NationStates Jolt Archive

Why? What's so awful about protecting civil liberties?


www.stoptheaclu.org

because the republicans don't get endorsed by the ACLU. It's all politics.

Well, basicly, things like free speech, free press, free assembly, freedom of religion, fair trials and equal protections tend to get in the way of the Republican's main screwing-the-people policies.

This is a rivalry and hatred that goes back many, many, many years. I think one classic example of it is the Scopes Monkey Trial, in which an ACLU lawyer defending a teacher's right to teach evolution.

No idea. American politics give me brain pain, in all seriousness.

Well, basicly, things like free speech, free press, free assembly, freedom of religion, fair trials and equal protections tend to get in the way of the Republican's main screwing-the-people policies.

That was one of the best lines I've seen, heard or read in weeks. Bravo :D

Christian Republican Here.
I must admit I dont like the ACLU.
However I think I would like America a lot less, without the ACLU.
I disagree with a lot of things they have done, but I am certain without a doubt that many Republicans and Christians have benefitted from ACLU aid-even it that doesnt make the History channel or CNN or my local paper.

But yeah, I dont like the ACLU. I dont like cops either, but I dont want them gone.

ive never really understood why people hate the aclu so much. they seem to think that there are some people who just dont deserve constitutional protection.

after all, thats all the ACLU does, they press constitutional issues no matter who the person is, from rush limbaugh to the KKK to flag burners. where would we be if there werent people willing to defend the our constitution?

That was one of the best lines I've seen, heard or read in weeks. Bravo :D
*bows*

ive never really understood why people hate the aclu so much. they seem to think that there are some people who just dont deserve constitutional protection.

after all, thats all the ACLU does, they press constitutional issues no matter who the person is, from rush limbaugh to the KKK to flag burners. where would we be if there werent people willing to defend the our constitution?
Like I said I disagree with a lot of things they have done-on a case by case basis.
I do know however tehy are seeking the same goal I am, preserving the constitution, i just dont like the direction of the road they are taking.
At least I am willing to cop to not liking them even though I understand the need for them.

It's not that they hate the ACLU directly. Its moreso that the ACLU has represented individuals and groups that republicans do hate. NMBLA, for example. Republicans have this idea that standing up for someone's rights automatically implies that you agree with them.

Edit: HA!! I'm quite deadly now, I used to be Sometimes Deadly.

Like I said I disagree with a lot of things they have done-on a case by case basis.
I do know however tehy are seeking the same goal I am, preserving the constitution, i just dont like the direction of the road they are taking.
At least I am willing to cop to not liking them even though I understand the need for them.
i agree with you in many ways. there are groups who get defended by the aclu who are just so WRONG that i wish they could be denied their rights. the aclu keeps us from doing wrong for "right" reasons.

im just glad *I* dont have to do it. there must be times when they have to take a long hot shower at the end of the day to rinse of the filth they have been defending.

I remember a great Onion article whose headline was "ACLU defends Neo-Nazis' right to burn down ACLU headquarters."

It's not that they hate the ACLU directly. Its moreso that the ACLU has represented individuals and groups that republicans do hate. NMBLA, for example. Republicans have this idea that standing up for someone's rights automatically implies that you agree with them.
Read that website. These people's hate has a much clearer direction than you suggest, although your point about confusing the ACLU's policy with the policies of those whom they represent is pretty clear.

Christian Republican Here.
I must admit I dont like the ACLU.
However I think I would like America a lot less, without the ACLU.
I disagree with a lot of things they have done, but I am certain without a doubt that many Republicans and Christians have benefitted from ACLU aid-even it that doesnt make the History channel or CNN or my local paper.

But yeah, I dont like the ACLU. I dont like cops either, but I dont want them gone.
I'm not trying to insult you, but it comes across like you don't even know why you dislike the ACLU.

because the republicans don't get endorsed by the ACLU. It's all politics.
I thought that the ACLU didn't endorse any politicians. They try to stay non-partisan.

Read that website. These people's hate has a much clearer direction than you suggest, although your point about confusing the ACLU's policy with the policies of those whom they represent is pretty clear.

I looked at the site (not for very long as my eyes began to burn) but it seems to me that mostly they just say that the ACLU is trying to turn everyone gay and athiest. So I guess maybe it is a little more direct than I stated, but I still am pretty sure they hate the people that the ACLU represents a lot more than the ACLU itself.

I do like how the website proclaims to protect religious freedom, yet manages to mention no other religion besides christianity.

This is the list of the ACLU's evils

http://www.stoptheaclu.org/wst_page6.html

There isn't one of those I find indefensible, and I would certainly, without question come down on the side of the defendant (and not just the protection of their civil rights) in well over half of those cases.

I looked at the site (not for very long as my eyes began to burn) but it seems to me that mostly they just say that the ACLU is trying to turn everyone gay and athiest. So I guess maybe it is a little more direct than I stated, but I still am pretty sure they hate the people that the ACLU represents a lot more than the ACLU itself.
Oh, yeah, I'm sure they hate them more, but not exclusively.

Republicans don't hate the ACLU; they hate what the ACLU does. Always defending liberal causes but very very seldom-defending conservative causes.

Lets face it folks, a very large majority of the people of Oklahoma voted for the "gay" marriage ban. So, the ACLU jumps in there to “protect the rights…” The Constitution of the US says nothing about a right to marriage. Some states ban marriage between sister and brother, even between first cousins. There is no rights violation in this.

ACLU goes to bat for NMBLA? Get real, those guys are pedophiles. ACLU goes after the Boy Scouts? A private organization that has a right to exclude whomever they want.

Republicans don't hate the ACLU; they hate what the ACLU does. Always defending liberal causes but very very seldom-defending conservative causes.
If freedom to speech, religion, and the right to a fair trial are "liberal" causes, I'm glad I'm not a conservative.

The Constitution of the US says nothing about a right to marriage. Some states ban marriage between sister and brother, even between first cousins. There is no rights violation in this.
Some states banned interracial marriage back in the day. Nothing unconstitutional about that, right?

I'm tired of having to say this, but just because a right is not expressly listed in the constitution, that does not mean you do not have that right. Read the 9th Amendment sometime.

ACLU goes after the Boy Scouts? A private organization that has a right to exclude whomever they want.
But they are tax exempt, and promoted on military bases. Thus, not such a private organization.

If they payed their taxes and ran independantly, I would support their right to exlude gays, non-Christians, blacks, whoever. They have a right to bigotry, just not as a publicly supported organization.

If they payed their taxes and ran independantly, I would support their right to exlude gays, non-Christians, blacks, whoever. They have a right to bigotry, just not as a publicly supported organization.

I never thought of that, but it's certainly a valid point. Still, the NAMBLA thing is a bit hard to stomach. I'd have to say that I agree with most of the ACLU's causes, though.

Why? What's so awful about protecting civil liberties?


www.stoptheaclu.org

The ACLU was never intended to be a defender of civil liberties. It was founded by communists, including (but not limited to) William Z. Foster, Roger Baldwin, Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, etc., in addition to radicals such as John Dewey, Helen Keller, etc. The ACLU is actually a grave threat to civil liberties. They can stomach most religions, but any hint of public display of Christianity is dealt with swiftly and harshly.

The ACLU was never intended to be a defender of civil liberties. It was founded by communists, including (but not limited to) William Z. Foster, Roger Baldwin, Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, etc., in addition to radicals such as John Dewey, Helen Keller, etc. The ACLU is actually a grave threat to civil liberties. They can stomach most religions, but any hint of public display of Christianity is dealt with swiftly and harshly.
really? then why would they defend street preachers? http://atheism.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la%2Dna%2D
preach10nov10%2C0%2C536148.story

or families who fought removal of religious symbols from a Florida cemetary?
http://archive.aclu.org/news/1999/n032299c.html

or students who wished to distribute Christian material at school?
http://archive.aclu.org/news/2002/n071102b.html

or the rights of Christians who wished to protect their freedom of speech on a Main Street plaza?
http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=13287&c=42

or a Christian-organized public prayer around a municipal flag pole?
http://archive.aclu.org/news/1999/w042399b.html

provide one example of the ACLU actually opposing CHRISTIANITY, as opposed to simply preventing Christians from infringing on the rights of non-Christians, please. show one example of a case where the ACLU was not defending civil rights. show one case where they were fighting to take civil rights away from Christians.

ACLU goes to bat for NMBLA? Get real, those guys are pedophiles. ACLU goes after the Boy Scouts? A private organization that has a right to exclude whomever they want.
the ACLU believes that all persons deserve equal civil rights. if you don't defend the free speech of people you disagree with then you aren't defending free speech at all; defending the people on your side isn't about free speech, it's just called "agreement."

The ACLU was never intended to be a defender of civil liberties. It was founded by communists, including (but not limited to) William Z. Foster, Roger Baldwin, Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, etc., in addition to radicals such as John Dewey, Helen Keller, etc.
Maybe the communists did do something good then.

The ACLU is actually a grave threat to civil liberties. They can stomach most religions, but any hint of public display of Christianity is dealt with swiftly and harshly.
This is obviously because no religion except Christianity has attempted to dominate the minority in America.

The ACLU is the voice that speaks for all people.

You seen Rush Limbragh right? They fought for him not because they liked him but becuase they disagreed with his rights being taken away.

They protected racists, pedophiles, and other "evil" creatures but no Christian in his "right" mind would ever defend.


But people misunderstand. They fought for Racists FREE SPEECH they fought for a Pedphiles RIGHT TO PRIVACY guarenteed by our constituion.

COnservatives hate the ACLU becuase most (not all, and certanily Democrats too) of them belive they should have rights but anyone agiasnt them should not.

yeah, damn religious cults. (Christianity) I'm not really anything at all, more of an apathist/atheist. But I do notice a distinct similarity in the way christians and cults recruit and operate. Why does our culture have such a history of oppression and xenophobic cultural ignorance?

yeah, damn religious cults. (Christianity) I'm not really anything at all, more of an apathist/atheist. But I do notice a distinct similarity in the way christians and cults recruit and operate. Why does our culture have such a history of oppression and xenophobic cultural ignorance?

Since this nation is supposedly founded on Christian principles, I guess its a Christian thing?

Since this nation is supposedly founded on Christian principles, I guess its a Christian thing?


*Puts hand over mouth and debates on wether to take it further*

Because the aclu sues at the drop of the hat over the stupidest things?

This is the list of the ACLU's evils

http://www.stoptheaclu.org/wst_page6.html

There isn't one of those I find indefensible, and I would certainly, without question come down on the side of the defendant (and not just the protection of their civil rights) in well over half of those cases.
So you believe that...

-Companies should be allowed to arbitrarily fire male truckers (not even a position in which they interact with the public as an employee) for wearing a dress while off duty and on their own time.
-Public libraries should kick people out for viewing a website because it has "men not wearing shirts" on them. Regardless of the fact that you'll see men not wearing shirts on half the romance novel covers, most of the illustrated books on anatomy, art, and athletics, and can even walk outside and see men running around without shirts.
-Announcements read over the intercom of a public school are "private speech."
-Municipal meetings should open with prayers explicitly appealing to a particular denomination of Christianity.
-The government should regulate in detail the consensual behavior of two adults in privacy.
-If it mentions, depicts, or deals with sex, it is not protected as "free speech."

Etc etc.

Those who hate the ACLU do so because they wish to create a more oppressive country.

The United States was not founded as a Christian country.

It was founded with explicit ideals laid out constitutionally. These ideals include free speech, separation of church and state, due process in the justice system, etc etc etc.

*Puts hand over mouth and debates on wether to take it further*
/Sarcasm

I forgot!

Because the aclu sues at the drop of the hat over the stupidest things?

I'm glad I'm stupid then. Better stupid than a bigot ;-)

Because the aclu sues at the drop of the hat over the stupidest things?
anybody who regards civil liberties as "the stupidest things" should be made to live without them for a while. something tells me you will find new appreciation for the ACLU after a few days without the silly little rights that they defend.

Why? What's so awful about protecting civil liberties?


www.stoptheaclu.org

I'd take guess at the fact that fascists don't like people having civil liberties. Part of the whole opressive society thing they like. RepubliKKKons find it hard to complete their racist, white-bred, anglo-saxon protestant, neo-con agenda when "the stupidest things" like civil liberties get in the way.


[EDIT: ugh, this anti-ACLU organisation can't even spell: "thru" instead of "through"... and they want to be taken seriously.]

The ACLU was never intended to be a defender of civil liberties. It was founded by communists, including (but not limited to) William Z. Foster, Roger Baldwin, Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, etc., in addition to radicals such as John Dewey, Helen Keller, etc. The ACLU is actually a grave threat to civil liberties. They can stomach most religions, but any hint of public display of Christianity is dealt with swiftly and harshly.
1. They're called the American Civil Liberties Union.

2. William Z. Foster? I visited Wikipedia's article by him. He was a communist, but there was not a single mention of the ACLU. I visited the ACLU website and there was no mention of William Z. Foster.

John Dewey was a progressive thinker, not a communist or radical.

Even if they were communists (and remember readers, Roach-Busters also considers Woodrow Wilson to have been a communist), does not mean that they were anti-Civil Liberties. Remember that communism is just a set of economic ideas. It does not denote being a social authoritarian.

It's silly to dismiss the ACLU just because a few of its founders were communists.

3. Read Bottle's post. They're not anti-Christian. They're against Christians imposing their morality on others by law.

A private organization that has a right to exclude whomever they want.
If they payed their taxes and ran independantly, I would support their right to exlude gays, non-Christians, blacks, whoever. They have a right to bigotry, just not as a publicly supported organization.
Wasn't private discrimination banned in America in the 1960s?

I'd take guess at the fact that fascists don't like people having civil liberties. Part of the whole opressive society thing they like. RepubliKKKons find it hard to complete their racist, white-bred, anglo-saxon protestant, neo-con agenda when "the stupidest things" like civil liberties get in the way.
I was kind of hoping for more reasonable explanations than "REpublikons are teh fascists!!11!!".

I'm technically an independent, but I will take a stab prefaced with my own opinion: I don't always agree with the ACLU, but I think they provide a valuable function.

I think the conservative dislike for the ACLU (and part of my problem with them) stems partly from the fact that they do not argue in favor of all rights expressed in the Bill of Rights (Second Amendment, IX, and X). I agree, but think that they've proved themselves invaluable on the Fourth.

Also, I think they have a tendency from time to time to argue stupid cases such as against Christmas decor on public property that garners the ACLU bad press and makes them appear anti-Christian. I am a staunch advocate of seperation of God and government, but really...if your faith in your religion or nonreligion is so shakey that a paper mache baby Jesus offends you, then either your non\faith isn't that strong or perhaps your life has been so utterly devoid of challenge and struggle that you skin isn't very thick.

I think the conservative dislike for the ACLU (and part of my problem with them) stems partly from the fact that they do not argue in favor of all rights expressed in the Bill of Rights (Second Amendment, IX, and X). I agree, but think that they've proved themselves invaluable on the Fourth.

the ACLU does "argue in favor" of the Second Amendment, they just have a different interpretation of that amendment than many conservatives would like. the ACLU maintains that there is no Constitutional impediment to gun control, just as there is no Constitutional impediment to requiring driver's licenses. the 1939 case U.S. v. Miller is the only modern case in which the Supreme Court has addressed this issue, and the Court unanimously ruled that the Second Amendment must be interpreted as intending to guarantee the states' rights to maintain and train a militia. the ACLU accepts this judgment, especially since the Court hasn't had much else to say on the subject since.

as for the ninth and tenth amendments, i would love to see your specific instances of times when the ACLU should have stepped up and failed to. i can't think of any, myself, but perhaps you have some examples. i am fully willing to accept that they drop the ball on those, since there are times i have felt that the ACLU wasn't doing its job, but i can't think of any examples to fit your issues.


Also, I think they have a tendency from time to time to argue stupid cases such as against Christmas decor on public property that garners the ACLU bad press and makes them appear anti-Christian. I am a staunch advocate of seperation of God and government, but really...if your faith in your religion or nonreligion is so shakey that a paper mache baby Jesus offends you, then either your non\faith isn't that strong or perhaps your life has been so utterly devoid of challenge and struggle that you skin isn't very thick.
my "nonfaith" is insulted when public property is dedicated to private religious worship, and i don't see anything wrong with asking that public space be kept public. i don't think that indicates a thin skin, just that it indicates a lack of willingness to stand aside while people break the rules. if their religion is so shakey that they need to put up a paper mache baby Jesus on public land, rather than in their own yard or Church grounds, then obviously they have some issues they need to work out before they start attacking the strength or convictions of those who object to their unConstitutional activities.

