Glenn Beck Program






    HOME >> NEWS


Heard On The Show: ACLU or APCU?

MAY 27, 2005

ACLU or APCU?

Defending liberty – can there be a cause more valiant to the American people? That was the founding goal of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), an organization devoted to protecting the civil liberties provided for in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. The ACLU was founded in 1920, under the rationale to exclusively protect the first amendment rights, the right to equal treatment by the law, the right to due process of law, and the right to privacy (“About”, 1). Many people speculate that the ACLU’s focus has shifted away from defending civil liberties in recent years, changing its focus instead, to a group that is as much about political agendas and political correctness as defending rights. Others strongly support the work of the ACLU, saying that the organization is more important than ever, sighting examples like freedoms at stake because of the Patriot Act and events that stem from 9-11 (Sullivan, 2). What is clear is that the ACLU’s focus is in a state of evolution, moving from issues that were pertinent in past years, to more contemporary concerns, but the organization is still impacting the growth of modern constitutional law. The ACLU may be spending less time securing people’s civil liberties and too much time defending political agendas associated with secular political correctness, which makes the ACLU increasingly counter-productive to the American ideal.

The ACLU was designed to be our country’s guardian of liberty. It was created to conserve America’s original civil value … the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. In 1920, Roger Baldwin, Crystal Eastman, and Albert DeSilver founded the American Civil Liberties Union. When it was created, its founders made clear that they were a nonprofit and nonpartisan group (“About”, 1). All three people were involved in the beginning but it was Baldwin that took charge and developed the ACLU into what it is today. “The defense of the rights of everyone, the downtrodden, and even the advocates of the most hateful ideas, became the guiding principle of Baldwin’s life and that of the ACLU” (Walker, 30). Baldwin urged both radicals and liberals in America to come together and fight fascism, racism, and poverty. During World War II, the ACLU was instrumental in the issue of internment of Japanese Americans and Japanese aliens (Cottrell, 2).

Today the ACLU still is involved with litigating, legislating, and educating the public about issues that affect individual freedoms. The group currently has over 275,000 members and is still non-profit and non-partisan (“Health”, 1). There is a national office in New York City, and a large legislative office in Washington D.C., as well as affiliate offices in 46 states (Walker, 4). Annual dues are collected from members, and grants from private foundations and individuals also help fund the organization (“About”, 2). Many of the attorneys work pro bono, or for free (Sullivan, 2). They believe in what they do, but like with most civil liberty conflicts, there are strong feelings and long battles (Baker, 7). This has remained the same through the history of the ACLU as well.

What has changed is history – the events that shape our lives and liberties, and the ACLU has had to adapt and change as well. The horrific events of September 11th impacted our country greatly including our civil liberties. In the wake of the United States’ Patriot Act over 120,000 new ACLU members have joined the union and the number of applicants is still rising (Sarasohn, 1). Because of the new mood surrounding the importance of civil liberties and the number of new members, the attention of the ACLU has shifted. As the executive Vice President of the National Rifle Association commented, “When you start talking about putting people on a terrorist watch list, and then start talking about depriving them of their rights without due process of law, you might as well tear up the constitution of the United States” (Sarasohn, 2).

Many have looked to the ACLU to protect these liberties and in fact there is a growing feeling that the nation’s security and terrorism climate has made the ACLU more viable than ever. For instance, a dive shop owner in California protested when the FBI wanted lists of his clients and lists of dive shops around the country because of the possibility of that a terrorist diver could launch an attack by making their way into a U.S. port (Mittelstadt, 2). The ACLU got involved to protect the shop owner and his client’s privacy rights. The profiling of people of Middle Eastern descent has also been a target for ACLU attention. The government’s “No Fly List” has come under a lot of scrutiny because it may be unfairly profiling Middle-Easterners. The ACLU announced in April 2004 that it would file a class action lawsuit challenging the list, and the fight on this continues (Herridge, 1). Helping these people preserve their rights is important to the ACLU.

Political correctness and religious events are other areas where the ACLU has provided help, and controversy. In maintaining the separation of church and state, feelings run deep about the exclusion of religious symbolism, as in the case filled in April 2003 asking the Florida Department of health to recall a brochure called “The Christian Response to AIDS” because it had both the department logo and images of Jesus healing the sick (Canedy, 6). There are also many instances where Christian groups protest against the ACLU for being against public displays of Christmas to the point where things get blown out of proportion, even though the ACLU itself has taken no action. The fact that Christian groups tend to exaggerate the threats against the ACLU stirs up controversy and the group is often cited as an enemy of traditionalists (Adamo, 1). Yet ACLU says that it has not filed a single case blocking Christmas displays in 2004, and references at least six instances in the past year the when it has fought on the side of more religious expression (Milbank, 1). Barry Lynn, the head of the liberal group Americans United for Separation of Church and State says, “This is the winter equivalent of those summer stories about shark attacks being on the increase” (Milbank, 2). ACLU president Nadine Strossen compares complaints form conservatives are “like Chicken Little saying the sky is falling.” She says that even though there have been “occasional violations in either direction” regarding church-state separation, “if any thing, since 1985 the Supreme Court has become more supportive of government-sponsored religious exercises” (Milbank, 3).

As is evidenced by its history, the ACLU has been a powerful and growing organization since its inception. Even though historical events have sometimes changed its direction, the mission to protect civil rights has remained the same, being an essential part of democracy. As Herbert J. Stern, former U.S Attorney and federal judge comments that the ACLU “has had an enormous impact of the growth and development of law and human rights” (Sullivan, 4).Our civil liberties are the lifeblood of our democracy, and the ACLU continues to be the guardian of those liberties.

Defending the constitution is imperative, but does the ACLU represent the feelings of mainstream America as they push to legislate the constitution through the courts, or is it just a partisan political opinion? That’s how many Americans, especially conservatives, feel about the ACLU (Reinhard, 1). The feeling by many is the ACLU has gone over the line by forcing new legislation that only they and their friends in Washington agree with (Reinhard, 2). “Thanks to the ACLU our laws have been so badly mangled, revised and reshaped that we no longer seem to know what our Founders meant by anything anymore,” says Jennie Maroney, a working class citizen (Maroney, 1). Many feel that political correctness is what has changed the way the ACLU operates to the point where more time is spent trying not to offend minorities than defending everyone’s rights. As Denver radio host Mike Rosen says, “Perhaps we’ve taken this tolerance thing a bit too far (Rosen, 1).

One way the ACLU has been criticized is involving the Patriot Act. The ACLU hasn’t played by the rules when it comes to arguing over the Patriot Act. Their unfair characterization of the legislation is causing lots of panic over it. For example, the ACLU has maintained that the Patriot Act gives the government the right to monitor your e-mails and internet site visits. The fact is that those things are only possible after a court order is obtained and the information is proven to be relevant to an ongoing criminal prosecution (Reinhard, 2). Besides causing hysteria with the masses, there are several examples of the ACLU, in the name of fairness; actually coming to the aide of would be terrorists. There is currently a case where the ACLU is lobbying the UN to force the U.S. to treat terrorists, captured in combat, as U.S. citizens. That means that, we as U.S. citizens would have to pay for the trial defense of every terrorist captured (Scales, 1). Issues continually arise involving immigrants and terrorism. When former Attorney General John Ashcroft suggested protecting the country by using methods of finger printing and tracking immigrants and visitors to the U.S., the ACLU argued that it was both discriminatory and unconstitutional” (Neate, 1).

Another area where the ACLU has been criticized for their actions is their involvement with the separation of religion from public places. In many cases, instead of filing lawsuits and making court cases, the ACLU merely uses the threat of lawsuits to accomplish their goals (Reinhard, 2).

