Do Democrates do it better...

[rickus]

Taking Jeff's advice and acting on behalf of Kyle I started this thread, with my ill posted post, from "Christianity vs Republicans"

I guess I'm playing Devils advocate here.

Kyle asked what I thought was a good question, that none of us have yet to answer: Why do the Democrats here think that their party is doing such a better job?

My answer would be that we are attempting to help the poorer of our society. Not force their hands and put them into situations which will only send them to the most desperate of social standing, begging for loose change on street corners. Not that we don't already have that, but it can be much more prevalent. Really!

This isn't much of an answer, but then I'm a coward when it comes to this board.

[Jeff]

Can I just start this way: When we think about religion in our personal case, we have only one set of values to consider, and even these conflict with each other. It is a monumental and noble task to organize one’s values. I have never seen anyone undertake this endeavor without enriching her own life and the lives of those around her. I have argued elsewhere that the religious impulse is fundamentally a response to the perception of our own solitude. I find it natural that the US, which is known for its radical individualism, is also known as the most religious of the industrialized democracies. We need religion here because we live to isolate ourselves.

But this makes the application of religious values to politics difficult in the US. In many ways these two areas are at odds. We did not create ex nihilo the political value of separating church and state. Jesus said, “Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s and unto God that which is God’s.” As we all know, the Jews of his day who were expecting a Messiah were looking for a political and military leader of the line of David. It is of the very essence of Christianity that Jesus monkey-wrenched this idea. Jesus says only my kingdom is not of this world. He does not go on to say, “But if you want to create this utopia for yourselves, here’s the plan!”

Early Christian communities began by withdrawing from society, and for good reason: Skinny-dipping in boiling oil is almost no fun at all. But as the religion became more and more powerful it began to interpret its values politically. Many of these interpretations and the laws and polices that resulted from them sound downright unchristian to our ears today. As but one striking example, consider The Malleus Maleficarum, The Witch Hammer ( www.malleusmaleficarum.org/ ), which aims to prescribe specific social policies based on certain Christian values. Clearly, we have gotten along way from greeting one another by scratching fish in the sand by the time Pope Innocent VIII announces in the Papal Bull that precedes The Malleus Maleficarum, “[The agent of the church] shall threaten all who endeavour to hinder or harass the Inquisitors, all who oppose them, all rebels, of whatsoever rank, estate, position, pre-eminence, dignity, or any condition they may be, or whatsoever privilege or exemption they may claim, with excommunication, suspension, interdict, and yet more terrible penalties, censures, and punishment, as may seem good…, and that without any right of appeal, and if he will he may by Our authority aggravate and renew these penalties as often as he list, calling in, if so please him, the help of the secular arm.”

So the transposition of religious values to politics is dangerous business. Thomas Jefferson was well aware of this when he set the tone for our democracy by saying, “It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty Gods or no God.” As long as religious expression is not “fanatical,” Jefferson believed that it was compatible with civic interests. What is “fanatical” for Jefferson? Religious people must abandon or modify opinions on matters of ultimate importance, opinions that may hitherto have given sense and point to their lives, if these opinions entail public actions that cannot be justified to most of their fellow citizens. ( etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=JefVirg.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=17&division=div1 ). Jefferson, then, says that civil interests and values are the proper check to unbridled religious fanaticism. I suspect that most of us do not like this answer. I believe that we all wish our society was better centered on good religious values, as we variously interpret that phrase.

I cannot speak directly for either Justin or Amanda, but I think we all have another check in mind. Perhaps Christianity can supply self-critical values that would rule-out, or at least make very unlikely, fanatical actions. Perhaps these values arise naturally from the highly self-critical values that Jesus espoused. Perhaps by looking at the overarching themes of the religion we could escape its inexact and in some cases offensive details, for example the NT’s compatibility with slavery. For me, anyway, considerations like these focus my attention on passages such as those Amanda has mentioned. Concern for the poor: the least of these, children; concern for social justice: “Dip your finger in the water,” “The Eye of the Needle;” and, above all, concern to love others as we love ourselves: These are the messages that stand out in Jesus' teachings. They are given perhaps their best expression in what is to my mind the most pivotal event in the last 2000 years of world history, Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount.

Jeff

PS More later….

