Why not?

Why is it that so many people who started out ostensibly championing civil liberties have, instead, ended up focusing most of their energy on restricting what free American citizens may do?

That's what has happened to the American Civil Restrictions Liberties Union.  Perhaps it's because any organization that embraces leftist principles will also naturally end up with a mindset toward limiting what people should be allowed to do or know.  It's the nature of the beast we call "leftism" that, not only can you not always tell the truth, you can't always let the unenlightened masses have their own way.

It's for their own good, of course.

So what brought this on, you ask?  This AP story:

NAPLES -- If Domino's Pizza founder Thomas S. Monaghan has his way, a new town being built in a quiet corner of southwest Florida will be governed by strict Catholic principles, particularly when it comes to sex.

The pizza magnate, raised by nuns in orphanages, is bankrolling the town called Ave Maria with millions of dollars, calling its construction ``God's will.'' Stores won't sell pornographic magazines, pharmacies won't carry condoms or birth control pills, and cable television will carry no X-rated channels, he said in a speech last year to the first annual Boston Catholic Men's Conference.

Civil libertarians say the plan is unconstitutional and promise lawsuits.

Well, naturally.

Since when is allowing people to voluntarily live in a community governed by strict religious principles unconstitutional??  Do these people plan to challenge the existence of every Amish community in Pennsylvania as well?

While [the ACLU's Howard] Simon notes there are religiously homogenous communities across the country, from Hasidic Jews to Mormons, none can ``wield governmental power along the lines of religious principle.''

Okay, granted, at least as far as I can make out.  But what's the difference?  Why is this a bad thing?  Who is being forced to live there?  Countless communities around the country set rules for homeowners who voluntarily join their ranks, making rules that many view as being pretty silly on no more basis than that a majority of homeowners in the area agree to them—how many cars you can have parked outside, what your trees look like, what kind of lights you can put up for the holidays Christmas, etc.  Evidently the only principle around which you cannot set such rules is religion, which only makes my point: the main thing the ACLU concerns itself with is telling people what they cannot do, not what they should be allowed to do.

This is so backwards as to be absurd.

Comments

[Rob]

You're treding dangerously close to pushing me up on my soapbox but as I'm currently low on flinging spittle I'll just say this:

The first ammendment provides freedom of religon, not freedom from religon.

This is a religous nation. It was conceived that way, structured that way and run that way for 200 years now. If you don't like that then why not move to a secular nation rather than change this one from the vast, vast majority that want to keep it the same? Oops, starting to fling... better stop... :-)