Opposing the ACLU
The American Center for Law & Justice (ACLJ) is an ultra-conservative Christian Right not-for-profit organization headed by Jay Sekulow, a front man for the 700 Club, Pat Robertson, and the mission to convert the entire nation into God-fearing and Robertson-obeying automatons rather than freely thinking individuals that worship according to their own conscience and personal relationship with God... or not. Like many that are converts to a religion, Sekulow, who converted from Judaism to Christianity, has adopted a zealous posture regarding his version of Christianity and attacks any approach to religion that is not in keeping with his perspective and understanding of God.
Sekulow, Robertson, the ACLJ and other argue that Christianity is the basis for American government, its laws, social customs and values. To that end, Sekulow heads the ACLJ as a major player on the side of the ultra-conservative Christian Right. Typical of many in the field of law, Sekulow's life, lifestyle, public persona and law practice are flexible... able to change, adapt and spin any event toward his particular "client" or agenda with amazing speed, agility and little regard for ethics, principle or Constitution. His zeal has often resulted in his dealing with contradictory statements and positions being ignored, dismissed or allowed to dissapate... but never directly dealt with or addressed.
In a recent e-mail to supporters of the ACLJ, Sekulow has gone on the attack against the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) as follows:
Of course the ACLU is rallying the troops. Never in the history of our nation has so many principles, protections and processes of our Constitution been under continuous attack. The current domination of all three branches of the federal government by conservatives that have a constituent base within the Christian Right is so prevalent that our very existence as a nation is in question. We are facing a series of constitutional crises that undermine almost every principle and fundamental value espoused and/or embedded in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
The reason the ACLU is taking on the "abstinence only movement" is because it is based upon values that are inherently based in a world view offered by a particular brand of Christianity--one that is NOT shared by all Christians--in direct conflict with the establishment clause of the First Amendment. The history of court decisions regarding the establishment of religion in public places, by public officials, and as the foundation of public policy is well-established (c.f. Religious Liberty In The Supreme Court: The Cases That Define The Debate Over Church And State, Terry Eastland (Ed), Ethics & Public Policy Center/Eerdsmans Publishing, ISBN 0-8028-0838-7). Although the ACLU receives a lot of criticism for the cases against establishing religion, a thorough review of the history of the major cases will demonstrate that the ACLU had no role in most of the cases and a minor role as a filer of an amicus brief in the cases where it has participated.
But the reason most people oppose the "abstinence only movement" is that despite its religious claim to virtue, it has proven--even by studies sponsored by the religious right--to be completely ineffective. The pregnancy rates, STD transmission rates and sexual activity rates for teens undergoing abstinence only indoctrination are almost identical to those that did not experience abstinence only teachings. Sex education should be based upon facts, as well as the values of the individual's family and religion of choice. The "abstinence only movement" seeks to impose a specific religious viewpoint upon all Americans and has pushed to a point that this perspective has been incorporated into law and regulation. The fact that it doesn't work makes it an erroneous policy decision. The fact that it is based upon religious values makes it unconstitutional. The ACLU's action against the "abstinence only movement" is sound from a legal, governmental and scientific perspective.
Then there is the effort of the Christian Right to impose "creationism" upon our school children. Of course, the particular "theory" of creation is Bible-based, espousing the religious doctrinal approach of Christians, Jews and Muslims... leaving the creation stories of Buddhism, Jainism, Zorastrianism, Ba'Haiism, Hinduism, Wicca and a multitude of tribal religions in the lurches. The only evidence that "creationism" offers as proof of the validity of its approach is the Bible and a logical argument based upon the statements within the Bible. While I am Christian, I am not disposed to read the Scriptures in the literal sense. My study of the Scriptures indicates that the Bible is supposed to be allegorical in almost all of its literature. Despite modern evidence that events depicted in the Bible were a part of human history, the historical references within Scripture are not fully accurate and are certainly not verifiable in accordance with the exacting standard of history, sociology, archaeology or anthropology. Even the doctors of the church make the case that the history provided by the Scriptures is one of salvation, belief and faith, not a complete history of the world or humanity.
