ACLU accomplishments

[Tomas N]

Originally Posted by Slim

Funny, the older and wiser I get, the more I disagree.

If it's a choice between the ACLU's vision of America and the "Big Brother can do anything to you" vision of America, I'll take the former, thanks.

Tomas

[esskreemr]

I think that the ACLU serves its purpose. I can't say I agree with all the cases they have taken up, some of them I find morally reprehensible. The NAMBLA case sticking out in particular. For that very reason, I have to say that I am impressed by the wider variety of cases that they accept.
They accept cases within the scope of their mission statement:

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.

They hold steadfast to THE belief in the Seperation of Church and State while taking up many cases providing support for Christian groups such as the Ku Klux Klan as well as supporting other cases concerning religious freedoms.

It's interesting that any organizational that attempts to defend the Constitution against encroaching fascism is instantly labled as being tainted by a 'liberal' agenda...

[Slim]

Where are they in defending 2nd amendment rights? Nowhere. They pick and choose what to represent based on their agenda, which is primarily liberal. I can ponly imagine how pained they were to actually have to hold their noses and come to Rush Limbaugh's defense.

[Slim]

Originally Posted by Philistine

I don't know--the distraction seemed to be more the administration's reaction than the kid dressing in a skirt. First they let him, then they change their mind....



How was the kid's side funded by taxpayers?

This doesn't appear to be a litigation, but instead was a negotiation.

--Philistine

The ACLU is funded by tax dollars, as is the school board. The kid was represented by the ACLU.

[Philistine]

Originally Posted by Slim

Where are they in defending 2nd amendment rights? Nowhere.

Well...Texas

Which is why it is so hard to make judgments about "the" ACLU.

I can ponly imagine how pained they were to actually have to hold their noses and come to Rush Limbaugh's defense.

Probably not nearly so pained as they were to come to NAMBLA's defense....

Kind of proving the point that just because they choose to defend someone doesn't mean they agree with what they are saying, wouldn't you agree?

--Philistine

[Slim]

Originally Posted by esskreemr

I think that the ACLU serves its purpose. I can't say I agree with all the cases they have taken up, some of them I find morally reprehensible. The NAMBLA case sticking out in particular. For that very reason, I have to say that I am impressed by the wider variety of cases that they accept.
They accept cases within the scope of their mission statement:



They hold steadfast to THE belief in the Seperation of Church and State while taking up many cases providing support for Christian groups such as the Ku Klux Klan as well as supporting other cases concerning religious freedoms.

It's interesting that any organizational that attempts to defend the Constitution against encroaching fascism is instantly labled as being tainted by a 'liberal' agenda...

Where are they regarding the recent case in Connecticut where land can be taken from private individuals and turned over to other private individuals if they can show a "better use" of the land i.e., more tax revenues?

I agree, the concept is good. But they, as a group, are morally bankrupt and march to their own special interest agendas.

[Philistine]

Originally Posted by Slim

The ACLU is funded by tax dollars, as is the school board. The kid was represented by the ACLU.

ACLU Website: 'The ACLU is supported by annual dues and contributions from its members, plus grants from private foundations and individuals. We do not receive any government funding."

--Philistine

[Slim]

Originally Posted by Philistine

Well...Texas

Which is why it is so hard to make judgments about "the" ACLU.



Probably not nearly so pained as they were to come to NAMBLA's defense....

Kind of proving the point that just because they choose to defend someone doesn't mean they agree with what they are saying, wouldn't you agree?

--Philistine

RL's problems had nothing at all to do with what he was saying. He just happened to have an issue that was already being addressed by they ACLU.

[esskreemr]

Originally Posted by Slim

The ACLU is funded by tax dollars, as is the school board.

No it's not. I'm sure if you repeat it enough times some people will start believing it's the truth, though...

[Slim]

Originally Posted by esskreemr

No it's not. I'm sure if you repeat it enough times some people will start believing it's the truth, though...

Each time a case is won by the ACLU, any case no matter how trivial or frivalous, against a government body, all the fees and costs are paid by the government from tax dollars to the ACLU. It's a money making business for them. Tax dollars help to fund the ACLU.

[esskreemr]

Originally Posted by Slim

Each time a case is won by the ACLU, any case no matter how trivial or frivalous, against a government body, all the fees and costs are paid by the government from tax dollars to the ACLU. It's a money making business for them. Tax dollars help to fund the ACLU.

Each you fill your SUV with gas, actually any car using gas no matter how fuel efficient. Most gas is made from oil. The oil industry is heavily subsidized by our Government. The oil is bought predominantly from overseas markets (Middle East, Latin America, etc). A large portion of that money returns to wealthy Middle-Easterns who then donate large amounts to mudrasas and terrorists groups. Since your SUV uses ALOT more gas than my Dodge Colt, you obviously financially support more terrorism than I do.

[Philistine]

Originally Posted by Slim

Each time a case is won by the ACLU, any case no matter how trivial or frivalous, against a government body, all the fees and costs are paid by the government from tax dollars to the ACLU. It's a money making business for them. Tax dollars help to fund the ACLU.

So, in the same sense the Government funds plaintiff's civil rights lawyers, too....

Also, doesn't the fact that you win a case pretty much show that it's not "frivolous"--and if it were so trivial--why in the world would the Government spend tax dollars opposing it?

