good. Like Unions they had their place and time and it was necessary, but agendas can get skewed over time. You throw food for thought out there, Thank You!

sneakorocksolid on August 06, 2009:

Pylo and DC, Skipped taking those meds again didn't you? Look the ACLU may have been a good idea but they have no morals. They attack because they can not because its right. Look state your position honestly, you want a Free-for- all.You don't care about wrong or right all you want is to be able to say or do what you want and shut up the opposition. Could you be alittle more lost and looney please? Peace.

Defend the Constitution on August 06, 2009:

ost ACLU challenges to laws limiting freedom of expression are based on the defense of over breadth.

Laws restricting expression of neo-nazi views, images of children etc are challenged by the ACLU on the grounds that they will limit the legitimate propogation of perfectly reasonable views or images.

It provides us all Americans with reassurance that laws framed by the various legislatures are clear and workable in actual court conditions and that citizens don't lose any more of their rights than was intended.

But I guess you understand this and simply like rousing the rabble.

pylos26 from America on August 05, 2009:

Mr. Watkins, you seem to be a very presumptuous person, if the truth doesn’t fit your agenda you simply bent it to fit. I reckon its all your ‘blind faith” followers that is fueling your dishonesty and ego. Clearly you are the belligerent one for making false quotes about aclu’s interest in undesirable scout masters when the key issue was “religious discrimination” in their balboa park suit against the scouts. you sir are a disgrace to these hub pages.

SweetiePie from Southern California, USA on August 05, 2009:

You know James I am actually a Christian, but my politics are more on the liberal side. I am not the preachy type of Christian though because from experience I have learned people are more willing to accept the religion if they come to it on their own terms.

On the other hand I have found some religion and anti-religion people to be way too hostile towards those with opposing viewpoints. Personally I do not go on the religion forums because there is way too much back and forth argument there. I think the people who hang out there enjoy this interaction though.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on August 05, 2009:

puppascott— A ne're do well I am. I confess.

puppascott from Michigan (As far as you know...) on August 05, 2009:

I receive untold pleasure from supporting a fellow ne'er do well. I think it's a childhood thing.

Go now! No one is looking. I checked.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on August 05, 2009:

puppascott— And now, here you are! :-)

I always am pleased to feel your presence, Brother!

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on August 05, 2009:

sneakorocksolid— Thank you for sneaking in here with your wisdom. WOW! You Hub Pages folks are really paying attention! :D

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on August 05, 2009:

SweetiePie— I agree with you that we do need folks on the other side of issues to keep everybody honest. The entire religion of Christianity came to be by responding to those who opposed it. So, opposition is definitely functional—at the least; and healthy at its best.

puppascott from Michigan (As far as you know...) on August 05, 2009:

James and Tony,

I hope this helps with the discussion regarding the seperation of church and state. The first mention of any such idea was actually penned by Benjamin Franklin in a letter to Thomas Paine in a response to one of Paine's manuscripts regarding a providential deity.


sneakorocksolid on August 05, 2009:

Dearest Sweetiepie, You are the nicest Democrat I've ever listened to. Do you want to be a conservative? LOL! When they made you they broke the mold! Amazing! Peace.

SweetiePie from Southern California, USA on August 05, 2009:

I do not think you are a mean person tony. I am just sharing my viewpoint.

tony0724 from san diego calif on August 05, 2009:

I am really a nice person !

SweetiePie from Southern California, USA on August 05, 2009:


I also believe people like me are needed because we help to keep the peace :). I grew up in a staunchly Republican community and being a Democrat I never was going to get in public arguments with people about politics and voting trends. Witnessing some of those volatile debates I never saw anyone change their minds. However, I suppose some people enjoy these situations more than others lol.


Thank for your gracious words.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on August 05, 2009:


I love you as a defender of the Faith. But let the T-Shirts go. At least that's my opinion. :D

Of course, you have the Constitutional right to disagree with me. :)

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on August 05, 2009:

SweetiePie— You are right. Unless a shirt has one of the 7 profane words on it—which is not fair to children—I firmly believe anybody should be able to, without fear, wear any shirt they want.

Thank you for defending Free Speech. You are astute and gracious. And that endears you to me.

tony0724 from san diego calif on August 05, 2009:

sweetiepie this Is why people like me are needed . To question the status quo and not relent !

