I've had it both with the ACLU, and with frivolous lawsuits
Back in the olden days I strongly supported the ACLU.

The olden days are gone.

Their persecution of the Boy Scouts of America was definitely the very last drop. They also believe in defending polygamy, child pornography, and pedophiles.

The ACLU receives taxpayers' money:

For instance, when the ACLU takes a city to court claiming a Christmas display violates the Establishment Clause, if the municipality loses, the city's taxpayers are often forced to pay ACLU attorneys. This law now creates an incentive for the ACLU to file ever more challenges of this kind. Do you want to know why the ACLU lawyers file these ridiculous lawsuits by the dozens? Because they get paid to do it – by you.

Another way to take the financial incentive out of these suits legislatively is by passing a law that cuts back the standing of the ability to bring Establishment Clause claims. Currently, anyone who is offended by what they see, a Ten Commandments display, a manger scene, a Christmas tree or a menorah, can bring suit.

Nowhere else in litigation is it so easy to make a claim. In most other areas of the law, you need to have a personal, direct injury.

This works as an incentive to bring absurd lawsuits, whether directly funded by the ACLU or inspired by the ACLU's exemplary bias: In the town of Las Cruces, which literally means THE CROSSES someone's filed a lawsuit demanding the removal of the three crosses on the city's official emblem, because

The lawsuit alleges the emblem violates the First Amendment by placing religious symbols on public property and spending public money to promote religion.

The lawsuit also accuses the city of violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by requiring prospective employees to sign job applications that include a religious symbol.

Of course, one can't leave out the "it's all about me, me, ME!!" aspect of the issue:

Weinbaum and Boyd accuse the city of invading the privacy of their homes with government-sponsored proselytizing.

"This symbol serves no governmental purpose other than to be divisive, to alienate, and disenfranchise Weinbaum, his minor daughter and Boyd," the lawsuit says.

I have no idea and no desire to know just how old are Weinbaum and Boyd (obviously Weinbaum's daughter is young), but according to Wilkipedia Las Cruces was incorporated as a city in 1907. Either Weinbaum and Boyd weren't born yet or they're approaching Biblical seniority. Going by Weinbaum's and Boyd's claim, the city's founding fathers must have named the town and adopted its official emblem for the express purpose of "alienating, and disenfranchising Weinbaum, his minor daughter and Boyd" a full ninety-eight years down the road.

Snarky comments aside, the problem is not that it's all about Weinbaum and Boyd. The problem is that the ACLU is eroding civil society.

Readers of this blog might ask what my position is regarding Intelligent Design vs. the theory of evolution: While I oppose the teaching of Intelligent Design in science classes, I also support a scientific analysis of the theory of evolution that would include whatever findings support or contradict said theory. To me, rigorous scientific study can be introduced at a very early age in schools. Embracing either Intelligent Design or the theory of evolution unquestioningly is wrong. Science, by definition, evolves based on the impartial analysis of facts that can be quantified and reproduced. Maintaining science in the science classroom is a top priority in any society.

If you're a blogger, visit the Stop the ACLU. I'm joining their blogburst today, and quote them

This was a production of Stop The ACLUblogburst. Over 100 blogs are already on board. If you want to join us, just register through our portal. We will add you to our mailing list, and send you the info on how to get aboard and fight the ACLU.

Enough with the ACLU.