[Jeff]

The following sermon by George Fox, a quaker ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Fox ), in 1676 concerns Lazarus and the rich man:

www.qis.net/~daruma/GF-Lazarus.html

PS Full disclosure: I am deeply sympathetic to many of Fox's views.

PPS Quaker Electronic Archive: www.qis.net/~daruma/index.html

[kyle]

Principal: Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
Billy Madison: Okay, a simple no would've done just fine.

I hope you don't mind the movie quote but it seemed to fit pretty good here. I think I'm picking up what you're putting down, but I'm not seeing where your points advance the original topic: Do Democrats do it better...

This phrase form the Republican board still goes unanswered:

Again, I think we can agree on the problem, but how would Democrats FIX it. Blaming Republicans IS NOT going to fix anything. I try to watch some MSNBC, CNN, and of course FOXNEWS as often as I can and I get sick and tired of hearing, these days, Dems blame Rep for everything going wrong. This may be true, but if these people have no other solutions...shut up, get off the air and think up an idea...then come back and say "your way is bad...hears my idea"

What are the What are the Democratic Solutions?

[Jeff]

I am not offended in the slightest. However, I do think any approach to your question must be asymptotic. We must at least sketch what we mean by "christian," "Christianity," "democracy," "democrat," "republican," et al. There is no easy answer to your question, which is one of the things that bothers me most about the Christian-Republican connection. They claim to know God's will so well...and what is best for our country and what is best for homosexuals, and pregnant teenagers, etc.. My words are cautious because I think a little fear and trembling is a good thing, so long as we are not inflicting it on others.

We will get there Kyle. But some orientation is required, or so I thought.

Jeff

PS I have run out of time on the board today. See you all tomorrow!

PPS Yes, democrats do it far better.

[Tyler]

Bah to all of it. Orientation is for sissies. We all know what we mean by Republican and Democrat. Christian and Christianity. They are all monolithic.
Republicans = Top-down economics. Give money to companies and the rich and they will invest it.
Democrats = Bottom-up economics. Give money to individuals and they will spend it.

I think what has happened in recent times is that those currently in control of the Republican party have given up on courting individuals with policy and now just cater to businesses and the rich, hoping that the funds generated by this relationship can effectively be used to purchase the opinions of the masses. Last election it worked.

[Tyler]

What the democrats do better now? I don't know, they haven't been in control of the three branches of government. Right now, the Republicans control all three and the problem they are having is that they can't blame the problems on other people. At least when you look the Dems in the eye, you can see something working in there. When you look GW Bush in the eye, all you see is... well, My Pet Goat.

Had he Dems been in control in the wake of Katrina, they'd have expanded social programs to assist the poor that were disproportionately harmed by the disaster. They did put forth bills to try to increase the minimum wage and to expand the social programs. They've put forth bills to stem the tide of donations to the political parties. They've tried to stop the energy bills written by energy companies, and telecommunicatios bills written by telecoms. They tried to stop the bill written to prevent gun manufacturers from being held liable in cases where their products were used as intended.
All of these things the Republicans have pushed through within the past year. This is the list that just popped to my head, if I did some research, I could easily expand this list by a factor of 10.

As for what I'd do better as a Democrat. I've said it before, but I'll reitterate it here.
I'd expand the military to include non-combattant positions. I'd make it so that anyone at any time could go to the recruitment station and say: I'd like to trade personal freedoms for healthcare, food, and shelter. They'd be given jobs doing whatever needed to be done. This would be voluntary, and they'd be able to quit at any time.
That's the sane part, now for the part where people think I'm crazy:
I'd make it so that anyone elected to office at the federal level would have to give up all forms of personal posessions and all relationships. No children, no spouses, no money. From that point on until their death they'd be wards of the state. I'd make it so that no law could be voted on by a representative that couldn't recite it from memory. I'd get rid of the notion of intelectual property and make the standard be that if something isn't lost, then nothing is stolen.

Just some ideas.

[Jeff]

If we stick to Jefferson’s definition of fanaticism, then it is certain that legal prejudice against homosexual unions based on religious grounds would be so classified. I believe that the case has also been made elsewhere on the board that religious prohibition of abortion of any kind would also be so classified. So, under the idea that democracy provides the most appropriate check on fanaticism, the values of the democratic party are at least consistent with Jeffersonian democracy. Inasmuch as republicans retreat to religion for their social policy, they are working against it.

