This book is a must-read for those who even marginally think the infamous ACLU may be somewhat less than what it presents itself to be. This book is written by Alan Sears and Craig Osten of Alliance Defending Freedom, formerly known as the Alliance Defense Fund. The book is directed mainly towards Christians and other conservatives as an expose of the extreme leftist agenda of the inappropriately named American Civil Liberties Union. The book reports on case after case after case of the ACLU's attack on Christians and other conservatives. It is an eye-opener and needs to be read by everyone. The ACLU is NOT what it pretends to be. It is not interested in civil liberties at all. It is only interested in beating down everyone who stands against socialism and leftist ideology. ( )

The main objective of The ACLU vs. America is to establish and document the duplicity of the ACLU. The authors contend that although the ACLU presents itself as a sort of apolitical defender of free speech in all forms, this is simply not the case. Instead, they attempt to demonstrate that the ACLU has (and has always had) a rather insidious ideological agenda which includes, among other things, defense of the "right" to abortion at all costs, including the free speech of those who happen to oppose abortion.

I think the authors do a fine job of meeting their goal (as was roughly articulated in the preceding paragraph). Although I had been rather skeptical of the motives and the agenda of the ACLU for quite some time, this book helped me to better understand that agenda and to sort out my own view on the matter. The chapter devoted to ACLU opposition to public Christmas celebrations was especially sobering. I say this because, unlike abortion or gay marriage, there seems to me no room for reasonable disagreement about the question of whether or not utterances of "merry christmas" are (a) offensive and (b) protected by the first amendment.

I do have several complaints about the tone of the book and the style of argument. This is why I've only given it three stars.

My first complaint is a practical one. This book is specifically targeted, it seems, to conservative Christians. There's an assumed background of shared theological and ideological commitment between the authors and their perceived readers that is unnecessary and occasionally off putting. The serious worries about the ACLU's agenda are not local to the religious right. Many politically and theologically moderate, mainstream Americans would be just as disturbed by the events discussed in this book even without the shared background beliefs. I think the book would've been more effective if it were written for a broader audience.

Second, and more importantly, the authors lose a lot of credibility when they somewhat frequently resort to ad hominem arguments. For example, they '"argue" with a position advocated by Peter Singer by noting that Singer has, in some of his published work, claimed that bestiality isn't inherently immoral. Now, I don't agree with most of Singer's views (even though I'm a vegan) nor do I agree with his more general normative and meta-ethical commitments, yet, I am still able to respect him as a philosopher and an opponent. Singer is not just some ideologue whose arguments can be dismissed with a flick of the wrist. Furthermore, you CANNOT rebut someone's position on euthanasia by simply saying that they think bestiality is permissible. At the very least all that that shows is that they might not be a very reliable guide in matters of practical philosophy. It does not in any way show that the person's specific argument is incorrect. The reason I am focusing on this issue and on Singer in particular is because this kind of stuff happens several times throughout the book and it really diminishes the intellectual credibility of the authors. As lawyers, one expects that they've been trained to construct better arguments than the one I've just sketched.

Additionally, the authors cite as "authorities" folks like the notorious Ann Coulter. Why do such a thing? The points against the ACLU stand on their own two feet and needn't be bolstered by ad hominem or by citing the opinions of partisan politicos of dubious intellectual credibility.

All criticism aside, I'd still recommend this book and I support and agree with its basic narrative. ( )