Don’t trust the ACLU

James Taranto of OpinionJournal.com points out the ACLU has rewritten the Bill of rights. On the ACLU’s website they say:

It is probably no accident that freedom of speech is the first freedom mentioned in the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” The Constitution’s framers believed that freedom of inquiry and liberty of expression were the hallmarks of a democratic society.

The thing is, there is no elipsis in the First Amendment. The first freedom mentioned in the First Amendment is religion:

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Isn’t it scary when the self-proclaimed protector of civil liberties disavows the freedom of religion?

  • Anonymous

    Howdy, Being from Canada, I am not really familiar with the 'ACLU' or what they stand for. However, from an english perspective, I have often found the elipses are often a lazy writer's way to skip over sections of a quoted passage that the writer has deemed not relevant to the point he/she is trying to make. In this case, I think the writer is trying to highlight the 'freedom of speech' concept of your first amendment and therefore placed the elipses to help truncate the amount of passage the reader must read; an admirable effort, but he/she did use the wrong format to indicate the truncation. Also, considering the small amount that was removed, the case could me made that it is bad form to initally remove it anyway. From my neutral perspective I would have some trouble believing that there is some dark pupose to the passage in that is is puposely trying to mislead people into believing an elipsis is present in the original text and that the writer is 'disavowing' the freedom of religion. I think a charge of improper grammer is more warrented than a charge of deliberate falsehoods. Then again, perhaps I am not an 'uber-cynical' fellow. cheers

  • Anonymous

    Howdy, Being from Canada, I am not really familiar with the 'ACLU' or what they stand for. However, from an english perspective, I have often found the elipses are often a lazy writer's way to skip over sections of a quoted passage that the writer has deemed not relevant to the point he/she is trying to make. In this case, I think the writer is trying to highlight the 'freedom of speech' concept of your first amendment and therefore placed the elipses to help truncate the amount of passage the reader must read; an admirable effort, but he/she did use the wrong format to indicate the truncation. Also, considering the small amount that was removed, the case could me made that it is bad form to initally remove it anyway. From my neutral perspective I would have some trouble believing that there is some dark pupose to the passage in that is is puposely trying to mislead people into believing an elipsis is present in the original text and that the writer is 'disavowing' the freedom of religion. I think a charge of improper grammer is more warrented than a charge of deliberate falsehoods. Then again, perhaps I am not an 'uber-cynical' fellow. cheers

  • Anonymous

    Howdy,

    Being from Canada, I am not really familiar with the ‘ACLU’ or what they stand for. However, from an english perspective, I have often found the elipses are often a lazy writer’s way to skip over sections of a quoted passage that the writer has deemed not relevant to the point he/she is trying to make.

    In this case, I think the writer is trying to highlight the ‘freedom of speech’ concept of your first amendment and therefore placed the elipses to help truncate the amount of passage the reader must read; an admirable effort, but he/she did use the wrong format to indicate the truncation. Also, considering the small amount that was removed, the case could me made that it is bad form to initally remove it anyway.

    From my neutral perspective I would have some trouble believing that there is some dark pupose to the passage in that is is puposely trying to mislead people into believing an elipsis is present in the original text and that the writer is ‘disavowing’ the freedom of religion. I think a charge of improper grammer is more warrented than a charge of deliberate falsehoods. Then again, perhaps I am not an ‘uber-cynical’ fellow.

    cheers

  • Anonymous

    Howdy,

    Being from Canada, I am not really familiar with the ‘ACLU’ or what they stand for. However, from an english perspective, I have often found the elipses are often a lazy writer’s way to skip over sections of a quoted passage that the writer has deemed not relevant to the point he/she is trying to make.

    In this case, I think the writer is trying to highlight the ‘freedom of speech’ concept of your first amendment and therefore placed the elipses to help truncate the amount of passage the reader must read; an admirable effort, but he/she did use the wrong format to indicate the truncation. Also, considering the small amount that was removed, the case could me made that it is bad form to initally remove it anyway.

    From my neutral perspective I would have some trouble believing that there is some dark pupose to the passage in that is is puposely trying to mislead people into believing an elipsis is present in the original text and that the writer is ‘disavowing’ the freedom of religion. I think a charge of improper grammer is more warrented than a charge of deliberate falsehoods. Then again, perhaps I am not an ‘uber-cynical’ fellow.

    cheers