The following is an article which was written by the founder of the Stop The Aclu Coalition (www.stoptheaclu.org), Nedd Kareiva. With his permission, I am reprinting it here at Mr. Right Opinion because I think his opinion is--well--right!

Does the ACLU really defend Christians?

Nedd Kareiva
December 15, 2005

At this Christmas season, the ACLU is apparently trying to crash the party by trying to convince the Christian community that it is in our corner. Recent near-carbon-copy letters to the editor from ACLU directors in Indiana and Louisiana to the Fort Wayne Gazette and Baton Rouge Advocate, respectively, want to persuade you that they'll defend you if you identify yourself with Jesus Christ.

Grab the Rolaids. I think someone just got a taste of acid reflux.

Yes, it is true. The ACLU may consider defending you ? your religious expression, that is.

But what about traditional Christian values? Does the ACLU respect our values system?

The answer is an unequivocal no. The ACLU has a clear duplicity on religious expression as we shall see. But let's first examine the ACLU on values.

Anti-Christian values

Perhaps no two values define cultural Christian conservatives more than the sanctity of life and the upholding of traditional marriage, though issues like pornography and public displays of the 10 Commandments are certainly worthy of "honorable mention."

One need not look further than the ACLU's steadfast refusal to support any and all restrictions on abortion, including one to stop the gruesome procedure of partial birth abortion, a procedure as much as 80% of the American populace wants banned, to demonstrate the ACLU's hostility to the Christian value of life. A 2002 ACLU press release, as reported in the Alliance Defense Fund's recently published book ACLU vs. America, states abortionists should be "honored and upheld as the heroes they are," which is evidence their "value system" is not one the vast majority of Americans embrace.

Add to that a banquet held last week in honor of Judge George Greer by the Pinellas County, Florida chapter of the ACLU as the judge who permitted the starvation of Terri Schiavo, and it's hard to see how the ACLU is anything but friendly to Christian values.

Greer was the same judge who thumbed his nose at the Florida legislature, the governor, Congress, and the president for passing legislation to protect Terri, refused to consider massive evidence how she could be rehabilitated, rejected the parents' wishes to take care of her, and was unwilling himself to visit her (a right judges customarily take into consideration in their rulings) to ascertain her true condition.

It's worth noting that a self-described agnostic lesbian in a wheelchair said earlier this year, during protests outside the hospice where Terri was held, that she would rather have a Christian decide her fate than the ACLU. However, Terri, had no such fortune. The civil-rights-touting ACLU steadfastly refused to consider her civil liberties, the kind found in Section 1 of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Instead, the ACLU chose to defend Terri's husband, Michael Schiavo, despite strong evidence of his vast spousal abuse. He joined forces with his assisted suicide buddy, attorney George Felos, before Judge Greer and Florida's courts. This is no surprise, considering that the ACLU backed unsuccessful California legislation earlier this year to grant assisted suicide, and filed a friend of the court brief in favor of the state of Oregon against the U.S. government defending the state's assisted suicide law, currently at the U.S. Supreme Court.

So if I understand the ACLU correctly, the ACLU's position regarding abortion is that it is a decision between a woman and her doctor. But on assisted suicide, it's apparently a decision to be made without the doctor, considering virtually all medical groups and organizations oppose it.

If you can't make heads or tails of the ACLU, you're not alone.

Anti-marriage

Regarding the sanctity of marriage, when an organization announces a national gay marriage campaign as the ACLU did in May ? despite the fact that voters in every state with marriage amendments on the ballot passed such legislation by substantial margins ? it can hardly be said that the ACLU represents Christian values. It's just the opposite.

But on the issue of marriage and homosexual relationships, it's not just Christian values that are offended. Orthodox Jews, most Muslims, and virtually all other religions oppose same sex marriage and homosexuality, yet the ACLU goes against the grain on them all. They successfully sued (thus far) to overturn Nebraska's voter-enacted marriage amendment and are working to create similar scenarios in states like Georgia, Oklahoma, Maryland, and Washington.

Yeah, I'm a radical right winger on this issue, like Orthodox Jews and most Muslims.

The ACLU's president, Nadine Strossen, has publicly stated on more than one occasion that the ACLU backs the practice of polygamy and has been involved in litigation in favor of it in Utah. So marriage to the ACLU means anything and everything.

