So,
if you are a USAmerican, do you highly value the Bill of Rights? If so, you
might be, or might want to be, a supporter of the American Civil Liberties
Union (ACLU), which was born 100 years ago, on January 19, 1920.
What’s
the ACLU’s Purpose?
According
to Samuel Walker’s nearly 500-page book In Defense of American Liberties: A
History of the ACLU (1990), the “essential feature of the ACLU is its
professed commitment to the non-partisan defense of the Bill of Rights” (p. 5).
From
its very beginning, the ACLU has had many critics. In his Introduction, Walker recounts
how in the 1988 presidential election campaign, George Bush attacked Michael
Dukakis, his Democratic opponent, for being a “card-carrying member of the
ACLU.”
Twenty-five
years later, Jerome R. Corsi, who (among other things) is a conspiracy
theorist, published Bad Samaritans: The ACLU’s Relentless Campaign to Erase
Faith from The Public Square.
On
the opening page of his book, Corsi (b. 1946) cites these words from the Pledge
of Allegiance, “. . . one nation under God, with liberty and justice for all.” Because
of their support for the rights of atheists also, the ACLU objects to those
first four words that were added to the Pledge in 1954. But clearly, their main
emphasis is, literally, “liberty and justice for all.”
And
“all” means, well, all, even those who may harbor mistaken and/or
wrongheaded ideas.
The
ACLU has been the target of stringent criticism for defending, for example, the
free speech right of Communist sympathizers in the U.S.—but also for defending
the right to free speech by the KKK and Fred Phelps, the notorious pastor of
Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas.
In
a 2010 article about Phelps
(1929~2014), an ACLU spokesperson wrote, “To be
clear: the ACLU strongly disagrees with the protestors' message in this case.
But even truly offensive speech is protected by the First Amendment.”
She went on to say, “It is in hard cases like this where our
commitment to free speech is most tested, and most important.”
Why’d
the ACLU Start?
The
ACLU was formed largely because the freedom of people in the late 1910s to speak
out against the movement of the U.S. toward participation in World War I was
being suppressed.
The
primary founder of the organization was Roger Baldwin, a pacifist whose conscientious objection
to “the Great War” was not recognized by the U.S. government and in 1918-19 he
spent nine months in prison.
After
the ACLU was formed in January 1920, Baldwin remained the executive director until
1950. Even though he retired from that position when he was 66 years old, he remained
active in working for the civil liberties of all people.
In
1981, seven months before his death at the age of 97, Baldwin was awarded the
Medal of Freedom by President Carter.
Who’d
Be Against the ACLU?
Through
the years the ACLU has supported many noted people/causes, including John
Scopes in the “monkey trial” of 1925, Japanese Americans after they were placed
in internment camps in 1942, African Americans in the Brown v. Board of
Education lawsuit of 1954, the “reproductive freedom” of women since before
the Roe v. Wade decision of 1973, and gays/lesbians in the Obergefell v. Hodges lawsuit of 2015.
So,
who would now be opposed to the ACLU? Well, among others, those who think a
literal interpretation of the Bible ought to be (en)forced on all U.S. citizens in spite of the principle of the separation of church and state as well as those who think that it is
acceptable to discriminate or legislate against minorities, gays and lesbians, immigrants/asylum
seekers, and (desperate) women seeking to end an unwanted pregnancy.
Those
who cherish the Bill of Rights, however, are deeply grateful for the meritorious
work of the ACLU over the past 100 years.
If you have the time and/or interest, you may want to watch one or both of these YouTube videos: Although not of high quality, "Traveling Hopefully" (1982), a 28-minute video, is well worth watching. It is mainly about Baldwin and the history of the ACLU; it includes excerpts from a speech Baldwin made in 1981. And recently the history of the ACLU is attractively summarized in a less than five minute video. Here are the links:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ND_uY_KXGgY&t=1s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRRJnAbSdRE&t=44s
Thinking Friend Eric Dollard in Chicago sent these comments about this posting:
ReplyDelete"Thanks, Leroy, for your comments about the ACLU.
"I am a member of the ACLU, as is our daughter-in-law, so I obviously support the work of the ACLU. Currently I believe one its most important objectives is to protect the voting rights of U S citizens. Some states are purging their voter registration lists, but shouldn't every U S citizen over the age of 17 be registered to vote, regardless of whether he or she actually votes? Voting is an important civic duty and no citizen should be denied the right to vote because he or she is not registered."
Thanks, as always, for your comments, Eric.
DeleteVoting Rights is one of the 18 "issues" that ACLU works on, according to their website: https://www.aclu.org/issues/voting-rights
People and organizations are generally a mixed bag of good and evil. My firsthand experiences with this organization are of militant evil - seeking to cause trouble. It is hard not to curse, but Christ calls us to love our "enemy" and to pray for those who mistreat us intentionally.
ReplyDeleteWhen I read this I thought of the "Voice of the day" quote from Sojourners yesterday:
Delete"Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters." ~ Frederick Douglass ~
?? They certainly plow the ground. Only a fool stands outside in a lightning storm, or doesn't seek high ground from a tsunami.
DeleteI was sad to receive these comments from a highly respected local Thinking Friend:
ReplyDelete"I have opposed the ACLU and I am not a Fundamentalist. I was a life-long member and served on the local affiliate board. After Citizens United, I went to the ACLU office in New York and sought to explore the ACLU's flawed interpretation of the First Amendment (money=speech), and in considering what I learned for a full year, I finally, reluctantly resigned. Other organizations find ways of keeping Baldwin's energy alive.