--Philistine

[Slim]

Originally Posted by esskreemr

Each you fill your SUV with gas, actually any car using gas no matter how fuel efficient. Most gas is made from oil. The oil industry is heavily subsidized by our Government. The oil is bought predominantly from overseas markets (Middle East, Latin America, etc). A large portion of that money returns to wealthy Middle-Easterns who then donate large amounts to mudrasas and terrorists groups. Since your SUV uses ALOT more gas than my Dodge Colt, you obviously financially support more terrorism than I do.

But following your twisted logic to support your lame analogy, you ARE supporting terrorism. Shame on you.

[esskreemr]

Originally Posted by Slim

But following your twisted logic to support your lame analogy, you ARE supporting terrorism. Shame on you.

I acknowledge that with the 'more than I do'.

[Slim]

Originally Posted by Philistine

So, in the same sense the Government funds plaintiff's civil rights lawyers, too....

Also, doesn't the fact that you win a case pretty much show that it's not "frivolous"--and if it were so trivial--why in the world would the Government spend tax dollars opposing it?

--Philistine

Yes, right. Because someone is offended by my Christmas display, and chooses to sue, and finds a sympathetic judge to tell me to remove it, I am wrong to have displayed it in the first place, and I should pay.

As a school administrator, I want to foster a environment of learning, not a carnival atmosphere. No skirts for boys please. Oh, I'm wrong for taking this position? Here's your check....

Kiddie porn is reprehensible, I choose to fight it to protect my children from it. Oh, I'm wrong? Sorry I infringed on your rights of freedom of speech. Here's your check.

[Philistine]

Originally Posted by Slim

Yes, right. Because someone is offended by my Christmas display, and chooses to sue, and finds a sympathetic judge to tell me to remove it, I am wrong to have displayed it in the first place, and I should pay.

Well--it you were a government, than yes.

Of course, in that case, you were using tax dollars to put up the display--which is just hunky dory, I suppose?

As a school administrator, I want to foster a environment of learning, not a carnival atmosphere. No skirts for boys please. Oh, I'm wrong for taking this position? Here's your check....

Of course--as I noted above--no check in this instance, as it wasn't a case, it was a negotiation. The ACLU goes starving for funds, again, I suppose.

Kiddie porn is reprehensible, I choose to fight it to protect my children from it. Oh, I'm wrong? Sorry I infringed on your rights of freedom of speech. Here's your check.

Well, no. Since it's a private party action, so no check if the ACLU's client wins, and--for that matter--it's not kiddie porn, which is illegal in and of itself (though it is some pretty ugly and disgusting stuff).

--Philistine

[esskreemr]

Originally Posted by Slim

Yes, right. Because someone is offended by my Christmas display, and chooses to sue, and finds a sympathetic judge to tell me to remove it, I am wrong to have displayed it in the first place, and I should pay.

No. You can put whatever Christmas, or Chanukkah, or Ramadan, or Winter Solstice display you want up. I wouldn't be offended, I wouldn't knock on your door demanding you take it down, I wouldn't file a suit. You are quite welcome to express whatever Religious beliefs you want. The Bible's ban on graven images tells us that you are obviously imperiling your eternal soul's grace with God, but that your own consideration to make.

If, however, you are an elected or appointed official of government who decides to turn the County Courthouse into his/her own display of a chosen religion, I don't care if it's Christian, Muslim, or Satanic it needs to be addressed.

You don't see the difference?

Islam is one of the fastest growing religions in the U.S. Are you going to be just as supportive of a judge painting his courtroom green and hanging the star and crescent up?

The idea of the Seperation of Church and State originates from a Christian group that was suppressed by another Christian group.

As a school administrator, I want to foster a environment of learning, not a carnival atmosphere. No skirts for boys please. Oh, I'm wrong for taking this position? Here's your check....

I'm passing on this one. I don't think that school uniform codes are necessarily a bad thing...

Kiddie porn is reprehensible, I choose to fight it to protect my children from it. Oh, I'm wrong? Sorry I infringed on your rights of freedom of speech. Here's your check.

I have problems with the NAMBLA case too. The ACLU didn't just provide legal support, they acted as surrogates in the case, but you should take the ACLU's stance into account:

NEW YORK--In the United States Supreme Court over the past few years, the American Civil Liberties Union has taken the side of a fundamentalist Christian church, a Santerian church, and the International Society for Krishna Consciousness. In celebrated cases, the ACLU has stood up for everyone from Oliver North to the National Socialist Party. In spite of all that, the ACLU has never advocated Christianity, ritual animal sacrifice, trading arms for hostages or genocide. In representing NAMBLA today, our Massachusetts affiliate does not advocate sexual relationships between adults and children.

What the ACLU does advocate is robust freedom of speech for everyone. The lawsuit involved here, were it to succeed, would strike at the heart of freedom of speech. The case is based on a shocking murder. But the lawsuit says the crime is the responsibility not of those who committed the murder, but of someone who posted vile material on the Internet. The principle is as simple as it is central to true freedom of speech: those who do wrong are responsible for what they do; those who speak about it are not.

It is easy to defend freedom of speech when the message is something many people find at least reasonable. But the defense of freedom of speech is most critical when the message is one most people find repulsive. That was true when the Nazis marched in Skokie. It remains true today.

Again, this particular case, out of many 100s is not, IMHO, a shining example.

[Gav]

Sorry, I am a bit lost. What is wrong with the guy wearing a skirt?

[keith]

Originally Posted by Gav

Sorry, I am a bit lost. What is wrong with the guy wearing a skirt?

Clearly he wasn't ethnic scottish and so was unable to claim it was a legitimate expression of his culture.