I believe the meat is that you agree that they should defend the causes that "you" personally agree with, but not the causes that "you" disagree with.

If it's defending a Christian, you are for it. If it's defending an outspoken liberal burning a flag you are against it.

Am I correct?

Thom,

to go back to your original point, I'll give you my perspective on both groups.....this is just my opinion:

The ACLU and NRA are essentially the same. The ACLU is the boogeyman of the right, and the NRA is the boogeyman of the left. Yet, they essentially do the same thing.

I don't agree with all the cases the ACLU defends (for example the Neo-Nazi's right to march in a predominately jewish section of a town) but I understand where the ACLU is coming from. They are protecting the right to free speech and any abridgement of it, however loathful, could chip away at that right.

On the other hand, the NRA takes exactly the same view when it comes to protecting the right to bear arms. I do not agree with all the stands they take, for example, I can see no reason why a citizen would need armor-piercing bullets to hunt with but, I understand where they are coming from. Like the ACLU's position, their position is also that any abridgement of that right could lead to more serious abridgements later.

So, Cons may hate the ACLU and Libs may hate the NRA but they both do serve an important purpose.

After all, would you trust our government to determine who has the right to say what and whether or not you can have guns?

The quote at the end of the article says it all:

"The key to avoiding these kinds of problems is to have reasonable written rules regarding the use of the park and to apply those rules equally to all users, whether their activities are secular or religious,” he added. “We have offered to help park officials write those rules.”"

You can bet that when the ACLU gets through writing rules for park use there will be a ban on public religious observance in the park while other uses like swimming and picnics will be allowed.

Sorry, Adroomi, I don't buy that the ACLU defends Christian religious expression as vigorously as it defends government opression thereof, nor does the organization defend Christians with the same vigor as it defends other groups whose religion can also be called culture. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree about this one.

Camper,

You're not stating fact, but rather speculating based upon your own prejudice. That's not fair to yourself or to those you accuse.

In case you're wondering, instead of just guessing at the outcome, why don't you research this a bit and see what's going on in that park now? Or would you rather just accept your prejudice as fact, and continue to badmouth this organization and claim "false witness" against them?

I make a lot of stink on this board, and I definately stir it up, but nobody can ever accuse me of stating false information. I've been wrong a few times, and whenever someone points it out to me, I accept it, and then study the subject further to make sure I'm not wrong on it again. Generally though, although my views are not the most popular, very few of them are ever based on wrong information.

If you don't like the ACLU that's fine.....they will still continue to defend your rights for you without your support. Just don't spread false rumours about them. If someone asks you, just simply say.."I don't know the slightest thing about them, I simply don't like them because of no reason."

We can agree to disagree I suppose.

Adroomi,

As I post this, you will find at the ACLU website under "Religious Liberty"

(http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLibertyList.cfm?c=141&ContentStyle=1&num=1000)

that there are 20 press releases covering 18 issues. Only two of those issues (three press releases) are about defending Christians' rights of religious expression. The remainder cover defenses of other religious expression (5) or suing (or threatening suit against) federal or state government over "sponsorship" issues where the alleged sponsorship activity involves Christianity. One issue involves commercial activity the ACLU alleges to be discriminatory based on religion.

I'd say that the evidence favors my point. From information gathered at the ACLU website the evidence is clear that organization spends more time defending other religious practice than it does defending Christianity and that it spends more time pursuing allegations of government favoring Christianity than it does of government favoring other religions. This isn't based on a bias I have toward the ACLU, but is based on research done today taken from information supplied by the ACLU itself.

Again, I guess we should agree to disagree about the ACLU.

Adroomi,

As an aside, I'm one of those conservative Christians who thinks government should be neutral on the issue of religion.

Camper,

Could it be that the being that this is a mostly Christian country (well at least is WAS, and still is for the time being), that Christians generally aren't the ones that NEED the defending?

As a Christian, you are carrying around a certain backpack with you everywhere you go in America. It's invisible, but it's there. In it you have your Christian priviledge. This is the priviledge to know that when you walk into a courtroom, the Ten Commandments will be hung on the wall. The priviledge that you won't lose your job at the mill simply because you are a Jesus lover, etc.

Like it or not, there are others here in America that are not Christian. They face a daily battle with their rights to freedom of religion being taken away. No one has ever told a young woman in Memphis that she has to take off her WWJD bracelet or her t-shirt with a cross on it. But what about the Native American boy who gets sent home from the boy scouts because he won't cut his hair.

When you're a part of the majority it's easy to look the other way and piss on the minority......or to get angry and not understand why somebody spends more time defending them than you.

Realize though, that at the current rate, we will soon have many more non-christians in America. Perhaps as these numbers go up, the number of instances when the ACLU is called upon to defend Christians rights will go up as well. Like I said, they'll still be there when you need them.

Adroomi,

The invisible backpack of "Christian Privilige" is an interesting way to put it. You see something negative, even exclusionary, in the posting of the Ten Commandments in public places and I can understand the position.

You talk about openness and willingness to see another point of view. Are you open to another perspective on the Ten Commandments? What you see as something negative or exclusionary is seen in a completely different way by others. When Christians see the Ten Commandments - or other articles of the Christian faith - posted in a government office or courtroom, its like seeing the Better Business Bureau seal on the wall at a repair shop symbolizing that the owner or manager of the shop will treat the customer right. Christians see the Ten Commandments posted in public buildings as a way to symbolize that regardless of who a person is, what they look like or where they're from, they're going to be treated right by the government because truly Christian people treat people right no matter what. Christians believe in dealing honestly with everybody without hesitation. The Ten

Commandments, Golden Rule and other writings from scripture reinforce that notion.

Just another perspective for you to consider.

androomi, You assume to much. I never mentioned Christians, nor have I ever claimed to be one. I said (for the forth time if you are keeping count) THe preponderance of the ACLU's battles are NOT about Civil liberties, they are are about an agenda. THey deny having one. The NRA has an agenda and they are proud of it. What next? say I'm ugly and my momma dresses me funny.

00camper,

In all due respect, the same 10 commandments that you see as comfort, others see as an establishment of religion. If the government is posting Christian doctrine on its buildings, it would seem that they are advocating that as the doctrine they support (as apposed to the Constitution and state law). That is an establisment of religion and goes against the first amendment.

As an aside, does seeing the ten commandments at a court house really give you confidence that the jury will honor Christian values when deciding someone's case?

Funny thing is that the 10 Commandments are on the walls in the U.S. Supreme Court! Hmmmmm, wonder why that is?

Charlie

Some people say cucumbers taste better pickled...

bmellis,

I'm not necessarily advocating that position. As I stated a few posts ago, I'm one of those Christians that prefers his government to be neutral on the subject of religion. I was merely trying to give Adroomi something else to think about.

The prevailing perspective of groups like the ACLU and People For The American Way is that people who are not of the Judeo-Christian faith will be afraid of their government if its buildings and property are adorned with Judeo-Christian symbols and text.

I was only trying to point out that there is another perspective, that of the Christians themselves. I have many friends who ernestly believe that a Ten Commandments posting is akin to having the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval or BBB plaque, believing that they will be dealt with evenhandedly in places where they are posted.

Frankly I want government as far away from Christianity as possible. The dismal record of government programs alone is enough to keep me from wanting a theocracy. I only need to look at Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran to know I want a neutral government.

Thanks.