So, while the Christian Right is busy trying to get labels and stickers on science textbooks that state "Evolution is only a theory," creationism, even in its manifestation as "intelligent design," doesn't even rise to the level of a theory. A theory is a paradigm of understanding based upon facts that are well-established within a discipline or field of study. While it is true that evolution does not have all of the answers, and there are gaps in the theoretical approach, the available DNA evidence from the various Genome Projects points to the FACT that evolution has scientific validity. When I am asked if I beleive that God created the world, I absolutely assert God's creation as a matter of truth... a truth based upon my faith and the fact that I am not willing to box God into a specific methodology or time frame.
But the ACLJ does not realize that the politicians on the conservative side of the aisle are using them as dupes. While these politicians are busy paying lip service to the Christian Right, their actions in the government are anything but based on the values espoused by Christianity. The laws being passed by congress are far too often contrary to Christian teachings about charity, helping others and serving those in need. The scandals that have been rampant among our leaders--especially those that have publicly committed to "traditional values"--have not adhered to the standards of the Ten Commandments. Christ warned us about those that stand up publicly touting their righteousness but did not live the faith through their actions. It seems to me that far too many on the Christian Right talk the talk but fail to walk the walk. In the mean time, we--meaning all Americans--are kept focused on relatively unimportant issues like gay marriage, partial birth abortion, abstinence only sex education and creationism as a pseudo-science so that we do not realize that we are being nailed to the wall by fascists that are seeking absolute power and control over our lives. We are so busy trying to regulate how the majority of us think, act and feel that we end up ignoring the breach of our fundamental principles and the Constitution that is the foundation of our society.
Anyone that studies the history of these issues will be impressed by the fact that the Christian Right started the fight. They had prayer in the schools, creationism as a part of the curriculum, no sex education whatsoever, and complete control over our polictics for many decades. The religious portion of our society had a stranglehold over our nation for a long time, condemning people for the slightest of offenses with an indignant "holier than thou" demeanor, and forcing us into failed social policy after failed social policy. It was the religious among us that forced the issue on prohibition... it failed. It was the religious among us that forced the concpt of "work fare" into our welfare structures... and overall it is a major disappointment. It is the religious among us that seek more jails--at greater costs--than early intervention programs... and our jails are full and the recidivism rate is at an all time high. The movement to curb the role of religious ideology over our society did not start until after 1900 and did not get up a head of steam until after World War II.
Well, now we come to the point. The ACLJ, like the 700 Club and so many other representations of the Christian Right, is trying to reach into our wallets. They are beating us up psychologically and claiming a holy position--essentially laying a religious guilt trip on us--to grab for our money and run with it. But let us look at who the players are in this case.
Jay Sekulow is a wealthy person. If he were to give up a few of his homes and cut back on the number of limosine rides he takes in a week, he might be able to fund this ACLJ initiative on his own.
Pat Robertson, the major player behind the curtain of the ACLJ, is a multi-millionaire. He owns property, receives high rates of compensation from at least foru organizations which he runs, is the head of a college and lives high-on-the-hog... and could fund the ACLJ initiative on his own.
Jerry Falwell, like Pat Robertson, owns major pieces of property, receives high levels of income from several sources, is the head of a religious college and could fund his own ideas for years to come.
Benny Hinn, Oral Roberts, Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Baker (before prison) and others all seem to have a lifestyle and checkbook that doesn't seem to be in keeping with the religious values they keep shoving down our throats. Why is it that these folks are always trying to fund their ideas and initiatves with the small $5-$100 contributions made by people that cannot often afford it?
As a member of the ACLU I find that statement offensive... not offensive because it attacks the ACLU, but because it is an inaccurate statement. The ACLU is not a divisive force and does not have a divisive agenda. The ACLU seeks to have the protections and principles of the Constitution--the values and principles given to us by our founders, framers and legends of our nation--enforced and put into practice. While it is true that the ACLU often takes the unpopular side of an argument or issue to protect us against the tyranny of the majority that would seek to impose their will upon us without regard for individual rights, the agenda of the ACLU is not specifically targetted to be divisive.
The ACLJ agenda, however, is divisive by its very nature. It is an ultra-conservative Christian organization seeking to impose ultra-conservative Christian perspectives upon each and every one of us... no matter what our religious faith, ideals or values. Instead of seeking universality, it is set out to seek only those concepts and ideals that are acceptable to their organization. Even among Christians the ACLJ does not stand for universality. It is a divisive organization with a divisive agenda.
