More ACLU Hypocrisy
A piece in the June/July 2004 First Things, a publication I cannot recommend highly enough, shows the hypocrisy of the ACLU and reveals that in much of their work they are actually increasingly the enemy of civil liberties:
FT June/July 2004: The Public Square: "The state's highest court upheld a California law requiring charities to provide prescription contraception coverage. In this case, it was applied to Catholic Charities, which, the court said, did not qualify for a religious exemption because it is not religious enough. Its leadership includes non-Catholics and it serves everybody, not just Catholics. Without providing any evidence of a connection, Peter Steinfels of the New York Times says the ruling is part of a backlash against the Bush administration's plan to meet social needs through faith-based organizations. Close watchers of California politics, however, say that liberal legislatures have for years tried one tactic after another to force charities of all kinds to provide contraception, abortion, and other "reproductive services." At the same time, a court in San Diego ruled that a longstanding arrangement whereby the Boy Scouts manage a public park is unconstitutional. The reason? The Boy Scouts are "religious" and the arrangement is therefore a forbidden establishment of religion. Both suits were strongly supported by the ACLU. They've got you coming and going. If you claim to be religious and plead an exemption under free exercise, you're not religious enough. If you claim to be nonreligious, the court finds you vestigially religious enough to be excluded from a government contract. In his more melancholic mood, Francis Cardinal George has been known to opine that within ten years' time the government's cooptation of religion will result in something like China's aboveground and underground churches, albeit without the same level of persecution. That seems to me unlikely. On the other hand. . . ."
So what's their next project...forcing synagogues and mosques to serve bacon?
FT June/July 2004: The Public Square: "The state's highest court upheld a California law requiring charities to provide prescription contraception coverage. In this case, it was applied to Catholic Charities, which, the court said, did not qualify for a religious exemption because it is not religious enough. Its leadership includes non-Catholics and it serves everybody, not just Catholics. Without providing any evidence of a connection, Peter Steinfels of the New York Times says the ruling is part of a backlash against the Bush administration's plan to meet social needs through faith-based organizations. Close watchers of California politics, however, say that liberal legislatures have for years tried one tactic after another to force charities of all kinds to provide contraception, abortion, and other "reproductive services." At the same time, a court in San Diego ruled that a longstanding arrangement whereby the Boy Scouts manage a public park is unconstitutional. The reason? The Boy Scouts are "religious" and the arrangement is therefore a forbidden establishment of religion. Both suits were strongly supported by the ACLU. They've got you coming and going. If you claim to be religious and plead an exemption under free exercise, you're not religious enough. If you claim to be nonreligious, the court finds you vestigially religious enough to be excluded from a government contract. In his more melancholic mood, Francis Cardinal George has been known to opine that within ten years' time the government's cooptation of religion will result in something like China's aboveground and underground churches, albeit without the same level of persecution. That seems to me unlikely. On the other hand. . . ."
So what's their next project...forcing synagogues and mosques to serve bacon?
posted by BarbariansAtBay at
3:23 PM