I was sad to hear this, for I have been strongly opposed to the Supreme Court decision on Citizens United. But it helps some to read what ACLU has on their website about this. You can check it out at this address: https://www.aclu.org/issues/free-speech/campaign-finance-reform
DeleteHere are short comments from other Thinking Friends:
ReplyDeleteLocal TF Bob Leeper: "Leroy, thanks for presenting this helpful summary on ACLU. It is good for me to know more about their mission."
TF Charles Kiker in Texas: "I was on the Board of Directors of ACLU Texas in the mid first decade of the 21st century. A very rewarding experience.I was affectionately called The Left Reverend Kiker."
TF Glenn Hinson in Kentucky: "A worthy reminder, Leroy. Our nation’s basic commitment to the First Amendment hinges on the work of ACLU. Thanks for writing this."
Thanks, Bob, Charles, and Glenn for reading this morning's post and for resonding.
DeleteAnd here are comments from local Thinking Friend Temp Sparkman:
ReplyDelete"Once a movement is organized to defend or affirm a principle, it faces pressures from conflicting actions on specific issues. I remember being grateful when the ACLU sided with my beliefs on issues, and also of being ambivalent on other positions until I read the group’s justifications for its rulings. It takes an advanced level of moral reasoning (Lawrence Kohlberg’s theory) to follow the ACLU’s positions."
Thanks for your comments, Temp, and thanks for referring to Lawrence Kohlberg's theory, which I knew nothing about. It seems that ACLU's positions are indicative of Kohlberg's "Stage six," moral reasoning based on abstract reasoning using universal ethical principles.
DeleteA few minutes ago I received the following brief message from Thinking Friend Dick Horn, who for many years was a missionary colleague in Japan:
ReplyDelete"Thanks for the article. I have been a card carrying member for many years. Great organization."
Leroy, thanks for the meaningful article. Over the years I have watched the ACLU work on cases that had little effect on my personal life. My knowledge is limited, and it would be inappropriate to suggest that the ACLU is filled with demons or angles. I expect it is somewhere between.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I have watched from my sofa and can affirm a great deal that they have worked for. On the other hand, I have been annoyed at times when it seemed that common sense was overruled. Allowing a hundred or so nude bicyclers to ride through the city is a little uncomfortable on the eyes and for the children there is a lot of explaining to do.
Frank, thanks for your comments.
DeleteIt is hard to know how much freedom should be allowed--and supported--without that freedom being harmful to others or to society as a whole. If the ACLU has erred, it has clearly been on the side of freedom rather than on censorship and restriction of individuals' or groups' freedom.
Like most who have commented above, I have long treasured my ACLU card. I also have not agreed with every position they have taken. That, however, is no reason to leave the group. The ACLU is navigating in some of the most turbulent waters of public policy, full of competing demands. Sometimes honorable people will disagree on how to strike a balance.
ReplyDeleteI read the link to their position on Citizens United, and see they also support major election reform. USAmerica used bandaids instead of solutions. Ban all partisan political activity by all tax-exempt non-profits. No more hybrid charity/political groups. A number of high profile non-profits already do this by having two separate organizations, one to do the service work, and the other the political. As an example, the Sierra Club is actually two organizations. The club itself besides environmental activities engages in significant political lobbying, and donations are not tax-exempt. The companion, the Sierra Club Foundation, is tax-exempt, and does not do political activity. Any group engaged in political activity should be financially transparent, just like a political party. There should be no dark money in politics.
A second big issue is the evolving personhood of corporations. Some level of artificial personhood is needed to allow corporations to legally function. However, this has grown to nonsense when a corporation like Hobby Lobby can claim it has religious beliefs that need to be respected. Corporations are in some ways not at all like natural persons, and they should not be able to game the system, picking and choosing as they like. Corporations cannot serve on a jury, or be sent to jail. They are conditionally immortal, and have no limit on their size. As corporations grow in size, they should be required to allot board seats to other stakeholders in the corporation, such as employees, community representatives, and environmental representatives. By the time a corporation is as large as some governments, it should have a broad based board appropriate for the quasi-governmental organization it has become. Obviously, these types of solutions are larger than what even the ACLU can litigate. We need state, federal and even international legislative regulations to create a framework to keep corporations behaving like good citizens. When we negotiate large trade deals we should also be negotiating appropriate frameworks to regulate large multinational corporations. As it is, corporations seem to think they can jump from artificial person to artificial god. Well, we have a term for artificial gods, we call them idols. Even Exxon and Amazon have limits they should not be allowed to cross.
Now another area touched on above is the tension between freedom of worship and freedom of religion. Roosevelt's list of freedoms included the freedom of worship. People should have the right to assemble and worship as they please. Not too many people will disagree with that. Today, many call for freedom of religion, which is a much broader category than worship. Within reason this is fine, it means letting people act out their beliefs. Unfortunately, this acting out sometimes involves actions that society has determined to be detrimental to others. Many social fights in recent years have been of exactly this nature, as aggressive religion has sought to impose its views on marriage, birth control, health insurance, end of life policies and so forth. The ACLU has frequently been involved with litigating such disputes. It has frequently turned out that claims of freedom of religion ended up as calls for the government to establish a particular religion upon everyone. (Remember the old blue laws?) Every Christian should read about the Catholic-Protestant wars that rocked Europe in centuries past. The peace that finally came was the turn to science-based secular government. It was called the Enlightenment.
Thanks for your lengthy and helpful comments, Craig. I appreciate you looking up and responding to the ACLU's position on election reform.
DeleteAnd I also appreciate your reference to people who want to use their freedom of religion as a means of discriminating against or even controlling the activity of others. That is the sort of thing I had in mind when I wrote about "those who think a literal interpretation of the Bible ought to be (en)forced on all U.S. citizens in spite of the principle of the separation of church and state."
Upholding/protecting the freedom of other people certainly does not mean that we have to agree with how other people use their freedom. But fairness means we acknowledge their freedom anyway.