At the simplest level, the debate comes down to the definition of “liberty”. Does it pertain only to incarceration and slavery? Or does it extend to freedom of governmental interference in individual affairs that do not infringe upon others? Clearly, the I prefer government, at all levels, to stay out of my business.

John C Sementa - ACLU regularly defends the rights of people wishing to exercise their religious freedom. The only time they come down against “excercise” is when the “excercise” is being done by the state or a representative of the state while in their official capacity. For example:

Unconstitutional: teachers leading students in prayer; state bodies (legistrative, judicial, etc.) posting the 10 commandments; city councils displaying a nativity scene.

Constitutional: students conducting before/after school prayer groups; civic groups posting the 10 commandments; individuals or businesses displaying a nativity scene.

All of the first group violate the establshment clause. All of the second group are protected by the free exercise clause. This is the position of not only the ACLU but of the courts. This is cut and dried.

If you do wish to live in a theocracy, I suggest you recruit a number of wealthy theists and purchase an island. You will then be free to establish your own Christian theocracy. Good luck.

John,
You are correct that the ACLU sometimes takes positions that seem extreme - especially in regard to the separation of Church and state.

However, I think you overstate your case when you ask the question: “When has the ACLU done anything to protect my rights in the last 20 years or so?”.

The fact of the matter is that when the ACLU defends the rights of a “Lefwing radical or Islamic terrorist” they are indeed protecting your rights. Consider the case of Jose Padilla, who may very well be an Islamic terrorist, but is also a citizen of the United States. He was arrested without charges and was refused access to a lawyer The government has been holding him indefinitely without offering him a chance to defend himself in court. This is in clear violation of his Constitutional rights on several counts. I would submit that when the ACLU defends Mr. Padilla’s rights, they are also protecting your rights. Which answers your question.

Now - If the ACLU did not exist, who would do that?

No prisoners, no secret detention, no torture.

They’re illegal combatants.

Nobody can say publicly how much useful intelligence we’ve gotten from them, but whatever it is, it isn’t worth all this trouble. If they want to be martyrs so badly, we should accommodate them.

John - “ACLU is a proven anti-American organization”??? They may go overboard sometimes and I suspect most of the individuals working for the ACLU are rather far to the left, but what is anti-American about working to defend the bill of rights? They spend most of their time and money protecting people from infringement on their rights to speech, religion, a free press and due process. Those are entirely American ideals. What harm has ACLU done? They hold no direct power and, in the current climate, relatively little polical power. What good have they done? How have they ever deprived a person of their constitutional rights? Provided legal representation to people who had their rights violated or unduly curtailed.

Yes, if they could. Now, which facilities would be easier to destroy? Large installations within the US, or smaller installations in other countries?

Hmmm…..