This explains why ACLU officials can maintain that their record is pure with no litigation against public displays for Christmas in 2004 – because of political correctness and fear; it rarely comes to litigation (Reinhard, 3). For example, the ACLU litigated Los Angeles County’s board of supervisors into taking out the cross in their county’s seal. One could imagine that it could all be part of the”ACLU’s pursuit of its left wing political secular agenda,” says journalist David Reinhard (2). The ACLU is well- known for viewing nativity scenes in public squares and Christmas concerts in school as presenting Christianity in a venue endorsed by state and therefore saying that they have no place in our society (Ellsworth, 2). In Texas, a boy handed out candy canes with a story of Jesus attached to it in his fourth grade classroom. He was only able to do this because his parents had won a court order reversing an ACLU sponsored school ban on students handing out items with religious messages (2). The famous author William F. Buckley Jr. addressed a similar point back in 1984, when he said “the failure to in incorporate religion in some way into the intellectual pageantry of education is an act of aggression against religion, and a kind of wartime mobilization of all that is secular, against all that is religious. If congress is expected to bow its head once a day and the President of the United States to swear fidelity with his hand on the bible, how is it that contact with religion, however fleeting, should not be expected in the schools?” (Buckley, 70).

It is obvious that the extremist views of religious expression by the ACLU combined with our ever growing politically correct society makes for explosive confrontations especially during the holidays. The problem is that these views differ from the views of mainstream America by being so anti-religion, and the ACLU are alienating themselves from much of the country because of this. Colin Levey of the Seattle Times says that many towns “litter their churches with allsorts of religious and non-religious tchotchkes as talismans to ward of litigation. Baby Jesus is believed safe as long he’s surrounded by Frosty, Rudolph, and Hanukkah Harry” (Levey, 2). Some politicians are beginning to change that attitude. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger renamed the tree on the capitol’s grass from a holiday tree back to Christmas tree (Rosen, 2).

My opinion on this matter is simple. I think that the ACLU has gone way overboard. They’re making everyone see Christmas as a bad word, and everything must be winter. Like “Winter Concerts” or “Winter Break”. It’s ‘Christmas’ Break, not winter, Christmas. The ACLU is turning into kind of like an evil big brother always peeking over your shoulder and threatening to go tell mom if you sing Jingle Bells or wear red and green clothes. My opinion can really be summed up in this quote from a holiday parody song, sung to the tune “Holly Jolly Christmas,” as heard on the Glenn Beck Program: “Have a RamaHanuKwanzMas; it’s the PC time of year; Every Holiday displayed; Because of Morbid Fear…. Screw you, ACLU; for winning the twelve; Million in your lawsuit; Against Santa and his elves” (“Glenn Beck”, 1). It seems to me that every week during the holidays I heard a story about a school district banning this or that for fear of being sued. Even if the ACLU isn’t the one suing, it is the politically correct atmosphere that they have been a part of creating. First Santa goes, and then baby Jesus, what’s next--the ACLU thinks that tooth fairy is too make- believe and is rotting kid’s minds? It’s not just that the ACLU is taking out religion in general; it’s that they’re being real selective about it. For example, when the University of North Carolina made the Koran a required reading item, no one heard from the ACLU. New York City is allowed to display menorahs and crescents during the holiday season but no nativity scenes (Levey, 2). This is the problem -- the playing field is not even.

The ACLU should go back to protecting our civil liberties, not just worrying about hurt feelings. As for the Patriot Act, it’s for our protection, not for immigrants and visitors and would-be terrorists. If the Attorney General orders fingerprinting and the tracking of immigrants, it is for our safety, yet the ACLU claims discrimination (Neate, 1). The ACLU is so intent on political correctness that they may be risking our security. So what if some people have to wait in line at the airport for an extra 10 minutes? What’s better, getting an aisle seat on Southwest or an attack on our country?

When our founding fathers created the Constitution and Bill of Rights, I don’t think they were worried about anyone taking offense to religious displays or having their ID’s checked at airports. The ACLU has done a lot of good over the years, and while many of their cases still fight for civil liberties, it seems as though the ACLU’s focal point is changing. The ACLU may be spending more time focused on protecting political agendas related with secular political correctness and less time focusing on defending civil liberties, which may make their efforts unsupportive to the American ideal.

