What's the beef with the ACLU?

That's exactly the fallacious assault they want to portray. Name some Republicans that want subvert the Judicial branch with Justices who take a counter-Constitutional view of liberty in America. Or even better, name me the Justices that run counter to the Constitution. If that's considered off topic, then open a new thread. Yes, every one is entitled to a defense where an attorney will be appointed to the defendant. No complaints there whatsoever. Here's the problem with the ACLU. They specifically take on these cases without even knowing the facts of the case, which makes their unwaivering support suspect. And the ACLU is not alone in this. The National Lawyers Guild is among some of the other groups that purposely take on cases that are, in essence, anti-American.In fact, you may or may not have heard of Lynne Stewart, attorney of terror suspect, Omar Abdel Rahman, otherwise known as the Blind Sheik. Not only did Stewart defend the Sheik and gush over him during their meetings, but she also criminally aided and abetted the man by offering to smuggle out orders of a call to Fatwah against targets listed by the Rahman. No, I'm sure there are a few extreme rightwinger's who don't like the ACLU either. Crash, wake up please. Of course they aren't going to overtly defend that which is unambiguously criminal. They are going to say that they don't agree with the lifestyle, but feel obligated to defend child pornographers against the onslaught of the justice system. the ambivalence with which people, much like yourself, regard the ACLU is truly astounding. Let me give you an actual case and then you determine.Robert Curley has filed a suit against NAMbLA that the ACLU came rushing in to defend. Two men, named Charles Jaynes and Salvatore Sicari kidnapped 10 year old Jeffrey Curley, the plaintiffs son. Curley resisted the men who tried to rape him so they shoved a rag with gasoline down his throat and then strangled the boy to death. Once dead they sodomized his corpse. When they were finished having their "fun." they placed his body in a container and poured cement in it to weigh it down. Once dried, they heaved the (I believe it was a cooler) into a river.Now, where does the NAMbLA fit in with all of this? There was a book sponsored by NAMbLA about techniques used to lure children in by gaining their confidence. Not only was this piece of literature found in the possession of the two murderers, but the techniques used by the murderers were identical and sequential to the techniques employed by Jaynes and Sicari. In this way, NAMbLA is just as indictable for criminal negligence as any book, like the Anarchist's Cookbook, that teaches people how to make homemade bombs. Of course its the ACLU that chose to defend this case. If I was a lawyer and I was assigned to the case, I would defend my clients. However, to actively pursue heinous crimes because it goes against the status quo speaks volumes about the nefarious minds that work and support the ACLU.

quote:

---

They have an unwaivering support of all forms of abortion, even partial birth abortion, and have the gall to now call it "reproductive freedom."

---

No, it isn't. That's calling one thing something else to water it down.

quote:

---

They take on religious groups that want to display Nativity scenes, as if displaying baby Jesus is the crime of all crimes.

---

What's criminal is making pamphlets on how to kidnap and rape little boys, but that doesn't seem to stop them from defending it on purpose. Lets examine the word Christmas: "A mass for Christ." Who is Christ? Jesus. What is the purpose of Christmas, really? Honoring the birth of the Christ. So, you either have to do away with the entire holiday, or let people put up a Nativity scene.Your priorities, along with the ACLU, is so warped that it boggles my mind.

quote:

---

They hate the boyscouts of America for crying out loud.

---

Crash, what they want to do is completely change the Boyscouts of America. They want to change all of the policies-- the very policies that makes the Boyscouts of America what it is! Who are they to intrude on a private organization? I don't even know what they are crying about. The Boyscouts have already been hijacked. Its only a matter of time before it completely synthesizes in the way they want. LOL! Yeah Crash, that's what they want you to believe. Its the military who preserves the right for you to talk smack about the nation, not the ACLU. The ACLU defends those who will bring down, what it calls, "The Establishment." Anything associated with the Establishment, is thereby fair game, irrespective of whether or not its intentions are good. It was a private school, Crash. I presume you know the difference between private and public. The government has literally nothing to do with the case.

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

Those bastards.Seriously, if you believe this, then what's the problem? Do you think that a case in which the criminality is ambiguous should not have a top-notch defense?Maybe I'm some radical partisan leftie, but I'm generally of the school of thought that we shouldn't send someone to jail if we're not sure what they did was even a crime.Edited by Dan Carroll, : No reason given.

---

"I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut."
-Stephen Colbert

quote:

---

Yes, every one is entitled to a defense where an attorney will be appointed to the defendant. No complaints there whatsoever.

---

Okay...

quote:

---

They [the ACLU] specifically take on these cases without even knowing the facts of the case, which makes their unwaivering support suspect.

---

What do the facts of the case have to do with it? Everyone is entitled to a defense. The facts of the case don't matter. Everyone is entitled to a defense. Because we don't know what the facts of the case really are until they have been examined in an open court of law.-

quote:

---

The National Lawyers Guild is among some of the other groups that purposely take on cases that are, in essence, anti-American.

---

Everyone is entitled to a defense.

