NationStates Jolt Archive

I have a question.

I don't understand why a group such as the American Civil Liberties Union can be villified by the right? Last time I checked the big part of their name was civil liberty. They're obviously a group that protects the rights of Americans.

Maybe I'm just being ignorant, but what I want to know is; why do conservatives have such a problem with the ACLU?

Thanks for your time!

People who place Libertarians in the same corner as conservatives are often left aghast when I show them that I'm a card-carrying member of the ACLU.

Blows they're limited, lil minds everytime. :p

Oh, to answer your question: Because NeoCons (not all conservatives) aren't interested in civil liberties, just economic ones. That's everything you need to know in a nutshell.

Largely, I find that the ACLU picks and chooses its battles not based on high minded ideals, but on its own political agenda.

They may deny that all they wish. I, for the life of me, don't see how any organization can be involved in the law (which is intertwined inextricably in politics) and not be politically biased in one way or another.

Largely, I find that the ACLU picks and chooses its battles not based on high minded ideals, but on its own political agenda.

They may deny that all they wish. I, for the life of me, don't see how any organization can be involved in the law (which is intertwined inextricably in politics) and not be politically biased in one way or another.
I'm not doubting that they have a political agenda, but I believe that it's more libertarian than liberal.

They stick up for the NeoNazi's right to peacefully protest and assemble.
They'll just as easily defend a gay man's right to make out (within reason) in public.
That's the ACLU.

I'm not doubting that they have a political agenda, but I believe that it's more libertarian than liberal.

They stick up for the NeoNazi's right to peacefully protest and assemble.
They'll just as easily defend a gay man's right to make out (within reason) in public.
That's the ACLU.

Some consevative rights they won't defend - they won't fight for the 2nd Amendment to be an individual right.

Largely, I find that the ACLU picks and chooses its battles not based on high minded ideals, but on its own political agenda.

:confused: Their political agenda is protecting civil rights, they've represented all aspects of the political spectrum.

Some people just don't like those whose ideals they don't agree with offered protection. Many vilify the ACLU because of who they represent and not what they represent.




A side note on your sig WL, Insurgent is a matter of perspective. America was founded by insurgents.

Some consevative rights they won't defend - they won't fight for the 2nd Amendment to be an individual right.
I agree on that issue, and it's a damned shame. Of course, we already have the NRA to help out that cause.

But it is inconsistent, I'd admit. No political orgainization is perfect.

A side note on your sig WL, Insurgent is a matter of perspective. America was founded by insurgents.

Yes, and I'm sure the British soldiers thought the same thought I have in my signature.

I have a question.

I don't understand why a group such as the American Civil Liberties Union can be villified by the right? Last time I checked the big part of their name was civil liberty. They're obviously a group that protects the rights of Americans.

Maybe I'm just being ignorant, but what I want to know is; why do conservatives have such a problem with the ACLU?

Thanks for your time!

The ACLU picks its battles and often times it comes up on the side of "Civil Liberties" that the Conservative side disagrees with, such as gay rights issues and gun control.

Largely, I find that the ACLU picks and chooses its battles not based on high minded ideals, but on its own political agenda.

They may deny that all they wish. I, for the life of me, don't see how any organization can be involved in the law (which is intertwined inextricably in politics) and not be politically biased in one way or another.
I don't see them picking their fights based on any political agenda other than maximizing civil liberties. They have fought for Christians and Atheists alike. Their only bias seems to be for a more free society.

The ACLU picks its battles and often times it comes up on the side of "Civil Liberties" that the Conservative side disagrees with, such as gay rights issues and gun control.
As a member, I can assure you that gun control doesn't have anything to do with increasing the scope of freedom.

You have a right to be forced to give up your guns? That's so very not in line with liberty.

Yeah, I also have the blessed right to get arrested for smoking a joint. How very free, indeed.:rolleyes:

The ACLU picks its battles and often times it comes up on the side of "Civil Liberties" that the Conservative side disagrees with, such as gay rights issues and gun control.

The ACLU seems to avoid gun control. Just because they don't advocate for gun rights doesn't mean they're against them.

I have a question.

I don't understand why a group such as the American Civil Liberties Union can be villified by the right? Last time I checked the big part of their name was civil liberty. They're obviously a group that protects the rights of Americans.

Maybe I'm just being ignorant, but what I want to know is; why do conservatives have such a problem with the ACLU?

Thanks for your time!


