Opie 0 #51 January 10, 2003 Quote..... SO WHAT. Let the Jews or muslems or whoever put up what they want in front of the state house. They have that right....... Separation of Church and State.... you seem to be arguing for the inclusion of all religions in our govt. this is not what are constitution provides for. It is to keep the govt. free of all religions and to allow you to decide which if any you choose to follow. It's not that the aclu hates all religion but that they are striving to keep the govt free of all religion (even the most popular ones). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Muenkel 0 #52 January 10, 2003 The ACLU was created to protect the civil liberties of all Americans. Not an easy task at all! IMHO, unfortunately in their quest, they have drifted off track and to an extreme. What Chris mentioned earlier about them defending NAMBLA is a fact. This in my opinion is a criminal organization and I don't see how any civil human being could defend them. Also, why would they not defend the civil liberties of the victims of NAMBLA. The ACLU has become very good at using rhetoric to defend their defense of the indefensible. _________________________________________ Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,009 #53 January 10, 2003 >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. Only if it's a government operated or funded store. Private stores can do whatever they want within the law. >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. Would you be OK with a burning cross in front of your kid's school, if one of the teachers felt strongly that the KKK was right? How about if every classroom had a statue of Allah, and prayer mats were handed out every day - just in case someone wanted to pray to Mecca? >Let the Jews or muslems or whoever put up what they want in >front of the state house. They have that right. No they don't, any more than you have the right to build a shack on the lawn of the state house. It's not your property - I (and a lot of other people) paid for it through our taxes. >NOONE is say you can not celebrate what ever you want. You are exactly right. Buy that state house from the government, make it your private property, and I'd support your right to put up whatever you wanted to (and I suspect even the ACLU would support your right to do so.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,009 #54 January 10, 2003 >There is a court in Lousiana, I think, which has a plaque with the Ten Commandments on it. The thing about that I find funny is that they put them up, obviously because they seem to mean something to the judge etc, and then they ignore them. If someone came into the court accused of ignoring the Sabbath, the case would be thrown out. Sorta like putting up a sign that says "Homosexuality is wrong!" because the judge believes that, but then applying the law accurately to gays (i.e. not considering homosexuality illegal.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,009 #55 January 10, 2003 >IMHO, unfortunately in their quest, they have drifted off track and to an extreme. I agree here. They, like many organizations that start out with a good intention, got off track a while ago. >What Chris mentioned earlier about them defending NAMBLA is a fact. Yep. I suspect they would also defend the Army of God website, an extremist website that celebrates the murder of doctors that perform abortions. Neither NAMBLA nor the Army of God comes out and says that they encourage any crime (murder or molestation) although their agendas are both clear, and both claim that the current laws are wrong. I hate both organizations, and would not support either one. Same for racist and sexist organizations. However, I also recognize that we live in a country where anyone can loudly argue for whatever they want, even if that thing is currently distasteful, illegal or morally wrong. And that's a good thing, even if it bothers some people. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tink1717 2 #56 January 10, 2003 I support the ACLU and am a card carrying member. They do good work to protect the freedoms guaranteed in the constitution. They protect freedom of speech even when that speech is not popular. The protect the separation of church and state, despite the vast unpopularity of such a quest. They fight against the selling out of our government to the highest corporate bidder. If they didn't who would?Skydivers don't knock on Death's door. They ring the bell and runaway... It really pisses him off. -The World Famous Tink. (I never heard of you either!!) AA #2069 ASA#33 POPS#8808 Swooo 1717 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cgross 1 #57 January 10, 2003 That is where you are wrong! NAMBLA does encourage crime openly Go to their website, but do it on a friends computer so you do not get flagged. They clearly explain how to get an UNWILLING minor into your car or house, to be your "sexual" partner. UNWILLING... Doesn't that sound like rape! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cgross 1 #58 January 10, 2003 Really.... they do all that. They also waste your money, and mine. Yours because you are a card carrying member, and ours both because we pay taxes. Taxes that go to defending frivolous Moronic lawsuites. IF the ACLU did not exist, i find it hard to believe we would be living in some sort of monarchy. The ACLU is a bunch of rich PC police that HURT the little man instead of helping him. Why is it they seem to always go after small communities (whether schools or local government) and not obvious offenders in major cities? They use $$$ and power to put fear into the little man. That is called FACISM Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gary350 0 #59 January 10, 2003 Quote. . . see how informed some people are. . . Chris Personally, I'm pretty well informed regarding the ACLU and the United States Constitution, not just the headlines about them. How 'bout you? From the ACLU Position Paper "Freedom is Why We're Here" (Quoted for the benefit of those folks with strong, almost visceral opinions that may not actually know what the ACLU is really about. . .) >The ACLU is frequently asked to explain its defense of certain people or groups - particularly controversial and unpopular entities such as the American Nazis, the Ku Klux Klan, and the Nation of Islam. We do not defend them because we agree with them; rather, we defend their right to free expression and free assembly. Historically, the people whose opinions are the most controversial or extreme are the people whose rights are most often threatened. Once the Government has the power to violate one person's rights, it can use that power against anyone. We work to stop the erosion of civil liberties before it's too late. In my own words, the Bill of Rights only works if it works for EVERYONE - Nazis, Christians, Muslims, Atheists, flag burners, NAMBLA (disgusting, but true) - so long as they are not breaking the law. WHAT IDEA IS MORE FUNDAMENTALY AMERICAN? Yes, the ACLU fights for separation of church and state. But did you know they are also there when the rights of Christians are threatened? You just don't hear about those cases, since they aren't as controversial as Skokie or NAMBLA. . . And let me add this - the ACLU is completely incapable of making or interpreting law. They may advocate for group and individual rights, but it is ultimately AMERICA'S COURTS that decide what is constitutional. Complete text of ACLU Position Paper here, in PDF: www.aclu.org/Files/OpenFile.cfm?id=10740 Also perhaps worth a read, for those who may have missed it, the US Constitution: www.in.gov/judiciary/rules/usconst/usconst.pdf Resistance to ignorance is NOT futile Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tink1717 2 #60 January 10, 2003 Maybe if there weren't so many morons, there wouldn't need to be so many law suits. If you don't like the protection of things like the ACLU or the Southern Poverty Law Center, why don't you move to someplace where they have no such protections? Like maybe Saudi Arabia or Iran. Besides, how long can a government stand that says on thing and does another? Who long SHOULD such a government be ALLOWED to stand?Skydivers don't knock on Death's door. They ring the bell and runaway... It really pisses him off. -The World Famous Tink. (I never heard of you either!!) AA #2069 ASA#33 POPS#8808 Swooo 1717 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #61 January 10, 2003 QuoteQuote. . . see how informed some people are. . . From the ACLU Position Paper... Interesting that your idea of being "informed" about the ACLU means reading their position paper and agreeing with them. Have you read any independent (i.e. not written by the ACLU) information about them? Their record on protecting "politically incorrect" speech is incredibly poor. I quit the ACLU after they supported speech codes on campus at my college. The university expelled a student (for hanging a confederate flag), and the ACLU filed a brief in support of the university. Go ACLU! Free speech for all who are politically correct and agree with us!-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
yardhippie 0 #62 January 10, 2003 Ok to tie this to the religion post... if you are testifying in a court of law... they ask you to swear on the bible right? What if that book means nothing to you? Just a question... Goddam dirty hippies piss me off! ~GFD "What do I get for closing your rig?" ~ me "Anything you want." ~ female skydiver Mohoso Rodriguez #865 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,009 #63 January 10, 2003 >They clearly explain how to get an UNWILLING minor into your car >or house, to be your "sexual" partner. And if anyone acts on that information, and uses it to commit a crime, then both the perpetrator and the organization are charged with a crime, and the courts decide. Which is how it should be. And if they are found guilty I would hope that they, at the very least, do a lot of jail time. You can talk about getting a woman drunk, and about how much you want to have sex with her. You can talk about how she's hot, and say "I saw her first!" and try to talk her into going home with you. You could discuss with your friends, or even with her, all the things you want to do with her. She may find it disgusting, but she can walk away if she wants. Until you rape her I would support your right to talk about all those things. Even if she's 16. Even if they disgust me. And if you do rape her, you go to jail. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gary350 0 #64 January 11, 2003 >Have you read any independent (i.e. not written by the ACLU) information about them? Yes, and sometimes my reaction to certain things the ACLU does is dismay, anger, confusion. . . But, I try to stay open and understand the big picture. Sometimes I can't. One can strongly agree with the mission and ideals of an organization (or of a country for that matter), while disagreeing with some (or many) of its specific positions. In fact, I imagine it would be difficult to find any member (or staff member) that is not uncomfortable (or disgusted with, more likely) some of the ACLU positions, or lack of them. Still: "The ACLU, and groups like it, provides a real and needed voice against those who would seek to undermine the rights granted in the Constitution. If they did not exist, such rights would be woefully underrepresented. In a sense, they exist to remind us of the reasons for which the United States was founded: the freedoms that make us human." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cgross 1 #65 January 11, 2003 Well, the ACLU is currently defending NAMBLA for just that! A man in the organization raped and killed a 7yr old boy. NAMBLA stands firm it has nothing to do with murder, but as far as "kiddie rape" that is OK in their book. They created the website which the rapist said he got his ideas from. NAMBLA states that is why it is there. So, the Gov is going after NAMBLA for Malicious speech which resulted in the rape of a minor. The ACLU is defending them say "FREE SPEECH". Free speach can not be a defence when the intent of that speech is specifically designed to hurt physically another person. I mean this isn't even an arguable defence. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #66 January 11, 2003 QuoteBut, I try to stay open and understand the big picture. Unfortunately, the ACLU's "big picture" is significantly different from mine. In addition to free speech, the ACLU supports a grab bag of generally leftist political views on issues ranging from affirmative action to welfare. Their idea of the "big picture" involves compromising their free speech roots in favor of these other issues. I refuse to accept compromise on free speech, which is probably the political issue dearest to my heart. I certainly reject compromising it in favor of other political issues, and I am sickened by compromising it in favor of other positions that I do not share. If the ACLU goes back to it's roots (free speech), I'll go back to the ACLU. So long as they continue to support a wide set of positions (with freedom of expression increasingly marginalized in their hierarchy), I will continue to support other free speech advocates.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cgross 1 #67 January 11, 2003 HERE IS A GOOD ONE FOR YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!! RELIGION IN SCHOOL? ISLAM IS OK IN CA Christians nationwide were shocked to learn that many Middle Schools in California require children to dress in Muslim robes, call themselves Muslims and learn to become warriors to fight for Islam. The ACLU is not filing any lawsuits over this practice. The ACLU does not see any conflict here with "separation of church and state." Now let us suppose that the schools had required the kids to dress up as Pilgrims and to call themselves "Christians". Of course the ACLU would file a lawsuit to stop such a "violation" of "separation of church and state" in an instant. What is the difference? Diversity of course. If the religion in question is not the Christian faith, then it is just fine to cram it down the throats of school age kids regardless of how repulsive it is to them or to their parents. Brad Dacus, the chief counsel of the Pacific Justice Institute said, "A lot if it is a desire to overly compensate in the name of political correctness." The course on Islam is one of 11 units in a social studies class called "World History and Geography: Medieval and Early Modern Times," that is taught all over the state of California. This is not isolated to one or two schools, but rather is required in the state’s curriculum standards. Teachers can present the course in moderation or go to extremes. In the case of the Excelsior School in Oakland, 125 seventh-graders were required to wear robes and refer to themselves as Muslims. The kids were forced to read verses from the Koran. The course handout said, "From the beginning, you and your classmates will become Muslims." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
