“American Civil
Liberties Union
& The Unitarian
Universalist Church”
(The ACLU & The
UUC)
Debra J.M. Smith
© Copyright
2006
“But the word of the Lord
endureth for ever.
And this is the word which by
the gospel is preached unto
you.”
One Man’s Honor, Another Man’s
Shame
|
In response to being severely criticized by the
ACLU for having proclaimed 1983, “The Year of The Bible,”
President Ronald Reagan said, “Well, I wear their
indictment like a badge honor.”
I find the ACLU’s obvious fear of the Bible
truly amazing. My heart giggles with delight at their fear of
my God. What is the likeliness of this group ever taking such
a stand against another faith/belief book?
President Reagan was simply exercising his
freedoms of both speech and religion. I have yet to read
anywhere in our nation’s Constitution anything that prohibits
a person in office from exercising his
freedoms.
So
just what was this groups problem? What is the driving force
behind a group that would make such a stink over Godly speech?
Does the ACLU not realize that the US Constitution is signed,
“In the year of our Lord”?
I found an interesting documentary on the ACLU
web site. The Documentary, clearly meant to hype up the ACLU,
shows how cleverly the ACLU weaves in some worthy causes,
among the greater number of bad causes, none of which hurt the
ACLU agenda. This documentary exposes a monster
manipulator.
Oliver
North
appears in the Documentary as a defender of the ACLU. In it,
North says, “The ACLU is referred to as the criminal’s lobby,
they get convictions overturned on quote, technicalities. Well
the technicality they’re talking about is the constitution of
the United States. And odious as it may be, it applies equally
to you and to me and to John Dotty and the mobster down the
street that’s gonna get busted for drugs. The ACLU has taken
some very tough stands on some very tough issues. I’m one of
those examples.”
(Interesting, that the one man who was in the
center of the scandal that infringed on the near perfect
legacy of the Reagan Administration, is an ACLU supporter, and
it appears they helped him.)
The documentary is pretty much stocked full of
people like North, praising the ACLU. It throws in what Reagan
said and some clips from movies that mock the carrying of
their ‘card’—the victimizing touch, for the sympathetic
viewer. The makers have a remarkable ability to make wrong,
sound right—with the overall tone in which such is presented.
The bulk of the documentary plays out like that of major
damage
control. |
|
ACLU Founder, Roger Baldwin—The
Coward
documentary names Roger Baldwin as the founder
of the ACLU and actually tries to make him out to be some kind
of hero for having refused to serve in WWI. It has Roger
Baldwin boasting of how he was “Perfectly willing to take the
consequences”. As if this man was brave? While real men were
dying for this nation, Roger Baldwin, the coward, was
safe.
This “man” then had the nerve to start an
organization that he claimed would defend American
Liberties? Other men fought for the very thing that Roger
Baldwin would later claim victory for, American Liberties.
|
Roger
Baldwin and The Unitarian Church
 Roger Baldwin (founder of the ACLU), when reflecting
on his life, said that in his early years he not only regularly
attended the Unitarian Church in Wellesley Hills, Massachusetts; he
also helped to teach in the Sunday School and even listened to the
preacher. He added, “I would say that social work began in my mind
in the Unitarian Church when I was ten or twelve years old, and I
started to do things that I thought would help other
people.”
(Excerpt and photo, from: Click
Here)
 The
Union of Two Churches
The Unitarian Church merged with the
Universalist church in 1961 (Unitarian Universalist Church
site;
1)
Found
in today's churches are humanism, agnosticism, atheism,
theism, liberal Christianity, neo-paganism and earth
spiritualism. (From Ch.1)
-
2)
In most services, there are few, if any, mentions of a deity.
(From Ch.
1)
-
3)
We
believe that more complex life forms have evolved from less
complex life forms. (From Ch. 1)
-
4)
Because ours is a very humanistically-oriented
religion, most UUs regard themselves as humanists in one sense
or another. (From Ch. 2)
-
5)
You
could attend a UU church for years and seldom hear the word
sin. (From Ch. 3)
-
6)
Prayer
for UUs is a way of getting in touch with one's self. (From
Ch. 7)
-
7)
For
example, we have a much acclaimed "About Your Sexuality"
course for boys and girls of junior high age. (From Ch.