SweetiePie from Southern California, USA on August 05, 2009:

Being confronted in a store may not be violent, but it is a confrontation all the same. I guess the guy did not want to argue with you and left, but if anyone ever tries to argue with me at the store about anything I am going to a manager. There are limitations to free speech, such as using it in the right time and place. We cannot yell fire in a building, and confronting someone wearing an ACLU shirt will probably just get you a big argument.

At this point you know you do not like the ACLU, and arguing with that guy will not change anything. I feel people can abuse any organization and whereas some use the ACLU as their tool, others use churches and other organizations. I do not believe the ACLU is completely evil because it has helped to defend the rights of women, the disabled, and many others. Oh well I am an introvert, so I tend to mind my own bees wax when it comes to what people are wearing or talking about in public. It does not mean I am a coward, I just really have no desire to stir up a public debate. No one is ever going to change their minds about these things anyway.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on August 05, 2009:

blangrehr— This is a poor misguided soul—nothing more, nothing less. I shed tears over my brothers and sisters who are so misguided. :-(

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on August 05, 2009:


I will, too. He casts a sad figure across the landscape. We should feel nothing but pity. :-(

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on August 05, 2009:

SirDent— Just when I needed reinforcements: there you are!

You make a good point. The ACLU certainly has their requirements—not to give them money, mind you—but to be actively involved you will be excluded if you do not toe the party line.

Thanks for chipping in, bro'.

Hamilton Forrester from Myrtle Beach, SC on August 05, 2009:

lol, that means laugh out loud and it is not in the constitution either. man this is fun.

tony0724 from san diego calif on August 05, 2009:

I will say a prayer on his behalf !

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on August 05, 2009:


Of course you have our friend in the "trick box" now. Because his assertion is a widely held—by the Godless—fiction. We should not be hostile toward our poor misguided brother, though. Not knowing your ass from a hole in the ground is no reason not to love him.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on August 05, 2009:

pylos26— My intent was never to be "narrow minded" so if I came off that way I apologize. I thought the "Civil Rights" movement was related to race.

Actually, The Supreme Court of the United States of America ruled in favor of the Boy Scouts. Their decision was that any group has "Freedom of Association" under the Constitution of the United States of America.

I don't realize your last phrase because it is false—"Separation of Church and State" has never been "added" to our Constitution. I am so sorry, but you are mistaken. That is a myth, sir.

I do appreciate you for bringing out into the light, not your hostility, but your complete ignorance of the Supreme Court decisions and the Constitution. Thank you!

SirDent on August 05, 2009:

Pylos, I see that you haven't stopped your trol;ling ways yet. Let me ask you a question. If I statrted an organization, would I be the one who sets the rules and regulations that everyone would have to go by to be a member?

tony0724 from san diego calif on August 05, 2009:

pylos26 exactly where does It state separation of church and state In the constitution"? I say that statement does not exists and I challenge you to show me where It says It !

pylos26 from America on August 05, 2009:

Mr. Watkins, I can see where civil rights might mean “ race only” to a narrow minded person, but the case against the boy scouts was centered around “religious discrimination”. The scouts were guilty of that and that’s what got their balls busted. The whole thing boiled down to the issue of separation of church and state as demanded by the constitution of the united stated. You probably don’t realize this but the separation of church and state was added to the constitution to insure freedom of religion.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on August 05, 2009:


Well, if he was an actual LAWYER for them . . . that does shed a different light on the whole episode.

tony0724 from san diego calif on August 05, 2009:

Actually James he was a lawyer for them so It Increased my joy even more and as I said In my former posts I would do It again cause I can !

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on August 05, 2009:

tony0724— You are right. The ACLU has as its favorite tool: intimidation. And I hoped someone would comment on that cross—do you see it? You have to stand back to see it!

You don't have to apologize to me, bro'. The thing is, that feller probably had no idea what that shirt represented. Two of my relatives support the ACLU. (Before we all get too excited: I have a huge family of maybe 100 persons.) I can assure you, THEY had never seen these quotes until I printed them.

tony0724 from san diego calif on August 05, 2009:

In my defense ,to pgrundy and sweetiepie . Intimidation Is one of the most utilized tools In the ACLU arsenal ! And they use It at every given oppurtunity to sue cities for having something as benign as a cross on their city seal !

