ACLU

[SpeedRacer 1]

hmmm...I guess I believe in the basic principal behind the ACLU, but I think they pick the wrong battles sometimes. A bunch of them got their panties in a knot over the monument in the memorial park that has the 10 commandments on them. It's been there over 50 years, why are they raising a stink now?

You say they stick up for the little guy. But it seems to me that often they seem to be overly zealous in fighting for freedom FROM religion rather than freedom OF religion. I may be wrong about that judgement, maybe I just don't know of too many instances where they actually stood up for someone's right to practice their religion (especially if that religion is Christianity), for example.

I understand (& agree with) their objections to teacher-led prayer in public schools, but they are so fanatical about it that they don't even want public schools to have a "moment of silence" during homeroom, during which a student would be free to pray or not as s/he chooses.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[cgross 1]

If you do not give reasons greenie.. the ACLU will sue YOU!

[skycop 0]

Fuck the ACLU,
We tried to get them to support a pro labor, FOP type situation once and they laughed at us. They have a heavily funded agenda that effects very few.
In the short term they seem okay, in the long term they fuck anybody with any sense of morality!
IMHO
FUCK EM'

"Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"

[cgross 1]

now i will give my .02 i guess.

Though the idea of the ACLU was a good one, they have gone from a non-profit for the little man to big business, sue every little man, government or town they can to support their hot shot lawyers.

I do not agree with what they do either. Instead of promoting equal rights, they promote NO rights.

Forcing a school to change the name of Christmas break on their schedule to "Winter break" is ridiculous.

I understand the pricipal of it, but to threaten lawsuites over 1 million dollars to a small school district that can not afford to fight it themselves is a scare tactic and facism!!!!!

We all have freedom of speech, except when it maliciously injurs others. What about the NAMBLA case? (North American Man Boy Love Assoc). There website promotes and explains how to capture/lure and rape underage boys in th USA, and our ACLU is defending this.
Whether I agree with NAMBLA or not, that is malitious harm, just as is screaming fire in a theather. Anyone agree or dissagree?

Chris

[cgross 1]

I agree... they have a huge agenda!!!

[Jimbo 0]

Do you support the ACLU? Why or why not?
(Edit: I just got a little further down this thread and it looks as though you're not a huge fan of the ACLU. My apologies for not reading the entire thread before responding.)

As an alternative please look at the Institute for Justice. This quote from the front page pretty much sums up my feelings regarding the ACLU in it's current form:

Quote

Once people turned first to the ACLU whenever government violated their rights. No longer. As that group has fought in recent years to create a right to welfare, to preserve racial preferences, and to prop up the pillars of the welfare state, people have increasingly sought a principled alternative that will protect individual rights rather than expand government.

That alternative is the Institute for Justice.

Finally, the ACLU and it's mission were debated here only a month and half ago.

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[cgross 1]

wow... that got to be a good heated thread. I wish i had been around for that one.

Tha ACLU is a fucking joke, and the more facts I read the more pissed off I get. I get mad because they have this rep with being good, so people give money to these already rich assholes, under the assumption good things are being done with it.

Stop infringing on our rights, and start protecting them.

[CrazyIvan 0]

Quote

wow... that got to be a good heated thread. I wish i had been around for that one.

Tha ACLU is a fucking joke, and the more facts I read the more pissed off I get. I get mad because they have this rep with being good, so people give money to these already rich assholes, under the assumption good things are being done with it.

Stop infringing on our rights, and start protecting them.

That's why I took the Fifth, because if I say what I have to say about the ACLU, I'd get banned of this board

__________________________________________
Blue Skies and May the Force be with you.

[Muenkel 0]

Quote

hmmm...I guess I believe in the basic principal behind the ACLU, but I think they pick the wrong battles sometimes. A bunch of them got their panties in a knot over the monument in the memorial park that has the 10 commandments on them. It's been there over 50 years, why are they raising a stink now?

You say they stick up for the little guy. But it seems to me that often they seem to be overly zealous in fighting for freedom FROM religion rather than freedom OF religion. I may be wrong about that judgement, maybe I just don't know of too many instances where they actually stood up for someone's right to practice their religion (especially if that religion is Christianity), for example.