If we give up Jefferson’s vision of democracy in America, then we must have some other check on religious fanaticism. After all, we would not want a theocracy; the dangers are too great. If the theocracies in the Middle East aren’t enough of a scare, then all we have to do is remind ourselves of the Christian Inquisition. If the proposed check is to come from Christianity itself, then it must be in the form of some kind of internal self-criticism. Dogma is dogma, and Christian fanaticism is as bad as any other. A Christian who is unwilling to sacrifice any of his views for the body politic must be regarded as fanatical. But this does not mean that all core Christian views are incompatible with democracy. The key will lie in the elucidation of a coherent system of social values that at once embodies the essence of Christianity and makes fanaticism of any kind difficult.

Of course the term “fanaticism” must be redefined in a way that is less rigid than Jefferson’s view. For me the definition here is a live issue as is the system of Christian values. But I think that any such system must label as fanatical both anti-gay and anti-abortion policies based solely on religious grounds. I will try to argue this point in later posts.

For now, let me just say that the redefinition of fanaticism would be cashed-out purely in terms of the values available within the Christian system of values. This is an advance beyond the Jeffersonian view. It may be that the bulk of Americans are wrong, and Christians must work hard to change social policy, a situation that Jefferson would dismiss as undemocratic. My counter proposal is to organize Christian values in some way. We will find that there are core Christian values and peripheral ones. A Christian who wishes to advance her values in the social and political realm, must be willing to sacrifice the peripheral values, not because they are at odds with those of other citizens, but because they are difficult (or impossible) to relate to the core values.

Again, I have not argued this, but I think Amanda has identified several of the core values already: concern for the poor, social justice, etc… If we find that these values are at odds with specific social polices even those based on Christian values, it is our duty to abandon the policies. The pain of not doing so is the abandonment of American democracy for a potential, perhaps inevitable, theocracy. My original post aimed to show some of the terror associated with that abandonment.

I think we will find at the end of this investigation that, once again, the republican platform promotes exactly the kind of Christian thinking that democracy should be afraid of. The democratic platform, while far from perfect, is far better.

But there are many arguments to be made before we arrive at that conclusion. At least I have presented a sketch of my view now, in my own Billy Madison fashion.

Jeff

[kyle]

Thank God we have the ACLU to keep us from going to a theocracy! Or wait, thank God we have the ACLU for telling me I am wrong for wanting God to be part of my life...I get confused.

I like the simplicity in which Tyler laid Dem vs Rep out. It does show that Rep just have a different approach to helping people. If you just give money to people they will spend it...then what...they just need more money to spend. Why not just try and tax them less and let them keep THEIR money and spend it.

On the other hand, why not try and give some (I'm going to agree that at times this has been excessive) money to companies who have shown that they know how to use money. That way, these companies will become more successful, which in turn create more jobs, which in turn would allow the people that you might propose just giving money to a job, which in turn would free up more money to help people who are actually unable to help themselves.

Giving someone the opportunity to help support themselves and become less dependent on the government is what I take away from that scenario.

Again, I just think that Republicans have a different way of trying to accomplish the same goal.

[amanda]

"Thank God we have the ACLU to keep us from going to a theocracy! Or wait, thank God we have the ACLU for telling me I am wrong for wanting God to be part of my life...I get confused."

Yes, and thank GOD I have the inscription "In God We Trust" on my money and "under God" in the pledge. Ever since they've removed prayer in school and stopped posting the ten commandments my faith has been diminished substantially! At least these small reminders remain so that I am not totally lost to the evil one.

[kyle]

Just give it time, they'll figure out a way to get the government to reprint all our money.

I am making the assumption that the Democrats on this board support the ACLU. If that is not true then let me know and disregard this question: How is the ACLU support the teachings of Jesus?

[rick]

Is there something in the ACLU's charter or their mission statement that mandates "supporting the teaching of Jesus?"

[Jeff]

Written hurriedly so excuse any errors!

I am a little confused: Are we talking about dems and reps with regard to their representativeness of Christian values or is the goal here to show simply which is more effective at accomplishing certain mutually acceptable goals? The fear of a theocracy sounds like an irrational fear unless we are seeking to justify some kind of an expansion of religious values. I thought that is what we were doing here. But if it's not, I can drop the religious line all together...