Expression vs. values

Could ACLU directors Fran Quigley of Indiana and Joe Cook of Louisiana be referring to defending religious expression instead religious values? That seems to be the case, considering their mention of the ACLU defense of a Southern Indiana street preacher, a Michigan high school student who was censored from entering Christian expression, and the rights of Iowa students to distribute Christian literature.

If Quigley and Cook need a few items to add to their list of ACLU defenses, perhaps I can help. The ACLU of Pennsylvania did defend, oddly enough, a pro-life family, not because of the family's position on abortion, but the right to display pro-life signs in front of their own home.

The ACLU also defended, in an unusual alliance with the American Family Association (AFA), an imprisoned New Mexico street preacher, and filed a friend of the court brief in support of the right of a 2nd grade girl in New Jersey to sing "Awesome God," a case filed by the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF). They also defended Massachusetts school children who wanted to pass out Christmas candy canes with scriptural messages (while supporting same sex marriage in the state).

And the ACLU recently tried coming to the aid of a street evangelist who was prevented from preaching outside a California courthouse, another case represented by ADF.

The ACLU says on its web site regarding the New Jersey case "There is a distinction between speech by a school and speech by individual students. The Constitution protects a student's individual right to express herself, including the right to express herself religiously."

However, that free speech that was affirmed by the New Jersey ACLU apparently did not apply to a Jonesboro, Arkansas, high school senior girl who gave "an altar call" to accept Jesus Christ. The ACLU of Arkansas director, Rita Sklar, called Jessica Reed's right to express herself as a "blatant display of contempt for the 1st Amendment."

Oh, by the way, did I say that Ms. Sklar is also the spokesperson for the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF)? Make the connection.

The same ACLU that defended the freedom of expression of the Pennsylvania family above to display their pro-life signs sought to oppose the same 1st Amendment rights by supporting the use of FACE (Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances) against pro-lifers as well as buffer zones.

Furthermore, Louisiana's Mr. Cook conveniently ignored the 1st Amendment rights of a Louisiana student who prayed over a loudspeaker prior to a football game, choosing instead to sue school officials who allowed the prayer, even to the point of equating them with 9/11 terrorists. And Indiana's Quigley recently helped obtain a court injunction against the state legislature, barring prayer before legislative sessions by ministers that mentions Jesus and Christ.

Can we conclude that the ACLU is hostile to religious values while dancing on both sides of the fence on religious expression?

In the balance

I have received many e-mails at my web site telling the me the ACLU would defend my civil rights if they were violated. Judging from the above cases, I would say the chances of that occurring are 50% at best if it involves the defense of religious expression. But if the issue concerns the defense of religious values, such as abortion, same sex marriage, and pornography, the ACLU's likelihood of going to bat for me are at best 0%.

Some of these same people can quote the above cases where the ACLU went to bat for a Christian. These folks conveniently ignore the thousands of lawsuits of the ACLU defending Planned Parenthood, the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL), the National Organization of Women (NOW), abortionists, the Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network (GLSEN), Gay/Straight Alliances, homosexuals seeking state sanctioned marriage, atheists seeking to remove religious symbols or the 10 Commandments from city logos or public property, pornographers like Larry Flynt of Hustler Magazine, and many others.

But because of the little good the ACLU does, should I praise them for it? Almost anyone can do good 10% in their lifetimes.

Let's assume an adult video and bookstore applies for a permit to move into your community. 90% of what the owner plans to sell is X rated. However, to appease the majority of citizens who don't want the store, he agrees to set aside 10% of the store for Christian videos and books, thinking that the public will overlook his smut and thus create a family friendly environment.

Are you likely going to want to purchase a Bible or a Disney children's film from this proprietor?

Or assume John Q. Senator is up to reelection. He amassed 20 votes on issues that were important to you. He voted with your views only twice out of those 20 but was passionately principled about those occasions of agreement.

Do you want John Q. to represent you for another 6 years?

If your answer is NO to either or both examples, why would you want the ACLU in your corner for the 10% (at best) of the time they do something good?

Share the truth

I'd be lying if I said the ACLU never did any good. The ACLU has been on the right side in its opposition to the blatantly unconstitutional Campaign Finance Reform law that was signed into existence by President Bush. The ACLU has fought for removal of cameras from traffic lights, citing 1st Amendment concerns. And the ACLU has defended street preachers as noted above.

