Dispatches from the Culture Wars

Any reference to God, let alone Jesus, in a school child's speech, paper or essay answer!

Again, totally false. In fact, the opposite is true. The ACLU has often defended student's rights to sing religious songs in talent shows, write essays about their religious views (when appropriate for the assignment, of course), paint religious paintings in art class, distribute religious material to their classmates, and so forth.

Was I exaggerating? I've only scratched the surface!

Not only exaggerating, but wildly exaggerating and perhaps even lying. He then gives another list of suits filed by the ACLU:

leading to the U.S. Defense Department banning military units from sponsoring Boy Scout troops or even letting them meet on government property;

False. Boy Scout troops can continue to use government property on the same footing with any other community group. If there is a designated public forum, the Boy Scouts may use it just like any other group can. What the ACLU suits have attempted to do is prevent the government from giving any special deals to the Boy Scouts, or to provide specific funding for their events because they discriminate, and since they are a private group, they have no claim to public funding.

Are you noticing a pattern here? It's one that is shared by almost all of the anti-ACLU screeds you'll ever see - exaggeration for the purpose of obscuring important distinctions. There is a major difference between being opposed to religious displays paid for by the government, or being given exclusive access, and being opposed to all religious displays "in public". There is a major difference between opposing all use of government property by the Boy Scouts and being opposed to providing taxpayer funding for them, or giving them exclusive access to such property that other groups do not get. This is the stock in trade of anti-ACLU types.

supporting an 18-year-old man accused of raping a 14-year-old mentally handicapped boy, arguing that teens should be "free from state compulsion";

Again, a total distortion of reality. The ACLU did not defend the man and say he should not be charged. The ACLU argued that the 18 year old man who had sex with a 14 year old boy should be treated no differently than an 18 year old who had sex with a 14 year old girl. The state law gave a penalty many times longer for gay statutory rape than for straight statutory rape. That's certainly nothing like "supporting" the criminal.

representing the pro-pedophile North American Man/Boy Love Association - at no cost! - after two group members were accused of raping and murdering a 10-year-old boy;

I love the fact that he threw in "at no cost!", as though that makes it worse. The ACLU defends all its clients at no cost. And of course, he words this to make it sound like the ACLU defended the criminals against charges of raping and murdering; that is absolutely false. The two men were convicted and are in prison, and I'm sure everyone in the ACLU is quite happy about that. They had nothing at all to do with the criminal trial. They defended, in a civil case, the principle that you cannot hold person A responsible for advocating a change in the law when person B decides to break the law.

That's a very important principle, one that the same people who criticize the ACLU would absolutely support if the tables were turned a bit. They defended the website The Nuremberg Files in a civil suit when someone tried to blame them for someone else killing an abortion doctor (the website had posted the dead doctor's picture with "wanted: dead or alive" on it, and had given his home address). So they recognize the importance of that principle, yet they use it to score cheap political points by distorting the ACLU's defense of that same principle in the NAMBLA case.

All of this just scratches the surface of the standard set of lies, distortions and exaggerations that are omnipresent in anti-ACLU screeds like this.