Well, Christian ideals can tend to saturate local culture to the extent that people of other faith groups feel disenfranchised. Public spaces should be free from overtly religiously-themed displays, unless they are nonreligious,non-denominational, or multifaith displays. Either nothing at all, or something for everybody.

Maybe that's different from your ideas you've had your whole life about 'traditional christmas/easter/etc.', but things are changing all the time, there's four or five alternative observances to christmas I know of, and christmas is celebrated on at least three dates I know of. Given that much diversity in the community, how could a display in a public space hope to please everybody? Best to go nonreligious or multifaith - but doing nothing at all strikes me as being best.

the 1939 case U.S. v. Miller is the only modern case in which the Supreme Court has addressed this issue, and the Court unanimously ruled that the Second Amendment must be interpreted as intending to guarantee the states' rights to maintain and train a militia. the ACLU accepts this judgment, especially since the Court hasn't had much else to say on the subject since.


That's not what miller says at all. Miller says that firearm ownership can be restricted in cases where thay do not fulfill a militia purpose (in this case a shotgun with a less that 18" barrel).

Also miller is screwed as the government were unopposed by the time the Court heard it.

Also the ACLU, does not follow the miller line, they believe in the collective (states rights) interp of the second ammendment which dicta in miller seems to contradict.

(Edit and I'm fairly sure they don't as a policy matter take 2nd ammendment cases - also there is a lot of civil liberties cases they trun down too involving the 4th and 5th ammendment because they conflict with the ACLU world view regarding property rights.)

That's not what miller says at all. Miller says that firearm ownership can be restricted in cases where thay do not fulfill a militia purpose (in this case a shotgun with a less that 18" barrel).

Also miller is screwed as the government were unopposed by the time the Court heard it.

Also the ACLU, does not follow the miller line, they believe in the collective (states rights) interp of the second ammendment which dicta in miller seems to contradict.

i suppose it is a matter of interpretation. i happen to disagree with you, and i think the ACLU (obviously) holds a different view, but i'm not about to say which side is objectively correct in their interpretation: i have had only one introductory Constitutional Law course, and i don't consider it sufficient to make these evaluations.

I'm fairly sure they don't as a policy matter take 2nd ammendment cases
you're correct. the ACLU remains officially neutral on the subject, because they believe there is ambiguity about what civil rights are actually guaranteed by our system of law when it comes to gun ownership. they choose to take cases that are less fuzzy about the edges, so to speak, cases where there is a clear violation of rights that are clearly delineated. now, definition of clarity is subjective as well, and you most certainly can take issue with their definition, but that's their official position and reasoning on the matter of gun rights.

i suppose it is a matter of interpretation. i happen to disagree with you, and i think the ACLU (obviously) holds a different view, but i'm not about to say which side is objectively correct in their interpretation: i have had only one introductory Constitutional Law course, and i don't consider it sufficient to make these evaluations.



actually if you read the decision it is pretty clear what the holding is.

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.

I'm not much for following precidents such as Miller as I am about literal interpretation. There have been plenty of bad precidents in the past and deferring to them only creates more bad case law. The only thing that I will add is that the beliefs among many constitutional scholars, even the liberal ones such as Lawrence Tribe, have begun to swing in favor of the individual right and not the collective right.

The United States was not founded as a Christian country.


Not founded as a Christian country, true. A country founded on Christian principels. Those principels include life, liberty, etc, etc.

my "nonfaith" is insulted when public property is dedicated to private religious worship, and i don't see anything wrong with asking that public space be kept public. i don't think that indicates a thin skin, just that it indicates a lack of willingness to stand aside while people break the rules. if their religion is so shakey that they need to put up a paper mache baby Jesus on public land, rather than in their own yard or Church grounds, then obviously they have some issues they need to work out before they start attacking the strength or convictions of those who object to their unConstitutional activities.

I apologize if I hurt your sensibilities, but frankly it just seems quite petty to bitch about paper mache Jesus and a tremendous waste of the resources of the ACLU to litigate the issue, when they could be spent on far more important causes.

I'm libertarian and I really dont give jack squat about the ACLU

I'm libertarian and I really dont give jack squat about the ACLU


Ditto...but I understand why some conservatives don't care for it.

Why? What's so awful about protecting civil liberties?

www.stoptheaclu.org

There's nothing inherently wrong with protecting civil liberties. It's just that sometimes the ACLU seems to support "civil liberties" of questionable value. I suppose it depends upon whose ox is being gored.

That's not what miller says at all. Miller says that firearm ownership can be restricted in cases where thay do not fulfill a militia purpose (in this case a shotgun with a less that 18" barrel).

Also miller is screwed as the government were unopposed by the time the Court heard it.

Also the ACLU, does not follow the miller line, they believe in the collective (states rights) interp of the second ammendment which dicta in miller seems to contradict.

(Edit and I'm fairly sure they don't as a policy matter take 2nd ammendment cases - also there is a lot of civil liberties cases they trun down too involving the 4th and 5th ammendment because they conflict with the ACLU world view regarding property rights.)


The U.S. Supreme Court has said little about the Second Amendment, but it has certainly not said that the Amendment secures only a collective right.

Throughout the Court's history, the Justices have mentioned the Second Amendment, usually in passing, in 27 opinions. In 22 of these 27, the Justices quoted or paraphrased only "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" language, without even mentioning the Militia Clause. 15

One of the remaining five cases -- and the only extended 20th-century discussion of the right -- is United States v. Miller (1939), which held that the right extended only to weapons that were rationally related to the preservation of the militia. 16 But the Court emphatically did not hold that the right belonged only to the state or the National Guard. Rather, it reaffirmed that the "militia" referred to the entire armed citizenry, and considered on the merits a lawsuit that was brought by an individual (Miller), not by a state.

The only Supreme Court case that leans in the collective rights direction is Lewis v. United States (1980), which summarily rejected an ex-felon's claim of a right to possess a firearm, in passing citing some lower court cases that took a collective rights view. 17 But Lewis could equally well be explained as concluding only that ex-felons don't have a right to keep and bear arms (something that's also been held in the many states whose constitutions unambiguously guarantee an individual right to keep and bear arms). In any event, if one relies on passing mentions, Casey v. Planned Parenthood (1992) (quoting Justice Harlan) in passing described liberty as including "[freedom from] the taking of property; the freedom of speech, press, and religion; the right to keep and bear arms; the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on" -- a description that treats the right to keep and bear arms as an individual right on par with the other individual rights. 18

Despite all the above evidence, the federal courts of appeal have unanimously subscribed to the states' right approach, though there are a few recent hints to the contrary in some opinions. 19 If the historical or textual evidence were in equipoise, and if the cases dealt carefully with the evidence and explained why the pro-states'-right evidence was more persuasive than the pro-individual-right evidence, then perhaps we might defer to these courts' views. But when the lower courts' decisions are contrary to the unanimous weight of the evidence, and do not really confront this evidence but rely almost entirely on bald assertions or on citations to other lower court decisions, it seems to me that we must respectfully say that the lower courts are mistaken.

The U.S. Supreme Court has said little about the Second Amendment, but it has certainly not said that the Amendment secures only a collective right.

Throughout the Court's history, the Justices have mentioned the Second Amendment, usually in passing, in 27 opinions. In 22 of these 27, the Justices quoted or paraphrased only "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" language, without even mentioning the Militia Clause. 15

One of the remaining five cases -- and the only extended 20th-century discussion of the right -- is United States v. Miller (1939), which held that the right extended only to weapons that were rationally related to the preservation of the militia. 16 But the Court emphatically did not hold that the right belonged only to the state or the National Guard. Rather, it reaffirmed that the "militia" referred to the entire armed citizenry, and considered on the merits a lawsuit that was brought by an individual (Miller), not by a state.

Yeah, that's what I was saying. That miller doesn't hold the collective view.

If anything, miller seems to indicate an individual right view, in that had evidence been offered that the gun in question could have been used in providing for the common defense then miller's possesion of it would have been lawful. Given that there was no defense however - and surprises me that the court actually heard it as by that point miller had disappeared - the court refused to take judicial notice of the purpose of miller's shotgun and refused to opinine upon what uses it was suited too.

Not founded as a Christian country, true. A country founded on Christian principels. Those principels include life, liberty, etc, etc.

please read the bible.the bible reads quite bluntly that liberty is bad and life doesnt belong to the living.

the ACLU does "argue in favor" of the Second Amendment, they just have a different interpretation of that amendment than many conservatives would like. the ACLU maintains that there is no Constitutional impediment to gun control, just as there is no Constitutional impediment to requiring driver's licenses. the 1939 case U.S. v. Miller is the only modern case in which the Supreme Court has addressed this issue, and the Court unanimously ruled that the Second Amendment must be interpreted as intending to guarantee the states' rights to maintain and train a militia. the ACLU accepts this judgment, especially since the Court hasn't had much else to say on the subject since.

What part of "will not be infringed." doesn't the ACLU understand?

Not founded as a Christian country, true. A country founded on Christian principels. Those principels include life, liberty, etc, etc.

Quote the bible where those are found.

Then prove to me, without a shadow of a doubt, that said principals cannot be found in any other religion.

Otherwise, you are WRONG.

I think the conservative dislike for the ACLU (and part of my problem with them) stems partly from the fact that they do not argue in favor of all rights expressed in the Bill of Rights (Second Amendment, IX, and X). I agree, but think that they've proved themselves invaluable on the Fourth.

Also, I think they have a tendency from time to time to argue stupid cases such as against Christmas decor on public property that garners the ACLU bad press and makes them appear anti-Christian.
Maybe the ACLU doesn't go for the 2nd amendment because they might think that
a) gun owners rights aren't infringed
or b) they don't want to use up resources doing soething that the NRA will do

I'm not saying that these are true, they're just my theories.

I agree with you that they sometimes go ovre the top with the public secularism thing. I'm a secularist, but I'm not as opposed to public Christianity as they sometimes appear to be. It is bad to put up the 10 commandments in court and act as if they are real laws; it's bad to ban gay marriage cuz the Bible says so. It's not bad to have a cross in your city's logo. They should stick to the real cases of religious oppression.

the ACLU seems to support "civil liberties" of questionable value.
Presumably the people at ACLU are civil libertarians, and think that all civil liberties are valuable.

The clock is ticking. Freedoms are under assault.
Will you respond?

I love the fact that they are telling us that the ACLU is out to destroy our freedoms. Which ones? The freedom to hate gay people? Where is that in the Constitution?

Hypocrites.

I apologize if I hurt your sensibilities, but frankly it just seems quite petty to bitch about paper mache Jesus and a tremendous waste of the resources of the ACLU to litigate the issue, when they could be spent on far more important causes.
and it seems just as petty for religious citizens to decide that they need public land to announce their faith. it takes two to tango; if the Christians weren't insisting on putting paper mache Jesus where he didn't belong, there would be no need for an organization like the ACLU to spend its time keeping them in line. they could just as easily follow the instructions of their own holy book and keep their faith to themselves, but for some reason they feel the need to inflict it upon the entire public...why is that?

What part of "will not be infringed." doesn't the ACLU understand?
why is it that gun nuts like to ignore the entire first part of a sentence in that amendment, in order to justify their personal right to stockpile weapons?

personally i couldn't care less about gun ownership, and i can see why the ACLU isn't terribly interested in it either. perhaps they have a blind spot there, i really don't know, and if you feel that they need to take on gun rights cases then please do write to them and demand an explanation. then you can get their reasoning straight from the proverbial horses mouth.

i think the ACLU buggers things up sometimes, too. but i don't take their occasional mistakes or oversights as a reason to ignore all the critical work that they do to preserve rights that i consider essential to liberty. they take the cases that need to be fought but which will earn only scorn and disgust (like defending the rights of groups like NAMBLA, or people like Rush Limbaugh) and they do the dirty work that nobody else seems willing to do. i'm happy that there are people willing to stand up for the Constitution, and to defend the civil rights of all citizens, and if they don't manage to defend every violation of every right then perhaps, just maybe, it might be because there are so many goddam cases of civil rights violation that one organization has trouble keeping up. if you think they miss some spots then by all means become an attourney and defend the rights you believe in...we need more people doing that!!

I love the fact that they are telling us that the ACLU is out to destroy our freedoms. Which ones? The freedom to hate gay people? Where is that in the Constitution?

Hypocrites.
the funny thing is, the ACLU will strongly and loudly defend the right to hate gay people. they will defend the freedom of speech of homophobes, just as they have defended the rights of other odious groups. all they are trying to do is ensure that homosexuals receive equal civil rights as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, and they have no interest in stopping people from FEELING or SAYING anything hateful about homosexuals.

their support of NAMBLA has weirded me out: I could stomach them supporting Osama better than that...

their support of NAMBLA has weirded me out: I could stomach them supporting Osama better than that...
they don't support NAMBLA, they support it's right to certain freedoms (the same freedoms granted to ALL by the Constitution). they don't condone or endorse NAMBLA's platform, nor do they excuse any illegal activities that NAMBLA or its members may engage in, they simply defend its rights as they would the rights of any organization.

if equal rights don't apply to EVERYBODY, then what are they worth?

Maybe the ACLU doesn't go for the 2nd amendment because they might think that
a) gun owners rights aren't infringed
or b) they don't want to use up resources doing soething that the NRA will do

I'm not saying that these are true, they're just my theories.

I agree with you that they sometimes go ovre the top with the public secularism thing. I'm a secularist, but I'm not as opposed to public Christianity as they sometimes appear to be. It is bad to put up the 10 commandments in court and act as if they are real laws; it's bad to ban gay marriage cuz the Bible says so. It's not bad to have a cross in your city's logo. They should stick to the real cases of religious oppression.

I'm not sure if the NRA provides legal support. From my (limited) knowledge of them, I thought that they only lobbied government. I certainly could be wrong though. As to your point A) there is probably something to that and also the realities of fundraising as well. I'm sure many of their donors don't support a more literalist view of the Second Amendment, and even with some of the conservatives they would win over, perhaps they've calculated a net loss on that issue. Many conservatives certainly aren't as staunch on the Fourth Amendment as they ought to be.

I agree with you- I think the ACLU supporting the removal of the ten commandments from courtrooms is a good thing. Public displays of religion that truly impose certain values should always be avoided. I just think it is absurd to call the viewing a nativity scene on the grounds of City Hall a violation of seperation or somesuch. There are far bigger fish to fry.

I just think it is absurd to call the viewing a nativity scene on the grounds of City Hall a violation of seperation or somesuch. There are far bigger fish to fry.
Which cases do you feel would be more important for the ACLU to take on other than that type of case?

and it seems just as petty for religious citizens to decide that they need public land to announce their faith. it takes two to tango; if the Christians weren't insisting on putting paper mache Jesus where he didn't belong, there would be no need for an organization like the ACLU to spend its time keeping them in line. they could just as easily follow the instructions of their own holy book and keep their faith to themselves, but for some reason they feel the need to inflict it upon the entire public...why is that?

This is not something that has been rescently decided by religious people- nativity scenes were the norm and tradition until some busy-body whines about it. It's not oppressive in any sense, it requires the broadest reading of the First Amendment to have them removed, and it's ugly PR for the ACLU. That's why it's an utter waste of resources.

This is not something that has been rescently decided by religious people- nativity scenes were the norm and tradition until some busy-body whines about it.

slavery was the norm until some busy-body whined about it. just because something was done for a long time doesn't mean it's any less unConstitutional.


It's not oppressive in any sense,

you may feel that way. many people disagree. personally, i feel it is quite inappropriate; i don't know if i would say "oppressive," but certainly i would say it is an embarassment and it is extremely rude and offensive.


it requires the broadest reading of the First Amendment to have them removed, and it's ugly PR for the ACLU. That's why it's an utter waste of resources.
i think it requires a very reasonable interpretation of the Constitution, and i don't think that groups like the ACLU should choose which rights to defend based on how it will benefit their personal reputation. i don't think lawyers should choose clients based on who is going to make them the most famous, and i don't think minority groups or unpopular positions should be ignored by the law simply because defending them won't make the lawyers popular.

why is it that gun nuts like to ignore the entire first part of a sentence in that amendment, in order to justify their personal right to stockpile weapons?

No matter how much wishful thinking you elicit, this view is unsound and incorrect reading of the Bill of Rights. Please see


Eugene Volokh (http://www1.law.ucla.edu/~volokh/#GUNCONTROL)



"...the Second Amendment's text and original meaning pretty clearly show that it protects individuals. The text, which is reprinted nearby, says the right belongs to people, not states. And in the Bill of Rights "the right of the people" refers to individuals, as we see in the First and Fourth Amendments.