What this means is that the ACLJ is trying to determine the medical agenda for all women in our nation. While I agree that abortion is wrong, I am not willing to support a legal code that imposes my beliefs and values upon others. I would argue that as a Christian I am compelled to follow the example of God and provide women with unwanted pregnancies alternatives to abortions. It is my contention that Christians could do more to prevent abortion by forcing congress and state legislators to adopt more flexible adoption rules and policies (rather than the divise ones espoused by the Christian Right), open pre-natal care centers, offer education programs that provide services to preganant women, teach sex education that prevents pregnancy by proven means, and conduct adoption agencies that are highly effective in placing children in lving, safe homes. The Christians in our nation would do more by offering genuine love rather than being the first among us to cast stones and condemn the sinners among us.
Let's see if we can figure out who these members of congress are... Orrin Hatch? John Cornyn? Dennis Hastert? Want to take odds that they are almost exclusively Republicans with a Christian Right support base? The ACLJ is nothing more than a highly profitable (at least for Jay Sekulow) lobbying firm hiding behind the color of religious ideology, zealotry and bigotry.
SCOTUS offered a stay, not a decision. It has not accepted the case by way of cert, it has only provided the time and space for this case to work its way through the court system. Given the number of precedents stacked up against the Mount Soledad case, I do not see the case being decided in favor of keeping the cross. We would do beetter to seek ownership of the cross and erect it on private property adjacent to the cemetary. Given that the VA has another case percolating regarding its discrimination against practitioners of Wicca, I don't think that the Court will find that the cross is absent of an establishment agenda or purpose. I hope their is some ground for compromise on this matter, but the religious right seems set on using Mount Soledad as a battle banner... which will ultimately screw the pooch in the long run.
The ACLU does not oppose the display of the Ten Commandments in public... only the use of governmental funds, property, and resources for the display and endorsement of these religious principles. If someone wants to display the Ten Commandments in public, then raise the funds necessary to buy a piece of publicly accessible property and erect the display in accordance with establsihed zoning and consrtcution codes. That is exactly what is occurring in Washington, DC, directly across from the Supreme Court building.
I am a Christian and a member of the ACLU. I have never been intimidated or offended by the position taken by the ACLU. I have disagreed with the ACLU's position, leaderhip and operations on occasion, but never intimidated. My colleagues within the ACLU have been nothing less than professional, attentive to my perspectives, and focused on the principles of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. While some members are offended by religious belief, the vast majority of the ACLU membership with whom I have had contact have asserted the right to worship according to one's own determination as one of the highest ideals of the organization. I, too, believe in the absolute right to worship according to conscience and individual relationship with the Divine... only I cannot tolerate imposing one's religious views upon others, especially in accordance with a social or political agenda.
Stop! Thief! Someone is trying to pick our pockets!
Your religious liberty has been defended more often by the ACLU than by the ACLJ. Don't take my word on it, go do some research. The ACLU has represented the right to freely worship in accordance with conscience more than any other organization involved with civil rights. That's a fact.
Objection! Assumption of facts not in evidence. I would require an offer of proof and a foundation for such a claim before such a statement could be admitted into evidence!
In terms of theology, a Christian is called to do a lot of prayer and discernment before supporting a social cause or organization. The Catholic catechism calls for the laity to examine the cause and effect of giving to an organization. Such discernment should question whether or not the contribution will result in good works or lining the pockets of those doing the work. In my view, the ACLJ follows Jay Sekulow's lead... and serves to feather Sekulow's nest more than it serves our religious liberty.
Sekulow, Robertson, the ACLJ and other argue that Christianity is the basis for American government, its laws, social customs and values. To that end, Sekulow heads the ACLJ as a major player on the side of the ultra-conservative Christian Right. Typical of many in the field of law, Sekulow's life, lifestyle, public persona and law practice are flexible... able to change, adapt and spin any event toward his particular "client" or agenda with amazing speed, agility and little regard for ethics, principle or Constitution. His zeal has often resulted in his dealing with contradictory statements and positions being ignored, dismissed or allowed to dissapate... but never directly dealt with or addressed.
In a recent e-mail to supporters of the ACLJ, Sekulow has gone on the attack against the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) as follows:
The ACLU is rallying its troops.