9)
-
8)
Unitarian
Universalism is one of the few denominations in North America
that will ordain [other than hetero] clergy. (From
Ch. 12)
-
9)
As an institution, we are strongly pro-choice,
as are most individual UUs. (From Ch. 13)
-
-
From the above excerpts one can conclude that
the Unitarian Universalist Church includes, liberal
Christians, atheists, and neo-paganism. Abortion-on-demand,
homosexuality, and teaching 12 and 13 year olds about their
“Sexuality,” are all belief-based practices of the Unitarian
Universalist Church.
-
This
religion is largely made up of people who regard themselves as
humanists,
who rarely
speak of sin or a deity. They are evolutionists, whose prayers
are to get in touch with themselves.
| A Union of Americans for Civil Liberty or
A Union of a Religion for Humanism
So, just what is the ACLU? Is it really a union of
Americans for civil liberty? Or is it a union of a religion using
the three branches of American government to establish laws
respecting their
establishment?
http://www.allaboutscience.org/origin-of-life.htm -
Link to a Christian site, on
the truth about evolution
The Evolution
Faith
With
an Almighty Creator out of the picture—the Humanist becomes his own
god.
The
ACLU Documentary speaks of the 1925 “Scopes Trials” that
pertained to a teacher on trial for breaking a Tennessee
anti-evolution statute by teaching the “Evolution Theory” in a
school. John Scopes had answered an ACLU ad in a news paper,
which according to the ACLU Documentary said, “Anybody who
wants to violate that law, will get our help.” The Documentary
goes on to show a clip from a movie court scene about a trial
of such, which had an argument for a teacher who had taught
what he “thinks” (evolution).
-
Keeping in mind that evolution is
not a fact, or it would not be called a theory, it is very
understandable why any state would not want their schools
teaching it as a fact. It is also quite understandable why any
state would not want the teaching of evolution as a theory of
any respectability either.
-
[The law prohibiting the teaching of
evolution had come after a law prohibiting teaching of the
Bible in the Tennessee public schools. The law against
teaching evolution was much like an existing Florida law.
William
Jennings Bryan, the prosecutor, won the first trial. In the
second trial, though the law prohibiting the teaching of
evolution in the Tennessee public schools was found to be
constitutionally legal, John Scopes got off on a technicality.
Later, it came out that the day John Scopes claimed to have
taught evolution in the public school, he had actually been
absent from school—he said that he had cooperated with the
ACLU to give them a case. (Information found in “United States
History Heritage of Freedom” second edition ABEKA
books)]
-
The technicality
was over who set the fine, it was supposed to have been set by
a jury, and had not been. Instead of having another trial, the
court let him off.
-
A
quote from the documentary goes as follows, “I think that the
Scope Trial really put the ACLU on the map. The trial
became an education on the meaning of the
first amendment, the meaning of the separation between
church and state, and in many ways, I think that became a
model for everything that ACLU has done ever since.”
-
The
courts found the law prohibiting the teaching of evolution in
Tennessee to be Constitutional. And the technicality, which
got John Scopes off, had no impact on the law. It appears the
makers of the documentary would have us believe otherwise. (So
what else is the documentary misleading the viewer on?)
-
It seems that the ACLU, who generated the trial,
put themselves on the map, using John Scopes as well as
the Judicial System to do so. And the trial was not an
exercise in the true meaning of the 1st amendment, which does
NOT even have the words, “Separation of church and state.”
-
"On
the topic of religion, the first amendment says: "Congress
shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
The
Tennessee law did neither. The law was actually preventing
these two things from happening.
-
The
John Scopes case, did, however, become “a model for everything
that the ACLU has done ever since.”
-
The ACLU would not even back off when public
schools in Arkansas that already taught evolution, simply
wanted to make a fair alternative class: “In 1981, the ACLU,
56 years after the Scopes trial, challenged an Arkansas
statute requiring that the biblical story of creation be
taught as a ‘scientific alternative’ to the theory of
evolution. A federal court found the statute, which
fundamentalists saw as a model for other states,
unconstitutional.”