Moreover, the Second Amendment is based on the British 1688 Bill of Rights and is related to right-to-bear-arms provisions in Framing-era state constitutions. The British right must have been individual; there were no states in England. Same for the state constitutional rights; a right mentioned in a state Bill of Rights, which protects citizens against the state government, can't belong to the state itself. So in the Framing era, the "right to bear arms" meant an individual right.

What about the militia? The Second Amendment secures a "right of the people," not of the militia; but in any event, as the Supreme Court held in 1939, the Framers used "militia" to refer to all adult able-bodied males under age 45. Even today, under the 1956 Militia Act, all male citizens between 18 and 45 are part of the militia. (Women are probably also included, given the Supreme Court's sex-equality precedents.) "Well-regulated militia" in late 1700s parlance meant the same thing -- "the body of the People capable of bearing Arms," which is how an early propsoal for the amendment defined it. And the individual-rights view is the nearly unanimous judgment of all the leading 1700s and 1800s commentators and cases.

Based on this evidence, federal Judge Sam Cummings concluded Dr. Emerson's gun possession (though not his gun misuse) was constitutionally protected. If the Second Amendment is to be taken seriously, then Judge Cummings was right, and the other lower court cases holding the contrary were wrong. "

Which cases do you feel would be more important for the ACLU to take on other than that type of case?


Boy! Wouldn't that list be long! I'd like to see them dedicate far more resources to protecting the Fourth.

No matter how much wishful thinking you elicit, this view is unsound and incorrect reading of the Bill of Rights. Please see


Eugene Volokh (http://www1.law.ucla.edu/~volokh/#GUNCONTROL)



"...the Second Amendment's text and original meaning pretty clearly show that it protects individuals. The text, which is reprinted nearby, says the right belongs to people, not states. And in the Bill of Rights "the right of the people" refers to individuals, as we see in the First and Fourth Amendments.

Moreover, the Second Amendment is based on the British 1688 Bill of Rights and is related to right-to-bear-arms provisions in Framing-era state constitutions. The British right must have been individual; there were no states in England. Same for the state constitutional rights; a right mentioned in a state Bill of Rights, which protects citizens against the state government, can't belong to the state itself. So in the Framing era, the "right to bear arms" meant an individual right.

What about the militia? The Second Amendment secures a "right of the people," not of the militia; but in any event, as the Supreme Court held in 1939, the Framers used "militia" to refer to all adult able-bodied males under age 45. Even today, under the 1956 Militia Act, all male citizens between 18 and 45 are part of the militia. (Women are probably also included, given the Supreme Court's sex-equality precedents.) "Well-regulated militia" in late 1700s parlance meant the same thing -- "the body of the People capable of bearing Arms," which is how an early propsoal for the amendment defined it. And the individual-rights view is the nearly unanimous judgment of all the leading 1700s and 1800s commentators and cases.

Based on this evidence, federal Judge Sam Cummings concluded Dr. Emerson's gun possession (though not his gun misuse) was constitutionally protected. If the Second Amendment is to be taken seriously, then Judge Cummings was right, and the other lower court cases holding the contrary were wrong. "
and why is it that you choose to ignore the entire second half of my post? :P

you don't need to convince me about gun rights; i am totally neutral on the subject, i was just commenting on the tendencies of gun nuts to ignore or "revise" laws and rights when it suits them. there may well be gun owners who are well educated in the law and quote it correctly, but those tend to be the quieter and more respectful gun owners...and we all know that people tend to notice the loud, rude chappies so much more.

don't preach to me, it's a waste of your time. if you want guns that's your business, and i really don't care. if you think the ACLU needs to be defending your right to guns then tell them so, and ask them why they aren't stepping up. i've written to them before, and they DO reply with more than a form letter (though it can take about a month or so for them to get back to you).

slavery was the norm until some busy-body whined about it. just because something was done for a long time doesn't mean it's any less unConstitutional.

If you think there is ANY logical extention between slavery and a nativity scene ruffling the feathers of some poor sensative soul, I would certainly beg to differ.


you may feel that way. many people disagree. personally, i feel it is quite inappropriate; i don't know if i would say "oppressive," but certainly i would say it is an embarassment and it is extremely rude and offensive.

I do feel that way and I know many people disagree. But to call it "offensive" to me seems to imply that someone feels ostricised over the most passive display of religiosity...ie hypersensative.


i think it requires a very reasonable interpretation of the Constitution, and i don't think that groups like the ACLU should choose which rights to defend based on how it will benefit their personal reputation. i don't think lawyers should choose clients based on who is going to make them the most famous, and i don't think minority groups or unpopular positions should be ignored by the law simply because defending them won't make the lawyers popular.

I think it is the least accurate interpretation of the constitution. I agree the ACLU should pick whichever clients they want, but the thread is about why some conservatives seem to hate the ACLU, and their cafeteria constitutionalism may be one reason. And it may not be. Who knows?

I love how the website says the ACLU is trying to "Impose" same sex marriage on people. Like they're trying to make it manditory. LOL

and why is it that you choose to ignore the entire second half of my post? :P

don't preach to me, it's a waste of your time.


I don't seek to preach to you or ignore your post...just to state my opinion that the "militia" clause of the second amendment is less important than the operant which guarentees the individual right. :)

Why? What's so awful about protecting civil liberties?


www.stoptheaclu.org

1. With friends like them, who needs foes.

2. Ask our brave VOLUNTEERS in Iraq.

3. Follow the "Trial Lawyers" money.

I do like how the website proclaims to protect religious freedom, yet manages to mention no other religion besides christianity.

Religion is not the issue.

Religion is not the issue.

This website does seem to make it an issue. After all it says:

Preserving life, marriage, religious freedom and patriotism

And I would say that religion is one of the biggest issues concerning civil rights.

Edit: I failed to mention the picture of the ten commandments at the bottom

I looked at the site (not for very long as my eyes began to burn) but it seems to me that mostly they just say that the ACLU is trying to turn everyone gay and athiest. So I guess maybe it is a little more direct than I stated, but I still am pretty sure they hate the people that the ACLU represents a lot more than the ACLU itself.

I disAgree. The ACLU is hated for their consistent Anti-American stands, even in wartime. They are ambulence-chaser lawyers (e.g., Edwards/Kerry), lobbyists for liberal democrat causes (only), and the biggest contributers to liberal-socialist groups (which lead to their outrageous "class-action" lawsuits, where they keep 30% of other-peoples-money). And, for free publicity, they go out of their way to publicly defend wierdos.

I disAgree. The ACLU is hated for their consistent Anti-American stands, even in wartime. They are ambulence-chaser lawyers (e.g., Edwards/Kerry), lobbyists for liberal democrat causes (only), and the biggest contributers to liberal-socialist groups (which lead to their outrageous "class-action" lawsuits, where they keep 30% of other-peoples-money). And, for free publicity, they go out of their way to publicly defend wierdos.

You must have missed the post concerning all of the times the ACLU has defended Christianity.

Ambulance chasing lawyers? :confused:

Name some of the outrageous class-action lawsuits they have pursued.

And the "wierdos" are the ones who most need the defending.

You must have missed the post concerning all of the times the ACLU has defended Christianity.

Ambulance chasing lawyers? :confused:

Name some of the outrageous class-action lawsuits they have pursued.

And the "wierdos" are the ones who most need the defending.

1. Rarely
2. Edwards
3. Tobacco
4. Take a bath.

1. Rarely
2. Edwards
3. Tobacco
4. Take a bath.

1. Christianity rarely needs to be defended.
2. I didn't know Edwards aligned himself with the ACLU
3. The ACLU opposed the tobacco settlements based on free speech rights
4. I am fixing to take a shower. How did you know?

1. Christianity rarely needs to be defended.
2. I didn't know Edwards aligned himself with the ACLU
3. The ACLU opposed the tobacco settlements based on free speech rights
4. I am fixing to take a shower. How did you know?

1. They are on the wrong side of religious cases more tha 10-to-1.
2. You're kidding.
3. They took both sides (verbally), but monetarily supported anti-tobacco (and anti-asbestos) overwhelmingly.
4. For your own protection, at-home-alone (or with only one wife)

I'm so glad I don't live in the USA.

I'm so glad I don't live in the USA.

So am I. We're full of illegals.

I'm so glad I don't live in the USA.
It's not so bad. Find a nice college town and it will feel just like Europe or Canada.

i guess nobody felt like paying attention the first time, so here it is again:

really? then why would they defend street preachers? http://atheism.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la%2Dna%2D
preach10nov10%2C0%2C536148.story

or families who fought removal of religious symbols from a Florida cemetary?
http://archive.aclu.org/news/1999/n032299c.html

or students who wished to distribute Christian material at school?
http://archive.aclu.org/news/2002/n071102b.html

or the rights of Christians who wished to protect their freedom of speech on a Main Street plaza?
http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=13287&c=42

or a Christian-organized public prayer around a municipal flag pole?
http://archive.aclu.org/news/1999/w042399b.html

provide one example of the ACLU actually opposing CHRISTIANITY, as opposed to simply preventing Christians from infringing on the rights of non-Christians, please. show one example of a case where the ACLU was not defending civil rights. show one case where they were fighting to take civil rights away from Christians.

the ACLU does defend the rights of non-left-wing groups, Christians, and right-wing organizations. until somebody provides examples to the contrary, i consider any claims of the supposed "atheist" or "left wing" bias of the ACLU to be hereby refuted. if you want to claim that, fine, but PROVIDE SOME BLOODY EXAMPLES.

i guess nobody felt like paying attention the first time, so here it is again:



the ACLU does defend the rights of non-left-wing groups, Christians, and right-wing organizations. until somebody provides examples to the contrary, i consider any claims of the supposed "atheist" or "left wing" bias of the ACLU to be hereby refuted. if you want to claim that, fine, but PROVIDE SOME BLOODY EXAMPLES.

*Stands up, waves hand*

I was paying attention the first time, Bottle. :)

*Stands up, waves hand*

I was paying attention the first time, Bottle. :)
i should amend my complaint...nobody from the opposing side appears to have paid attention. but then, they are the ones arguing that only the people they agree with should have civil rights, so it doesn't come as much of a surprise that they are slow to acknowledge disenting material...

Well, basicly, things like free speech, free press, free assembly, freedom of religion, fair trials and equal protections tend to get in the way of the Republican's main screwing-the-people policies.

Republicans Screw the people, hows that, we are against big government, that helps people, we are for lower taxes that benifit EVERONE, that helps people, we are for democratizing other countries thus ensuring safety for years to come, that helps people. What is it that we do that screws people over, I don't understand why you say that (and its not only you).

As for the ACLU, we dont support them because they aren't consitent on what they do and don't support. Hell, a jewish man supported a nazi in Chicago, how screwed up is that.

Republicans Screw the people, hows that, we are against big government, that helps people, we are for lower taxes that benifit EVERONE, that helps people, we are for democratizing other countries thus ensuring safety for years to come, that helps people. What is it that we do that screws people over, I don't understand why you say that (and its not only you).

As for the ACLU, we dont support them because they aren't consitent on what they do and don't support. Hell, a jewish man supported a nazi in Chicago, how screwed up is that.

The republicans in power since Reagan have NOT been against big government. In fact they have been for big government in ways that do not help the private citizen. The lower taxes republicans are proposing are mainly aimed to lower the burden on the rich, and to say that that benefits everyone is an oversimplification, as it has adverse effect on generations yet to come. Democratization does not ensure safety. What happens when a country elects a violent president that recklessly invades foreign nations? (other than the US that is)

As for your last statement about the ACLU, I'm not sure what you are talking about.

So you believe that...

-Companies should be allowed to arbitrarily fire male truckers (not even a position in which they interact with the public as an employee) for wearing a dress while off duty and on their own time.
-Public libraries should kick people out for viewing a website because it has "men not wearing shirts" on them. Regardless of the fact that you'll see men not wearing shirts on half the romance novel covers, most of the illustrated books on anatomy, art, and athletics, and can even walk outside and see men running around without shirts.
-Announcements read over the intercom of a public school are "private speech."
-Municipal meetings should open with prayers explicitly appealing to a particular denomination of Christianity.
-The government should regulate in detail the consensual behavior of two adults in privacy.
-If it mentions, depicts, or deals with sex, it is not protected as "free speech."

Etc etc.

Those who hate the ACLU do so because they wish to create a more oppressive country.

The United States was not founded as a Christian country.

It was founded with explicit ideals laid out constitutionally. These ideals include free speech, separation of church and state, due process in the justice system, etc etc etc.
No, TJ, you have inverted my position exactly 100%.

Republicans Screw the people, hows that, we are against big government, that helps people,
No, small government hurts people, because a large government pays for social security and healthcare for people who need it, ensuring that they don't have to pay into dodgy insurance companies or private savings plans that can then go bust.

we are for lower taxes that benifit EVERONE, that helps people, Again, no. Higher taxes confer a greater benefit on the average citizen as the government provides more services or better quality service at a cheaper price than if we had to pay for them outright.

we are for democratizing other countries thus ensuring safety for years to come, that helps people. Sorry, still no. From what I've seen from Republicans since Reagan, you're for freeing small, oil rich countries from the grip of unfriendly or communist dictators and replacing them with Americo-symphathetic dictators or puppet democracies.

What is it that we do that screws people over, I don't understand why you say that (and its not only you).
Well, its mostly the things I've mentioned there, along with the near-relentless attempts to subvert and damage people's civil liberties, like the freedom to have a religion other than christianity and the freedom to marry whoever you like.

I love the fact that they are telling us that the ACLU is out to destroy our freedoms. Which ones? The freedom to hate gay people? Where is that in the Constitution?

Hypocrites.
They're not even trying to take away that. In fact they would defend it. The only "right" they're taking away is the right to withhold (sp?) gay people's rights.

their support of NAMBLA has weirded me out: I could stomach them supporting Osama better than that...
They don't support NAMBLA, they just defend their right to free speech. Are you serious when you say that NAMBLA is worse than Osama?

I love how the website says the ACLU is trying to "Impose" same sex marriage on people. Like they're trying to make it manditory. LOL
Bob: Hear that, Joe?

Joe: What's that?

Bob: The dang ACLU is gonna make you marry me!

Joe: Oh Noes!!!11!!

1. They are on the wrong side of religious cases more tha 10-to-1.
That's your opinion.

You claim that John Edwards is a member of the ACLU. Why are you the only one who has ever heard of this "fact"?

As for the ACLU, we dont support them because they aren't consitent on what they do and don't support. Hell, a jewish man supported a nazi in Chicago, how screwed up is that.
If a Chicago Jew wants to support Nazis, why stop him? What has it got to do with the ACLU anyway?

They defend Nazi's right to free speech because we can't take away that right simply because we find what's said to be disgusting.

From what I've seen from Republicans since Reagan, you're for freeing small, oil rich countries from the grip of unfriendly or communist dictators and replacing them with Americo-symphathetic dictators or puppet democracies.
To be fair, this really applies to both Democrats and Republicans since 1945, if not beforehand.

I think that America needs an organization like the ACLU, but the ACLU is not the organization we need. My main problem is that they waste energy on relatively unimportant "church-state separation" issues that would be better put to use on more serious violations of civil rights.

To be fair, this really applies to both Democrats and Republicans since 1945, if not beforehand.
No, you're quite right, American foreign policy since WW2 looks like the kind of thing someone came up with on the back of a napkin. Its not the clearest of points, but what I was trying to show was that his interpretation of Republican foreign policy was incorrect and thus could not be used as an example of helping people, not that Democrats were especially superior in that regard.

I think that America needs an organization like the ACLU, but the ACLU is not the organization we need. My main problem is that they waste energy on relatively unimportant "church-state separation" issues that would be better put to use on more serious violations of civil rights.

Problem is the fact that Christian groups try to force the issue all the time.

Even Jerry Falwell once remarked that he dreams for the day when the public education system was abolished and all that remained where Christian schools.

There are the endless attempts to censor books, get Religion into the science class rooms.

They handle many things besides the seperation.....

I think that America needs an organization like the ACLU, but the ACLU is not the organization we need. My main problem is that they waste energy on relatively unimportant "church-state separation" issues that would be better put to use on more serious violations of civil rights.
Church and state is the civil rights issue. Its the thing which ensures that one type of moral authority is not imposed upon the primary legal authority. And if this means that people can't do mostly harmless things like have a nativity in front of city hall, then quite frankly, I think the principle is worth the cost.