I understand (& agree with) their objections to teacher-led prayer in public schools, but they are so fanatical about it that they don't even want public schools to have a "moment of silence" during homeroom, during which a student would be free to pray or not as s/he chooses.

I am in total agreement with Speedracer here. There is a wave of anti-Christianity in this country and the ACLU has embraced it whole-heartedly, along with Al Quada, the Taliban, Hezbolloh, etc, etc.

_________________________________________
Chris

[wmw999 2,461]

Quote

There is a wave of anti-Christianity in this country

You know, while I live in Houston (the buckle on the Bible and bubba belt), I just don't see it. Don't get me wrong -- I go to church; in fact, I'm a past president of the church council, and currently the treasurer. I think it could be said that I'm attuned to church.

What I see is an emphasis on making sure that religion isn't institutionalized. While the majority might be Christian, the rights of those who aren't (including Muslim, Wiccans, and atheists) to not feel overwhelmed is real.

Why is the right to not feel overwhelmed by religion more important than a need to speak English? (and actually, I think more emphasis should be put on learning English in the US). Because the Constitution says that the government shall not Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Since governmental entities' participation/encouragement of specific religious expressions legitimizes them over others', it's important.

Does it go too far the other way sometimes? Sure. But does that mean that it's OK not to go far enough so that you don't offend the overwhelming majority of people in the country who consider themselves to be Christians? Nope. Nope. Nope.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Muenkel 0]

One experience I recently had:

I went into our local food co-op just before Christmas. They sell all natural foods, herbs, organic foods, have a kick ass deli, etc. I do love the store, but the culture there is all tree hugging, we're all natural, GWB is evil, big corporations are evil, etc., etc. The ironic thing is, they all eat so "healthy" and "natural", but look like complete shit! I mean these people are uuuuuuuuuugly. I don't think they bathe that often either. Anyway, that is not my point. I pass by the greeting card section and they have a whole bunch of "holiday" cards featuring puppies, kitties, deer, barns. I asked the ladies who were working there if they had any Christian themed "holiday" cards. Their answer was "Oh no, we don't carry those." I ask "And why is that?" Their answer, and I kid you not "We believe in diversity here and we do not want to offend anyone." My reply was "Well, those that would be offended should realize that the definition of Christmas is the birthday of Jesus Christ and that will never change."

I wished them a very Merry Christmas and moved on.

_________________________________________
Chris

[wmw999 2,461]

Quote

Their answer, and I kid you not "We believe in diversity here and we do not want to offend anyone." My reply was "Well, those that would be offended should realize that the definition of Christmas is the birthday of Jesus Christ and that will never change."

Why does that offend you? We live in the US, and lots of people have to take Christmas off even if it's meaningless to them. So they send cards -- it's become cultural. It's a little silly not to carry Christian cards, but that says something about that store. Their choice. I don't think Wal-mart carries a lot of Ramadan cards, do they?

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Muenkel 0]

If they believe in diversity, then why would they exclude Christian themed holiday cards? If they don't want to offend anyone, then why would they offend the Christians, by not carrying Christian themed holiday cards.

To Christians, Christmas has a very specific and sacred meaning.

BTW, I don't shop in Wal-Mart. Those people are uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuugly too.

_________________________________________
Chris

[scottbre 0]

I think I sort of view the ACLU the same way I view PETA. By that I mean, good intentions that more often than not get taken way too far.

"Your mother's full of stupidjuice!"
My Art Project

[wmw999 2,461]

Told you I thought it was silly. But, if you believe in "judge not lest ye be judged," just take it as input not to shop there for Christmas (or probably any other) cards.

Personally, I'm offended by a local restaurant that has a deer head mounted, with the feet underneath turned upside down to use as a gun rack or coat hooks. Nothing wrong to me with a mount, but somehow twisting the beauty of the animal to do that is really grotesque. So I gave them my opinion on a customer return card, and I don't eat there any more.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Muenkel 0]

I think we're both on the same page. That's the beauty of our country...our freedoms.

