“American Civil 
      Liberties Union  
      
      & The Unitarian Universalist 
      Church” (The ACLU & The UUC)
  2014 
      Update: Many of the links to other sites are no longer correct. 
       Websites often remove older pages and redirect 
      traffic. 
        
      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_2003_UUA_Handbook.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:”   |