I disAgree. The ACLU is hated for their consistent Anti-American stands, even in wartime. They are ambulence-chaser lawyers (e.g., Edwards/Kerry), lobbyists for liberal democrat causes (only), and the biggest contributers to liberal-socialist groups (which lead to their outrageous "class-action" lawsuits, where they keep 30% of other-peoples-money). And, for free publicity, they go out of their way to publicly defend wierdos.

Hmmmm didn't they recently side with Rush on a privacy issue?

Sorry you have to offer more evidence then claims.

The fact you use the term wierdos says they are doing a good job.

-Wonders if he will even understand the comment-

i guess nobody felt like paying attention the first time, so here it is again:



the ACLU does defend the rights of non-left-wing groups, Christians, and right-wing organizations. until somebody provides examples to the contrary, i consider any claims of the supposed "atheist" or "left wing" bias of the ACLU to be hereby refuted. if you want to claim that, fine, but PROVIDE SOME BLOODY EXAMPLES.

Bottle!!!!!!!!!

You should know better.

BlindLiberals(whom I wonder is Biff or Reynes) will parrot the same garbage no matter how much evidence you show him.

It's great you offer the links though. People that will actually examine claims will look at it.

:)

As for the ACLU, we dont support them because they aren't consitent on what they do and don't support. Hell, a jewish man supported a nazi in Chicago, how screwed up is that.

Well that is the tough thing.

If you want to claim to have freedom of speech then how do you define what that speech will be?

Not founded as a Christian country, true. A country founded on Christian principels. Those principels include life, liberty, etc, etc.

Funny how those principles were tossed when all those bothersome natives were living on our lands!

*bump*

Funny how those principles were tossed when all those bothersome natives were living on our lands!


That's because we didn't have an ACLU.

That's because we didn't have an ACLU.
Looks like it really is an essential pillar of society then.

Well, that's that debate sorted.

Looks like it really is an essential pillar of society then.

Well, that's that debate sorted.

Hmpf.

Well now. Either I am not getting Daves point or you aren't. ;)

Hmpf.

Well now. Either I am not getting Daves point or you aren't. ;)
If he was making the point I suggested, then his logic was clearly flawed.

If he was making another point, it was too subtle for a mental minor like me to discern. What did you think he was saying?

I'm a republican and a member of our campus ACLU! (even though I haven't gone to any meetings during the last two months out of lethargy)

they don't support NAMBLA, they support it's right to certain freedoms (the same freedoms granted to ALL by the Constitution). they don't condone or endorse NAMBLA's platform, nor do they excuse any illegal activities that NAMBLA or its members may engage in, they simply defend its rights as they would the rights of any organization.

Please, the ACLU is protecting NAMBLA's right to yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater. Do you even know what the case is about? NAMBLA offers a detailed "How-To" Book on abducting and raping children. I'M not going to give money to an organization offers legal advice to these sick bastards -- I'd feel better giving money to al-Qaeda.


if equal rights don't apply to EVERYBODY, then what are they worth?

If we were all locked up in the same size jail cells we would all have 'equal rights' ~ see, I can say asanine things too.

They don't support NAMBLA, they just defend their right to free speech. Are you serious when you say that NAMBLA is worse than Osama?


NAMBLA encourages child rape, they offer people tips on how to abduct children and how to exploit their bodies. They don't just talk about doing it, they expain to wanna-be child rapist HOW to do it and how to get away with it. This is far beyond freespeech and has entered into the realm of Creating a Clear and Present Danger.

Do I think encouraging and assisting in child-rape is worse than murder? Yes.

I'm a republican and a member of our campus ACLU! (even though I haven't gone to any meetings during the last two months out of lethargy)
I thought you were a libertarian?

Do I think encouraging and assisting in child-rape is worse than murder? Yes.
I don't think that a few paedophilia cases are worse than global genocide.

The American Civil Liberties Union is relentlessly and fiercely assaulting America's foundations by feverishly working thru activist courts to impose same sex marriage and remove all vestiges of the 10 Commandments wherever they may be posted.

Yes, this is why they have been suing Bible printers - to get rid of the 10 Commandments. Wait.... they haven't?! How is that possible?!

Wait...they sued to get a school to let a girl have a Bible verse as her senior quote? No Way!!!

In this past election, the ACLU and its activist allies were sent a clear message not to tamper with the institution of marriage. 11 states had marriage amendments on the ballot, 8 of them without a civil union alternative. All 11 states passed their amendments with anywhere from comfortable margins (57% in Oregon)

Since when is 57%, which is probably not even statistically significant given the problems with voting a "comfortable margin"? That's like Bush's claim that he has a "clear mandate."

to that of landslide proportions (86% in Mississippi). However, it didn't matter to the ACLU as litigation has already begun to overturn the amendment as it has in Georgia and Oklahoma. The ACLU wants same sex marriage imposed upon America thru radical activist judges.

Nothing like skewing the actual lawsuit. The lawsuit against the amendment in GA has nothing whatsoever to do with "imposing same sex marriage." It has to do with the fact that the ballot was malisciously misworded and many important details were left out - resulting in many people voting for the amendment that wouldn't have otherwise.

Not to be outdone, the ACLU won a lawsuit this week here in my home state of Illinois to limit the Pentagon's support of the Boy Scouts (because the Scouts reject atheist and homosexual Scoutmasters)

Oh no!! We can't give tax money to discriminatory organizations!! Not like it doesn't say that in the law or anything!!!

while the ACLU sued the state of Virginia for passing a law preventing teens from parading publicly in the nude at campgrounds.

I doubt we have anywhere near the whole story here - considering that public nudity is generally just plain illegal.

This site exists for one purpose - to mobilize millions of God fearing patriotic Americans to stand up to the ACLU agenda and consigning it to the ash heap of history (or exporting it to Communist regions).

I agree. Young girls should not be able to put Bible verses as their senior quotes. That is just horrible!

Please get involved with us, tell others about this site and contact me with your comments and questions. Time is limited. Our religious heritage is under heavy assault from the Anti-Christian Licentiousness Union. We need you on our side today.

Yes, protecting the right to use Bible verses is very anti-Christian.

Do I think encouraging and assisting in child-rape is worse than murder? Yes.
Just encouraging and assisting, as opposed to the actual act of murder?

I think we need a moderate amount of perspective here.

Since when is 57%, which is probably not even statistically significant given the problems with voting a "comfortable margin"? That's like Bush's claim that he has a "clear mandate."
57-43 is quite a comfortable margin. Its a little less than five times bigger than Bush's mandate, but to put in in perspective that ballot passed with more support than Kerry won California, Illinois, Connecticut, or Maryland by.

Since I can't be arsed to read this whole thread, I'll simply quote one of my heroes...

<Dennis Miller> The ACLU has gotten to the point where it'll fight against your right to put up a public nativity scene, but will fight for the rights of the local stoner, who stumbled into the scene and f***ed one of the sheep in the ass.


It's hard to tell what these lunatics are going for. Equality? Doubtful. Harassment for the sake of it? Seems that way. The ACLU, to be quite frank, is pissy and obnoxious. They don't seem to give a rat's behind about people's rights, merely about stirring up controversy and causing problems.


<RandomAss> Oh, no! I got arrested for protesting in public! Never mind the fact I was naked, I was protesting, and THAT'S why they arrested me! HELP!
<ACLU> OHNOEZ *lawsuit*
<Republicans> *scandal*

And that's what makes the world go 'round. It also sums up US politics quite nicely, too.



Now, as to the child rape topic, which is just a LOVELY thing to discuss...


...frankly, I'm pro-murder. I believe that, were murder legalized, things would stay mostly the same. The only difference would be that that asshole at work wouldn't be such an asshole any more. People would be far nicer, more polite and caring, lest a large group of people descend upon them and string them up in the middle of town.

You know it's true.

And besides that, it'd mean the smartest, strongest, and fastest among us would prosper far more effectively, while the weak would be picked off, and future generations would be assured better genes because of this. Our evolution would be thrown into high gear, which is a distinctly favorable thing. Aside from that, it'd also assist with overpopulation.

But child rape is, well, purposeless. You can't impregnate a six year old, so you're not passing on your genes. It is, no matter how you look at it, useless. The only justification I can find would be to "toughen 'em up!", which, last I checked, wasn't on the liberal agenda. But then again, maybe I'm wrong. After all, killing someone is SO much worse than torturing them for the rest of their ever so short lives. Or, had you forgotten so quickly that assisting someone in child rape is assisting them in the torture and murder of an innocent mind? Next you're going to tell me that giving the torture/rape command at Abu Graihb (or however one spells it, I don't really care) was perfectly acceptable! It was, after all, just a VERY round-about way of assisting in the torture of a group of people who, if I remember right, wanted to commit murder. Which, apparently, is worse than assisting in the torture and eventual murder of a child.


See, this is where you backpeddle. I suggest doing it quickly. Y'know, before you crack the bad logic above, and are still semi-panicked because it almost makes sense. *shrug*

In any case, I don't rightly care. I'm pro-cannibalism and pro-murder, after all, so I don't have much room to talk.

I know, why don't we just do away with elections and let the ACLU litigate everything. That is, after all, what they want.

57-43 is quite a comfortable margin. Its a little less than five times bigger than Bush's mandate, but to put in in perspective that ballot passed with more support than Kerry won California, Illinois, Connecticut, or Maryland by.

The fact that it is higher than the margin by which most of the states were won in no way makes it statistically significant.

I know, why don't we just do away with elections and let the ACLU litigate everything. That is, after all, what they want.

Just when I was starting to think you were intelligent...

Since I can't be arsed to read this whole thread,
See, right from here, I had this post pinned into the "Jackass" category. I was not proved wrong by what followed
I'll simply quote one of my heroes...
<Dennis Miller> If I wasn't certain before, I would have been from this, as Jabba the Hutt's pet lizard has just been cited as a "hero".

The ACLU has gotten to the point where it'll fight against your right to put up a public nativity scene, but will fight for the rights of the local stoner, who stumbled into the scene and f***ed one of the sheep in the ass.Not public, on government property. And the stoner thing is just... sad, really.

It's hard to tell what these lunatics are going for.
Google: ACLU. Click: www.aclu.org. Click: About the ACLU.

http://www.aclu.org/about/aboutmain.cfm

First paragraph:
Our job is to conserve America's original civic values - the Constitution and the Bill of Rights
Bullet points half way down the page:
The mission of the ACLU is to preserve all of these protections and guarantees:

Your First Amendment rights-freedom of speech, association and assembly. Freedom of the press, and freedom of religion supported by the strict separation of church and state.

Your right to equal protection under the law - equal treatment regardless of race, sex, religion or national origin.

Your right to due process - fair treatment by the government whenever the loss of your liberty or property is at stake.

Your right to privacy - freedom from unwarranted government intrusion into your personal and private affairs.

Is it really hard?

Equality? Doubtful. Harassment for the sake of it? Seems that way. The ACLU, to be quite frank, is pissy and obnoxious. They don't seem to give a rat's behind about people's rights, merely about stirring up controversy and causing problems.

<RandomAss> Oh, no! I got arrested for protesting in public! Never mind the fact I was naked, I was protesting, and THAT'S why they arrested me! HELP!
<ACLU> OHNOEZ *lawsuit*
<Republicans> *scandal*
From this, I get the impression that you are not opposed to people protesting, but to people being nude in public. Now, let me introduce you to the ACLU's old friend, the first amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Now, the usual, but unstated, limitation put on this is that it is only preserved unless it directly harms someone else. This means you can sue for slander or libel, and that someone can't burn down your house as a piece of performance art, but other than that, its preserved. Now, how does nudity harm anyone? Can you provide any basis on which to say that its illegal? If so, do feel free to speak up.

Continued in the next post

The fact that it is higher than the margin by which most of the states were won in no way makes it statistically significant.
Those states were considered "overwhelmingly" for Kerry. Do you have some standards you'd like to share that would not have a 14% margin as a comfortable one?

I know, why don't we just do away with elections and let the ACLU litigate everything. That is, after all, what they want.

Jesus DD, I hope you are poking fun at all the reactionary posts in here, because that is a dumb comment.

Those states were considered "overwhelmingly" for Kerry. Do you have some standards you'd like to share that would not have a 14% margin as a comfortable one?

I never said they were "overwhelmingly" for Kerry.

The elections process, at the very best, has a 10% margin of error. At worst, who knows?

Then you add in the fact that at least one state (and probably others, I'm not sure) purposely skewed the results by using ambigous wording and leaving out half of what the amendment does - this adds to the margin of error for whether or not the people wanted it.

Add the fact that absentee and provisional ballots aren't even counted unless the elections people think it is a close race - more margin of error.

Do you see the problem here?

To truly be a statistically convincing win, you would need *at the least* a 60% win, and probably higher than that.

...frankly, I'm pro-murder. I believe that, were murder legalized, things would stay mostly the same. The only difference would be that that asshole at work wouldn't be such an asshole any more. People would be far nicer, more polite and caring, lest a large group of people descend upon them and string them up in the middle of town.
I'm not gonna completely rule out the possibility that you're being serious here. I've heard very similar arguements made, in full sincerity, to do with guns.

And besides that, it'd mean the smartest, strongest, and fastest among us would prosper far more effectively, while the weak would be picked off, and future generations would be assured better genes because of this. Our evolution would be thrown into high gear, which is a distinctly favorable thing. Aside from that, it'd also assist with overpopulation.And this one mimics the healthcare and economic policy of a number of conservatives I've spoken to.

The only justification I can find would be to "toughen 'em up!", which, last I checked, wasn't on the liberal agenda.
Yes, absolutely correct. Liberals are opposed to raping children.

After all, killing someone is SO much worse than torturing them for the rest of their ever so short lives. Loving the sarcasm, very pertinent. Lets see where this is going.
Or, had you forgotten so quickly that assisting someone in child rape is assisting them in the torture and murder of an innocent mind?*snaps fingers*
So that's why child rape is bad. I knew it had to be something. I mean, the liberal media don't beam my morals directly into my brain at random, there has to be some method to their madness.

Next you're going to tell me that giving the torture/rape command at Abu Graihb (or however one spells it, I don't really care) was perfectly acceptable! It was, after all, just a VERY round-about way of assisting in the torture of a group of people who, if I remember right, wanted to commit murder. Which, apparently, is worse than assisting in the torture and eventual murder of a child.Ah yes, now I see where this was going. What you are suffering from is a complete confusion about the liberal mindset. See, we are able to hold more than one thought in our head at a time!!! So, simply because, right now, we're thinking that one thing is wrong, doesn't mean that everything else has ceased to be wrong in the meantime. Murder is wrong, pedophillia is wrong, torture is wrong. You see how that works? ALL of them are wrong, not a quota, not at-least-two-thirds-of-all-actions-cited-must-be-morally-acceptable-at-all-times, ALL of them are wrong.

See, this is where you backpeddle. I suggest doing it quickly. Y'know, before you crack the bad logic above, and are still semi-panicked because it almost makes sense. *shrug*Yeah. That's what I'll do.

Jesus DD, I hope you are poking fun at all the reactionary posts in here, because that is a dumb comment.


well, I thought about adding a smiley, but that spoiled the effect I was trying to get at.

For the record, I don't really approve of the ACLU that much for two reasons:

1. The claim to be a non-partisan pro-bono group, when they are not. Actually they are pushing a very specific political agenda, but at the same time they pretend they are there to help and assist regular folks.

2. This pretence, diverts a lot of donations away from other more worthy pro-bono groups that desperately need them, and towards the ACLU.

If the ACLU just admitted it had an agenda, I wouldn't be that bothered - well in fact I'm not really - but I just feel they operate under false pretences to the detriment of other groups.

If the ACLU just admitted it had an agenda, I wouldn't be that bothered - well in fact I'm not really - but I just feel they operate under false pretences to the detriment of other groups.The ACLU's Adgenda (http://www.aclu.org/about/aboutmain.cfm)

If the ACLU just admitted it had an agenda, I wouldn't be that bothered - well in fact I'm not really - but I just feel they operate under false pretences to the detriment of other groups.

And this imaginary agenda would be?

I never said they were "overwhelmingly" for Kerry.

The elections process, at the very best, has a 10% margin of error. At worst, who knows?

Then you add in the fact that at least one state (and probably others, I'm not sure) purposely skewed the results by using ambigous wording and leaving out half of what the amendment does - this adds to the margin of error for whether or not the people wanted it.

Add the fact that absentee and provisional ballots aren't even counted unless the elections people think it is a close race - more margin of error.