Kyle, you've agreed then that it is a legitimate social and political concern to help the poor. Good for you, you are more civilized than many in your party who teach a closet Social Darwinism. My next question is how high of a priority does this goal have in your political view. For me, it is among the most important things that people would ever pool their money to do. What say you?

We can talk about methods of accomplishing this goal afterwards, but I can say this: If you are really desirous of helping the poor, then you are seriously deluded if you think that any business has their interests at heart. Business exists for one reason: Profit. If a little good or evil gets done on the way to the bank, they do not mind, but it is not the primary goal of business to do any good at all. In fact, doing good, as opposed to not doing evil, is not a legitimate business goal… Or so I’ve been instructed—indirectly, of course—by the so called business ethicists. Here is what they say, and they are proud of it especially when they get to the bit about ethics (I think it makes them feel good just to say the word):

About any activity a business person asks:

1) Is it profitable? If not, Stop: Either don’t pursue it or, if it must occur, seek ways to minimize its damage. If so, go on to the next question…
2) Is it legal? If not, consider whether the attempt to lobby for its legality would be worthwhile, but cease and desist for now. If so, go on to the next question…
3) Is it ethical? If not, talk to advertising/marketing about ways to move public opinion and support activities that move their opinion, but cease and desist for now. If so, GO FOR IT!

Ethics is not a simple limitation on our ability to act; only the very foolish or the very young would ever think so. Ethics, especially a Christian ethics based on love, has two parts: Resisting evil and Doing good. The above scheme sees ethics purely as a way to resist evil. And that is idiotic. Besides this, the prioritization of profit over ethics guarantees that business will not protect the kinds of interests that you profess to be concerned about. If our real concern is to help the poor, there are about a thousand better ways of doing it than giving our money to business. Finally, business only survives because that is the way we have organized our economy. We have an economic system that hurts some people. What obligation do we owe to those who make our system work (the have-nots basically), the one that rewards us but punishes others? Business sees no such obligation because, again, it is blind to the notion of ethics as a positive encouragement to act.

Free Market mysticism is foolishness of the first order. When the economy is moving at a nice clip, things look good to the middle class, but we only have to look back 70 years into American history to see the Darwinian ruthlessness of business. Gosh, we don’t have to look back that far. Poor Americans are losing their manufacturing jobs at an alarming rate and being forced into service jobs of one kind or another. If creating opportunity is not attached to meaningful work that pays a living wage, then those who tout it as concern for the poor are duplicitous indeed. Beware of them, and whatever you do, don’t vote for them!

Jeff

[Jeff]

I don't necessarily support the ACLU. To my mind that is a libertarian organization.

[luceph]

I support the ACLU. I see them as an organization that works towards guaranteeing I will always have a voice. I don't always agree with them but since they perform a necessary service in ensuring that the Bill of Rights is upheld, I am willing to accept the good with the bad. As for what they have done to support religion, they have sued for the right of schoolchildren to have non-school sponsored prayer groups, for kids to wear religious oriented jewelry, clothing and such to school. They have sued in various cases and various ways for Catholics, Quakers, Shakers, Mormons, Muslims, Jews, Satanists et cetera, to be able to worship how they wish as long as it is not sponsored or endorsed by the state. And I feel that is what bothers conservatives so much about the ACLU. The ACLU tries its damndest to oppose any attempts to create a state religion and that pisses off conservatives from both the Republican and Democratic parties. Those conservatives want to see the establishment of evangelical Christianity as the "official" religion of the United States and anyone who opposes such a move is instantly anti-Christian and by constantly harping on the ACLU by using such dirty words as "liberal" and "commie" the ACLU has become to a large number of Americans, the organization for those dirty hippie people that hate freedom, America, apple pie and Jesus Christ. In what I consider somewhat ironic, the ACLU would sue to ensure that those who ridicule it would be legally allowed to continue doing so.

so yeah I support the ACLU.

[Tyler]

I'm going to spend the day sitting here, every hour, giving Chad Karma. You are a good and reasoned person, Chad. I wish I could hear more of what you think.

