As most of you are probably aware, the United States is under constant attack by people who would like nothing more than take away your rights, make you live under constant fear and/or revoke your property ownership rights.

The American Civil Liberties Union is one of the multiple organizations that look out for constitutional violations, poltitcal power grabs and laws (or rulings) that diminish your freedom.

They fight for freedom of speech, women's rights, and abuses of Executive power, among other things.

However, the ACLU cannot effectively tackle all these issues without your help.

The ACLU runs almost entirely on donations.

To raise a little money for a good cause (freedom is always nice), I will match all donations to the ACLU you guys make, for as long as this thread is opened, up to a total of 500 USD.

Simply donate to the ACLU, then either post or PM me in private your donation amount. I will collect the total and then contribute an equal amount. It's an easy way to give twice as much with little effort.

I'm with BAF, the aclu is a bunch of pinko commie simps. My charity of choice is the DAV (disabled american veterans).

The ACLU sued a nearby city for displaying the Ten Commandments monument on city owned land, despite nobody in the city ever caring (ie, no one locally ever complained). The city knew it would lose the case, so they sold the land the monument was on back to the group who initially donated it.

That ended the issue, right? Nope, they still fought (and lost) to have it removed from the privately owned land! They showed that they really weren't against the city displaying the Ten Commandments - they were against the very idea of religious symbols in public. Fighting for our rights, yeah right. They are fighting to abolish religion and do whatever else fits their beliefs.

I'm not saying everything they do is bad, but donating to them is not much different than donating to a political party. If you align with them, then it's money well spent. And as BAF said, it's a nice idea. I just don't agree in principle with everything they do, so I'm not in a position to donate.

I wouldn't donate a penny to the ACLU. This country would be better off without them.

I guess the ACLU must have hacked all of the Internet, because I can't seem to find a reference to them losing the lawsuit against Harrisburg.

Link? Source? Anything?

Is it really?

Read more about your country here. Supreme Court cases are also discussed.

That has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. Saying "One Nation under God" in the Pledge, saying "Merry Christmas" in public places, and not restricting funds based on religous orientation in no way break that. All that says is that no religous test will ever be required for holding public office, and that the government cannot regulate or restrict religions.

You do have to go a bit farther than what the Constitution says explicitly, but you don't need to go farther than the writers' intentions. That is, they didn't want the government to regulate religion or show favoritism toward any specific one.

But I really don't think they were about banning religion. They were about not banning it. For example, I find these two things the same:

• A teacher wears a shirt that says "Bush sucks."

• A teacher wears a shirt that says "Jesus loves you."

but one is somehow protected under free speech, while the other is not. In principle, if the government cannot "endorse" religion, then it ought not be able to endorse any opinions at all. (And yes, I am speculating outside of the Constitution.)

Cite some examples.

I was just speculating on how most in the "Separation of Church and State" crowd think. I find it interesting that you could (theoretically) teach an optional class that promoted beliefs called "Republican Party 101" or "Platonism 101," but not "Christianity 101." And yes, I understand that some sort of case could be built using the Constitution to eliminate the last class - but I'm just saying the entire idea is a double standard.

To me, if the tax paying citizens have demand for a certain class, then it ought not be banned, as they are the ones paying for it. And to me, that's how I view most of the whole church/state thing. (The class example is extreme, but there are more realistic situations.) And no, I'm not saying that it is my interpretation of the Constitution. It's just my opinion on how things should be.

That's incorrect. You can teach Christianity 101 in public schools, as long as you:
1. Offer alternative courses on other religions or religous texts.
2. Teach Christianity in terms of historical or literature reference, not religious.

Indeed. The US Constitution can be (and has been) changed. It's got a built-in update mechanism! You just need to find enough people who agree with you, and you'd be all set. You can repeal all of (or a portion of) the First Amendment. If Taxpayers really wanted to allow religious teaching in public schools, you can propose a constitutional amendment that would allow it.

Indeed. This is an issue with the US Constitution. Perhaps you (or others) can push for a change?

I am all for the ACLU somebody has to stand up for unpopular causes and they have not done anything that adversly affect ME.

What I see in the US today is a bunch of politicans who make decisions based on what the polls and focus groups tell them. These polls, focus groups, and general public oppinion are in turn affected by the media (liberal and conservative). We call it democracy and have been trying to inflict upon other nations for history knows how long. Now public oppinion is easily swayed, heck the movie Brave Heart gave enough attention to a popular movement which lead to Scottish Independence. The ACLU is a totally undemocratic organization that protects people and ideals that are in the minority from the whims of the majority.

The ACLU has done some good works back in the era of women's and civil rights. Perhaps they are useless now, but their opponents probably said the same thing back in those days. Only history will tell who is right. In the mean time I think the ACLU should exist so they can be there when popular oppinion swings toward the immoral. When I use terms like "moral" and "immoral" I mean what I, Wilson Saunders, thinks is right and wrong. So that statement really reads "The ACLU should exist so they can step up when public oppinion disagrees with me."

Who said I didn't already do so?