Do you see the problem here?

To truly be a statistically convincing win, you would need *at the least* a 60% win, and probably higher than that.
Aside from the wording, I do not see the problem. I do not see why absentee or provisional ballots would vary significantly from the norm, and nor do I get why every elections process has a natural 10% MoE.

And this imaginary agenda would be?

It's not imanginary. They have a set agenda.

They cherry pick cases. To wit, writing amicus briefs in products cases against gun manufacturers but not the tobacco industry.

They also have a clear idea of what they believe the boundaries of church and state to be. They pick cases in furtherence of that also.

On the other hand, if the government siezes your house under the "guise" of eminent domain for barely adequate compensation, so an IKEA can move in, then you are shit out of luck. That type of consitutional abuse doesn't interest them, and you are left to the pro-bono efforts of a badly underfunded local bar association.

I am not saying I disagree with a lot of what they are aiming for, but they are an advocacy group with set idea's about how society should be, and what the boundaries of the law should be. And like all legal advocacy groups they pick and choose cases that will promote their agenda.

That's fine, it is their right. But what bothers me is they way they hold themselves out as some type of pro-bono service for civil liberties. That's the bit that bothers me.

Aside from the wording, I do not see the problem. I do not see why absentee or provisional ballots would vary significantly from the norm, and nor do I get why every elections process has a natural 10% MoE.

Have you actually looked into the process? It has enough problems and variance in it that I'm surprised we can even talk about a winner in most elections.

Actually, those who vote by absentee vote could have a very significant difference from the norm, especially when you consider that a large proportion of the armed services and college students (both very different groups from the average) vote in this manner.

It's not imanginary. They have a set agenda.

They cherry pick cases. To wit, writing amicus briefs in products cases against gun manufacturers but not the tobacco industry.

They also have a clear idea of what they believe the boundaries of church and state to be. They pick cases in furtherence of that also.

On the other hand, if the government siezes your house under the "guise" of eminent domain for barely adequate compensation, so an IKEA can move in, then you are shit out of luck. That type of consitutional abuse doesn't interest them, and you are left to the pro-bono efforts of a badly underfunded local bar association.

I am not saying I disagree with a lot of what they are aiming for, but they are an advocacy group with set idea's about how society should be, and what the boundaries of the law should be. And like all legal advocacy groups they pick and choose cases that will promote their agenda.

That's fine, it is their right. But what bothers me is they way they hold themselves out as some type of pro-bono service for civil liberties. That's the bit that bothers me.And I get pissed when Fox uses the tagline "fair and balanced".

With regard to the ACLU, I think you that a) you should be able to provide some evidence if its that wellspread and b) you should provide some evidence if you want people to believe it. As I see it, the ACLU is left wing only insofar as protecting civil liberties is leftwing, and does defend people and organisations on both sides of the aisle when their rights have been violated.

It's not imanginary. They have a set agenda.

which is laid out on their website. To protect the civil liberties of the American citizens.

They cherry pick cases.

They have a limited amount of money. Thus, they have to prioritize. Has it ever ocurred to you that they often take cases that *no one else* would?

They also have a clear idea of what they believe the boundaries of church and state to be. They pick cases in furtherence of that also.

Everyone has a clear idea of where they believe such boundaries should be. At least the ACLU takes cases on both sides of it.

On the other hand, if the government siezes your house under the "guise" of eminent domain for barely adequate compensation, so an IKEA can move in, then you are shit out of luck. That type of consitutional abuse doesn't interest them, and you are left to the pro-bono efforts of a badly underfunded local bar association.

Is somebody bitter here?

I am not saying I disagree with a lot of what they are aiming for, but they are an advocacy group with set idea's about how society should be, and what the boundaries of the law should be. And like all legal advocacy groups they pick and choose cases that will promote their agenda.

That's fine, it is their right. But what bothers me is they way they hold themselves out as some type of pro-bono service for civil liberties. That's the bit that bothers me.

The two paragraphs there are not mutually exclusive.

Have you actually looked into the process? It has enough problems and variance in it that I'm surprised we can even talk about a winner in most elections.
Most of the problems I've seen have been explained away or false. If you can show something that would amount to your ten percent claim, I'll believe it. And no, Greg Palast dosen't count.

Actually, those who vote by absentee vote could have a very significant difference from the norm, especially when you consider that a large proportion of the armed services and college students (both very different groups from the average) vote in this manner.
Absentee and provisional ballots only tend to be abnormal if there are some abnormal circumstances surrounding them, for example in Washington where a vast majority of the provisional ballots came from one county. Besides that, they rarely have a large impact beyond normal results, as absentee ballots tend to skew Republican while provisionals tend to skew Democrat.

I have read that the ACLU receives a lot of money from tobacco companies and they do seem to repay most of it in high publicity litigation. I have to say that I disagree with that.

But the sheer amount of publicizing they do for Civil Liberties, even if it is for self-promotion, provides a very valuable service.

which is laid out on their website. To protect the civil liberties of the American citizens.

They have a limited amount of money. Thus, they have to prioritize. Has it ever ocurred to you that they often take cases that *no one else* would?


Actually no. They don't take cases that no-one else would. In fact all over the country there are thousands of struggling near bankrupt pro-bono societies that will try and give representation to all comers. Meanwhile the ACLU is lavishly funded by large donations from private foundations.

Everyone has a clear idea of where they believe such boundaries should be. At least the ACLU takes cases on both sides of it.

No they don't they have very clear ideas where free speach begins and ends, and they will refuse free speach cases.

Is somebody bitter here?

Only insofar as I know people who worked on that case, who not only had to volunteer their own time, but also had to try and raise money to cover costs, while better funded groups took no-interest because they were busy filing amicus briefs in product liability cases that had nothing to do with civil liberties.


There is a real crises in pro-bono representation in the US. As I said, I don't disagree with many of the ACLUs aims, but I think the amount of money they get under the "guise" of defending everone's civil liberties could be better spent elsewhere. Think of all the money they get and actually pay attorneys with . Many attorneys already donate their time to exactly the type of cases that the ACLU puports to represent, and are hindered because they cannot pay the money to cover court costs expenses etc. On the other hand, the ACLU is basically an advocacy group - one of many. So it is often duplicating effort.


Now is that unreasonable?

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/OR/I/02/epolls.0.html
Oregon is an overwhelmingly white state, and the minorities were more against the proposition than whites were. So the usual source of provisional ballots, inner-city minorities, exist in small numbers and against it. Unless, for some reason, the vast majority of absentee or provisional ballots came from women and those aged 18-29, both of which are very unlikely, I don't see any reason to assume that those types of ballots would deviate any more from the norm than they normally do.

For the record, I don't really approve of the ACLU that much for two reasons:

1. The claim to be a non-partisan pro-bono group, when they are not. Actually they are pushing a very specific political agenda, but at the same time they pretend they are there to help and assist regular folks.

They are non-partisan. It's not their fault if one particular party is constantly attacking civil liberties.

They are non-partisan. It's not their fault if one particular party is constantly attacking civil liberties.

Now you are just being silly.

I don't know. Any group that Represents NAMBLA under the guise of age discrimination does not appear to be very protective of civil liberties, or understanding of child development, psychology, or biology in general.

Seems more like a bunch of myopic trust fund babies who spent more time smoking pot then attending their liberal arts classes; who, when faced with the prospect of entering the real world, decided instead to obtain a legal eductaion. So, a yes man goup of like minded individuals without the ability to reason, think critically or logically, or having the capacity for abstract thought entangles our legal system in a morass of frivolous lawsuits based on fictitional information and an ad campaign of fear.

But that is just my unbiased, non-partisan opinion. :)

Same goes for Earth Alliance, Environmental Defense Fund, and the Sierra Club.

Let's just open the floodgates on this one.

I don't know. Any group that Represents NAMBLA under the guise of age discrimination does not appear to be very protective of civil liberties, or understanding of child development, psychology, or biology in general.

Seems more like a bunch of myopic trust fund babies who spent more time smoking pot then attending their liberal arts classes; who, when faced with the prospect of entering the real world, decided instead to obtain a legal eductaion. So, a yes man goup of like minded individuals without the ability to reason, think critically or logically, or having the capacity for abstract thought entangles our legal system in a morass of frivolous lawsuits based on fictitional information and an ad campaign of fear.

But that is just my unbiased, non-partisan opinion. :)

Now here I have to jump in on the other side.

The ACLU are not a "bunch of myopic trust fund babies who spent more time smoking pot then attending their liberal arts classes; who, when faced with the prospect of entering the real world, decided instead to obtain a legal eductaion."

They are in fact all top attorneys, mostly who have excellent resumes from private practice before moving to the ACLU. Also many of them are from working class, or middle class, backgrounds.

Now here I have to jump in on the other side.

The ACLU are not a "bunch of myopic trust fund babies who spent more time smoking pot then attending their liberal arts classes; who, when faced with the prospect of entering the real world, decided instead to obtain a legal eductaion."

They are in fact all top attorneys, mostly who have excellent resumes from private practice before moving to the ACLU. Also many of them are from working class, or middle class, backgrounds.

Ah excuse me then. ACLU Leadership is a bunch of myopic trust fund babies who spent more time smoking pot then attending their liberal arts classes; who, when faced with the prospect of entering the real world, decided instead to obtain a legal education. It a yes man goup of like minded individuals without the ability to reason, think critically or logically, or having the capacity for abstract thought who entangles our legal system in a morass of frivolous lawsuits using otherwise reputable attorneys who are manipulated into working for the organization through the use of fictitional information and an ad campaign of fear.

Same goes for Earth Alliance, Environmental Defense Fund, and the Sierra Club.

That more kosher.

Please don't troll Anti Pharisaism

Sorry.

Wanted to see how it feels to be the one making such a comment.

That, and I can't argue with personal experiences with attorneys and leaders associated with the organizations, which leads me to such a conclusion. ;)

I'm slightly right of center..and I dislike the ACLU..not because they defend free speech..but because they take that defense farther than it should go sometimes. They also have a tendency to jump to conclusions a lot faster than they should have even without all the facts for the whole holier than thou attitude of "we defend freedom of speech!" They dont exactly defend much else other than that though..and they only choose a few select causes to defend...

What sticks out in my mind the most was the fact not to long ago the ACLU got involved in a case of a kid who cursed out the principle of his school and was suspend for it. He appealed the suspension saying that it was a joke and his freedom of speech was violated. Of course the ACLU got involved on the side of the boy. I'm not to sure what the outcome of the case was but its examples like that which make me wonder just what the hell is the ACLU doing? I respect their work and I can respect why they were founded but frankly their leadership needs a serious wakeup call.

Just to reply to a few scattered things:

1) Why is nudity bad? : Partial nudity is fine. Full nudity (that is, not covering your mucous membranes) is potentially dangerous. Wear a pair of shorts all day, and its all good. Breast feeding women should also keep themselves covered. General rule: Keep your fluids to yourself as much as humanly possible. However, the issue with exposed breasts is a silly one. Skin is skin. However, the lack of teenage girls with saggy boobs hanging down to their stomachs is a consolation for the lack of rights. Bras keep the world from looking creepy.

2) Why go after harmless religious presences? : 1) Foot in the door method. A cult tends to try to get people used to them, so they'll have friends and contacts, before conversion begins. It's very simple logic. Same reason that Christians are often suggested to avoid temptations: You see something, you get used to it, you say what the hey..2) Who here wants chicken-sacrifices or Satanic Cult (Church of Set style) paper machet on the lawn of their local public library? Who wants to see Pentagrams on signs? Do you want posters all over the place saying, "Do you have faith? We'll help you get over that problem, and others! Join the Atheist Church Today!"? (while atheism isn't a religion, there is such a thing as an atheist church.. some people take things too far..) The only difference is who has the most power.

3) The ACLU is corrupt. Every organzation of any decent size or duration is corrupt. It's all but a law of physics.

4) Like with all issues of democracy, anyone assenine enough to think that the majority should be able to boss around the minority whenever possible is saying that having lots and lots and lots of unprotected sex makes you fit to rule a country, and oppress less horny people. I'm sorry, but some of us feel that knocking up people for votes is a bad idea. :fluffle: :sniper: Do you -really- wany this country's future to be decided by who's the horniest and most reckless, or do you want to use the constitution to try and keep that from going too far? If there's other options, I'd love to hear them.

Quote the bible where those are found.

Then prove to me, without a shadow of a doubt, that said principals cannot be found in any other religion.

Otherwise, you are WRONG.

What I said was this was a country founded on Christian principles. I never said other religions do not beleive in those princiiples. If you want proof of the principles this country was founded on, read the Federalist Papers and other wrightings of the founders of this country.

What I said was this was a country founded on Christian principles. I never said other religions do not beleive in those princiiples.
if those principles are not unique to Christianity, then how can you refer to them as "Christian principles"? wouldn't it be equally accurate to say we are founded on Jewish principles, pagan principles, secular principle, Muslim principles, and pretty much every other spiritual orientation's principles? after all, prohibitions against theft, lying, and murder have been present in every human culture in recorded history, and such prohibitions have only rarely been associated with Christian doctrine (if you look at the grand scope of history).

God was specifically and intentionally voted OUT of the US Constitution. the framers thought it over quite clearly and carefully, and consciously choose to exclude God from the founding document of the American government. how you people can continue to insist that America was founded on Christianity or Christian values is beyond me, since all existing historical evidence shows such a claim to be flat out wrong.

Please, the ACLU is protecting NAMBLA's right to yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater. Do you even know what the case is about? NAMBLA offers a detailed "How-To" Book on abducting and raping children. I'M not going to give money to an organization offers legal advice to these sick bastards -- I'd feel better giving money to al-Qaeda.

the ACLU is defending the freedom of speech of an organization. their choice in how to exercise that speech is their business, and nobody has to listen if they don't want to. any person who acts in an illegal manner is responsible for their conduct, and can't blame somebody else's speech for their voluntary actions. the ACLU believes in personal responsibility, and so do i...why not you?


If we were all locked up in the same size jail cells we would all have 'equal rights' ~ see, I can say asanine things too.
um, okay. did you have a point in saying that? it seems like you just supported my position, frankly...i am saying that all people should have equal freedom, and that said freedom should be BROADER than what is currently being recognized. you are the one suggesting that we all have additional freedoms taken away, by removing free speech rights and restricting what people are allowed to discuss. sounds like you are fitting us for identical prison cells.

The republicans in power since Reagan have NOT been against big government. In fact they have been for big government in ways that do not help the private citizen.

Would you please explain this a little more and give us some examples of what you are refering to?

The lower taxes republicans are proposing are mainly aimed to lower the burden on the rich, and to say that that benefits everyone is an oversimplification, as it has adverse effect on generations yet to come.

If taxes are lowered by 10% everyone gets the same percentage tax break. Obviously lower income people will not get as many $$ back, but they didn't pay as many $$ in, so what is wrong with everyone getting their taxes reduced by the same percentage? Everyone gets their fair share.

Evoryone benefits. Lower income people will end up with more money to spend for whatever they want, thus helping economic growth. The rich are more likely to invest their money thus creating more jobs and stimulating the economy. It is a win, win situation. :cool:

I never said they were "overwhelmingly" for Kerry.

The elections process, at the very best, has a 10% margin of error. At worst, who knows?

Then you add in the fact that at least one state (and probably others, I'm not sure) purposely skewed the results by using ambigous wording and leaving out half of what the amendment does - this adds to the margin of error for whether or not the people wanted it.

Add the fact that absentee and provisional ballots aren't even counted unless the elections people think it is a close race - more margin of error.

Do you see the problem here?

To truly be a statistically convincing win, you would need *at the least* a 60% win, and probably higher than that.

I think we have some fuzzy math going on here. Any statisticians out there that can help us out on this? :p

how you people can continue to insist that America was founded on Christianity or Christian values is beyond me, since all existing historical evidence shows such a claim to be flat out wrong.

You must be refering to "revisionist" history. Let's see, the early settlers came from Europe because.....:headbang:

Most of the problems I've seen have been explained away or false. If you can show something that would amount to your ten percent claim, I'll believe it. And no, Greg Palast dosen't count.

Explain away the fact that *any* time you are counting hundreds of thousands of *anything* in *any* way, and doing so only once, you will have a huge variance.

Also explain away the fact that all you have to do to completely erase cards or get admin. rights to Diebold computers is hit the card with a little bit of ESD. Without a paper trail, who knows how many votes were lost or created in this way?

Explain the 4000 extra votes in a single county in ... Ohio, was it?

