Exactly. And many of those same people are Christians; many of them would install a throcracy in a heart beat if they could and strip away the rights of many.
I, for one, thank God that we have the ACLU to stand up for rights that were given to us by Him.
I challange you to name one resulotion or bill ever introduced in the Congress that calls for the establishment of a theocracy. It has never happened.
I don't know a single Christian who wants to live in a theorcracy, not even a Christian state. So I think this is just hyperbole.
On the other hand, there are many on the anti-Christian side who deny that this country's ideals are based on Christian-based ideals, or at least religeous ideals. It would seem odd that one could come to this conclusion when considering what they built, the money they coined, the etchings on our government instittutions, and the words they wrote. Yes, indeed, but they have. The forefront of these being that men do have the right to freedom. But that freedom comes with obvious restrictions and rightfully so. Complete freedom would lead to chaos.
When the ACLU represents any person who has been denied the basics of the Bill of Rights, I applaud and support their efforts. I am always thankful when convicts are proved innocent and their freedom returned to them. However, when the ACLU represents some party who demands smooth peanut butter in his/her jailhouse sandwhich, as opposed to chunky, and elevates that to a 'civil rights' issue, I get pretty darn red in the face.
Furthermore, it is important to consider that when you contrast the number of cases in which the ACLU is party , or when they are acting in amicus curiae, to those in which they did not prevail, it becomes obvious that in the majority of court opinions, their views and interpretations of constitutional law are misguided. They have not succeeded in convincing our courts that they are correct.
Respectfully,
Tolly