But given the wholesale destruction of America's values by litigating them out of existence in favor of ACLU values that scant minorities of Americans embrace, and by using activist courts that are willing to be complicit in their process, does it benefit America and specifically us pro-life, pro-family Christians to have the inaptly named American Civil Liberties Union go to bat for us?

This Christmas season, share the truth of the ACLU with a friend or family member. If he or she is an ACLU member, so much the better. Perhaps he or she considers the ACLU a civil rights organization that defends everyone, a point the ACLU claims on many of its chapters' web sites. Explain that the ACLU may defend his or her freedom of expression but if he or she has any traditional religious values needing representation, they would be much better off using a worthy and family friendly, pro-life public interest law firm like ADF, a group successfully having staved off ACLU threats and litigation on many fronts over the last decade.

The greatest gift America could be given this season would be reducing the ACLU's half million membership base, doing so one individual at a time. America will be kept safer and freer by its depletion. Share this piece with those in your circle.

To Terri Schiavo, whom the ACLU refused to come to the aid of, to Terri's parents ? Bob & Mary Schindler ? and to their other children, Bobby and Suzanne, this piece is dedicated to you.

Merry CHRISTmas to one and all and a happy 2006.

Nedd Kareiva is the founder and director of the Stop the ACLU Coalition . He is a 45 year old man from Chicago who began the Stop the ACLU web site in August of 2004. His background is varied, which includes a degree in Biblical studies. He once served as the associate director of the Christian Broadcasting Network's Chicago counseling center when such centers were operating in major cities across America. He spent 7+ years in real estate and mortgages and worked for the city of Chicago for 3 1/2 years. He served as the singles director in the 1990s for a church in southwest Chicago. He has a 9 year old son with Asperger's Syndrome.

Nedd is a professional Scrabble player who played in many tournaments (and won a few) from across the Midwest for approximately 13 years, between 1992 & 2005 and was once in the top 150 players in North America, according to the National Scrabble Association.

Nedd got involved in political issues back in the early 90s when his mother and late stepdad took an active position in the pro-life movement. They were pro-life activists and even went to jail for their stances. Thanks to them and a church willing to deal with issues, his political involvement began to set in motion. [Click for more]

© Copyright 2005 by Nedd Kareiva
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/kareiva/051215

As the Kentucky coordinator for the Stop The ACLU Coalition, I feel compelled to post this project from our national website. Please invest a few minutes and 37 cents to send a clear message to the ACLU. THANKS!!!

To those of you who have as much disdain for the ACLU as me, please join us as we join forces with the Musclehead Revolution to inundate the ACLU's headquarters with Christmas cards. Our blog, run by Jay Stephenson, has already committed to this cause and now so do we.

This effort was founded by Kevin McCullough of WMCA in New York, former afternoon host of WYLL here in Chicagoland, someone I know who has with outstanding credentials, both as a Christian and a deejay.

Unlike other lone ranger conservative/pro-family groups who want to go solo against the liberals and ACLU types, we are delighted to participate with other good causes to preserve America's heritage.

So if you wish to take part in this effort, we welcome you to do so. But please observe the following guidleines:

Be polite. Yes, I know that is hard, given the ACLU's agenda. I fully sympathize. But hold your breath and do so anyway. Remember, you're representing the Musclehead Revolution and the Stop the ACLU Coalition. We want to have a good name.
Make sure the card you send contains the words Merry Christmas and if possible, some other clause that contains the meaning of Christmas to maximize impact. Do not send a card that contains "Xmas".
Do not e-mail any cards. They will likely be ignored or discarded. Snail mail only. Spend 37 cents to do so. It will be worth it.
If you wish, mail more than one card this season to the ACLU. WMCA is doing it every day. You don't have to do so every day but perhaps you can once a week.
Be sure to share this effort with your family, friends and others in your databases and address books.
Mail your cards to:
ACLU
I wish you a Merry Christmas
125 Broad St, 18th Fl.
New York, NY 10004

If you choose to participate in this effort, please e-mail me with the words in the subject line "I did it ". That's all you need to say. However, if you are sending more than one card to the ACLU, let me know how many cards you sent.

