The ACLU: There they go again

Chalk up one more victory for the forces of historical intolerance--delivered once again by a judge.

Last week, Judge Jennifer Coffman ruled that three Kentucky counties must take down historical displays that feature the Ten Commandments.  The ACLU reasoned, as it always does, that the display of the Ten Commandments is unconstitutional.

We shouldn't let this most recent First Amendment skirmish go by without pointing out once again that this has very little to do with the United States Constitution.  What it has to do with is the ACLU's brand of cultural intolerance that they want legislated through the courts.

The ACLU passes itself off as an organization that exists to defend the Constitution.

Baloney.

The ACLU is an organization devoted to convincing judges to bend the language and obfuscate the meaning of the Constitution to reflect its own intolerant vision of America--a vision which has plenty of room for homosexual activists, porn peddlers (including child porn) and radical feminist groups and anyone else who appears on the Jerry Springer, but none for those who wish to express their religion.  This decision is only the latest example of a court saying that the Constitution says something that it doesn't say.

Just listen to the way the ACLU argues its case.  When asked why the display of the Ten Commandments is unconstitutional, they will almost never quote the Constitution.  Instead, they will quote court decisions.  

This is how it works:

The ACLU convinces a judge that something is in the Constitution which is not, in fact, in it.  Then, once that ruling is made, and it is arguing its next case, it quotes that decision to the next judge, who reasons that, if a previous judge said something was in the Constitution, then it must be there, even though he can't see it himself.

In other words, if a judge says something is in the Constitution, that is sufficient reason to believe that it is there, despite the fact that it is nowhere in evidence in the Constitution's actual language.

It is a little like the story of the Emperor's New Clothes: The tailor brings the king an imaginary suit (which is, in fact, nothing at all).  Despite the fact that the king can't see it at all, he is convinced by the tailor and his courtiers (who also say they see the suit because they do not want to appear uncultured) that it is a fine suit.  Finally, when the king appears in a parade wearing the imaginary suit, a child--and then everyone else--begins laughing at the kings nakedness.

This is what the ACLU has done with First Amendment issues.  They are society's tailor, and we--being the kings in a democracy--have let them convince us that something is there which really isn't.

Nowhere does the Constitution limit religious expression.  In fact, it explicitly protects it.  And yet, the very amendment that protects religious expression is the one pointed to by groups like the ACLU as evidence that we should suppress it.

The ACLU claims that displaying the Ten Commandments violates the other provision of the First Amendment--the one concerning the establishment of religion.  But displaying the Ten Commandments doesn't establish a religion.  If if does, then perhaps the ACLU would care to explain which religion it establishes.  It can't constitute an establishment of Christianity, since the Ten Commandments are common to a number of religions, including Judaism and Islam.  In fact, can anyone think of any religion that rejects the Ten Commandments?

The display of the Ten Commandments is merely an acknowledgement of their cultural importance in the communities that want to display them.  It is a bow to their heritage.

Whenever I find myself in a conversation on this issue with an ACLU representative (which in my line of work is fairly common), I ask him this question:  Would the Founding Fathers have agreed with your interpretation of the First Amendment?

I haven't heard a convincing answer yet.

###

The Family Foundation of Kentucky is a nonprofit educational organization focusing of policy issues affecting families.