“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
A Blockbuster of a Documentary (Click Here)

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;
http://www.uunashua.org/100q/c1.shtml). The site has 100 questions pertaining to their church. Below are some excerpts from some of the answers. (Chapter references are by me.)

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) http://www.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.

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

I found this letter online from:(http://www.violence.de/prescott/letters/Lt_Weddington_7.705.doc).
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:”


© Debra J.M. Smith