Isn't it just amazing how those who curse the ACLU for being anti-christian, when pointed to the fact that the ACLU has defended christians, go on to say that "oh, that's just a publicity stunt, they actually are anti-christian"(paraphrase), and then turn around and say "Falwell's not racist--he supported a black for president!".
In one case, the argument is invalid, in the other, it is valid. interesting, that.
the argument I'm talking about--the one or a few cases in which person X supports position Y decides to support the opposite of Y actually means that the person supports the opposite of Y, not Y.
In other words, if a racist supports one or a few black man(men), that he means he's not racist. (never mind the rest of the mountain of evidence supporting that the person is a racist).
and NJ, this is pointed at you. I seem to recall you being the one starting a thread within the past year on the ACLU and how it's anti-christian. If you didn't argue that position, this is directed toward those who did.