-
Quoted
from (http://www.aclucentralflorida.org/history.html) |
 (“Time can
be the enemy of truth.”)
A
woman in the ACLU documentary made the following statement after a
segment in the video mentioned a
case won by the ACLU against public schools in Louisiana for giving
equal time to Creation Science: “There’s a wonderful letter
written by James Madison, in, 1803, addressing this very
issue. This is what he said; ‘The purpose of separation of church
and state is to keep forever from these shores, the ceaseless strife
that has soaked the soil of Europe with blood for centuries.’ And
still does today. Pick up any newspaper, you read about Bosnia.
Soil of Bosnia, soaked with blood, some of it apparently comes
from Muslim virgins, being raped as a matter of policy by the
Christian neighbors—to keep forever from these shores, the
ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe with blood for
centuries. And that principle is so important, that it’s worth being
a pain in the ass about. And that’s what the ACLU is.”
I
highly doubt that groups of true Christians were raping
anyone. And with all the blood that poured out right here on
our soil on 9/11/01, this woman did not mention it. Now, why
would that
be?
Also, there is actually no proof that such
letter ever existed. Here is a link
to a site that is maintained by the US Library of Congress:
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/madison/objects.html -- Once there, scroll down to the a section entitled,
“Separation of Church and State, “ and you will see the actual
letter Madison wrote that phrase in—and it had nothing to do
with blood soaked soil, but rather the “practice of employing,
at public expense, chaplains in the House and Senate.”
For the
record, the letter by James Madison does not even have the
words, "seperation of church and state" in it. How people
interpret his words in a letter has no bearing on the meaning
of the 1st
amendment.
The US Constitution never gives public schools
the right to teach against Creation, nor does it give them the
right to deny students their right to be taught creation.
The other point I want to make is about “blood
soaked soil,” since the ACLU so badly wants to talk about it.
The study of Creation Science does not cause the spilling of
blood. However, abortion has caused the bloodshed of millions
of the most innocent, the unborn and has ruined countless
lives of women, all to serve the humanist’s god (himself). It
is not the work of the true Christian Church that calls for
abortion on demand, but that of the Unitarian Universalist
Church and the
ACLU. |
Humanism
Child Sacrifice
The
humanist’s god (himself) needs control of the existence of new
and weaker human life—and the removal.
The
following quote, also found on an ACLU site, boasts of ACLU’s
involvement in abortion “rights” in America. “ACLU lawyers
brought many of the most important reproductive freedom cases
of the last 30 years. In 1973, in Roe v. Wade, and Doe v.
Bolton, the Supreme Court held that the constitutional right
to privacy encompasses a pregnant woman's decision whether to
bear a child or have an abortion. The ruling struck down
state laws that had made the performance of an abortion a
criminal act. The ACLU remains in the forefront of the
struggle for reproductive rights and for women's
equality.” http://www.aclucentralflorida.org/history.html
ACLU's
general counsel (at the time), Norman Dorsen, was a member of
the team of lawyers on the winning side of the 1973, Roe v.
Wade case;http://www.nyu.edu/public.affairs/leadership/dorsen.html.
He helped write the petitioner's brief. It was a
26-year-old lawyer named Sarah
Weddington who actually won the case: http://www.fansoffieger.com/weddington.htm.
The
woman represented in the case, who today is against abortion,
says she was used—that she never actually got the abortion,
and that she never even appeared in court. She says the
lawyers just needed a pregnant woman. A quote, found on http://www.rutherford.org/articles_db/legal_features.asp?article_id=59,
is as follows: “I long for the
day that justice will be done and the burden from all of these
deaths will be removed from my shoulders. I want to do
everything in my power to help women and their children. The
issue is justice for women, justice for the unborn, and
justice for what is right.” --Norma N.
McCorvey, AKA Roe.
The
United Universalist
Association online site (http://www.uua.org/) has a page
that tells how they go about getting what they want. The site
boasts of an alliance having been formed with Sarah Weddington
and Linda Coffee (another lawyer), which the site says enabled
the two young lawyers to bring the case to the Supreme Court.
