“American Civil
Liberties Union
& The Unitarian Universalist
Church” (The ACLU & The UUC)
2014
Update: Many of the links to other sites are no longer correct.
Websites often remove older pages and redirect
traffic.
Debra J.M. Smith © Copyright
2006
“But the word of the Lord
endureth for ever.
And this is the word which by the
gospel is preached unto
you.”
One Man’s Honor, Another Man’s Shame
In response to being severely criticized by the ACLU
for having proclaimed 1983, “The Year of The Bible,” President
Ronald Reagan said, “Well, I wear their indictment like a badge
honor.”
I find the ACLU’s obvious fear of the Bible truly
amazing. My heart giggles with delight at their fear of my God. What
is the likeliness of this group ever taking such a stand against
another faith/belief book?
President Reagan was simply exercising his freedoms of
both speech and religion. I have yet to read anywhere in our
nation’s Constitution anything that prohibits a person in office
from exercising his freedoms.
So just what was this groups problem?
What is the driving force behind a group that would make such a
stink over Godly speech? Does the ACLU not realize that the US
Constitution is signed, “In the year of our Lord”?
I found an interesting documentary on the ACLU web
site. The Documentary, clearly meant to hype up the ACLU, shows how
cleverly the ACLU weaves in some worthy causes, among the greater
number of bad causes, none of which hurt the ACLU agenda. This
documentary exposes a monster
manipulator.
Oliver
North
appears in the Documentary as a defender of the ACLU. In it, North
says, “The ACLU is referred to as the criminal’s lobby, they get
convictions overturned on quote, technicalities. Well the
technicality they’re talking about is the constitution of the United
States. And odious as it may be, it applies equally to you and to me
and to John Dotty and the mobster down the street that’s gonna get
busted for drugs. The ACLU has taken some very tough stands on some
very tough issues. I’m one of those
examples.”
(Interesting, that the one man who was in the center
of the scandal that infringed on the near perfect legacy of the
Reagan Administration, is an ACLU supporter, and it appears they
helped him.)
The documentary is pretty much stocked full of people
like North, praising the ACLU. It throws in what Reagan said and
some clips from movies that mock the carrying of their ‘card’—the
victimizing touch, for the sympathetic viewer. The makers have a
remarkable ability to make wrong, sound right—with the overall tone
in which such is presented. The bulk of the documentary plays out
like that of major damage
control. |
ACLU Founder, Roger Baldwin—The
Coward
documentary names Roger Baldwin as the founder of the
ACLU and actually tries to make him out to be some kind of hero for
having refused to serve in WWI. It has Roger Baldwin boasting of how
he was “Perfectly willing to take the consequences”. As if this man
was brave? While real men were dying for this nation, Roger Baldwin,
the coward, was safe.
This “man” then had the nerve to start
an organization that he claimed would defend American
Liberties? Other men fought for the very thing that Roger Baldwin
would later claim victory for, American Liberties.
|
Roger
Baldwin and The Unitarian Church
Roger Baldwin (founder of the ACLU), when reflecting on his
life, said that in his early years he not only regularly attended the
Unitarian Church in Wellesley Hills, Massachusetts; he also helped to
teach in the Sunday School and even listened to the preacher. He added, “I
would say that social work began in my mind in the Unitarian Church when I
was ten or twelve years old, and I started to do things that I thought
would help other people.” (Excerpt and photo,
from: Click
Here)
The
Union of Two Churches
The Unitarian Church merged with the Universalist
church in 1961 (Unitarian Universalist Church site;
1)
Found
in today's churches are humanism, agnosticism, atheism, theism,
liberal Christianity, neo-paganism and earth spiritualism. (From
Ch.1) - 2)
In most services, there are few, if any, mentions of a deity. (From
Ch.
1) - 3)
We
believe that more complex life forms have evolved from less complex
life forms. (From Ch. 1) - 4)
Because ours is a very humanistically-oriented
religion, most UUs regard themselves as humanists in one sense or
another. (From Ch. 2) - 5)
You
could attend a UU church for years and seldom hear the word sin.
