Honestly its my bias toward them, I believe that they fight against more things that I believe in. Like the second amendment. They believe in the right for a well regulated militia or groups to bear arms but do not see it as an individual right. I am clearly opposed to that position based on mine and many others view of the amendment. The ACLU is against the death penalty and I am for it. There are more issues on religion and so on. But I think that as much as they fight for some things it seems that they dont fight as hard for others, and I believe that some of their fights have stifled the rights of other individuals for the sake of a few and I do not believe that either group needed to be stifled. I am not a big fan of litigation either but I know it is needed.
You also do understand that our rights ARE for the few to protect them against the majority opinion, right? Otherwise, there's no need for rights.
I am not a big fan of theirs because the people whose rights they defend are too extreme for me and I am not a big believer in the slippery slope theory.
I think because they are generally loved by far left liberals and have been a punching bag for many years for the far right, you are grouping them together with everything you don't like about liberals.
I honestly qwould liek to see an example of where they have trampled on other's rights.
So of the causes they defend are obnoxious, but nowhere is the constitution do you have a right not be offended.
Key Issues | American Civil Liberties Union
Also there stance on religion in schools seems very balanced. From Religion and Schools - Recent Court Cases, Issues and Articles | American Civil Liberties Union:
...students’ rights of religious exercise and expression cannot be ignored. There are times when religion at school is appropriate. Students’ rights to pray voluntarily and express themselves religiously are intrinsically important.
The ACLU works to protect public school students’ religious freedom by curbing the practice of school-sponsored religion and ensuring that students may freely express and exercise their faith. We also defend students' free speech rights in the public schools and students' rights to pray in the schools. Additionally, whenever a teacher allows children to choose their own topics for an assignment (such as which book to read or which topic to study for a presentation), students may choose religious themes and the ACLU has protected their right to do so.
Children's religious education should be directed primarily by parents, families, and religious communities, not the public schools.
Given the reference to "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of a free State," the ACLU has long taken the position that the Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right. For seven decades, the Supreme Court's 1939 decision in United States v. Miller was widely understood to have endorsed that view.
The Supreme Court has now ruled otherwise. In striking down Washington D.C.'s handgun ban by a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court's 2008 decision in D.C. v. Heller held for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, whether or not associated with a state militia.
The ACLU disagrees with the Supreme Court's conclusion about the nature of the right protected by the Second Amendment. We do not, however, take a position on gun control itself. In our view, neither the possession of guns nor the regulation of guns raises a civil liberties issue.
While they say they have no position, tehy clearly have a position. As the prayer issue is concerned I dont find their words very moving. I hapen to see it theother way, like I stated previous it is a personal bias.