[See quote below. (Note the time span)]
“For
example, support for the famous Roe v. Wade court case came
out of a study group set up by the Women's Alliance in the
First Unitarian Church of Dallas, TX. This group took over a
year to study the issues concerning the availability of
services for abortion. In the spring of 1970 the Roe v. Wade
case was heard in Dallas, brought by attorneys Linda Coffee
and Sarah Weddington. Both were recent law school graduates.
Members of the congregation met them at the Fifth Circuit
Court hearing. A loving supportive alliance was formed
that enabled these young lawyers to bring this case to
the Supreme Court.” (Quote from UUA-March, 2003 Handbook) http://www.debrajmsmith.com/03_2007_UUA_Handbook_Loving_Relationship.pdf
-
With
that said, I would like to point something out. The scientific
definition of life is cell growth, division, and/or
multiplication. The definition proves that life begins at
conception. If
there were no proven scientific definition for life and it
truly was not know when life begins—then ending the existence
of what is not known to be living or not, is just as wrong as
taking a gun and just shooting at any noise you hear in your
yard and saying you did not think it was a living person. And,
if the baby is not a life, then just what is the abortionist
stopping from growing? The US Constitution never gives anyone
the right to kill a baby, whether the baby is born, or whether
the baby is being formed. A formation of a life is a separate
entity from the body of the woman carrying that formation of
life. |
http://www.sbministries.org/media.html
Link
to a Christian site
|
Genital Worship
Worship of genitals – Turning Truth into
a lie: The humanist has no boundaries—not even the laws
of nature.
Yet
another work of the ACLU, proudly displayed on an ACLU site
is: “In 1996 the Supreme Court recognized for the first time
the civil rights of [homosexuals] by invalidating a
state constitutional amendment, passed by public referendum in
Colorado, that prohibited the state and its municipalities
from enacting [homosexual] rights laws. The
ACLU served as co-counsel in that landmark litigation.”
Excerpt from: http://www.aclucentralflorida.org/history.html
The right to what? To push their humanist
religion of worshiping their genitals on school children,
fellow employees, neighbors, churches of other faith-beliefs?
Is it really their right to force others to respect their
genital worship?
-
As with the above-mentioned 1996 Supreme Court
case that invalidated a state constitutional amendment to
prohibit enacting 'such' right laws, how many hate
speech court cases, ending with verdicts based on the
twisting of our US Constitution, will it take till our freedom
of speech is taken away for simply speaking against a behavior
that God calls an abomination to Him? How many words will they
need to change the meaning of, till wrong is
made legally right?
-
Because these humanists stand for that which is
sexual perversion, are we all to endure such filth? How long
will America allow this perverted infiltration of our public
schools? Will it come to the point of children being taught in
schools, as a matter of an “Alliance,” just what it is
that these people do sexually? Do you not believe
this can happen?
-
Here
is their web site: http://www.glaad.org/
-
And here is
an example of their work for public school
children?http://www.glaad.org/media/archive_detail.php?id=292&
06/26/06,
16487 bytes
-
The US Constitution gives no special rights
to people who choose to conduct unnatural behavior. God
does not even give them the right to act on their vile
affections, just as He does not give thieves and murderers and
pedophiles and rapists and liars, etc., any rights to do their
sin. |
 Some
financial facts about the ACLU
1) The ACLU is made up of two parts, the
ACLU and the ACLU Foundation—the latter being tax exempt. This
basically allows their overall organization to lobby without
Federal limitations, while not paying taxes on much of its
income. http://www.aclu.org/about/24030res20060201.html
2) ACLU funding is by membership dues
and tax-deductible contributions through their Annual Gift
Campaign, fees from legal cases, and some support from
foundations. http://www.aclucentralflorida.org/whatwedo.html
3)
The ACLU claims to have 500,000 members and supporters, and
they boast of handling 6,000 court cases annually from offices
in almost every state. http://www.aclu.com/about/index.html
The Religion Being Respected by
Congress
It
is from The First Unitarian Church, in Ithica, New
York.