Works Cited

  • “About Us.” American Civil Liberties Union. American Civil Liberties Union. 17 Jan. 2005 <http://www.aclu.org/about/aboutmain.cfm>.
  • Adamo, Chris. “ACLU steals much more than Christmas.” Weblog entry. 15 Dec. 2004. Renew America.us. 9 Feb. 2005 <http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/adamo/041215>.
  • Baker, Lucius J, and Twiley W Barker, Jr. Civil Liberties and the Constitution. 1970. Sixth ed. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1990.
  • Buckley, William F, Jr. “Against Religion.” Civil Liberties: Opposing Viewpoints. Ed. Julie S Bach. Opposing Viewpoints. St. Paul, Minnesota: Greenhaven Press, 1988. 70.
  • Canedy, Dana. “Critics Attack State Leaflet on AIDS Help and Religion.” New York Times 4 Apr. 2003. Fairness.com. 9 Feb. 2005 <http://www.fairness.com/resources/by relation?relation_id=6183>.
  • Cottrell, Robert C. “Roger Baldwin: Founder, American Civil Liberties Union.” Harvard Square Library. 9 Feb. 2005 <http://www.harvardsquarelibrary.org/unitarians/baldwin_r.html>.
  • Elsworth, Catherine. “Atheists demand a secular Christmas.” The Daily Telegraph 24 Dec. 2004. LexisNexis. 17 Jan. 2005 <http://web.lexisnexis.com/>.
  • The Glenn Beck Program. Premier Radio Networks. 9 Feb. 2005 <http://www.glennbeck.com>.
  • “Health Information Resource Database.” National Health Information Center. 26 Oct. 1999. 19 Jan. 2005 <http://www.health.gov/nhic/NHICScripts/Entry.cfm?HRCode=HR2723>.
  • Herridge, Catherine. “ACLU Challenges No Fly List.” Fox News Channel 7 Apr. 2004. 9 Feb. 2005 <http://www.foxnews.com>.
  • Levey, Collin. “A Christmas comeback in the public square.” The Seattle Times 24 Dec. 2004. LexisNexis. 17 Jan. 2005 <http://web.lexisnexis.com/>.
  • Maroney, Jennie. “Letters to the Editor.” The Boston Herald 20 Mar. 2002. LexisNexis. 20 Jan. 2005 <http://web.lexisnexis.com/>. (Primary Source)
  • Milbank, Dana. “Groups on Right Say Christmas Is Under Attack; Others Call Outcry A Ploy for Funds.” The Washington Post 24 Dec. 2004. LexisNexis. 19 Jan. 2005 <http://web.lexisnexis.com/>.
  • Mittelstadt, Michelle. “New Patriot Act creates uproar Uncommon allies vowing to fight still secret bill.” Dallas Morning News 15 Apr. 2003. LexisNexis. 19 Jan. 2005 <http://web.lexisnexis.com/>.
  • Neate, Ed M. “ACLU Ought To Be Worried About Safety.” Columbus Dispatch 22 July 2002. LexisNexis. 20 Jan. 2005 <http://web.lexisnexis.com/>. (Primary Source)
  • Reinhard, David. “ACLU: On The March Again.” The Sunday Oregonian 11 July 2004. LexisNexis. 17 Jan. 2005 <http://web.lexisnexis.com/>.
  • Rosen, Laurel. “Their holiday jeer: Bring back Christmas.” The Sacramento Bee 23 Dec. 2004. LexisNexis. 19 Jan. 2005 <http://web.lexisnexis.com/>.
  • Rosen, Mike. “It’s A Wonderful Strife.” Rocky Mountain News 10 Dec. 2004. LexisNexis. 19 Jan. 2005 <http://web.lexisnexis.com/>.
  • Sarasohn, David. “ACLU: On the March Again.” The Sunday Oregonian 11 July 2004. LexisNexis. 17 Jan. 2005 <http://web.lexisnexis.com/>.
  • Scales. “The ACLU does not represent Civil Liberties for Americans, it represents Civil Liberties for Terrorists and Illegal Aliens in America at the expense of Americans.” Weblog entry. 1 Feb. 2004. Shredding Political Correctness for Political Rightness. 9 Feb. 2005 <http://www.bullandscales.com/weblog/scales/archives/rex/000009.html>.
  • Sullivan, John. “New Fire in the Belly Of Civil Libertarians.” The New York Times 1 Feb. 2004. LexisNexis. 19 Jan. 2005 <http://web.lexisnexis.com/>.
  • Walker, Samuel. In Defense of American Liberties: A History of the ACLU. New York, New York: Oxford University Press, 1990.