The conservatives have a problem with civil liberties in general. Recall, they are the religious fanatic party and the corporate anti-socialist party.

The conservatives have a problem with civil liberties in general. Recall, they are the religious fanatic party and the corporate anti-socialist party.

Not true.

The conservatives have a problem with civil liberties in general. Recall, they are the religious fanatic party and the corporate anti-socialist party.

Hmm. Last I checked I wasn't a religious fanatic, and I wasn't a corporate anti-socialist any more than Tony Blair.

Hmm. Last I checked I wasn't a religious fanatic, and I wasn't a corporate anti-socialist any more than Tony Blair.
Perhaps, but don't be suprised that this assumption is made if you continue to label yourself as a conservative.
The term "conservative" is a misnomer, since the title has been hijacked by NeoCons. Sorry, but now they own it, dude.

Just like the term "liberal" was hijacked by the Democratic Socialist's here as well. The term really only denotes what we now call libertarians.
Some of us use the term "classical liberal", but that's just to confusing given the instant impression people have of the word already.

Unfortunate, but shit happens.

I've heard that the ACLU can sometimes be extreme in the undertaking of it's causes. Perhaps this is why it's a turn-off.

As for the protection of the 2nd Amendment...they have so many lobbies (NRA included) and an entire political wing defending them. I'd like to see the ACLU staunchly advocate those rights as well (as they have with all the others), but I think the 2nd Ammendment is PLENTY protected.

As a member, I can assure you that gun control doesn't have anything to do with increasing the scope of freedom.

More or less gun control directly affects the scope of your freedom in relation to what you can own.

You have a right to be forced to give up your guns? That's so very not in line with liberty.

Did I make any statements regarding my stance on gun control? Nope. Are you going off on some dumb rant about it? Yeah.

Yeah, I also have the blessed right to get arrested for smoking a joint. How very free, indeed.:rolleyes:

Something that the ACLU objects to and would like to see removed.

Perhaps, but don't be suprised that this assumption is made if you continue to label yourself as a conservative.
The term "conservative" is a misnomer, since the title has been hijacked by NeoCons. Sorry, but now they own it, dude.

Just like the term "liberal" was hijacked by the Democratic Socialist's here as well. The term really only denotes what we now call libertarians.
Some of us use the term "classical liberal", but that's just to confusing given the instant impression people have of the word already.

Unfortunate, but shit happens.

You can still be quite socially and economically conservative and not be religious at all.

Perhaps, but don't be suprised that this assumption is made if you continue to label yourself as a conservative.
The term "conservative" is a misnomer, since the title has been hijacked by NeoCons. Sorry, but now they own it, dude.

That assumption gets made by fairly left-wing "liberals." The term conservative isn't a misnomer in the eyes of the majority of people because they don't happen to hold the same view on the word that you do.

More or less gun control directly affects the scope of your freedom in relation to what you can own.
Did I make any statements regarding my stance on gun control? Nope. Are you going off on some dumb rant about it? Yeah.
Something that the ACLU objects to and would like to see removed.
Whoa, touchy. Nobody assumed anything about your stance. We're talking about the ACLU, who definitely has a firm platform on the issue (even if they usually dance around it). My responses were chosen based on the way you decided to word your post. Nothing more, nothing less.

Now stop being a dick. It's just not your style.

You can still be quite socially and economically conservative and not be religious at all.

I am religious, but I keep my religion separate from my politics.

I don't feel a need to proselytize, nor do I feel the need to put the Ten Commandments in the courthouse.

Having been forced to deal with one religion being given special priviliges in one previous environment, I know exactly what government involvement in religion will get you. A big legal dick up the ass, and a religion you don't want shoved up there without lube.

I'm just not politically religious. Go figure: I'm a Pentacostal Christian. I'm not against gays, or gay marriage. I don't want prayer in school. I don't want the Ten Commandments in the courthouse. And women, not men, should decide what they want to do with their bodies.

If anything you do is a sin (and we all have something), that's not for me to question or criticize. That's up to you. Not me.

That assumption gets made by fairly left-wing "liberals." The term conservative isn't a misnomer in the eyes of the majority of people because they don't happen to hold the same view on the word that you do.
Well, the left wing has no monopoly on this belief. It's shared by one of my fave conservatives, as well:

RONALD REAGAN: If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals?if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is. ~from an interview in Reason Magazine

I am religious, but I keep my religion separate from my politics.