[Jeff]

The most unreasonable public voice that I personally know is Rush Limbaugh. You could write a logic textbook on how not to reason just by taking examples of his idiocy and discussing them. In fact, someone already has: www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0812692942/qid=1130507543/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/102-6381427-0457706?v=glance&s=books&n=507846 . In addition to that lots of great critical reasoning texts use him for their examples of ad hominem and ad populum.

But apart from being a bear of very little brain, he has a really nasty spirit, too. I listen to his show--for reasons I can't quite explain--at least two or three times a week. Just yesterday he was talking about how he wanted everyone who disagreed with him "to choke on defeat."

So here is a man who if Dante were writing his Inferno today would find himself in a special situation in the 9th circle--maybe with his golden microphone stuck up his ass.

The point: Rush is an oxycontin junkie, and when prosecutors went after his medical records, who defended him? That's right boys and girls, the ACLU ( www.buzzflash.com/analysis/05/05/ana05012.html ), a group he publically derides at least once a week.

So Chad is exactly right: The ACLU stands for their principles even when the world would be better if they didn't.

Jeff

[kyle]

I'm not quite sure I agree with MOST unreasonable but I'll agree with one of the meanest.

It's good to know that a logic book is being grouped together with:

Customers who bought this book also bought

The Way Things Aren't: Rush Limbaugh's Reign of Error : Over 100 Outrageously False and Foolish Statements from America's Most Powerful Radio and TV by Steve Rendall

The I Hate Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Sean Hannity. . . Reader: The Hideous Truth About America's Ugliest Conservatives by Clint Willis

The Oh Really? Factor : Unspinning Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly by Peter Hart

The I Hate Republicans Reader: Why the GOP is Totally Wrong About Everything by Clint Willis

Worse Than Watergate: The Secret Presidency of George W. Bush by John W. Dean

The I Hate George W. Bush Reader: Why Dubya Is Wrong About Absolutely Everything by Clint Willis
Explore Similar Items: in Books

I'm sure that these books have a lot of unbiased, logical opinions In them too. Maybe I'll stop by the library today after work and read about how and why I should hate myself.


Taking the good with the bad does not sound like a real good way to go. Concerning the religious activities at schools you mentioned, I would venture a guess that kids had a hard time praying at school and wearing religious items as a result of the pressure from the ACLU to keep religion out of schools. Principals and school boards fear that they might be sued of they allow kids to wear religious items.

And I believe that they are supportive of the tiny minority of Mormons and atheists who do not want to be singled out for not saying the pledge. I feel better knowing that the vast majority of children's rights who would like to say the pledge are not being protected...

[Jeff]

Gosh, Kyle, I am a Depeche Mode fan but I’ve never dressed like a Goth or hung out with anyone who did—except Rickus, of course. I am sure a lot of people buy the book because they hate Republicans. That is not what I am saying or doing. It’s a pretty good logic book, or was in 1996 when Monte Cook (OU Philosophy faculty) talked to me about it. What I am saying is that Rush is either very dumb (he can't reason) or very irresponsible (he is preying on people who don't think for themselves). And my motivation has nothing to do with his politics--which I do, in fact, loathe. Rather, I am judging him as if he were one of my logic students. He wouldn't pass my class reasoning as poorly as he does. (But then Rush dropped out of college, didn't he...)

You don’t have to (and shouldn't!) take my word for Rush’s incapacity for rational thought. Listen critically to his program yourself. It’s handy to keep a list of the informal fallacies beside you when you do. I counted him once. He averaged about one fallacy every two minutes--sometimes the rate goes up but it almost never goes down. It would make a great drinking game: Take a shot every time Rush violates basic logical rules. You’d get trashed in about 15-20 minutes.

If anyone wants to count the El Rushbo’s fallacies, here is a list of the more common logical fallacies that I give my students.

1. Appeal to force = Trying to win the debate by threat.

2. Appeal to pity = Arguing that a position or action is justified MERELY because the people holding the position or who are the objects of the action will otherwise suffer. The relevant question is why you should be concerned with the suffering rather than with other aspects of the situation.

3a. Appeal to the people, direct variety = Trying to get the members of a group to accept a position without allowing them to think for themselves. This frequently involves an US against THEM strategy. In the direct variety, there is an appeal to the group as a whole to take a single position with no room for dissent.