(From Ch. 3) - 6)
Prayer
for UUs is a way of getting in touch with one's self. (From Ch.
7) - 7)
For
example, we have a much acclaimed "About Your Sexuality" course for
boys and girls of junior high age. (From Ch. 9) - 8)
Unitarian
Universalism is one of the few denominations in North America that
will ordain [other than hetero] clergy. (From Ch.
12) - 9)
As an institution, we are strongly pro-choice, as are
most individual UUs. (From Ch. 13) - - From the above excerpts one can conclude that the
Unitarian Universalist Church includes, liberal Christians,
atheists, and neo-paganism. Abortion-on-demand, homosexuality, and
teaching 12 and 13 year olds about their “Sexuality,” are all
belief-based practices of the Unitarian Universalist
Church. - This
religion is largely made up of people who regard themselves as
humanists,
who rarely
speak of sin or a deity. They are evolutionists, whose prayers are
to get in touch with themselves.
| A Union of Americans for Civil Liberty or A
Union of a Religion for Humanism
So, just what is the ACLU? Is it really a union of Americans
for civil liberty? Or is it a union of a religion using the three branches
of American government to establish laws respecting their
establishment?
 http://www.allaboutscience.org/origin-of-life.htm - Link to a Christian site, on the
truth about evolution The Evolution
Faith
With
an Almighty Creator out of the picture—the Humanist becomes his own
god.
The
ACLU Documentary speaks of the 1925 “Scopes Trials” that pertained
to a teacher on trial for breaking a Tennessee anti-evolution
statute by teaching the “Evolution Theory” in a school. John Scopes
had answered an ACLU ad in a news paper, which according to the ACLU
Documentary said, “Anybody who wants to violate that law, will get
our help.” The Documentary goes on to show a clip from a movie court
scene about a trial of such, which had an argument for a teacher who
had taught what he “thinks” (evolution). - Keeping in mind that evolution is not a
fact, or it would not be called a theory, it is very understandable
why any state would not want their schools teaching it as a fact. It
is also quite understandable why any state would not want the
teaching of evolution as a theory of any respectability either.
- [The law prohibiting the teaching of evolution
had come after a law prohibiting teaching of the Bible in the
Tennessee public schools. The law against teaching evolution was
much like an existing Florida law. William
Jennings Bryan, the prosecutor, won the first trial. In the second
trial, though the law prohibiting the teaching of evolution in the
Tennessee public schools was found to be constitutionally legal,
John Scopes got off on a technicality. Later, it came out that the
day John Scopes claimed to have taught evolution in the public
school, he had actually been absent from school—he said that he had
cooperated with the ACLU to give them a case. (Information found in
“United States History Heritage of Freedom” second edition ABEKA
books)] - The technicality was over
who set the fine, it was supposed to have been set by a jury, and
had not been. Instead of having another trial, the court let him
off. - A
quote from the documentary goes as follows, “I think that the Scope
Trial really put the ACLU on the map. The trial became an
education on the meaning of the first amendment, the meaning of
the separation between church and state, and in many ways, I think
that became a model for everything that ACLU has done ever since.”
- The
courts found the law prohibiting the teaching of evolution in
Tennessee to be Constitutional. And the technicality, which got John
Scopes off, had no impact on the law. It appears the makers of the
documentary would have us believe otherwise. (So what else is the
documentary misleading the viewer on?) - It seems that
the ACLU, who generated the trial, put themselves on the map,
using John Scopes as well as the Judicial System to do so. And the
trial was not an exercise in the true meaning of the 1st amendment,
which does NOT even have the words, “Separation of church and
state.” - "On
the topic of religion, the first amendment says: "Congress shall
make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting
the free exercise thereof.” The
Tennessee law did neither. The law was actually preventing these two
things from happening. - The
John Scopes case, did, however, become “a model for everything that
the ACLU has done ever since.” - The ACLU would not even back off when public schools
in Arkansas that already taught evolution, simply wanted to make a
fair alternative class: “In 1981, the ACLU, 56 years after the
Scopes trial, challenged an Arkansas statute requiring that the
biblical story of creation be taught as a ‘scientific alternative’
to the theory of evolution. A federal court found the statute,
which fundamentalists saw as a model for other states,
unconstitutional.” - Quoted from
(http://www.aclucentralflorida.org/history.html) |

(“Time can be the
enemy of truth.”)