I don't feel a need to proselytize, nor do I feel the need to put the Ten Commandments in the courthouse.

Having been forced to deal with one religion being given special priviliges in one previous environment, I know exactly what government involvement in religion will get you. A big legal dick up the ass, and a religion you don't want shoved up there without lube.

I'm just not politically religious. Go figure: I'm a Pentacostal Christian. I'm not against gays, or gay marriage. I don't want prayer in school. I don't want the Ten Commandments in the courthouse. And women, not men, should decide what they want to do with their bodies.

If anything you do is a sin (and we all have something), that's not for me to question or criticize. That's up to you. Not me.

*Applause*

People who place Libertarians in the same corner as conservatives are often left aghast when I show them that I'm a card-carrying member of the ACLU.
I never knew that about you Eichen . . . how would you say that the ACLU is in defense of economic liberties? (not just social/civil liberties)

I never knew that about you Eichen . . . how would you say that the ACLU is in defense of economic liberties? (not just social/civil liberties)

economic liberties is not a concern of the ACLU, as far as I know.

I never knew that about you Eichen . . . how would you say that the ACLU is in defense of economic liberties? (not just social/civil liberties)
Yup, I've been a dues-payer for several years.

You're right though, they aren't concerned with anything but social issues.

They're not the American Economic Liberties Union. :)

Yup, I've been a dues-payer for several years.

You're right though, they aren't concerned with anything but social issues.

They're not the American Economic Liberties Union. :)

Hmm... are you thinking what Im thinking or what someone else is thinking?

Hmm... are you thinking what Im thinking or what someone else is thinking?
I'm about to hit up GoDaddy right now and see if the domain's available...

Sounds like a great tax shelter to me!:D

EDIT: Damnit! AELU.com is already taken. :(

Largely, I find that the ACLU picks and chooses its battles not based on high minded ideals, but on its own political agenda.

They may deny that all they wish. I, for the life of me, don't see how any organization can be involved in the law (which is intertwined inextricably in politics) and not be politically biased in one way or another.

couldnt have said it better

I've heard that the ACLU can sometimes be extreme in the undertaking of it's causes. Perhaps this is why it's a turn-off.

As for the protection of the 2nd Amendment...they have so many lobbies (NRA included) and an entire political wing defending them. I'd like to see the ACLU staunchly advocate those rights as well (as they have with all the others), but I think the 2nd Ammendment is PLENTY protected.
Say nothing of the fact that the ACLU doesn't enjoy wasting money and nothing is going to overturn that 60-70 year old decision that allows for restrictions on guns provided that it does not interfere with the formation of a milita...

coildnt have said it better
It's true, but who's naive enough to believe that a political orgainization wouldn't have an agenda? A public platform on which to stand?

Who the hell would give money to an organization without an agenda to enact some political changes, and no desire to strive to gain influence in powerful circles? :confused:

What would that political orgainization be offering to their members?

The ACLU seems to avoid gun control. Just because they don't advocate for gun rights doesn't mean they're against them.


Well put. Officially the ACLU declares (http://www.aclu.org/PolicePractices/PolicePractices.cfm?ID=9621&c=25) itself neutral on the issue of gun control. They do not advocate one way or the other.

They have concluded that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual right. Thus, they do not advocate against gun control. I understand how many disagree with that position but (as I have dicussed elsewhere and do not want to go into here) it is a position well-grounded in the law.

The conservatives hate the ACLU because it threatens their power.

Largely, I find that the ACLU picks and chooses its battles not based on high minded ideals, but on its own political agenda.

They may deny that all they wish. I, for the life of me, don't see how any organization can be involved in the law (which is intertwined inextricably in politics) and not be politically biased in one way or another.

Ya, that's why they helped Rush Limbaugh fight to keep his medical records private. So typical of the liberal left to go protecting their heroes, but ignoring more pressing civil liberty concerns, like Jeff Gannon's right to keep working as a fake reporter under an assumed name in the White House.

I do think that they have an agenda, and do not truely protect civil liberties. They cherry-pick what they will defend. Gun control, as has beien mentioned, is what the ACLU is for. So is the secularization of public spaces. They are so adamant about it, that they even sued boy scouts in San Diego to bar them from public parks. And of course, they have contraversial positions, like a desire to eliminate airport security. While this is not exactly a civil liberty, I think that this isi a little overboard. At some point, civil liberties must yield to common sense.