Of course the ACLU is rallying the troops. Never in the history of our nation has so many principles, protections and processes of our Constitution been under continuous attack. The current domination of all three branches of the federal government by conservatives that have a constituent base within the Christian Right is so prevalent that our very existence as a nation is in question. We are facing a series of constitutional crises that undermine almost every principle and fundamental value espoused and/or embedded in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
A recent ACLU mailing rails against "religious extremism" and the "'faith-based' drive for power" ... against a "biblical world-view"....
They're "taking on the abstinence-only movement" in America's classrooms ... and "pushing back" in schools where the teaching of evolution-only is being challenged. They're calling the months ahead "some of the most critical ever" in the struggle over abortion.
The reason the ACLU is taking on the "abstinence only movement" is because it is based upon values that are inherently based in a world view offered by a particular brand of Christianity--one that is NOT shared by all Christians--in direct conflict with the establishment clause of the First Amendment. The history of court decisions regarding the establishment of religion in public places, by public officials, and as the foundation of public policy is well-established (c.f. Religious Liberty In The Supreme Court: The Cases That Define The Debate Over Church And State, Terry Eastland (Ed), Ethics & Public Policy Center/Eerdsmans Publishing, ISBN 0-8028-0838-7). Although the ACLU receives a lot of criticism for the cases against establishing religion, a thorough review of the history of the major cases will demonstrate that the ACLU had no role in most of the cases and a minor role as a filer of an amicus brief in the cases where it has participated.
But the reason most people oppose the "abstinence only movement" is that despite its religious claim to virtue, it has proven--even by studies sponsored by the religious right--to be completely ineffective. The pregnancy rates, STD transmission rates and sexual activity rates for teens undergoing abstinence only indoctrination are almost identical to those that did not experience abstinence only teachings. Sex education should be based upon facts, as well as the values of the individual's family and religion of choice. The "abstinence only movement" seeks to impose a specific religious viewpoint upon all Americans and has pushed to a point that this perspective has been incorporated into law and regulation. The fact that it doesn't work makes it an erroneous policy decision. The fact that it is based upon religious values makes it unconstitutional. The ACLU's action against the "abstinence only movement" is sound from a legal, governmental and scientific perspective.
Then there is the effort of the Christian Right to impose "creationism" upon our school children. Of course, the particular "theory" of creation is Bible-based, espousing the religious doctrinal approach of Christians, Jews and Muslims... leaving the creation stories of Buddhism, Jainism, Zorastrianism, Ba'Haiism, Hinduism, Wicca and a multitude of tribal religions in the lurches. The only evidence that "creationism" offers as proof of the validity of its approach is the Bible and a logical argument based upon the statements within the Bible. While I am Christian, I am not disposed to read the Scriptures in the literal sense. My study of the Scriptures indicates that the Bible is supposed to be allegorical in almost all of its literature. Despite modern evidence that events depicted in the Bible were a part of human history, the historical references within Scripture are not fully accurate and are certainly not verifiable in accordance with the exacting standard of history, sociology, archaeology or anthropology. Even the doctors of the church make the case that the history provided by the Scriptures is one of salvation, belief and faith, not a complete history of the world or humanity.
So, while the Christian Right is busy trying to get labels and stickers on science textbooks that state "Evolution is only a theory," creationism, even in its manifestation as "intelligent design," doesn't even rise to the level of a theory. A theory is a paradigm of understanding based upon facts that are well-established within a discipline or field of study. While it is true that evolution does not have all of the answers, and there are gaps in the theoretical approach, the available DNA evidence from the various Genome Projects points to the FACT that evolution has scientific validity. When I am asked if I beleive that God created the world, I absolutely assert God's creation as a matter of truth... a truth based upon my faith and the fact that I am not willing to box God into a specific methodology or time frame.
But the ACLJ does not realize that the politicians on the conservative side of the aisle are using them as dupes. While these politicians are busy paying lip service to the Christian Right, their actions in the government are anything but based on the values espoused by Christianity. The laws being passed by congress are far too often contrary to Christian teachings about charity, helping others and serving those in need. The scandals that have been rampant among our leaders--especially those that have publicly committed to "traditional values"--have not adhered to the standards of the Ten Commandments. Christ warned us about those that stand up publicly touting their righteousness but did not live the faith through their actions. It seems to me that far too many on the Christian Right talk the talk but fail to walk the walk. In the mean time, we--meaning all Americans--are kept focused on relatively unimportant issues like gay marriage, partial birth abortion, abstinence only sex education and creationism as a pseudo-science so that we do not realize that we are being nailed to the wall by fascists that are seeking absolute power and control over our lives. We are so busy trying to regulate how the majority of us think, act and feel that we end up ignoring the breach of our fundamental principles and the Constitution that is the foundation of our society.