A
woman in the ACLU documentary made the following statement after a segment
in the video mentioned a case won by
the ACLU against public schools in Louisiana for giving equal time to
Creation Science: “There’s a wonderful letter written by James
Madison, in, 1803, addressing this very issue. This is what he said;
‘The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from
these shores, the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe with
blood for centuries.’ And still does today. Pick up any newspaper, you
read about Bosnia. Soil of Bosnia, soaked with blood, some of it
apparently comes from Muslim virgins, being raped as a matter of policy by
the Christian neighbors—to keep forever from these shores, the
ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe with blood for
centuries. And that principle is so important, that it’s worth being a
pain in the ass about. And that’s what the ACLU is.”
I
highly doubt that groups of true Christians were raping anyone. And
with all the blood that poured out right here on our soil on
9/11/01, this woman did not mention it. Now, why would that
be?
Also, there is actually no proof that such letter ever
existed. Here is a link to a site that is
maintained by the US Library of Congress: http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/madison/objects.html -- Once
there, scroll down to the a section
entitled, “Separation of Church and State, “ and you will see the
actual letter Madison wrote that phrase in—and it had nothing to do
with blood soaked soil, but rather the “practice of employing, at
public expense, chaplains in the House and Senate.”
For the
record, the letter by James Madison does not even have the words,
"seperation of church and state" in it. How people interpret his
words in a letter has no bearing on the meaning of the 1st
amendment.
The US Constitution never gives public schools the
right to teach against Creation, nor does it give them the right to
deny students their right to be taught creation.
The other point I want to make is about “blood soaked
soil,” since the ACLU so badly wants to talk about it. The study of
Creation Science does not cause the spilling of blood. However,
abortion has caused the bloodshed of millions of the most innocent,
the unborn and has ruined countless lives of women, all to serve the
humanist’s god (himself). It is not the work of the true Christian
Church that calls for abortion on demand, but that of the Unitarian
Universalist Church and the
ACLU. |

Humanism Child
Sacrifice
The humanist’s god (himself) needs control of
the existence of new and weaker human life—and the removal.
The following quote, also found on an ACLU site,
boasts of ACLU’s involvement in abortion “rights” in America. “ACLU
lawyers brought many of the most important reproductive freedom
cases of the last 30 years. In 1973, in Roe v. Wade, and Doe v.
Bolton, the Supreme Court held that the constitutional right to
privacy encompasses a pregnant woman's decision whether to bear a
child or have an abortion. The ruling struck down state laws
that had made the performance of an abortion a criminal
act. The ACLU remains in the forefront of the struggle for
reproductive rights and for women's equality.” http://www.aclucentralflorida.org/history.html
ACLU's general counsel (at the time), Norman Dorsen,
was a member of the team of lawyers on the winning side of the 1973,
Roe v. Wade case;http://www.nyu.edu/public.affairs/leadership/dorsen.html. He helped write the petitioner's brief. It was
a
26-year-old lawyer named Sarah
Weddington who actually won the case: http://www.fansoffieger.com/weddington.htm.
The woman represented in the case, who today is
against abortion, says she was used—that she never actually got the
abortion, and that she never even appeared in court. She says the
lawyers just needed a pregnant woman. A quote, found on http://www.rutherford.org/articles_db/legal_features.asp?article_id=59, is as follows: “I long for the day that
justice will be done and the burden from all of these deaths will be
removed from my shoulders. I want to do everything in my power to
help women and their children. The issue is justice for women,
justice for the unborn, and justice for what is
right.”
--Norma N. McCorvey, AKA Roe.