Well, the left wing has no monopoly on this belief. It's shared by one of my fave conservatives, as well:

RONALD REAGAN: If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals?if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is. ~from an interview in Reason Magazine

But very shortly after the revolution and the ratification of the Constitution Washington and Hamilton took a more "big government" stance. You can't define liberal or conservative as meaning "more" or "less" government unless you only use the terms in reference to eachother and each side occupies a clear position on how much government is too much and how much not enough. But we don't. We tend to take the term conservative to mean less and less until you have anarchy, but still somehow a strong national defense and law enforcement system, and liberal to mean that we have more and more government until we have tyranny, but somehow no means by which to enforce the law nor means to defend our borders.

Washington's position was pretty clear.
One government that governs states all over the world from a tiny island in the middle of nowhere - Too much government.

Dozens of tiny governments ruling only their own little patch of ground with no obligation to help each other out even if it means some countries taking an unfair share of the burden to alleviate the unfair depredations of others - Too little.

Washington would be a conservative compared to the tories but liberal compared to the anti-federalists or modern Neo-cons.

I do think that they have an agenda, and do not truely protect civil liberties. They cherry-pick what they will defend. Gun control, as has beien mentioned, is what the ACLU is for. So is the secularization of public spaces. They are so adamant about it, that they even sued boy scouts in San Diego to bar them from public parks. And of course, they have contraversial positions, like a desire to eliminate airport security. While this is not exactly a civil liberty, I think that this isi a little overboard. At some point, civil liberties must yield to common sense.

Go to their website. They list several cases in which they defend people's rights to be demonstrably religous in public. Even the right of a Christian minister to distribute religous materials in a public park. What they're against is the obligation to undertake religous activities or government representatives like courts, or bureacratic offices, endorsing a particular religon above others. They are not pro-secularization. They are pro rights, the right to be secular AND the right to be religous.

They had every right to sue against the boy scouts on the grounds of civil rights because the boy scouts recieve public money and discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. This means that your tax dollars are going to support homophobia.

I do think that they have an agenda, and do not truely protect civil liberties. They cherry-pick what they will defend. Gun control, as has beien mentioned, is what the ACLU is for. So is the secularization of public spaces. They are so adamant about it, that they even sued boy scouts in San Diego to bar them from public parks. ....<snip>While this is not exactly a civil liberty, I think that this isi a little overboard. At some point, civil liberties must yield to common sense.


Thought that I might have sniffed some oversimplification in the air. Thought I should spray some extra factual data in to solve it...

From ACLU San Diego Site
The American Civil Liberties Union and the Tom Homann Law Association are demanding that the City of San Diego stop subsidizing the activities of the Boy Scouts as long as that organization persists in discriminating on the basis of religion and sexual orientation. In a letter delivered this morning, the two organizations demanded that the City Council and Mayor terminate the City's leases under which the Boy Scouts operate their headquarters in city-owned Balboa Park for $1 per year and receive rent-free use of facilities on city-owned property on Fiesta Island.

And I would like to here about WHY it is a bad idea for a private organization that practices discrimination should be allowed to rent property from the city for free, essentially.

Now back to the conversation...

But very shortly after the revolution and the ratification of the Constitution Washington and Hamilton took a more "big government" stance. You can't define liberal or conservative as meaning "more" or "less" government unless you only use the terms in reference to eachother and each side occupies a clear position on how much government is too much and how much not enough. But we don't. We tend to take the term conservative to mean less and less until you have anarchy, but still somehow a strong national defense and law enforcement system, and liberal to mean that we have more and more government until we have tyranny, but somehow no means by which to enforce the law nor means to defend our borders.

Washington's position was pretty clear.
One government that governs states all over the world from a tiny island in the middle of nowhere - Too much government.

Dozens of tiny governments ruling only their own little patch of ground with no obligation to help each other out even if it means some countries taking an unfair share of the burden to alleviate the unfair depredations of others - Too little.

Washington would be a conservative compared to the tories but liberal compared to the anti-federalists or modern Neo-cons.
I like your ideas, and you're right. I'd also be right, as a libertarian, to declare myself a liberal.

But, the term is a bit misleading (if not in any literal sense). In democratic politics, it does matter a great deal what the people believe terms like "liberal" or "conservative" mean. They change as the culture changes.