Absentee and provisional ballots only tend to be abnormal if there are some abnormal circumstances surrounding them, for example in Washington where a vast majority of the provisional ballots came from one county. Besides that, they rarely have a large impact beyond normal results, as absentee ballots tend to skew Republican while provisionals tend to skew Democrat.

And you are getting this... where?

Absentee ballots tend to be armed services (often Republican) and college students (often Democrat). *Both* of these groups are very different from the "norm" in society.

Of course, whether or not they are significantly different from the general population is besides the point. If you leave out data altogether, you increase your chances at getting a false result. These are generally left out altogether.

If taxes are lowered by 10% everyone gets the same percentage tax break. Obviously lower income people will not get as many $$ back, but they didn't pay as many $$ in, so what is wrong with everyone getting their taxes reduced by the same percentage? Everyone gets their fair share.

Evoryone benefits. Lower income people will end up with more money to spend for whatever they want, thus helping economic growth. The rich are more likely to invest their money thus creating more jobs and stimulating the economy. It is a win, win situation. :cool:


Of course, if the reduced taxes are not accompanied by a *decrease* in government spending, a few people might benefit, but many will actually be harmed. After all, if spending doesn't go down to match, the money has to come from *somewhere*. The federal government won't raise taxes, the state governments generally don't want to raise income taxes - so they pass it off to the counties. The counties increase property taxes. Guess what? That means that an even smaller group is now footing the bill!

Would you please explain this a little more and give us some examples of what you are refering to?

Reagan and the Bush's have promoted policies which lowered the value of the dollar (meaning that the worker could buy less while the corporations could export more)and made huge increases in federal spending and military spending. Reagan issued the "war on drugs" as a way to increase government spending on police and military forces to control the "drug flow" from countries that didn't happen to agree with us in Central and South America, and spent a great deal of money in doing so. Bush issued the "war on terror" as a way to control the "terror flow" from countries that didn't happen to agree with us in the Middle East. Each of them created these battlefields and used them to test unproven military weapons and tactics, all the while imposing pro-American governments in oil-rich nations.

If taxes are lowered by 10% everyone gets the same percentage tax break. Obviously lower income people will not get as many $$ back, but they didn't pay as many $$ in, so what is wrong with everyone getting their taxes reduced by the same percentage? Everyone gets their fair share.

Evoryone benefits. Lower income people will end up with more money to spend for whatever they want, thus helping economic growth. The rich are more likely to invest their money thus creating more jobs and stimulating the economy. It is a win, win situation. :cool:

You presented a very good reason why the rich will benefit from the tax breaks a great deal more than the middle-class and lower. Where as, the middle-class receives a small amount back that it will spend on living expenses, the rich will invest it. The individuals spending it on living expenses will see absolutely no return on their spending, except to be taxed again on the sales. While those investing it will see revenue on their investing, and a great deal of it.

Also, investing is driven by demand, not supply. If we are in a weak economy, which we are, and there is a weak dollar, which there is, there will be a lot smaller demand for investing within this country. That means the investing done will be in foreign markets.

Why? What's so awful about protecting civil liberties?


www.stoptheaclu.org
Maybe it has something to do with the ACLU's wholesale attack on the things that have made America great throughout its history...


Locally-controlled schools? The ACLU has fought against school choice.

Not too long ago, the First Amendment stood for Freedom OF Religion. Nowadays, courtesy of the ACLU, it's being interpreted as guaranteeing Freedom FROM Religion.

The local, hometown church? The ACLU has gone after it, for daring to speak out against Islamo-fascist sponsored terror.

Boy Scouts? The ACLU sued the Department of Defense to stop bases from sponsoring Boy Scout troops because of the requirement that Scouts believe in a higher power.

Now the ACLU is going after Los Angeles County because there is a cross (gasp!!!) in its seal. How dare they?

The ACLU was right there, when Michael Newdow sued to have the Pledge of Allegiance stricken as unconstitutional, because of his personal dislike for the words "under God." What's next, helping Newdow sue Major League Baseball because the seventh-inning stretch on most stadiums now features "God Bless America???" Get a life!

The ACLU has consistently taken the wrong side, against those things the vast majority of Americans believe in. And, following the dictum "the enemy of my enemy is friend," the GOP has very wisely taken a stand against the ACLU. Now, mind you, the GOP is NOT for disbanding or outlawing the ACLU...the GOP (and a vast majority of America) simply wishes that the ACLU would find real issues to get all spun up about.

Maybe it has something to do with the ACLU's wholesale attack on the things that have made America great throughout its history...


So standing up for freedom is attacking america?? Freedom means freedom for all not just those that agree with those in power.

The republicans do not like the ucla for one reason only. They stand up against those who try to oppress others.

the GOP (and a vast majority of America) simply wishes that the ACLU would find real issues to get all spun up about.

Just becuase you want it that way does not mean the majority of America does. I am so sick of the extremist attitude of "Agree with me or you are not a true American."
AMERICA IS ALL ABOUT FREEDOM. And people like you are all about taking freedom away so you can force your ways on to others. But think about this, if you take all the freedom to be different than you away from the rest of the country what will happen when someone you do not agree with is elected to office? then you will be the one with out freedom.

Maybe it has something to do with the ACLU's wholesale attack on the things that have made America great throughout its history...

...

The ACLU was right there, when Michael Newdow sued to have the Pledge of Allegiance stricken as unconstitutional, because of his personal dislike for the words "under God."

slight side issue, sorry for the tangent, but...

why is it that the people who claim to be traditionalist, and who want to retain the things they claim have made America great throughout history, are the people who DON'T want to say the original, traditional Pledge? why are they the revisionists on this one issue? why aren't they fighting to return the Pledge to its traditional form, the form that was said for years longer than the current "Under God" revision? why are they so willing to accept the shallow political distortion of the Pledge that was implimented during the Red Scare? is there some reason why the commitment to America's traditional values falls flat on this one issue?

Maybe it has something to do with the ACLU's wholesale attack on the things that have made America great throughout its history...


Locally-controlled schools? The ACLU has fought against school choice.

Not too long ago, the First Amendment stood for Freedom OF Religion. Nowadays, courtesy of the ACLU, it's being interpreted as guaranteeing Freedom FROM Religion.

The local, hometown church? The ACLU has gone after it, for daring to speak out against Islamo-fascist sponsored terror.

Boy Scouts? The ACLU sued the Department of Defense to stop bases from sponsoring Boy Scout troops because of the requirement that Scouts believe in a higher power.

Now the ACLU is going after Los Angeles County because there is a cross (gasp!!!) in its seal. How dare they?

The ACLU was right there, when Michael Newdow sued to have the Pledge of Allegiance stricken as unconstitutional, because of his personal dislike for the words "under God." What's next, helping Newdow sue Major League Baseball because the seventh-inning stretch on most stadiums now features "God Bless America???" Get a life!

The ACLU has consistently taken the wrong side, against those things the vast majority of Americans believe in. And, following the dictum "the enemy of my enemy is friend," the GOP has very wisely taken a stand against the ACLU. Now, mind you, the GOP is NOT for disbanding or outlawing the ACLU...the GOP (and a vast majority of America) simply wishes that the ACLU would find real issues to get all spun up about.

Very well said.

So standing up for freedom is attacking america?? Freedom means freedom for all not just those that agree with those in power.

The republicans do not like the ucla for one reason only. They stand up against those who try to oppress others.

A question here; Where do your freedoms end and mine begin? Or if you prefer, you can flip it around. :confused:

Boy Scouts? The ACLU sued the Department of Defense to stop bases from sponsoring Boy Scout troops because of the requirement that Scouts believe in a higher power.

I don't believe in a higher power. But what if I want to become a boy scout? My spiritual beliefs should have nothing to do with it. I'm pretty sure that under the Free Establishment Clause, that makes the boy scouts a religious organization which cannot be funded by the government. The ACLU is actually very cool, because they would be protecting my freedom to become a boy scout despite my religious beliefs.

I tend to vote Republican/Independant.

I agree w/ the ACLU on principle but disagree w/ a good portion of thier practice but not all.

Good: There was a case (MI or WI I forget) where a girl was expelled for alleged witchcraft and putting a curse on her teacher. The ACLU jumped all over it.

Bad/Stupid: The case in the 90's where a couple of guys wanted some money and convinced the ACLU to help them sue Hooters based on discriminatory hiring practices. The Hooter campaign in response made the ACLU look like idiots.

They need to be more selective on the cases they prosecute.

I don't believe in a higher power. But what if I want to become a boy scout? My spiritual beliefs should have nothing to do with it. I'm pretty sure that under the Free Establishment Clause, that makes the boy scouts a religious organization which cannot be funded by the government. The ACLU is actually very cool, because they would be protecting my freedom to become a boy scout despite my religious beliefs.

There are some requirements you must meet to become a Boy Scout. Some of those requirements are age, sex, a belief in a higher power, and not homosexual. It is very simple, if you don’t meet the requirements, you cannot become a member.

The Boy Scouts are not a religious organization. They do not care if you are a Christian, Jew, Moslem, Buddhist, etc, etc. However, they do believe in a Higher Power.

Now, why would you want join organizations if you did not believe in the same thing the members believe in? I don’t believe in the same things NMBLA does and I darn sure don’t want to join them.

You do not have a constitutional “right” to join any organization you want. Would the ACLU still be “cool” if they took the opposite side and defended the Boy Scouts “right” to exclude people who do not meet their membership requirements?

There are thousands of organizations that have membership requirements and retain the “right” to exclude individuals who do not meet those requirements.

You must be refering to "revisionist" history. Let's see, the early settlers came from Europe because.....:headbang:

The earliest European settlers to come to North America were escaping religious persecution and were themselves Christian, yes. But the the United States was not founded when the pilgrims landed.

The majority of the Europeans colonists came for the land and economic opportunity and freedom. The United States was founded on Capitalists -not Christian -principles.

Not too long ago, the First Amendment stood for Freedom OF Religion. Nowadays, courtesy of the ACLU, it's being interpreted as guaranteeing Freedom FROM Religion.

Why does almost all neo-con rhetoric (not saying you are one, just saying you are using a neo-con tactic) revolve around assertions that, when logically broken down, amount to saying "X" is not equal to "X"?

Freedom of religion is freedom from religion. To be free to practice one's own religion and only one's own religion, then one must have the freedom from having other religion's beliefs and symbology forced upon one.

Locally-controlled schools? The ACLU has fought against school choice.

Do you mean vouchers or some other scheme that would divert public taxpayer money to a shcool which teaches a specific idealogy?

The local, hometown church? The ACLU has gone after it, for daring to speak out against Islamo-fascist sponsored terror.

I would need to see the specific case. There should be nothing wrong with speaking out against terrorism. However, some places have crossed the line and made public assertions that being Islamic is the same as being a terrorist, and that would be slander.

Boy Scouts? The ACLU sued the Department of Defense to stop bases from sponsoring Boy Scout troops because of the requirement that Scouts believe in a higher power.

Again, that would be using federal tax money to fund religious idealogy.

Now the ACLU is going after Los Angeles County because there is a cross (gasp!!!) in its seal. How dare they?

Would you feel so outraged if a county had a pentagram in its seal and the ACLU fought to have that removed? If not, please explain why.

The ACLU was right there, when Michael Newdow sued to have the Pledge of Allegiance stricken as unconstitutional, because of his personal dislike for the words "under God." What's next, helping Newdow sue Major League Baseball because the seventh-inning stretch on most stadiums now features "God Bless America???" Get a life!

To the best of my knowledge, Major League Baseball is privately owned and funded and does not recieve federal tax dollars. If Mr. Newdow does not like 'God Bless America' being sung in the seventh-inning stretch he has every right now to watch it. If federal tax money were used to subsidize MLB then and only then could Mr. Newdow rightfully sue to remove religious content.

The ACLU has consistently taken the wrong side, against those things the vast majority of Americans believe in. And, following the dictum "the enemy of my enemy is friend," the GOP has very wisely taken a stand against the ACLU. Now, mind you, the GOP is NOT for disbanding or outlawing the ACLU...the GOP (and a vast majority of America) simply wishes that the ACLU would find real issues to get all spun up about.

The ACLU protects civil liberties -often when "a vast majority of Americans" wished to deprive a specif group (in all the cases you mentioned that would be non-Christians) of the very liberties which the vast majority of Americans enjoy.

Hmmm.... Iran and Iraq were enemies, so that would make Iran Bush's friend...not the first time GOP has been wrong.

The earliest European settlers to come to North America were escaping religious persecution and were themselves Christian, yes. But the the United States was not founded when the pilgrims landed.

The majority of the Europeans colonists came for the land and economic opportunity and freedom. The United States was founded on Capitalists -not Christian -principles.

Have you read the writings of Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, etc? I do beleive you will find these founding fathers were Christians. When they established this country they did not throw out their beliefs. They also beleived in freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.

Well, they support affirmative action, which I do not -- affirmative action is hypocritical (how can you support affirmative action as a method of equality when it FAVORS minorities). Other than that, they seem to be on the right track.

And I believe the Boy Scouts is a private organization... which means they have every right to exclude people on whatever basis.

Well, they support affirmative action, which I do not -- affirmative action is hypocritical (how can you support affirmative action as a method of equality when it FAVORS minorities). Other than that, they seem to be on the right track.

And I believe the Boy Scouts is a private organization... which means they have every right to exclude people on whatever basis.

They don't though.

The Boy Scouts receive some funding from the federal government, and the government is not supposed to be supporting with cash grants organizations with discriminatory policies.

Have you read the writings of Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, etc? I do beleive you will find these founding fathers were Christians. When they established this country they did not throw out their beliefs. They also beleived in freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.

As for this, there are people on the board much more organized than I, who tend to jump on this kind of thing with pages upon pages of quotes from the founding fathers. In which it becomes fairly obvious that that particular claim is either exagerrated or blatantly untrue, depending on which founding father you talk about.

I personally am not that well versed on the subject, but I have seen enough people who are (with evidence and quotes, mind you) on NS to know that you can't make that claim legitimately.

It shouldn't be long before one of the more historically versed people pop up with quotes galore to challenge the idea that America's most important founding fathers were all card-carrying Christians.

Have you read the writings of Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, etc? I do beleive you will find these founding fathers were Christians. When they established this country they did not throw out their beliefs. They also beleived in freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.

Geroge Washington was a diest and a religious pluralist. He would not have wanted the views of one faith to dominate another.

Franklin, I do not know.

Jefferson was also a Diest and in the most strongest way did not believe that the United States should be a Christian nation.

Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.

-Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom

I concur with you strictly in your opinion of the comparative merits of atheism and demonism, and really see nothing but the latter in the being worshipped by many who think themselves Christians.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Richard Price, Jan. 8, 1789 (Richard Price had written to TJ on Oct. 26. about the harm done by religion and wrote "Would not Society be better without Such religions? Is Atheism less pernicious than Demonism?")

I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Hopkinson, March 13, 1789

Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814

And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors.

-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823

As for the freedom of/freedom for tactic, as I explained before, that is a cheap linguistical tactic and logically impossible.

As for this, there are people on the board much more organized than I, who tend to jump on this kind of thing with pages upon pages of quotes from the founding fathers. In which it becomes fairly obvious that that particular claim is either exagerrated or blatantly untrue, depending on which founding father you talk about.

I personally am not that well versed on the subject, but I have seen enough people who are (with evidence and quotes, mind you) on NS to know that you can't make that claim legitimately.

It shouldn't be long before one of the more historically versed people pop up with quotes galore to challenge the idea that America's most important founding fathers were all card-carrying Christians.

I've got Jefferson covered...

I never thought of that, but it's certainly a valid point. Still, the NAMBLA thing is a bit hard to stomach. I'd have to say that I agree with most of the ACLU's causes, though.

The NAMBLA support just came to give them the right to say what they want but not practive what they preach, right?

Sort of like how I could come here and say I wanted to shoot the president and they would defend my right to say that but not my actually shooting the president (which I am not going to do Mr. CIA-type person...I know he's coming to town to visit soon...)

The NAMBLA support just came to give them the right to say what they want but not practive what they preach, right?

Sort of like how I could come here and say I wanted to shoot the president and they would defend my right to say that but not my actually shooting the president (which I am not going to do Mr. CIA-type person...I know he's coming to town to visit soon...)

As long as you aren't actually planning shoot the president, and as long as your plans didn't include an unlawful direct threat (as that is a violation of a separate law), then it is not illegal to say you want to shoot the president. The CIA would still probably investigate to make sure that you were just talking shit instead of actually planning something, but you can say it.