The
United Universalist
Association online site (http://www.uua.org/) has a page that tells
how they go about getting what they want. The site boasts of an
alliance having been formed with Sarah Weddington and Linda Coffee
(another lawyer), which the site says enabled the two young lawyers
to bring the case to the Supreme Court. [See quote below. (Note the
time span)]
“For example, support for the famous Roe v. Wade court
case came out of a study group set up by the Women's Alliance in the
First Unitarian Church of Dallas, TX. This group took over a year to
study the issues concerning the availability of services for
abortion. In the spring of 1970 the Roe v. Wade case was heard in
Dallas, brought by attorneys Linda Coffee and Sarah Weddington. Both
were recent law school graduates. Members of the congregation met
them at the Fifth Circuit Court hearing. A loving supportive
alliance was formed that enabled these young lawyers
to bring this case to the Supreme Court.” (Quote from UUA-March,
2003 Handbook) https://debrajmsmith.com/03_2003_UUA_Handbook.pdf - With
that said, I would like to point something out. The scientific
definition of life is cell growth, division, and/or multiplication.
The definition proves that life begins at conception. If
there were no proven scientific definition for life and it truly was
not know when life begins—then ending the existence of what is not
known to be living or not, is just as wrong as taking a gun and just
shooting at any noise you hear in your yard and saying you did not
think it was a living person. And, if the baby is not a life, then
just what is the abortionist stopping from growing? The US
Constitution never gives anyone the right to kill a baby, whether
the baby is born, or whether the baby is being formed. A formation
of a life is a separate entity from the body of the woman carrying
that formation of
life. |
 http://www.sbministries.org/media.html
Link
to a Christian site
Genital Worship
Worship of genitals – Turning Truth into a
lie: The humanist has no boundaries—not even the laws of
nature.
Yet
another work of the ACLU, proudly displayed on an ACLU site is: “In
1996 the Supreme Court recognized for the first time the civil
rights of [homosexuals] by invalidating a state
constitutional amendment, passed by public referendum in Colorado,
that prohibited the state and its municipalities from
enacting [homosexual] rights laws. The ACLU served as
co-counsel in that landmark litigation.” Excerpt from:
http://www.aclucentralflorida.org/history.html
The right to what? To push their humanist religion of
worshiping their genitals on school children, fellow employees,
neighbors, churches of other faith-beliefs? Is it really their right
to force others to respect their genital worship? - As with the above-mentioned 1996 Supreme Court case
that invalidated a state constitutional amendment to prohibit
enacting 'such' right laws, how many hate speech court
cases, ending with verdicts based on the twisting of our US
Constitution, will it take till our freedom of speech is taken away
for simply speaking against a behavior that God calls an abomination
to Him? How many words will they need to change the meaning of, till
wrong is made legally right? - Because these humanists stand for that which is sexual
perversion, are we all to endure such filth? How long will America
allow this perverted infiltration of our public schools? Will it
come to the point of children being taught in schools, as a matter
of an “Alliance,” just what it is that these people do
sexually? Do you not believe this can happen? - Here
is their web site: http://www.glaad.org/
- And here is an
example of their work for public school children?http://www.glaad.org/media/archive_detail.php?id=292&
06/26/06,
16487 bytes -
The US Constitution gives no special rights to
people who choose to conduct unnatural behavior. God does not
even give them the right to act on their vile affections, just
as He does not give thieves and murderers and pedophiles and rapists
and liars, etc., any rights to do their
sin. |
Some
financial facts about the ACLU
1) The ACLU is made up of two parts, the ACLU
and the ACLU Foundation—the latter being tax exempt. This basically
allows their overall organization to lobby without Federal
limitations, while not paying taxes on much of its income.
http://www.aclu.org/about/24030res20060201.html
2) ACLU funding is by membership dues and
tax-deductible contributions through their Annual Gift Campaign,
fees from legal cases, and some support from foundations.
http://www.aclucentralflorida.org/whatwedo.html
3) The ACLU claims to have
500,000 members and supporters, and they boast of handling 6,000
court cases annually from offices in almost every state.
http://www.aclu.com/about/index.html
The Religion Being Respected by
Congress
It
is from The First Unitarian Church, in Ithica, New
York.
