Brian63

At some point in the future, I'd like to become more involved in church/state separation activism, partly through donating money to a group that supports it in legal cases, such as the ACLU, FFRF, Americans United, etc.

I have to admit that I watch the 700 Club semi-regularly, and they are no friends to any of these groups. The one they mention the most out of them all though is the ACLU. So it seems that this group is the most effective of them all, at least in pissing off the Religious Wrong.

The ACLU does a lot of work outside of the church/state issue, and I'm not sure that I support much of what they fight for. I'm not saying that I disagree with their stances necessarily, but I am mostly undecided as to whether I agree with them or not.

It seems then that supporting one of these other groups that focuses exclusively on church/state separation would be my best move, but as I alluded to before, it seems they aren't quite as effective as the ACLU (going largely on the attention paid to them by their opponents).

Is my perception fairly accurate? Is the ACLU somehow more successful than these other groups, and if so, why? I do not want to donate to an organization that fights for causes I do not agree with, but I do not want to waste my money either on organizations that are relatively unsuccessful.

Thanks,

Brian

tragic_pizza

As long as you realize that ACLU fights for the civil liberties of people you may not LIKE (like Christians), you'll be fine.

GaryP

I am not sure the ACLU is more effective.

It does seem that they get mentioned a lot but I think it is mostly because they have been succesfully demonized by right-wingers.

I have some personal experience here in Ohio with both the ACLU and AU. AU has been much more forthcoming with help and advice. I even have an attorney at AU who answers my questions quickly.

I tried to contact the Ohio ACLU office concerning a Nativity Scene. They don't even have enogh people to answer the phone and they always just sent me form letters telling me to get my own lawyer.

FFRF does not specialize in law suits but they do occasionally get into the fray up in the Wisconsin area (they are based in Madison). And I think they were just successful in getting Bible classes out of the schools down in Dayton TN, home of the Monkey Trial. And I really like their newspaper, Freethought Today.

So I give money to all three groups but I have been most happy with Americans United for their cooperation and effectiveness. Also, as their name implies, they generally specialize only in separation cases.

[ June 13, 2002: Message edited by: GaryP ]

[ June 13, 2002: Message edited by: GaryP ]</p>

Philosoft

Basically, the ACLU has been around longer. You might remember they were prominently involved in the Scopes Trial. Anyway, their focus is individual civil liberties, which are most easily and prominently violated these days in the context of religion and politics. They are called a 'liberal organization' because, frankly, they take up causes that align with liberal ideology. Often this means legally fighting for the individual versus the corporation or the government agency. It's just the nature of the beast.

Myself, I contribute to CSICOP (Skeptical Inquirer is a great pub) and only just started giving money to Americans United. AU puts out a periodical that, some of the time at least, reads like propaganda. But a little cross-referencing on my part often shows their basic facts correct in spite of the fact they embellish or fixate on certain specifics.

Toto

<a href="http://www.au.org" target="_blank">Americans United for Separation of Church and State</a> is an extremely effective organization. I support them in spite of the fact that their idea of separation of church and state is more pro-religion than mine. (They supported RFRA and the RLUIPA, as did the ACLU). Part of their effectiveness is that they are headed by a Baptist minister and have extensive contacts with pro-separation religious groups.

I suspect that the 700 club likes to demonize the ACLU because of their lawsuits on behalf of those charged with crime, and crime is one of those red meat issues for conservatives.

tragic_pizza

Americans United is an amazingly hypocritical group. In the Presidential elections, for example, AU sent out threatening letters to conservative congregations, warning against allowing political campaigning (Christian Coalition flyers, political sppeches, etc.)

Meanwhile, Democratic politicians spoke in African American and liberal churches, and not a word was said.

My money's on folks who at least have the courage of their convictions. AU is only interested in defeating conservatives, nothing more.

hezekiah jones

Apples and oranges. Democratic (or Republican) politicians aren't 501(c)(3) organizations, unlike the outfits the AU was targeting.

Was the AU lobbying against Republican politicians speaking at conservative Baptist churches?

That would have been hypocritical.

tragic_pizza

That's EXACTLY what they were doing. Not "Baptist" exdclusively, but conservative congregations. Thus, the hypocrisy.

hezekiah jones

Do you have some more information? If the AU was employing a double standard, as in decrying activities by only conservative 501(c)(3) outfits but not others similarly situated, then I will agree with you.

As far as I know the AU was not targeting politicians, but rather tax exempt organizations that are forbidden from endorsing specific candidates or legislation. The AU has made a big deal out of the so-called voter guides distributed by tax exempt churches affiliated with the Christian Coalition. I would like to see a "liberal" voter guide that the AU wilfully ignored. Then the charge of hypocrisy would be justified.

tragic_pizza

The hipocrisy was in ignoring the free use of churches as platforms by the Democrats. I called them on it. No response.

The charge is indeed justified in that, while CONSERVATIVES were threatened with lawsuits, the LIBERALS were allowed carte blanche.