I actually will continue to patronize that store because they carry some products I use and I also believe in keeping some $$$'s in the local community.

Chris

_________________________________________
Chris

[cgross 1]

The difference herre though is... IF it were up to the ACLU, they would force a store to close, or not sell any card if they didn't carry all cards. THat is crazy. Why must a state take down a X-mas tree in front of thier state house. Because Jews or Muslem find it offensive. SO WHAT. Let the Jews or muslems or whoever put up what they want in front of the state house. They have that right. NOONE is say you can not celebrate what ever you want.

[wmw999 2,461]

Quote

I think we're both on the same page. That's the beauty of our country...our freedoms

Ayup. We might be getting to that page from different sides (I, of course, am always right
Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[cgross 1]

TO me this is not a State and church issue.

THe state is not supporting christianity by having a christmas tree. What does a X-mas tree have to do with Jesus anyway. They are just being Festive.

If another religion wants to put up their symbols of the holidays it is OK too.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

If another religion wants to put up their symbols of the holidays it is OK too.

So I could put up a big pentagram with a goats head in it in front of a government building and that's ok with you?

[Muenkel 0]

Quote

So I could put up a big pentagram with a goats head in it in front of a government building and that's ok with you?

Only in front of the government buildings where Nancy Pelosi wants the illegal aliens to work in.

_________________________________________
Chris

[cgross 1]

LOL... but seriously, if a religion is an established institution yes.. I may not agree with their religion, but they should be entitled the same freedoms I have. I just don't think the ACLU would agree. It doesn't fit their agenda. See, the ACLU hate all religion... sad but true.

[wmw999 2,461]

I think where the some would disagree is with the "religion is an established institution" part. What defines an established institution? And no, they don't hate all religions.

What they're against is the assumption that just because a lot of people agree with a particular religious expression, it's OK. They might go too far sometimes; but if they never went too far, then the default would be to have the line moving in, because it would never be challenged.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[gary350 0]

Quote

The difference herre though is... IF it were up to the ACLU, they would force a store to close, or not sell any card if they didn't carry all cards. THat is crazy. Why must a state take down a X-mas tree in front of thier state house. Because Jews or Muslem find it offensive. SO WHAT. Let the Jews or muslems or whoever put up what they want in front of the state house. They have that right. NOONE is say you can not celebrate what ever you want.

IMHO: You sir, are woefully misinformed about the mission and values of the ACLU, along with the critical role they play in keeping America the kind of place our founding fathers created.

Resistance to ignorance is NOT futile.

[Guest]

I take some issues with them.

First: Their website says "Defending the Bill of Rights", but their position on the Second Amendment was so embarassing and hypocritical that they had to bury it on their site.

Second: They are responsible for the family of a deceased Navy chaplain being forced to bury him in a military cemetery with no religious references or symbology on his marker because to do so would be a "violation of separation of church and state".

There is a court in Lousiana, I think, which has a plaque with the Ten Commandments on it. The judge has refused to remove it. The judge has said that any Federal attempt to remove it will be met with armed opposition. Thus far, it remains.

I think the ACLU is over-rated, mostly because it's run by a bunch of loud-mouthed, wealthy liberal lawyers who don't give a rat's ass about anybody's rights unless they're headline-grabbing and politically correct. Always follow the money. Always.

Frankly, it wouldn't surprise me if they are defending kiddie pornographers on 1st Amendment grounds.

And I never heard anything about the ACLU filing on behalf of the Branch Davidians, the Waco atrocity being the most brutal abuse of government power since Wounded Knee (Oh, wait! The Davidians were Christians, and had guns! Never mind) - the Davidians had to get former Atty Gen Ramsey Clark to fight for them.

They are major contributors to "the tyranny of the minority"; whereby if one person's sensitivities are disturbed because of something that "makes them uncomfortable", everybody else has to suffer.

The ACLU started out as most things do, with the best of intentions and accomplished some worthy goals. That's changed, though.

Remember, they never did find Madeline Murray O'Hair, and good riddance.

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."