Have you read the writings of Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, etc? I do beleive you will find these founding fathers were Christians. When they established this country they did not throw out their beliefs. They also beleived in freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.
The founding fathers were mostly deists. Freedom of religion includes freedom from religion, because freedom of religion includes the freedom to be of no faith at all.

I think we have some fuzzy math going on here. Any statisticians out there that can help us out on this? :p
I'm statistically knowledgeable, and I'd say that he's probably right, the margin for error is greater than the usual margin for victory. However, I don't think this is the biggest issue.

Consider the fact that most presidents do not actually get 50% of the vote. Consider also that there are a large group of democrats who are never gonna change the way they vote, and there are a large group of republicans leaning the same way. At best, there are probably 10% or fewer people who are actually gonna have their minds changed by anything but a completely unforseeable event. Now, factor in the fact that not all states are in play. The south is always gonna go to a republican, the northeast and pacific are always gonna go for a democrat. There are a handful of swing states, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida being the largest of them. The swing states contain only a moderate percentage of the population. So a small core of voters in an even smaller core of states decide the outcome of the election. And you know what the kicker is? They're the same people every time. The election is being decided by 1-2% of the voting population. And most of these people, given that they haven't already solidly chosen a party, are probably gonna vote entirely based on image and propaganda, not issues. Thats what the problem is.

If taxes are lowered by 10% everyone gets the same percentage tax break. Obviously lower income people will not get as many $$ back, but they didn't pay as many $$ in, so what is wrong with everyone getting their taxes reduced by the same percentage? Everyone gets their fair share.The problem is, a carton of milk costs the same for a rich person as for a poor person. If the poor people get fewer dollars back in exchange for a cutback in services, then they're the ones getting the fuzzy end of the lollypop.

Evoryone benefits. Lower income people will end up with more money to spend for whatever they want, thus helping economic growth. The rich are more likely to invest their money thus creating more jobs and stimulating the economy. It is a win, win situation. :cool:
Lemme give you an example. Lets say that the taxes taken off a poor person come to $100. And the taxes off a rich person is $10,000. Now, lets give them each a 10% tax cut.

Poor person gets: $10
Rich person gets $1,000

Now, lets say that to pay for the tax cut, congress slashes the MedicCare budget, to the calculated cost of $75 per person. Now, the average person is gonna have to pay $75 more for healthcare than they would before. But they have more money to pay for it, yes?

Rich person gets sick, pays $75. He's left with $925 from his tax cut.
Poor person gets sick, pays $75. He's left with -$65 from his tax cut.

Thats how it doesn't benefit everyone evenly.

What I love is the way you can sum up complex issues in ten words or less. reducing the most difficult of subjects to little, teeny, bitesized chunks.


Locally-controlled schools? The ACLU has fought against school choice.

Nowadays, courtesy of the ACLU, it's being interpreted as guaranteeing Freedom FROM Religion.

Now the ACLU is going after Los Angeles County because there is a cross (gasp!!!) in its seal. How dare they?
This one is a particular gem:

The local, hometown church? The ACLU has gone after it, for daring to speak out against Islamo-fascist sponsored terror.
You mean, for being openly and overtly racist and discriminatory?

And I believe the Boy Scouts is a private organization... which means they have every right to exclude people on whatever basis.But not to receive government funding while doing so.

Well, they support affirmative action, which I do not -- affirmative action is hypocritical (how can you support affirmative action as a method of equality when it FAVORS minorities). Other than that, they seem to be on the right track.

And I believe the Boy Scouts is a private organization... which means they have every right to exclude people on whatever basis.

I hope you are not disputing me as I agree with you, but I do not think our founding fathers supported affirmative action. I agree affirmative action is discriminitory.

Yes, the BSA is a private organization and has every right to exclude people who do not meet their membership requirements.

I'm statistically knowledgeable, and I'd say that he's probably right, the margin for error is greater than the usual margin for victory. However, I don't think this is the biggest issue.

They're the same people every time. The election is being decided by 1-2% of the voting population. And most of these people, given that they haven't already solidly chosen a party, are probably gonna vote entirely based on image and propaganda, not issues. Thats what the problem is.

Thank you, thank you, and thank you. If every eligible voter went to vote on Election Day… Yes, the outcome could be different. I don’t care what your politics are, just make sure you get out and vote for your candidate. Oh, don’t forget to look beyond the propaganda of the TV ads and find out what the real issues are. And if you really want to get involved, work for the candidate of your choice.

But not to receive government funding while doing so.

Then the government shouldn't be funding them if they are.

Now, lets say that to pay for the tax cut, congress slashes the MedicCare budget, to the calculated cost of $75 per person.

We were talking tax cuts not budget cuts. We can play the "what if game" all day. It doesn't address the issue of budget cuts.

You mean, for being openly and overtly racist and discriminatory?

I believe that would fall into "freedom of speech." Regardless, Panhandlia's wrong about the ACLU attacking local churches... in fact..

http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=16295&c=142

There's a case where they DEFENDED your local hometown church..

the ACLU is defending the freedom of speech of an organization. their choice in how to exercise that speech is their business, and nobody has to listen if they don't want to. any person who acts in an illegal manner is responsible for their conduct, and can't blame somebody else's speech for their voluntary actions. the ACLU believes in personal responsibility, and so do i...why not you?


Treading a thin red line here. It is an argument that one should feel free to speak their mind. However, saying I like to sleep with minor young males is different compared to: when attempting to sleep with minor aged males it is essential that you...

Personal Responsibility dictates if you are knowledgeable of how a person could commit criminal acts, you should share that knowledge with those who are capable of preventing such acts from occuring, not intentionally aiding those who desire to break the law. The former is a good sumaritan, the later an accomplice. In such cases the person is not being blamed for the actions of another, but for providing instructions.

Then the government shouldn't be funding them if they are.

Yeah, that's why the ACLU stepped in.

The whole freedom OF religion and freedom FROM religion is a BS argument. The Constitution gives me the right to believe what I want, and if I believe in nothing, it's still a religious belief. Someone might believe there's a God. I might believe there isn't anything. It's still a belief, and that can't be disputed by reading into the motives of the founding fathers.

Treading a thin red line here. It is an argument that one should feel free to speak their mind. However, saying I like to sleep with minor young males is different compared to: when attempting to sleep with minor aged males it is essential that you...

Personal Responsibility dictates if you are knowledgeable of how a person could commit criminal acts, you should share that knowledge with those who are capable of preventing such acts from occuring, not intentionally aiding those who desire to break the law. The former is a good sumaritan, the later an accomplice. In such cases the person is not being blamed for the actions of another, but for providing instructions.
i disagree. i support ALL free speech, and i don't think anybody is an accomplice to actions they did not commit or participate directly in. if i give somebody a set of very specific instructions for how they can succeed in college, and they follow them successfully to receive their degree, i don't get half of that degree for myself just because i talked to them about how best to accomplish their goal. they had to choose, they had to take action, and they reep all the benefits (and consequences) of their actions.

obviously i think that people who know how to molest children shouldn't choose to share that information, or should give their secrets to law enforcement personel who can stop such abuse, but that's my personal desire for how they use their free speech. i also think that religious people should not spread their beliefs to impressionable young minds, but should instead share their knowledge of such techniques with law enforcement and councilling personel who can better help to treat religious addiction in young people and prevent what i view as a form of abuse. what i would LIKE somebody to do with their freedoms is often going to be very different from what they CHOOSE, but that cannot stop me from defending their right to those freedoms.

Personal Responsibility dictates if you are knowledgeable of how a person could commit criminal acts, you should share that knowledge with those who are capable of preventing such acts from occuring, not intentionally aiding those who desire to break the law. The former is a good sumaritan, the later an accomplice. In such cases the person is not being blamed for the actions of another, but for providing instructions.

Are you advocating the idea of thought-crime? Pre-emptive prosecution? Guilty until proven innocent?

Really, I could write stories for days about how any given person that I know COULD commit a crime, but unless that person does commit a crime or I have factual knowledge that the person is planning to commit a crime, then the idea is nothing more than speculation. "Crime prevention" involves bringing in the police for investigation and that requires actual probable cause. Belonging to NAMBLA, the KKK, the NRA, etc does not constitute probable cause.

You must be refering to "revisionist" history. Let's see, the early settlers came from Europe because.....:headbang:
if by "revisionist" you mean "based on direct reading of historical documents rather than word-of-mouth apocriphal stories" then yes, i am a revisionist.

the original settlers who came to America wanted to set up a colony where they were free from being persecuted, and where they would be free to persecute all those who did not follow their school of thought. there are a great many visions of theirs that did not make it into the American government at its founding, and there are many of their values that we currently revile as bigotted, ignorant, and dishonorable. our discussion has been about the LEGAL foundations of this country, the Constititution and the other fundamental rights and freedoms that were envisioned when American the NATION was born.

Are you advocating the idea of thought-crime? Pre-emptive prosecution? Guilty until proven innocent?

Really, I could write stories for days about how any given person that I know COULD commit a crime, but unless that person does commit a crime or I have factual knowledge that the person is planning to commit a crime, then the idea is nothing more than speculation. "Crime prevention" involves bringing in the police for investigation and that requires actual probable cause. Belonging to NAMBLA, the KKK, the NRA, etc does not constitute probable cause.

LOL;) Someone who gets to the heart of things-thoughtcrime.

No, I am not advocating thought crime.

I am merely stating that someone who publishes documentation that outlines how to conduct illegal activity, not that they merely like the activity and think it should be legal, but how a person can succesfully kidnap and molest children, with the intent that like minded individuals use the advice to commit the act, they should be considered accomplices to those who follow the document and commit the act.

There are some requirements you must meet to become a Boy Scout. Some of those requirements are age, sex, a belief in a higher power, and not homosexual. It is very simple, if you don’t meet the requirements, you cannot become a member.

The Boy Scouts are not a religious organization. They do not care if you are a Christian, Jew, Moslem, Buddhist, etc, etc. However, they do believe in a Higher Power.

Now, why would you want join organizations if you did not believe in the same thing the members believe in? I don’t believe in the same things NMBLA does and I darn sure don’t want to join them.

You do not have a constitutional “right” to join any organization you want. Would the ACLU still be “cool” if they took the opposite side and defended the Boy Scouts “right” to exclude people who do not meet their membership requirements?

There are thousands of organizations that have membership requirements and retain the “right” to exclude individuals who do not meet those requirements.
The main point is, the Boy Scouts are a PRIVATE organization, which sets its own rules. That the Boy Scouts have a Federal charter is irrelevant, they still are a private organization. No one forces you to join the Boy Scouts, no one has a "right" to join, either.

You do not have a constitutional “right” to join any organization you want. Would the ACLU still be “cool” if they took the opposite side and defended the Boy Scouts “right” to exclude people who do not meet their membership requirements?

Guess what, they would defend that right, as long as the Boy Scouts did not receive government funds. However, since they do receive government funds, they have to abide by government non-discrimination rules. This means equal hiring, regardless of religion (or lack thereof) and sexual orientation.

There are thousands of organizations that have membership requirements and retain the “right” to exclude individuals who do not meet those requirements.

And these organizations do not receive government funds.

Have you read the writings of Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, etc? I do beleive you will find these founding fathers were Christians. When they established this country they did not throw out their beliefs. They also beleived in freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.

Never mind that if you had actually read their writings, you would find that they were *deist,* not Christian, although they did agree with *some* Christian teachings.

Jefferson quite clearly believed that allowing a religion enforce its beliefs through the government was wrong.

And most *all* of them backed the Treaty of Tripoli, which *clearly* states that the US is *in no way* founded as a Christian country.

Sorry, you are very, very, very wrong.

i disagree. i support ALL free speech, and i don't think anybody is an accomplice to actions they did not commit or participate directly in. if i give somebody a set of very specific instructions for how they can succeed in college, and they follow them successfully to receive their degree, i don't get half of that degree for myself just because i talked to them about how best to accomplish their goal. they had to choose, they had to take action, and they reep all the benefits (and consequences) of their actions.

obviously i think that people who know how to molest children shouldn't choose to share that information, or should give their secrets to law enforcement personel who can stop such abuse, but that's my personal desire for how they use their free speech. i also think that religious people should not spread their beliefs to impressionable young minds, but should instead share their knowledge of such techniques with law enforcement and councilling personel who can better help to treat religious addiction in young people and prevent what i view as a form of abuse. what i would LIKE somebody to do with their freedoms is often going to be very different from what they CHOOSE, but that cannot stop me from defending their right to those freedoms.

Well the right to that freedom ends when it infringes on the rights of others without justification. Explaining how to abduct and molest children via mass information should cease when it is used by other to actually do so. The right to free speech ends when it result in actual physical harm, or the immediate apprehension of such harm occuring.

An individual can still advocate that perhaps man boy love should not be illegal, however, that same person should not be allowed to tell others how to successfully kidnap and rape children. (Children are not legally capable of consent so all sexual acts with them are various degrees of rape.)

That is my point on the subject.

Then the government shouldn't be funding them if they are.

And yet the suit that everyone likes to claim was "anti-boy scouts" was suing to get the government funding removed or to get rid of the discriminatory practices.

Of course, everyone acts like the ACLU is *against* the boy scouts.

The main point is, the Boy Scouts are a PRIVATE organization, which sets its own rules. That the Boy Scouts have a Federal charter is irrelevant, they still are a private organization. No one forces you to join the Boy Scouts, no one has a "right" to join, either.

If they are government funded, then they cannot be discriminatory. If they have no government funding, they can keep out blonde people for all any legal group would care.

The ACLU is just filled with people that have way too much time on their hands accompanied with a law degree.

Was the statue of the Ten Commandments in the courthouse hurting anybody? No, and if you were offended then get counseling. The ACLU hurts America.


Thanks for the link. I'm bookmarking that page.

TWas the statue of the Ten Commandments in the courthouse hurting anybody? No, and if you were offended then get counseling. The ACLU hurts America.

Yes, I think that my judges should show very clear bias and sneak monuments into the courthouse *knowing* it is illegal under the cover of night.

I don't want my judges or my courts to be impartial, I want them to judge me by their own personal religions, instead of the law of the land.

I *am* a Christian, and I am offended by judges that sneak illegal monuments that have not been approved by the government into a courthouse in the dead of night and demonstrate a *clear* bias that they should not bring into the courtroom.

So the ACLU was protecting someone’s freedom of religion. Who was protecting the judges?


Face it; the judges weren't discriminating against anybody. They just wanted a statue. Besides, who could be offended by what the ten commandments say? "'Thou shall not kill?' F*ck that!"

So the ACLU was protecting someone’s freedom of religion. Who was protecting the judges?

The judge was breaking the law by establishing a religion as a government authority. No one said that the judge couldn't *be* Christian, just that it shouldn't enter into his job - or the government as a whole.

And you conveniently ignore the fact that the judge snuck the monument in, in the dead of night, without any decree to do so from the local government.

Would you be equally up in arms if a judge had snuck in a monument to Satan in the dead of night and it had been removed?

Face it; the judges weren't discriminating against anybody.

Wrong. The judge was specifically told that he could keep the monument if it recognized other religions as well. He adamantly refused.

They just wanted a statue.

If a judge wants a statue on his own personal property, that is his right. However, he has no right to erect a statue/monument on public property that clearly establishes a particular religion. This really isn't all that hard to understand.

Besides, who could be offended by what the ten commandments say? "'Thou shall not kill?' F*ck that!"

No one said they were offended by what some of the commandments say, although the religious laws, such as "Remember the Sabbath...", "You shall have no other gods...", might offend plenty of people. It is the act of establishing a religious bias in the courtroom that was offensive.

Properly translated it is Thou shalt not Murder, if it is thou shalt not kill, the omnipotent and omniscient one violated his own commandments.

Christian Republican Here.
I must admit I dont like the ACLU.
However I think I would like America a lot less, without the ACLU.
I disagree with a lot of things they have done, but I am certain without a doubt that many Republicans and Christians have benefitted from ACLU aid-even it that doesnt make the History channel or CNN or my local paper.

But yeah, I dont like the ACLU. I dont like cops either, but I dont want them gone.
That was the most honest answer I've heard from a Christian yet.
*Tips the hat to Skibereen*

LOL;) Someone who gets to the heart of things-thoughtcrime.

No, I am not advocating thought crime.

I am merely stating that someone who publishes documentation that outlines how to conduct illegal activity, not that they merely like the activity and think it should be legal, but how a person can succesfully kidnap and molest children, with the intent that like minded individuals use the advice to commit the act, they should be considered accomplices to those who follow the document and commit the act.

