I have always supported the ACLU. Even on their controversial stands (are there any another kinds?). They even agreed to assist me in my struggle to change the "oath" that jurors must say before being accepted as a juror at any trial in my FL. District, after I had won on my own. ( No more "So help me God" required around here!) Still, my heart was broken when I read that the ACLU had thwarted the citizens of progressive San Francisco, by opposing a citizens' petition generated ordinance against circumcision of underage patients. They took the side of knife wielding mohels, and moslems wielding sharpened stones, and greedy doctors, over the interests of little children who committed the sin of being born with a normal penis.
If anyone here can disabuse me of the opinion that the lawyers of the ACLU, who decided to take this case, were NOT holding the bronze-age tradition of sexual mutilation, over the rights of a little kid to his un-mutilated penis, please give me another explanation. Also, do they support female genital mutilation? Oh, that is not a Jewish tradition, is it? Moslems say it is NOT in the koran, but it is very widely practiced, and never condemned by them, that I have read.
I WANT my mind changed! The ACLU has been nearly heroic in my earlier estimation, and I am always the questioner and the skeptic. Say it ain't so!