As was done to the City of Los Angeles and the city of La Mesa In the last couple of years . Knowing full well that neither one of these municipalities had the financial resources to take them to court and defend their city seal In spite of the fact that those seals were part of those city Insignias for at least 100 years for both !

Or to mention the fact that the ACLU has gone out of their way to destroy something as traditional as Christmas being celebrated at a municipal building which they say Is In violation of separation of church and state , that by the way Is not In the first amendment ! Or the fact that approximately 7 years ago a student In a Florida public school told his teacher to %&*$ off and the ACLU defended him against the school system because they had the nerve to suspend him for his free speech rights.

Now these Issues which are chronicled are the things I confronted this guy with ! I In know way made a violent gesture towards him . I confonted him with my convictions In that store and gave him the oppurtunity to state his position , and made no secret of my disdain for his disgusting organization . Free speech goes both ways right ?

So I make absolutely no apoligies for standing up for my convictions and what I believe to be right ! Apparently he did not have the courage to stand up for his . And If that makes me some type of ogre , which I strongly disagree with , I will gladly take that moniker . Because It Is one thing to espouse on a keyboard . I have the guts to do It face to face !I am not some wild eyed zealot . I just let people know where I stand ! It,s called conviction .

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on August 05, 2009:

internpete— Yea. What he said. Thanks for the second.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on August 05, 2009:

blangrehr— uhhh . . . I can't think of any. But there must have been some in 80 years. Help me out here.

I don't need the ACLU to defend my Freedom to Blog. That has never been questioned. But it is funny she thinks I might need them to speak the Truth without penalty.

Peter V from At the Beach in Florida on August 05, 2009:

blangrehr - Well said!

Hamilton Forrester from Myrtle Beach, SC on August 05, 2009:

The perfect gundy is not use to being thwarted and its so much fun to watch her irritation rise. The bright light of truth always brings the name calling and pouting. On the contrary, the ACLU would never defend anybody that stands for truth and freedom and love. Somebody hurry, give me the name of one good person; one non-evil cause defended by this disgusting organization.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on August 05, 2009:

pylos26— You mentioned "civil rights" in your first post, which is widely considered to be about race, no?

Do you dispute the quotes by ACLU lawyers? If not, do you agree with their statements?

pylos26 from America on August 05, 2009:

Mr. Watkins you’re inventing issues that had nothing to do with the lawsuit that was files by the aclu against the boy scouts. I have not mentioned anything about race, yet you introduce a race issue. Why is that sir?

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on August 05, 2009:

No Name Needed— Thank you very much. I appreciate you chiming in with your insight. I am flummoxed by it myself. I am surprised there have been no comments about the "ignorant filth" of the comments by ACLU lawyers above. Sad.

No Name Needed on August 05, 2009:

Wow, i honestly cannot believe some of the comments here! I cannot believe anyone would actually support the ACLU!! All they need to do is read this hub! if they want more, they should do some research. Boy we live in a sad time!

So many idiots out there willing to support an organization they know nothing about!

Great Hub, keep up the good work

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on August 05, 2009:

Oh. I am not Catholic. Not that there's anything wrong with it. :D

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on August 05, 2009:

pgrundy— Yes, I read it. And I agree with what it says that most homosexuals are not pedophiles. I never thought they were. Yes, those priests who molested little boys were gay. What does gay mean? Attracted to the same sex? If one is attracted to children of the opposite sex one is a heterosexual pedophile; if the same sex a homosexual pedophile.

I would not be in favor of sending little girls camping with a man nor sending little boys camping with a homosexual man. What exactly is "ignorant filth" about that? What is this about? The Children's safety? Or a radical social agenda? Both types of pedophiles would look for the opportunity presented by Scouting. Do you not think Scouts have a Constitutional right to Freedom of Association?

You might have noticed that your article pointed out Homosexuality was listed as mental illness until 1980 as Pedophilia is now.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on August 05, 2009:

kisszzl— Well, there is more hope for the great "middle." The hard core Lefties would have a very difficult time admitting any change of heart. But you never know. Even if the light penetrated, they wouldn't admit it here. Too embarrassing. Some light may be getting through that we aren't aware of. Let's hope so.

Welcome to the Hub Pages Community. I am going to read your first Hub about New York, my favorite place.

Related Articles