So we are fighting back!
Anyone that studies the history of these issues will be impressed by the fact that the Christian Right started the fight. They had prayer in the schools, creationism as a part of the curriculum, no sex education whatsoever, and complete control over our polictics for many decades. The religious portion of our society had a stranglehold over our nation for a long time, condemning people for the slightest of offenses with an indignant "holier than thou" demeanor, and forcing us into failed social policy after failed social policy. It was the religious among us that forced the issue on prohibition... it failed. It was the religious among us that forced the concpt of "work fare" into our welfare structures... and overall it is a major disappointment. It is the religious among us that seek more jails--at greater costs--than early intervention programs... and our jails are full and the recidivism rate is at an all time high. The movement to curb the role of religious ideology over our society did not start until after 1900 and did not get up a head of steam until after World War II.
And we need you to help us by giving an online gift RIGHT NOW - to be doubled through our $350,000 STOP THE ACLU! Matching Challenge.
Well, now we come to the point. The ACLJ, like the 700 Club and so many other representations of the Christian Right, is trying to reach into our wallets. They are beating us up psychologically and claiming a holy position--essentially laying a religious guilt trip on us--to grab for our money and run with it. But let us look at who the players are in this case.
Jay Sekulow is a wealthy person. If he were to give up a few of his homes and cut back on the number of limosine rides he takes in a week, he might be able to fund this ACLJ initiative on his own.
Pat Robertson, the major player behind the curtain of the ACLJ, is a multi-millionaire. He owns property, receives high rates of compensation from at least foru organizations which he runs, is the head of a college and lives high-on-the-hog... and could fund the ACLJ initiative on his own.
Jerry Falwell, like Pat Robertson, owns major pieces of property, receives high levels of income from several sources, is the head of a religious college and could fund his own ideas for years to come.
Benny Hinn, Oral Roberts, Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Baker (before prison) and others all seem to have a lifestyle and checkbook that doesn't seem to be in keeping with the religious values they keep shoving down our throats. Why is it that these folks are always trying to fund their ideas and initiatves with the small $5-$100 contributions made by people that cannot often afford it?
Even as the ACLU forges ahead with their divisive agenda ... we are working - for your protection - on the following cases:
As a member of the ACLU I find that statement offensive... not offensive because it attacks the ACLU, but because it is an inaccurate statement. The ACLU is not a divisive force and does not have a divisive agenda. The ACLU seeks to have the protections and principles of the Constitution--the values and principles given to us by our founders, framers and legends of our nation--enforced and put into practice. While it is true that the ACLU often takes the unpopular side of an argument or issue to protect us against the tyranny of the majority that would seek to impose their will upon us without regard for individual rights, the agenda of the ACLU is not specifically targetted to be divisive.
The ACLJ agenda, however, is divisive by its very nature. It is an ultra-conservative Christian organization seeking to impose ultra-conservative Christian perspectives upon each and every one of us... no matter what our religious faith, ideals or values. Instead of seeking universality, it is set out to seek only those concepts and ideals that are acceptable to their organization. Even among Christians the ACLJ does not stand for universality. It is a divisive organization with a divisive agenda.
We have already filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court of the United States representing more than 322,000 citizens and 78 members of Congress - backing the federal partial-birth abortion ban.
What this means is that the ACLJ is trying to determine the medical agenda for all women in our nation. While I agree that abortion is wrong, I am not willing to support a legal code that imposes my beliefs and values upon others. I would argue that as a Christian I am compelled to follow the example of God and provide women with unwanted pregnancies alternatives to abortions. It is my contention that Christians could do more to prevent abortion by forcing congress and state legislators to adopt more flexible adoption rules and policies (rather than the divise ones espoused by the Christian Right), open pre-natal care centers, offer education programs that provide services to preganant women, teach sex education that prevents pregnancy by proven means, and conduct adoption agencies that are highly effective in placing children in lving, safe homes. The Christians in our nation would do more by offering genuine love rather than being the first among us to cast stones and condemn the sinners among us.