3b. Appeal to the people, indirect variety = Trying to get a person to join the others in a group who already accept a position on the grounds that the others accept it. In the indirect variety the others already accept the view and you are being asked to join with them.

4a. Argument against the person, abusive = Trying to refute a persons views by casting doubt about their character. This is only acceptable where the issue is how confident we should be in what they say.

4b. Argument against the person, circumstantial = Trying to cast doubt upon a person's views by stressing reasons why they might be prejudiced about the topic. Even prejudiced people might be correct. For example, even a person who would benefit from a tax might correctly point out its need.

4c. Argument against the person, Tu quoque = An attempt to cast doubt upon a position by arguing that those who accept it are hypocritical. We can learn from the mistakes of others.

5. Accident = Applying a general rule to a case which is clearly an exception.

6. Straw man = Arguing against an oversimplified version of a position rather than the full and more defensible one.

7. Missing the point = Drawing a conclusion to a related but different subject matter than the issue at hand.

8. Red herring = Pursuing an irrelevant (side) issue.

9. Appeal to unqualified authority = Accepting the judgment of an expert who lacks credibility for one reason or another, e.g., when he or she is speaking in an area outside of their expertise.

10. Appeal to ignorance = Supposing that something must be the case just because it has never been shown not to be (or vice versa).

11. Hasty generalization (converse accident) = Generalizing from what is obviously an exceptional and unusual case.

12. False cause = Mistakenly attributing causation to the wrong event. This can happen for a variety of reasons, e.g., confusing correlation with causality. Suppose you notice that the last few times you wore blue to class you got a good grade on your quizzes. It is a fallacy of FALSE CAUSE to infer that you got the good grade because you wore blue.

13. Slippery slope = An argument of the form A will lead to B, B will lead to C, . . ., Y will lead to Z. Therefore, A will lead to Z (especially where Z is absurd). Example: Drinking a coke will lead to drinking other caffeinated beverages, like coffee. Drinking caffeinated beverages, like coffee, will lead to drinking other mood-altering beverages, like beer and wine. Drinking mood-altering beverages, like beer and wine, will lead to ingesting other mood-altering substances, like amphetamines and marijuana. Therefore, drinking a coke will lead to marijuana use.

14. Weak analogy = The two things being compared are alike in some respects but the argument overlooks significant ways in which they are different.

15. Begging the question = Arguing from a premise which is only accepted by people who already share your opinion on the answer to the question.

16. Complex question = Trying to tie several issues together and get one answer to them all. What you need to do is separate the issues and answer each individually.

17. False dichotomy = Supposing that there are only two (or a very few) options.

18. Suppressed evidence = The premises are true but leave out relevant information which should be known to anyone offering the premises.

19. Equivocation = An inference which depends upon understanding a single word in two different ways.

20. Amphiboly = An inference which depends upon ambiguous grammar.

21. Composition = Arguing that since each member of a group has a property that the group also has it. Generally such arguments suppose that collections are no different than the things which make up the collections, that there are no collective properties.

22. Division = Arguing that each member of a group must have the very same properties held by the group as a whole.

[luceph]

I'm sorry to dredge this topic up from the depths but I felt I had to make a couple of comments. Kyle, when I said that I accept the good with the bad in regards to the ACLU, I meant in context of the Bill of Rights. For example, in order for me to be able to say what I wish, those whose beliefs are repugnant to me must be allowed to speak as well. The ACLU has sued on behalf of white supremecists, the NRA and NAMBLA, all of which I consider the "bad" to ensure that they are protected by the same rights that protect me because freedom only exists if no group is excluded from that freedom. As for your other snipe at them, once again the ACLU is NOT anti-Christian, they are anti-state sponsored religion. Whether it exists at the school, city, county, state or national level, the ACLU opposes the endorsement of one religion over another and maybe right now you would like that to happen. Maybe right now you would like Congress to pass a law establishing Christianity as the "official" religion of the United States and would like the President to sign it into law. Maybe you would like that to pass, secure in your belief that your way is the right way and your religion the one true religion and that it will always be so...but things change. One day you might wake up and find your beliefs a minority in this country, the religion you support outlawed, the god you believe in banned. The ACLU tries to ensure that it doesn't happen that way. They try to ensure that you can go to the church you wish, believe what you wish, worship whom you wish.