Home > apologetics, Christian, politics > Dear ACLU,

Dear ACLU,

This is an overdue response to a letter (requesting financial support) which I received from ACLU a few months ago…

Dear ACLU,

A while back you were kind enough to send me a letter and enclose a copy of the Constitution of the United States. It is a document which I hold dear to my heart and has shaped my life (as well as the course of human history) profoundly.  Both in my work and in my personal pursuits, I too am dedicated to preserving the great liberties that this fine country offers its citizens. For your gift and the intent of your organization, I am deeply grateful.

With that being said, I took a step which I feel few of your supporters (and sadly few others) do. I actually READ the constitution. I didn’t look at the court cases or pop culture or my personal inclinations towards what civil liberties should be. I looked at the document and what it actually says, along with the intent of those who actually wrote it. 

In regards to your organization, the first statement that sticks out to me is the preamble to the constitution (page 1 in your gift). It states quite clearly that the function of the Constitution is to “… form a more perfect Union, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for common defence, promote general Welfare and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” Note that the intent is to protect both ourselves and “our Posterity”. How exactly does promoting and defending the deaths of hundreds of thousands of our posterity in the name of “choice” contribute to their  defense, general welfare, or liberty? I suppose you just say that the ones that survive can have the same freedom to kill… Abortion has deprived life and liberty from millions in our Posterity.

In reading through the articles of the constitution there is little discussion of civil liberties (it focuses mainly on the roles and responsibilities of the branches of government) which brings us to the bill of rights:

1st Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

This one you would probably claim as your bread and butter. You certainly try to claim quite a bit under the first provision of that statement, but what about the second? Why would you oppose the free exercise of religion in schools? Why should a teacher not be allowed the freedom to speak the word of God? Why shouldn’t a student? Certainly each person should have the freedom to decide for themselves what (if any) religion they will choose and believe, but how does teaching a religious perspective as an OPTION respect establishment of religion? How can you say that censoring that discussion is not a prohibition of the free exercise thereof? Further, many people claim that science is their religion; I don’t see you trying to remove science class from the curriculum. What’s more, this amendment concerns what laws congress shall make. Not the rights of states or schools or individuals. It seems to me that your organization has an agenda other than the pure pursuit of constitutional orthodoxy.

2nd Amendment: “…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

I’ve never heard of you defending this civil liberty, why not?

3rd Amendment: (rules about quartering soldiers in homes) not really an issue at the moment.

4th  Amendment: (Search and arrest warrants)

I’ll give you praise on this one. I agree that the strip-search of the high school girl in search of Ibuprofen was ludicrous. I applaud you for defending her.

In fact, when looking at amendments 4-9 you generally do a pretty good job. I’m happy with the fact that you defend the rights of the accused and even the convicted. Even if they have committed a crime, they are still human beings, and the constitution does afford them rights. Well done.

In some of the other issues that you stand for though, your arguments are founded more on relativist morality than the constitution and its intent. Take for instance:

LGBT rights: They are people, they deserve to be treated as people – with dignity and respect. The constitution guarantees them the same rights as everyone else (free speech, fair trial, right to vote etc). The constitution however does not define marriage. Nor does it define nature. Recognizing and affirming the complementarity of the sexes and their equal role in the family and raising of children is not unconstitutional, it’s logical. It’s one thing to say that all individuals are to be treated equally under the law. It is something else to say that all unions are to be treated equally and as the same thing. Marriage has always had the two-fold purpose of affirming the couple AND providing the organic environment for childbearing and child raising. Your attempts at changing this definition are attacking the building block of our society and the general Welfare of ourselves and our Posterity.

Mandating contraception: I suppose you look at this as a matter of liberty and public health, but mandating that organizations provide and “educate” teenagers with prophylactics, pills and injections with the hopes of preventing the natural result of sexual intercourse does not increase their freedom (or their health). Contrary to popular belief, teenagers (and adults) do in fact have the ability to say no to sex. And abstinence is much more effective at preventing pregnancy than artificial birth control. Telling kids that they can’t control themselves just gives them an excuse to believe that it’s true.

You said in your letter that you will “oppose any attempts by the government to impose one view of morality…” The entire function of government is to impose one view of morality. Murder is morally wrong, therefore it is illegal. Would you argue that they shouldn’t impose such a restrictive and one sided view of morality in that case? In fact, the vast majority of your cases have been attempts to legislate your own view of morality (say the equality of same sex unions) and make every effort to outlaw or declare unconstitional other views.

I am not a lawyer, a politician, or a political scientist. I’m not an “expert” on much of anything. I am an American, dedicated to my country and the document and principles which it stands for. I thank you for sending me a copy of the constitution and I sincerely hope that your organization will one day seek to fully defend that document instead of twisting it to meet an agenda.

Very respectfully,

  1. No comments yet.
  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: