Is the ACLU overzealous in its campaign against religious display on public property?
PRO (yes)
CON (no)
Dennis Prager wrote in his Nov. 11, 2004 column, "A Jew Fights for the Cross," published in the Los Angeles Times:
"[F]ew months ago someone with a magnifying glass at the American Civil Liberties Union saw that the smallest item on the seal was a cross. And in its aim to expunge any trace of Christianity and God from American public life, the ACLU brought this fact to the attention of the five Los Angeles County supervisors....
Like most people on the left, [the ACLU and three L.A. County Supervisors] dismissed opposition to erasing God and Christianity from the public square as the work of a fanatical fringe of Christians....
I learned that a major characteristic of totalitarian regimes is their frequent rewriting of history.... Given the relationship between changing the past and totalitarianism, those who love liberty ought to be frightened by the action of the ACLU and the Board of Supervisors."
Liberty Counsel published a 2003 article by its president, Matthew D. Staver, titled "Don't Let the Grinch Steal This Christmas":
"Christmas is coming and so is the parade of horribles – the ACLU, Freedom From Religion, and Americans United For Separation of Church and State. If these organizations had their way, nativity scenes, Christian Christmas carols, and religious symbols would be swept from the public square....
The ACLU has all too often stated its case to the media by mailing a demand letter or by placing a threatening phone call to government officials. This intimidation tactic has been successful. Striking fear into the hearts of government officials has proven an effective weapon to remove nativity scenes and to silence Christmas pageants. The fact of the matter remains that the ACLU is wrong....
Our country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles. If we separate these fundamental principles from our civic life, we destroy our government in the process...."
The Hoosier Review posted a Jan. 21, 2003 article by Zach Wendling, titled "The Offensive Pursuit of Purity," which stated:
"An inordinate amount of time and energy is wasted every year to sanctimonious pissing contests between the ACLU and Smalltown America over ... the Ten Commandments in classrooms, or nativity scenes on courthouse lawns....
Unfortunately, city governments must fight the ACLU because their constituents demand it. The ACLU are motivated, however, by a zealotry that demands purity at any price. Civil libertarians will go to great lengths to purge public lands of religion, even when those lengths are ridiculously expensive, protracted, and offensive."
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Louisiana stated in a Dec. 20, 2001 press release "Supporting Regilious Freedom: A Statement on Religious Displays":
"[T]he ACLU’s position remains that the government should not sponsor or endorse any religious display and should use the guiding principles of Lemon v. Kurtzman for any policy or practice to be legal: 1) it must have a secular purpose; 2) it must neither advance nor inhibit religion, and 3) it must not excessively entangle the government with religion....
First and foremost, it should be obvious that we care about religious freedom -- our goal is not to ruin celebrations of Christmas or any other religious holiday. Rather, we strongly support freedom of religion and have litigated to defend it.... But government sponsorship of religious expression will ultimately undermine the free exercise of religion and cannot be tolerated under the First Amendment's ban on government 'establishment of religion.'"
In its online "Guide to Nativity Scenes & Holiday Displays," (accessed Dec. 22, 2004), the ACLU of Ohio wrote:
"Under current law, government entities (city halls, courts, public schools, etc) can generally acknowledge religious holidays so long as they do not create an impression of endorsement of religion by the government....
Just because a nativity scene or other religious display appears on government property does not necessarily mean that it is owned or is being displayed by the government, using tax dollars. Many local and some state governments have within their boundaries public areas whereby citizens are permitted to erect displays, including those of a religious nature, of their own choice."
Marci Hamilton, JD, wrote in her Jan. 1, 2004 article for FindLaw's Legal Commentary titled "Holiday Decorations, and the Religion Clauses - What The Rules Are, And Why the Supreme Court Was Prescient to Clarify Them Decades Ago":
"[N]o citizen is entitled to have the government acknowledge religion during the holidays -- though each is entitled, thanks to the Free Exercise Clause, to erect any private religious display he or she might wish to. At the same time, there is no constitutional right not to be exposed to the holidays, either.
Conservative David Limbaugh has gone so far as to contend that 'liberals' (as though many of the political liberals in this country are not Christian themselves) are 'persecuting' Christians. Why? Simply because these 'liberals' take the position that the government cannot constitutionally endorse Christian-only displays, prayers, and monuments....
Recognizing religious diversity -- as the Court's cases do -- hardly entails persecution. The alternative, denying religious diversity -- as those who support crèche-only government displays do - is a betrayal of what is best in this country's heritage."