I can understand this feeling when one thinks in terms of the NAMBLA case. Really.

But how does one determine intent?

I haven't read the document in question, but something detailing how crimes are/could be committed can also be used to stop crimes or warn citizens how to guard against those who would commit crimes using those tactics. Think of all the news stories warning people how to be careful in parking garages and such.

And then, how far does that go. It could be truthfully argued that university level chemistry text books were written with the intent that the people studying them would then know how to build bombs or manufacture illegal drugs - things anyone with a degree in chemistry could do if they were so inclined.

No one has to use information to commit a crime.

Why? What's so awful about protecting civil liberties?


www.stoptheaclu.org

1. They don't. They support wierdos.

2. "A" for American. Most of their simps are from South America, Canada, and Mexico. The 50-Real-States-Of-North-America know where these traitors should go.

3. "C" for Civil. Read their stuff. Mostly unpublishable, due to bad language (and lack of fact/truth).

4. "L" for Liberties. Which they constantly attack.

5. "U" for UNION. One-out-of four truthful statements (way above average for lib's).

Yes, I think that my judges should show very clear bias and sneak monuments into the courthouse *knowing* it is illegal under the cover of night.

I don't want my judges or my courts to be impartial, I want them to judge me by their own personal religions, instead of the law of the land.

I *am* a Christian, and I am offended by judges that sneak illegal monuments that have not been approved by the government into a courthouse in the dead of night and demonstrate a *clear* bias that they should not bring into the courtroom.

Umm! And you think the Supreme Court building should be torn down because the Ten Commandments are engraved on the building?

Was the law of the United States based on the Common Law of England? Was the Common Law of England based on Christian and Jewish principles? Are Christian and Jewish principles based on the Ten Commandments?

2. "A" for American. Most of their simps are from South America, Canada, and Mexico. The 50-Real-States-Of-North-America know where these traitors should go.

3. "C" for Civil. Read their stuff. Mostly unpublishable, due to bad language (and lack of fact/truth).

4. "L" for Liberties. Which they constantly attack.

5. "U" for UNION. One-out-of four truthful statements (way above average for lib's).

I don't like them either, but this post is:

A Clear, Low, Unadulterated flame.

Well, the ACLU now wants to force children to go see a "Homosexual Tolerance Training" video. (What happened to the rights of the parents?)

The ACLU is trying to sue an abstinence website because it mentions God. (Shouldn't they be looking at the goal of the website? That goal being to try and prevent children from having sex.)

And lastly, the ACLU is trying to ban Christmas displays in public areas. (Because baby Jesus is a huge threat to your safety.)

The judge was breaking the law by establishing a religion as a government authority. No one said that the judge couldn't *be* Christian, just that it shouldn't enter into his job - or the government as a whole.

And you conveniently ignore the fact that the judge snuck the monument in, in the dead of night, without any decree to do so from the local government.

Would you be equally up in arms if a judge had snuck in a monument to Satan in the dead of night and it had been removed?


You seem to be under the impression that the judge snuck this monument into the courthouse. You seem to forget the thing weighed 5300 pounds. Its not like he had to use two hands to get it in there.

And to answer your question, yes I would be offended if it was a monument to Satan; however, this is only because Satan doesn't teach you to "do unto others" and to "love they neighbor." And I love you.

Well, the ACLU now wants to force children to go see a "Homosexual Tolerance Training" video. (What happened to the rights of the parents?)

The ACLU is trying to sue an abstinence website because it mentions God. (Shouldn't they be looking at the goal of the website? That goal being to try and prevent children from having sex.)

And lastly, the ACLU is trying to ban Christmas displays in public areas. (Because baby Jesus is a huge threat to your safety.)

source, source, and source? and for the last one, i've got a dollar that says any case you can point to is one where the government put up a nativity scene with tax payer money on government property. which is in fact a clear violation of the establishment clause - there is no way of arguing your way out of it. that's why they keep winning these kind of suits.

Have you followed the links at http://www.stoptheACLU.org? They will link you to WorldNetDaily.

If you're worried about getting biased material then you could google all three.

I can understand this feeling when one thinks in terms of the NAMBLA case. Really.

But how does one determine intent?

I haven't read the document in question, but something detailing how crimes are/could be committed can also be used to stop crimes or warn citizens how to guard against those who would commit crimes using those tactics. Think of all the news stories warning people how to be careful in parking garages and such.

And then, how far does that go. It could be truthfully argued that university level chemistry text books were written with the intent that the people studying them would then know how to build bombs or manufacture illegal drugs - things anyone with a degree in chemistry could do if they were so inclined.

No one has to use information to commit a crime.

But explicitly being given information to perpetrate one is different than working it out on your own.

In general.

Mode of distribution would be one indicator of intent.
Only distributed to members of an organization, not to the public or law enforcement.

Goals of the organization with respect to information disbursed would be another.
If the intent of an organization is to change the law, it would dessimate information on the law, and why the law should be changed. Not how to violate it.

There is a pretty clear distinction between the dessimation of knowledge for academic advancement, and to violate the law. Where it is not clear, free speech wins. A chemistry text, for example, is for the advancement of the knowledge of chemistry. It does not, in the introduction, say: if you desire to create harmfull substances to harm others follow these instructions, and order supplies from these types of distributors, as the government can not trace such purchases. And availability is not limited to members of chemistry clubs.

Well, the ACLU now wants to force children to go see a "Homosexual Tolerance Training" video. (What happened to the rights of the parents?)

The ACLU is trying to sue an abstinence website because it mentions God. (Shouldn't they be looking at the goal of the website? That goal being to try and prevent children from having sex.)

And lastly, the ACLU is trying to ban Christmas displays in public areas. (Because baby Jesus is a huge threat to your safety.)


1)Perhaps that has to do with public safety. Many bigots target homosexuals for unlawful violence At one time, racial tolerance films were shown. Is that a bad thing? As for the parents, the type of parent who says the murder of Matthew Sheppard is a good thing would not want their child seeing the videos. These are the children who need to see them the most. There is a difference between promoting tolerance and promoting homosexuality.

2)Does the website recieve government funding? 'God' is only a reason for children who believe in him not to have sex. Seeing 'God' as a reason might convince atheist or Hindu or Buddhist or other children that the whole website is invalid since it is a 'God' thing. Websites that recieve government funding should teach children equally.

3)Many people find it highly offensive that lands maintained by all taxpayer money should be used to display the symbols of just one religion. Remove the baby Jesus are also put Mithra, Horus, Dionysus and all the other gods who were 'born' at this time of the year there. As well as a secular message.


You seem to be under the impression that the judge snuck this monument into the courthouse. You seem to forget the thing weighed 5300 pounds. Its not like he had to use two hands to get it in there.

And to answer your question, yes I would be offended if it was a monument to Satan; however, this is only because Satan doesn't teach you to "do unto others" and to "love they neighbor." And I love you.

Snuck in this case means had it placed there in defiance of law. And, might I add, the Ten Commandments say neither "do unto others" nor "love thy neighbor." Neither do the majority of the Ten Commandments have anything to do with the Law (in fact, a lot of the Christians on this board got kinda upset when I suggested that they should push to make adultery illegal
:) )

But explicitly being given information to perpetrate one is different than working it out on your own.

In general.

Mode of distribution would be one indicator of intent.
Only distributed to members of an organization, not to the public or law enforcement.

Goals of the organization with respect to information disbursed would be another.
If the intent of an organization is to change the law, it would dessimate information on the law, and why the law should be changed. Not how to violate it.

There is a pretty clear distinction between the dessimation of knowledge for academic advancement, and to violate the law. Where it is not clear, free speech wins. A chemistry text, for example, is for the advancement of the knowledge of chemistry. It does not, in the introduction, say: if you desire to create harmfull substances to harm others follow these instructions, and order supplies from these types of distributors, as the government can not trace such purchases. And availability is not limited to members of chemistry clubs.

Hmmm. I will have to give this thougth. I can see how the limiting the distribution to a certain organization comes very close to conspiracy to commit a crime. Of course, it would have to be applied to questionable documentation handed out to all groups such as Operation Rescue and some of the more extreme enviornmentalist groups as well.

I don't like them either, but the above post is:

A Clear, Low, Unadulterated flame.

Exactly where does truth and fact relate to YOUR cry-baby opinion of "flame". If it disproves a socialist, you simps yell "fire".

1)Perhaps that has to do with public safety. Many bigots target homosexuals for unlawful violence At one time, racial tolerance films were shown. Is that a bad thing? As for the parents, the type of parent who says the murder of Matthew Sheppard is a good thing would not want their child seeing the videos. These are the children who need to see them the most. There is a difference between promoting tolerance and promoting homosexuality.

2)Does the website recieve government funding? 'God' is only a reason for children who believe in him not to have sex. Seeing 'God' as a reason might convince atheist or Hindu or Buddhist or other children that the whole website is invalid since it is a 'God' thing. Websites that recieve government funding should teach children equally.

3)Many people find it highly offensive that lands maintained by all taxpayer money should be used to display the symbols of just one religion. Remove the baby Jesus are also put Mithra, Horus, Dionysus and all the other gods who were 'born' at this time of the year there. As well as a secular message.



Snuck in this case means had it placed there in defiance of law. And, might I add, the Ten Commandments say neither "do unto others" nor "love thy neighbor." Neither do the majority of the Ten Commandments have anything to do with the Law (in fact, a lot of the Christians on this board got kinda upset when I suggested that they should push to make adultery illegal
:) )

1. Yeah, those 10 year old beat up fags all the time. You seem to be missing the point. Do I see a problem with racial tolerence videos? Yes. I'm not a racist, and I would probably make my child watch that video, but this is about parental rights. Maybe a preacher doesn't want his son to watch the homosexual tolerence video. That should be his choice.

2. You still are missing the intent of the website.

3. If you want to do that, then fine. You didn't read the article though. This was on private property.

Lastly, did I say the ten commandments said "love thy neighbor" or "do unto others?" I didn't. I said Satan didn't teach "love thy neighbor" or "do unto others." Learn how to read.

1. Yeah, those 10 year old beat up fags all the time. You seem to be missing the point. Do I see a problem with racial tolerence videos? Yes. I'm not a racist, and I would probably make my child watch that video, but this is about parental rights. Maybe a preacher doesn't want his son to watch the homosexual tolerence video. That should be his choice.

2. You still are missing the intent of the website.

3. If you want to do that, then fine. You didn't read the article though. This was on private property.

Lastly, did I say the ten commandments said "love thy neighbor" or "do unto others?" I didn't. I said Satan didn't teach "love thy neighbor" or "do unto others." Learn how to read.

1.Yes, 10 year olds do indeed throw around slurs and beat up other children for real or perceived sexual orientation. Hate crimes - against any group - are illegal. Tolerance videos are teaching that which is part of the law of this nation.

2.No. I'm not missing the intent. You are missing the law. Things which are publically funded cannot promote on religion over another regardless of how good the intent may be. Imagine if the site promoted abstinence in the name of Allah or the Goddess Hestia.


3. No, you said
And lastly, the ACLU is trying to ban Christmas displays in public areas. (Because baby Jesus is a huge threat to your safety.)

If you meant private land, then perhaps you should learn how to write.

And objecting to a monument to Satan on the grounds that such a being, if it exists, doesn't teach "love thy neighbor" etc, implies that you believe the Ten Commandments teach such things. Otherwise, your reasons for objecting to a Satan monumnet would be different. Learn logic.

Well, the ACLU now wants to force children to go see a "Homosexual Tolerance Training" video. (What happened to the rights of the parents?)

"The schools have great latitude in what they want to teach, including what's in training programs, and the training is now part of the school curriculum," Esseks said. "Parents don't get to say I don't want you to teach evolution or this, that or whatever else. If parents don't like it they can home school, they can go to a private school, they can go to a religious school."

Umm! And you think the Supreme Court building should be torn down because the Ten Commandments are engraved on the building?

Was the law of the United States based on the Common Law of England? Was the Common Law of England based on Christian and Jewish principles? Are
Christian and Jewish principles based on the Ten Commandments?

I must have gotten them all. :sniper: No liberal here answered these questions. I wonder why? :D :sniper:

I must have gotten them all. :sniper: No liberal here answered these questions. I wonder why? :D :sniper:

Because you're wrong? Watch, I can do the same thing you just did to prove that airplanes are inherintly homosexual.

Airplanes were invented by the Wright Brothers, who were influenced by Leonardo DaVinchi, who lived in a time when a majority of tradeskillsmen had apprentices, and many had sexual relationships with said apprentices. So, airplanes are gay.

:sniper: OMG :sniper: WTF :sniper: L337!!!1ONEONE!

The U.S. Supreme Court has said little about the Second Amendment, but it has certainly not said that the Amendment secures only a collective right.

Throughout the Court's history, the Justices have mentioned the Second Amendment, usually in passing, in 27 opinions. In 22 of these 27, the Justices quoted or paraphrased only "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" language, without even mentioning the Militia Clause. 15

One of the remaining five cases -- and the only extended 20th-century discussion of the right -- is United States v. Miller (1939), which held that the right extended only to weapons that were rationally related to the preservation of the militia. 16 But the Court emphatically did not hold that the right belonged only to the state or the National Guard. Rather, it reaffirmed that the "militia" referred to the entire armed citizenry, and considered on the merits a lawsuit that was brought by an individual (Miller), not by a state.

The only Supreme Court case that leans in the collective rights direction is Lewis v. United States (1980), which summarily rejected an ex-felon's claim of a right to possess a firearm, in passing citing some lower court cases that took a collective rights view. 17 But Lewis could equally well be explained as concluding only that ex-felons don't have a right to keep and bear arms (something that's also been held in the many states whose constitutions unambiguously guarantee an individual right to keep and bear arms). In any event, if one relies on passing mentions, Casey v. Planned Parenthood (1992) (quoting Justice Harlan) in passing described liberty as including "[freedom from] the taking of property; the freedom of speech, press, and religion; the right to keep and bear arms; the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on" -- a description that treats the right to keep and bear arms as an individual right on par with the other individual rights. 18

Despite all the above evidence, the federal courts of appeal have unanimously subscribed to the states' right approach, though there are a few recent hints to the contrary in some opinions. 19 If the historical or textual evidence were in equipoise, and if the cases dealt carefully with the evidence and explained why the pro-states'-right evidence was more persuasive than the pro-individual-right evidence, then perhaps we might defer to these courts' views. But when the lower courts' decisions are contrary to the unanimous weight of the evidence, and do not really confront this evidence but rely almost entirely on bald assertions or on citations to other lower court decisions, it seems to me that we must respectfully say that the lower courts are mistaken.

Does anyone find it funny that he stole this entire paragraph so blatantly, eve forgetting to erase the reference numbers?

http://www1.law.ucla.edu/~volokh/beararms/testimon.htm

Does anyone find it funny that he stole this entire paragraph so blatantly, eve forgetting to erase the reference numbers?

http://www1.law.ucla.edu/~volokh/beararms/testimon.htm

Plagiarism? No one here would ever be guilt of that, especially a liberal. :p

1.Yes, 10 year olds do indeed throw around slurs and beat up other children for real or perceived sexual orientation. Hate crimes - against any group - are illegal. Tolerance videos are teaching that which is part of the law of this nation.


You obviously don't know a thing about a ten year old. When you have one, you can lecture me.

If I don't want my child viewing something than I have the choice to keep that away from my child. Yes I could homeschool or send him to a private school, but what if I can't afford that? Is it tough cookies for me while you brainwash my kid?

How about we not punish me and my child for not being homosexual, and punish those who are. I'm sick of you people talking about minority rights.

How about we not punish me and my child for not being homosexual, and punish those who are.

and this is why all children ought go through tolerance programs

I'm sick of you people talking about minority rights.
Fateful words...:p

And to answer your question, yes I would be offended if it was a monument to Satan; however, this is only because Satan doesn't teach you to "do unto others" and to "love they neighbor." And I love you.
And of course the Satanists are upset with the Christian monument, but wouldn't mind a Satanist monument. As our constitution forbids establishing one religion over another, the only solution is none at all in government (I thought we all understood this by now).

Your clear preference for one religion does not fly in court.

Why? What's so awful about protecting civil liberties?


www.stoptheaclu.org

In the US, "civil liberties" are SPECIFICALLY defined in the US Constitution, including All Amendments. The ACLU specializes in "extending/extrapolating" (i.e., IGNORING/REFUTING) Our Constitution. Butt, we ignore them. And their "chosen" candidates usually lose.