The Supreme Court has also agreed to hear a second partial-birth abortion case out of California. Again, we are working aggressively on an amicus brief - due in just a few weeks - on behalf of several members of Congress.
Let's see if we can figure out who these members of congress are... Orrin Hatch? John Cornyn? Dennis Hastert? Want to take odds that they are almost exclusively Republicans with a Christian Right support base? The ACLJ is nothing more than a highly profitable (at least for Jay Sekulow) lobbying firm hiding behind the color of religious ideology, zealotry and bigotry.
The high court has just granted a stay in the case against the City of San Diego - halting the removal of the war memorial cross on Mount Soledad! We filed a critical amicus brief on behalf of 22 members of Congress to support the request for a stay. Although it was granted, this case is far from over. The battle continues with the ACLU at the Supreme Court as the case moves through the appeals process ... and we will continue to support the City's efforts to keep the cross in place.
SCOTUS offered a stay, not a decision. It has not accepted the case by way of cert, it has only provided the time and space for this case to work its way through the court system. Given the number of precedents stacked up against the Mount Soledad case, I do not see the case being decided in favor of keeping the cross. We would do beetter to seek ownership of the cross and erect it on private property adjacent to the cemetary. Given that the VA has another case percolating regarding its discrimination against practitioners of Wicca, I don't think that the Court will find that the cross is absent of an establishment agenda or purpose. I hope their is some ground for compromise on this matter, but the religious right seems set on using Mount Soledad as a battle banner... which will ultimately screw the pooch in the long run.
We're involved in cases across the country to protect the right to display the Ten Commandments in public, with major cases out of Kentucky and Utah.
All of this - and more - in opposition to the ACLU.
The ACLU does not oppose the display of the Ten Commandments in public... only the use of governmental funds, property, and resources for the display and endorsement of these religious principles. If someone wants to display the Ten Commandments in public, then raise the funds necessary to buy a piece of publicly accessible property and erect the display in accordance with establsihed zoning and consrtcution codes. That is exactly what is occurring in Washington, DC, directly across from the Supreme Court building.
But there is much, much more to be done - we must send a strong message that Christians will not be intimidated by the ACLU.
I am a Christian and a member of the ACLU. I have never been intimidated or offended by the position taken by the ACLU. I have disagreed with the ACLU's position, leaderhip and operations on occasion, but never intimidated. My colleagues within the ACLU have been nothing less than professional, attentive to my perspectives, and focused on the principles of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. While some members are offended by religious belief, the vast majority of the ACLU membership with whom I have had contact have asserted the right to worship according to one's own determination as one of the highest ideals of the organization. I, too, believe in the absolute right to worship according to conscience and individual relationship with the Divine... only I cannot tolerate imposing one's religious views upon others, especially in accordance with a social or political agenda.
This is why we are grateful for the $350,000 STOP THE ACLU! Matching Challenge - that will match, dollar-for-dollar, any gift you give today - effectively doubling the impact of your gift up to a total of $350,000.
Stop! Thief! Someone is trying to pick our pockets!
So please give a generous online gift NOW to help in our fight against the onslaught of the ACLU and the scourge of partial-birth abortion as we continue all of our work across the country.
Your gift - matched by the fund - will make twice the impact as we face off with the ACLU and carry on all our legal and legislative efforts to protect your religious liberties!
Your religious liberty has been defended more often by the ACLU than by the ACLJ. Don't take my word on it, go do some research. The ACLU has represented the right to freely worship in accordance with conscience more than any other organization involved with civil rights. That's a fact.
Please let us hear from you today. YOUR rights and freedoms are at stake.
Objection! Assumption of facts not in evidence. I would require an offer of proof and a foundation for such a claim before such a statement could be admitted into evidence!
Thank you, in advance, for whatever support God leads you to give.
In terms of theology, a Christian is called to do a lot of prayer and discernment before supporting a social cause or organization. The Catholic catechism calls for the laity to examine the cause and effect of giving to an organization. Such discernment should question whether or not the contribution will result in good works or lining the pockets of those doing the work. In my view, the ACLJ follows Jay Sekulow's lead... and serves to feather Sekulow's nest more than it serves our religious liberty.
posted by Jim Downey at 10:55 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home