The letter is addressed to Sarah Weddington and
it is
dated in July of 2004. The contents are referring to the
"Unborn
Victims of Violence Act 2004".
The Unitarian Church wants the act, which protects the unborn from
violence, to be overturned—done away with. A copy/paste excerpt from
the online letter, says, “this congressional action violates the
religious faith belie[f]s and principles of Unitarian Universalism."
- As if congress cannot make laws that violate the Unitarian
Universalsts faith! The letter cites Amendments 1, 4, 13, and 14, of
the US Constitution.
To see the contents of the US Constitution:
(Click
Here)
-
The 1st Amendment is not saying that the US Congress cannot make a
law that happens to violate a religion. Congress cannot make a law,
“respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the
free exercise thereof”. As long as the law is US
Constitutionally supported, it can be made. The “Unborn
Victims of Violence Act 2004”
was
made for the sole purpose of protecting the unborn baby from
violence—just as laws made to stop rapes and murders are made to
protect people, if the laws happen to violate someone’s religious
faith-beliefs, ‘oh well.’ There is at least one religion out there,
whose “holy book,” calls for the killing of anyone who does not
follow their faith—shall we do away with laws that violate their
faith-beliefs and allow them to kill? None-the-less, it is time for
all of this foolishness surrounding the 1st amendment to
cease. It is shame to our nation that our courts ever entertain such
foolishness, much less ever base what is supposed to be intelligent
rulings by those who are supposed to be of the most intelligent
people of this nation, on such foolishness!
- The
4th Amendment is applies only to "Search and Arrest
Warrants," which is the heading and title of the
amendment. The amendment is not saying that anything done in your
home or your person is your private business. For instance, a search
can legally be made if there is probable cause that you have stashed
illegal drugs in your home or in your person (like in your
mouth).
-
The 13th Amendment is solely for the "Abolition of Slavery." If
there UUC can use this amendment to have fetal abuse and abortion
legal, then open up the public school building doors, and "Let my
people go!" Think about the implications that taking this amendment
out of context has--we had better get rid of highway laws, jury
duty, and oh my gosh--we can ALL stop paying taxes! Is it not forced
labor, making us work for months out of the year, just to pay income
taxes, in order to make any earnings at
all?
-
The 14th Amendment is about the taking away of "Citizenship Rights."
an excerpt is as follows: "No state shall make or
enforce law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of
citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any
person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection
of laws." Read it carefully, as per this statement,
states cannot just take away a citizen's rights without due process.
Which means with due process, such can happen. In other words, you
cannot discriminate and say someone does not have a privilege or
immunity that legally is given to ALL citizens that have not had
either or both taken away by due process of the law. The same goes
with depriving someone of life, liberty, or property.--without due
process of the law; none of these three rights may be taken away.
This amendment is not protecting whatever a person deems a
privilege or immunity--only those privileges and immunities that are
legal.
Time
for a change
I
believe it time for an amendment to the US Constitution. If I may be
so bold as to suggest the following suggestion for an
amendment:
US Courts are to strike all comments consisting of
textual misuse of the US Constitution, which the use of such is a
base of support for an argument having nothing to do with the text
itself. Laws may not be made and/or altered by courts. Court rulings
must be supported by existing US Constitutional law. Alterations to
meanings of English words shall not alter previously penned legal
documents. Violations
of the prior statements of this amendment found by majority
vote of both houses are to void (by way of overturning) that which
came about by such violation(s); all actions in such process must be
within one calendar year of each matter’s presentation to Congress,
or each member of congress, who is presently in office, must give a
formal and publicly displayed explanation—and another calendar year
to handle the matter will begin.
The Clincher
Evolution,
abortion, and fornication (sexually sinful
behaviors) are
beliefs held dear by the
Unitarian Universalist Church. Many ACLU meetings are held right in
UU Churches. Do a search online with the following typed into your
search engine: Unitarian ACLU --- There is a string of ACLU meetings
held in Unitarian Universalist Churches.
|
”And when he had opened the fifth seal, I
saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God,
and for the testimony which they
held:” |