| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| | The ACLU is the American Civil Liberties Union, which was run for its first 30 years by a American citizen named Roger Baldwin, who helped found it in 1920 in response to the [[Espionage Act]] and [[Sedition Act]]. Baldwin once declared being "for ''Socialism'', disarmament, and ultimately for abolishing the state itself... We seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and the ''sole control'' of those who produce wealth. ''Communism'' is the goal." <ref>http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9402/aclu.html</ref> | | The ACLU is the American Civil Liberties Union, which was run for its first 30 years by a American citizen named Roger Baldwin, who helped found it in 1920 in response to the [[Espionage Act]] and [[Sedition Act]]. Baldwin once declared being "for ''Socialism'', disarmament, and ultimately for abolishing the state itself... We seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and the ''sole control'' of those who produce wealth. ''Communism'' is the goal." <ref>http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9402/aclu.html</ref> |
| | ==ACLU and the Establishment Clause== | | ==ACLU and the Establishment Clause== |
| − | A example of ACLU litigation regarding free exercise of religion was ''Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School Dist.'', 400 F.Supp.2d 707 (M.D. Pa. 2005), also known as the [[Intelligent design]] case. The ACLU prevailed in prohibiting teachers from even mentioning [[Intelligent Design]] to students. At the end of this case the trial judge simply copied more than 90% of the ACLU's brief for his ruling.<ref>http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=3829&program=CSC%20-%20Views%20and%20News</ref> The judge then entered a judgment for $2,067,226.00 against the school board members for the legal fees and expenses of the ACLU's side. The judge's order also prevented any appeal of his opinion in the case. | + | A example of ACLU litigation regarding the Establishment Clause was ''Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School Dist.'', 400 F.Supp.2d 707 (M.D. Pa. 2005), also known as the [[Intelligent design]] case. The ACLU prevailed in prohibiting teachers from even mentioning [[Intelligent Design]] to students. At the end of this case the trial judge simply copied more than 90% of the ACLU's brief for his ruling.<ref>http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=3829&program=CSC%20-%20Views%20and%20News</ref> The judge then entered a judgment for $2,067,226.00 against the school board members for the legal fees and expenses of the ACLU's side. The judge's order also prevented any appeal of his opinion in the case. |
| | | | |
| | The judge relied heavily on the decision in ''Selman v. Cobb County Sch. Dist.'', 390 F. Supp. 2d 1286 (N.D. Ga. 2005). But that decision was later reversed on appeal in ''Selman v. Cobb County Sch. Dist.'', 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 13005 (11th Cir. May 25, 2006). | | The judge relied heavily on the decision in ''Selman v. Cobb County Sch. Dist.'', 390 F. Supp. 2d 1286 (N.D. Ga. 2005). But that decision was later reversed on appeal in ''Selman v. Cobb County Sch. Dist.'', 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 13005 (11th Cir. May 25, 2006). |
| Line 9: |
Line 9: |
| | In 1994, the ACLU of New Jersey sued Jersey City, New Jersey to challenge a menorah and a Christmas tree at city hall. A federal district judge declared the display to be unconstitutional, but the appellate court, in a 2-1 opinion written by now-Justice [[Samuel Alito]], found a modified display to be constitutional. ''ACLU of New Jersey v. Schundler'' (1999). Then-Judge Alito wrote, "government may celebrate Christmas in some manner and form, but not in a way that endorses Christian doctrine." | | In 1994, the ACLU of New Jersey sued Jersey City, New Jersey to challenge a menorah and a Christmas tree at city hall. A federal district judge declared the display to be unconstitutional, but the appellate court, in a 2-1 opinion written by now-Justice [[Samuel Alito]], found a modified display to be constitutional. ''ACLU of New Jersey v. Schundler'' (1999). Then-Judge Alito wrote, "government may celebrate Christmas in some manner and form, but not in a way that endorses Christian doctrine." |
| | | | |
| − | Occasionally an ACLU chapter does side with a Christian student. The ACLU of Michigan defended a Christian student seeking to have a Biblical passage on the student's yearbook page.<ref>http://www.aclu.org/studentsrights/expression/12845prs20040511.html</ref> | + | Occasionally an ACLU chapter does side with a Christian student. The ACLU of Michigan defended a Christian student seeking to have a Biblical passage on the student's yearbook page.<ref>http://www.aclu.org/studentsrights/expression/12845prs20040511.html</ref> |
| | + | |
| | ==Same-sex Marriage and the Gay Agenda== | | ==Same-sex Marriage and the Gay Agenda== |
| | The ACLU of New Jersey filed an amicus curiae brief in favor of same-sex marriage in ''Lewis v. Harris'', 188 N.J. 415 (1006). The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled in favor of civil unions, but by a 4-3 margin did not require same-sex marriage. | | The ACLU of New Jersey filed an amicus curiae brief in favor of same-sex marriage in ''Lewis v. Harris'', 188 N.J. 415 (1006). The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled in favor of civil unions, but by a 4-3 margin did not require same-sex marriage. |