Thank you!

This is another article I had previously written for a blog which I used to operate. Once again, I think it is one that deserves repreinting, so here it is.

Allow me to start this article by saying that, compared to most articles I write, this will be a rather lengthy one. However, for those concerned about morality and parents? rights in this country, I feel it will be worth your time.

Parental consent for babies aborting babies is an issue that will not, and should not (until its resolution), go away. For the life of me, I cannot understand why there are actually people, a lot of people, out there that feel like it is not the business of a parent to know that: a. their child is having a MAJOR medical procedure performed; b. this procedure could affect their child's mental and physical well-being for the rest of that child's life; c. that their child is sexually active (and without the use of contraceptives) and that; d. there is a possibility that their child has been sexually abused.

Who in their right mind would want to deny a parent this knowledge? Who? Well, for starters, there are liberal democrats, who seem to continually perpetuate a culture of death. Then there is the ACLU. But who can actually believe, in good conscience, anything that the ACLU has to say these days? And then we have Planned Parenthood"would a mustard gas by any other name not be as toxic?" (Thanks Mr. Shakespeare)

On the issue of Planned Parenthood, I recently visited their website, http://www.plannedparenthood.org, in preparation for this article. There they have a section titled "Teenagers, Abortion, And Government Intrusion Laws." I find the information they provide there to be fallacious at best. I would like to take this opportunity to rebut at least part of the fallacies I found there.

Their first set of arguments, and and obviously their best, since in making an argument, you want to put your most compelling evidence up front, deals with a child's "capacity to consent to their own medical care." In my estimation, this is an easy one.

First, they say that "Twenty-one states and the District of Columbia grant all minors the authority to consent to contraceptive services. Approximately eleven other states grant most minors this authority (AGI, 2004a)." "Consent to contraceptive services" covers a lot of ground. Does this mean the dispensing of condoms, or are we talking about an implanted device? Is it the "day before pill," or the "morning after pill"? Generalities are one of the left's favorite ways to argue an issue. At any rate, I know a whole slew of parents (myself included) who feel that it is THEIR job, not the government's, Planned Parenthood's, or anybody else's, to make the decision of whether or not their child uses contraceptives, as well as what type will be used. My personal favorite is ABSTINENCE!.

Number two argument at the site? "Thirty-four states and the District of Columbia authorize a pregnant minor to obtain prenatal care and delivery services without parental consent or notification (AGI, 2004b)." Again, I say that not all parents agree (again, myself included) to these services being performed without their consent, but at least none of the afore mentioned services are actually terminating a human life. And, as much as some of these liberals may hate it, those services actually foster and protect the innocent unborn.

Number three argument at the site? "All 50 states and the District of Columbia give minors the authority to consent to the diagnosis and treatment of sexually transmitted infections (AGI, 2004c)." Same old rebuttal, not all parents agree (again, myself included) to these services being performed without their consent. However, I must say that treating an STD is VASTLY different than killing an innocent child.

The PP site (naturally a term of endearment) then goes on to a section where they say that most kids who are pregnant do in fact inform their parents, and that those who don't do so for very compelling reasons. To this, all I can say is...HOGWASH!

One portion of this states that, "Of those minors who did not inform their parents of their abortions, 30 percent had histories of violence in their families, feared the occurrence of violence, or were afraid of being forced to leave their homes." Now, obviously, I would not want to see ANY child abused. However, there are so many variables here that they require addressing one-by-one.

Firstly, what is violence? According to many liberals, a couple of whacks on the arse is violent these days. By those standards, I would venture to say that 90 % of today's kids are treated violently at one time or another in their lives. I know I certainly was. And I dare say that kids now days, with the liberals telling them that if their parents spank them, they are being abused, most would probably give the PP's the answer they were looking for.

Secondly, bearing that in mind, if 30% "had histories of violence in their families, feared the occurrence of violence, or were afraid of being forced to leave their homes," is it not conceivable that 29% fell into the category that they feared a couple of whacks from their parents?

Thirdly, to put this in perspective, try to remember when you were 13 or 14. Did you not virtually ALWAYS think that your parents would produce the most monstrous reaction possible when you did something that could be remotely construed to be as life-changing as getting pregnant? Of course you would fear the worst of all possible outcomes. I would have to say that this 30% figure is WAY overblown.