And ask anyone of any political affiliation what they think of when they hear the word conservative.
Don't be suprised to consistently hear about religious ties and military-indulstrial complex funding. You'd agree, those aren't very "conservative" issues, but the majority of conservatives have disagreed.

I agree on that issue, and it's a damned shame. Of course, we already have the NRA to help out that cause.

But it is inconsistent, I'd admit. No political orgainization is perfect.
Here's the thing, there is the NRA. There is a whole orginazation set up-and a BIG one-that does nothing but work for those rights. It's covered-why would the ACLU use its sparse resources to do something already being covered by another organization when they could use those resources to fight battles that no one else can or will? It makes simple sense to let the 'experts' handle it and take their help where it's needed more.

The conservatives have a problem with civil liberties in general. Recall, they are the religious fanatic party and the corporate anti-socialist party.
Wow, there is a Conservative party in America? I thought that they were only in Britain and Canada.

RONALD REAGAN: If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals?if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is. ~from an interview in Reason Magazine
The same Ronald Reagan who outspent the Democrats in his term? I think that this is just another one of his tracts spoken in order to demonise liberals as big government money-robbing Stalinists.

I never knew that about you Eichen . . . how would you say that the ACLU is in defense of economic liberties? (not just social/civil liberties)
It's not their domain.

I do think that they have an agenda, and do not truely protect civil liberties. They cherry-pick what they will defend. Gun control, as has beien mentioned, is what the ACLU is for. So is the secularization of public spaces.
Actually WL (certainly no gun controller himself) already pointed out that the ACLU is neutral on gun control. There is also nothing wrong with secularisation. The liberty concerned is freedom from religion for those who want it.

I do think that they have an agenda, and do not truely protect civil liberties. They cherry-pick what they will defend. Gun control, as has beien mentioned, is what the ACLU is for. So is the secularization of public spaces. They are so adamant about it, that they even sued boy scouts in San Diego to bar them from public parks. And of course, they have contraversial positions, like a desire to eliminate airport security. While this is not exactly a civil liberty, I think that this isi a little overboard. At some point, civil liberties must yield to common sense.

Well, a couple of comments.

First, you contradict yourself. You criticize the ACLU for not "truly protect[ing] civil liberties." (The only example of which is gun control - which the ACLU does not advocate.) Then you argue they go to far in protecting civil liberties because "civil liberties must yield to common sense."

As a famous conservative once said, "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice."

Second, the boy scouts in San Diego issue is complicated, but you have it wrong. The ACLU has not tried to have the Boy Scouts banned from public parks. The local ACLU has demanded that the City of San Diego cease subsidizing the Boy Scouts "through leases under which the Boy Scouts operate their headquarters in city-owned Balboa Park for $1 per year and receive rent-free use of facilities on city-owned property on Fiesta Island." Note these are special privileges given the the Boy Scouts.

The reason is that, in order to claim they are exempt from laws against discrimination, the Boy Scouts have claimed they are a religious organization and that excluding non-believers and gays were essential to its core mission. One consequence of this position is that it is no longer appropriate for the government to provide preferential treatment and finacially support the Boy Scouts -- because supporting a private religious organization is contrary to the federal and state constitutions. Here is the court order (http://aclusandiego.org/pdf/MSJorder.pdf) to that effect.

Do you truly contend it furthers civil liberties for the government to provide preferential treatment and financial support to private religious groups? (And if you deny the Boy Scouts are a private religious group -- then you have an issue with the Boy Scouts themselves, not with the ACLU.)

Does anyone actually know what the alleged political agenda for the ACLU is, or are you people making presumptions without facts.

The same Ronald Reagan who outspent the Democrats in his term? I think that this is just another one of his tracts spoken in order to demonise liberals as big government money-robbing Stalinists.Hey, I only said he was my fave conservative... Take that at face value. :p

Does anyone actually know what the alleged political agenda for the ACLU is, or are you people making presumptions without facts.
Yes, to promote civil liberties is their agenda.

Say nothing of the fact that the ACLU doesn't enjoy wasting money and nothing is going to overturn that 60-70 year old decision that allows for restrictions on guns provided that it does not interfere with the formation of a milita...

If no Supreme Court decision can ever be overturned, why is everyone so hot to politicize the appointment of Supreme Court judges? Hm?

Why is everyone so worried that Roe v. Wade will be overturned.

Everything at that level is malleable. The trick is saying it in a way that makes the Supreme Court look like it's not saying they made a mistake.