The letter is addressed to Sarah Weddington and
it is
dated in July of 2004. The contents are referring to the
"Unborn
Victims of Violence Act 2004".
The Unitarian Church wants the act, which protects the unborn
from violence, to be overturned—done away with. A copy/paste
excerpt from the online letter, says, “this congressional
action violates the religious faith belie[f]s and principles
of Unitarian Universalism." - As if congress cannot make
laws that violate the Unitarian Universalsts faith! The letter
cites Amendments 1, 4, 13, and 14, of the US
Constitution.
To see the contents of the US
Constitution: (Click
Here)
-
The 1st Amendment is not saying that the US Congress cannot
make a law that happens to violate a religion. Congress cannot
make a law, “respecting an establishment of religion
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. As long as
the law is US Constitutionally supported, it can be made. The
“Unborn
Victims of Violence Act 2004”
was
made for the sole purpose of protecting the unborn baby from
violence—just as laws made to stop rapes and murders are made
to protect people, if the laws happen to violate someone’s
religious faith-beliefs, ‘oh well.’ There is at least one
religion out there, whose “holy book,” calls for the killing
of anyone who does not follow their faith—shall we do away
with laws that violate their faith-beliefs and allow them to
kill? None-the-less, it is time for all of this foolishness
surrounding the 1st amendment to cease. It is shame
to our nation that our courts ever entertain such foolishness,
much less ever base what is supposed to be intelligent rulings
by those who are supposed to be of the most intelligent people
of this nation, on such foolishness!
- The
4th Amendment is applies only to "Search and
Arrest Warrants," which is the heading and title
of the amendment. The amendment is not saying that anything
done in your home or your person is your private business. For
instance, a search can legally be made if there is probable
cause that you have stashed illegal drugs in your home or in
your person (like in your mouth).
-
The 13th Amendment is solely for the "Abolition of Slavery."
If there UUC can use this amendment to have fetal abuse and
abortion legal, then open up the public school building doors,
and "Let my people go!" Think about the implications that
taking this amendment out of context has--we had better get
rid of highway laws, jury duty, and oh my gosh--we can ALL
stop paying taxes! Is it not forced labor, making us work for
months out of the year, just to pay income taxes, in order to
make any earnings at all?
-
The 14th Amendment is about the taking away of "Citizenship
Rights." an excerpt is as follows: "No state shall
make or enforce law which shall abridge the privileges or
immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any
state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of laws." Read
it carefully, as per this statement, states cannot just take
away a citizen's rights without due process. Which means with
due process, such can happen. In other words, you cannot
discriminate and say someone does not have a privilege or
immunity that legally is given to ALL citizens that have not
had either or both taken away by due process of the law. The
same goes with depriving someone of life, liberty, or
property.--without due process of the law; none of these three
rights may be taken away. This amendment is not protecting
whatever a person deems a privilege or immunity--only
those privileges and immunities that are legal.
Time
for a change
I
believe it time for an amendment to the US Constitution. If I
may be so bold as to suggest the following suggestion for an
amendment:
US Courts are to strike all comments
consisting of textual misuse of the US Constitution, which the
use of such is a base of support for an argument having
nothing to do with the text itself. Laws may not be made
and/or altered by courts. Court rulings must be supported by
existing US Constitutional law. Alterations to meanings of
English words shall not alter previously penned legal
documents. Violations
of the prior statements of this amendment found by
majority vote of both houses are to void (by way of
overturning) that which came about by such violation(s); all
actions in such process must be within one calendar year of
each matter’s presentation to Congress, or each member of
congress, who is presently in office, must give a formal and
publicly displayed explanation—and another calendar year to
handle the matter will begin.
The Clincher
Evolution,
abortion, and fornication (sexually sinful
behaviors) are
beliefs held dear by the
Unitarian Universalist Church. Many ACLU meetings are held
right in UU Churches. Do a search online with the following
typed into your search engine: Unitarian ACLU --- There is a
string of ACLU meetings held in Unitarian Universalist
Churches.
|
”And when he had
opened the fifth seal,
I saw under the altar the souls of them
that were slain for the word of God,
and for the testimony which
they held:” |