Number four argument on the PP website is that, "Among the respondents who did not inform their parents of their pregnancies, all consulted someone in addition to clinic staff about their abortions, such as their boyfriend (89 percent), an adult (52 percent), or a professional (22 percent). (Henshaw & Kost, 1992)" Oh, well, there is the proof. Eighty-nine percent of pregnant teens consulted with their teenaged boyfriends, who are looking at becoming a father at 14 and paying child support for the next 18 years, on whether or not to have an abortion. This argument is so absurd that I would be EMBARASSED to even publish the fact that I even included that in a question! No rebuttal is needed here.

Reading further on the PP website, I found a section that talks about how, if The Child Custody Protection Act were put into law, the consequences would just be unfathomable. I will tell you what is unfathomable: the arguments made under this section!

One states that, "The CCPA would subject to criminal penalties anyone--a grandparent, adult sibling, member of the clergy, or medical professional--who assists a minor in traveling across state lines to receive an abortion without the parental consent or notification required by her home state." You know, that's the darndest thing about those who break the law THEY ARE SUBJECT TO CRIMINAL PENALTIES! PERIOD!

The next PP argument: "CCPA makes such assistance a crime even if confidential abortions are legal in the state where the abortion is to be performed and even if that state allows the accompanying grandparent or adult sibling to give lawful consent for the minor's abortion." Well, there is a little thing in the United States Constitution that kind of makes this argument, shall we say, IGNORANT! Under Article IV, Section 1, "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof." Now, I could argue this further, but I am hoping that you would not place my words above those of the U.S. Constitution.

The same Full Faith and Credit clause can be applied to the next PP argument..."The CCPA also raises a number of other constitutional and legal questions, particularly those related to issues of federalism. The legislation effectively nullifies the laws of those states that allow physicians to provide confidential services to minors who enter the states for abortion and deprives individuals of their right to cross state lines to obtain lawful services. Such intervention by the federal government would be unprecedented, and raises serious implications for states, and individuals' rights (Saul, 1998)." Unprecedented? PLEASE! Article IV, Section 1.

It amazes me how these liberals will yell "Full Faith and credit" all day long as regards gay marriage, but when it comes to transporting a minor across state lines to commit the government sanctioned murder of a baby, the Constitution is meaningless. A little consistency might help your arguments, guys.

Look, it all boils down to this...I, as a parent, have EVERY RIGHT to know when my child is going to be operated on. It is a sad day when a school nurse could face sanctions for giving a kid an aspirin, but the PP's can crush the skull of a baby inside my 14 year old daughter, and not a word has to be said to me.

America, we had best get our priorities straight here. Situations such as this simply CANNOT be allowed to exist.

It would seem that, due to some faulty information I received, I misspoke on the absence of the ACLU during the Rush Limbaugh ordeal. As it turns out, they did in fact go to bat for Rush's privacy rights.

Although I disagree with the ACLU on most things; their defense of the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), taking Christ out of Christmas, and a host of other issues, it seems they were dead on with this one, so for that, I apologize.

Today I received an email from John Petrello, III, detailing how Peter B. Lewis, chairman of the Progressive Insurance Company, has donated $8.5 MILLION to help fund the anti-Christian ACLU?s war on Christmas.

You can read the full story at the American Family Association?s website by going here: http://www.afa.net/progressive.asp. Once you read the shocking news, please click on one of the links; either "if you have a Progressive policy," or "if you do not have a Progressive policy." These will take you to a page where you can send Chairman Lewis a very loud and very clear message on how you feel about his decision to try and help suppress Christianity in a country where 85% of the population claims to be Christian, and 95% say they celebrate Christmas.

I would also encourage you to pass this story along to everyone you know. Obviously, the more folks who know what is going on, the better our chances of putting an end to it.

The ACLU is totally out of control folks, and we HAVE to take a stand if we are going to protect the rights of the majority of Americans. I have NEVER in my life seen the rights of 85% of Americans stripped away simply to appease a small minority of people.

Once you are done there, please visit http://www.stoptheaclu.org and consider helping us eliminate the ACLU. I appreciate everyone's time in visiting my little corner of the web, and for acting to protect the rights inherent to ALL Americans.

God Bless,
Mr. Right Opinion