---

This world can take my money and time/ But it sure can't take my soul. -- Joe Ely

Well, like Dan said, Roger Baldwin denounced Communism in 1939. Harvard Square Library bioWiki bioFurthermore, an organization does not always necessarily represent its founder's personal views in its current workings and philosophies (even more so when the founder dramatically changed his views whilst still holding the reins of his organization). How are civil liberties a partisan issue? The scorecard reports the representatives voting record on specific bills, not their stance on the issues in general. Certain bills go through Congress that would strip us of liberties guaranteed under the Constitution. It should not matter what ones stance is on the "War on Terror" to know that unwarranted searches and surveillance are infringements on personal privacy and a violation of the 4th amendment (bills on library searches, the Patriot Act, warrantless wiretapping were on the scorecard).Again, civil liberties should not be a partisan issue. I don't see your problem with the ACLU scorecard. Evidence, please. Evidence, please. Evidence, please. Evidence, please.(pssst...sometimes the "status quo" isn't all it's cracked up to be) Evidence, please. Evidence, please, please, please and please.I have provided links to support my contentions. Please refrain from making bare assertions. What exactly does America stand for that they are against?And again, the status quo is not always what it is cracked up to be.Racial segregation was once the status quo and all the horrors that came along with it.Being able to rape and/or beat your wife with impunity was once the status quo. Huh? Do you have any evidence for anything you are saying or is it all just tin-foil hat speculation? What does that even mean??? Naturally? How?So now the ACLU is wrong to force an entity to cater to religion?Would you disagree if the tournament was scheduled on Easter Sunday?I'm not sure what civil liberty is at stake here unless the OSAA falls under the jurisdiction of ORS 659.850

quote:

---

659.850 Discrimination in education prohibited; rules. (1) As used in this section, “discrimination” means any act that unreasonably differentiates treatment, intended or unintended, or any act that is fair in form but discriminatory in operation, either of which is based on age, disability, national origin, race, marital status, religion or sex.

​

(2) No person in Oregon shall be subjected to discrimination in any public elementary, secondary or community college education program or service, school or interschool activity or in any higher education program or service, school or interschool activity where the program, service, school or activity is financed in whole or in part by moneys appropriated by the Legislative Assembly.

​

(3) The State Board of Education and the State Board of Higher Education shall establish rules necessary to insure compliance with subsection (2) of this section in the manner required by ORS chapter 183. [Formerly 659.150]

---

The law mentions "inter-school activity" and public school sports teams (private schools are not covered in the section) are also organized by the OSAA and most likely receive "moneys appropriated by the Legislative Assembly" so I would hazard a guess that they do fall under this law.I am not legal scholar, though.It doesn't seem like rescheduling would put undue hardship on the OSAA or the other teams (unless they move it to Sunday Do you see the problem with trying to place one religion above another??)Back on topic tho. What exactly about this case proves your assertion that the ACLU is "atheist," "diametrically opposed to Judeo-Christian morals" or is out to "subvert the status quo and erode the US from within?"

Which would make what I said incorrect in what way??? Are you saying that because they are a special interest group that they should acknowledge their partisan beliefs? If so, I would agree.

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

What I am saying is that the ACLU would be partisan if, for example, they supported any Democrat over any Republican regardless of their position on issues important to the ACLU.They are not partisan if they advocate a certain position on various issues, advocate one candidate over another consistently based on whether the candidate holds similar positions, even if this leads to, say, support for Democratic candidates over Republican candidates in the vast majority of cases.

---

This world can take my money and time/ But it sure can't take my soul. -- Joe Ely

Funny how 1939 is 8 years before Joseph McCarthy became a US Senator and 11 years before he really stepped up his campaign to blacklist Communists. Was Roger Baldwin psychic, too? Hey, nobody's perfect. (Oh, wait, I thought you were *for* allowing private organizations to decide who gets to work for them...hmmm)But, again, the founder's personal beliefs do not always have any bearing on the current manifestations of his organization. Putting Roger Baldwin in a bad light really has no relevance to the ACLU as an organization, no matter how much you hate them.

Now I know it's true love!!

what would you say about the ACLU if they were the only ones who would defend you?

Baldwin wasn't against Communism, he was against their stance on free speech. He supported communism tooth and nail. The only thing he contends with was that the gulags and maltreatment by certain Bolshevik philosophy was that he agreed with the First Amendment. See, he knew there was something very antithetical about being a communist on one hand, and then also being all for free speech. That's an oxymoron and he knew it. Instead, he tried to get communists to adopt his view on things. He didn't denounce communism, he denounced some of their practices. He only outwardly spoke out against it because the Red Scare was already happening. The FBI was already chronicling his life. If you think the Red Scare began and ended with McCarthy you'd be dead wrong. What we call "McCarythism" is just a name we give to those who perpetrated the Red Scare. Aside from which, Baldwin even admitted that the best way to present communism in America was his use of free speech, equivocating it with the "class struggle" that typifies communist ideals. In other words, his use of free speech was a tool for reaching a broader audience in America. And my gosh, it looks like it worked. He didn't abandon communism over the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Rather, he was sickened that the Soviets, who were communists, were collaborating with their arch rivals, fascist Germany. That doesn't mean he disliked communism. That means he viewed the upper echelon to be sell outs to the cause.

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

While writing screeds against it, and ridding his orginization of all communist members.That's some fierce support, all right. I think you said he was hiding from "McCarthy's own social cleansing."I also think the part of your brain that's supposed to provide statements like, "Oops, I fucked up," blew a fuse somewhere along the lines. What a monster. He thought speech was a good way to say things. *rubs temples wearily*The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was the treaty through which the Soviets collaborated with Nazi Germany. The statement you just made essentially translates to, "He didn't abandon communism over the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Rather, he was sickened by the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact."

---

"I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut."
-Stephen Colbert

Jesus would certainly was a communist.What does any of that have to do with the ACLU?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

evidently, because republicans don't believe in them.

---

George W Bush, Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, John Ashcroft... need I go on? Robert Bork, John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas... need I go on? Because that's a winning strategy.Get real, NJ. What's your evidence here? That they disagree with you? Please. How can it be anti-American to argue a case in court? This is nonsense, NJ. Surely you know better. This is false, which is why you can't prove it. But I'd like to see you try. No NAMBLA material contains descriptions or advocacy of violence against children, except insofar as the sexual acts they want to legitimize represent violence. But there were no NAMBLA materials like you describe. We've had this discussion. You always lose. Get over it. True.It's just too bad for your argument that's not what NAMBLA did, nor what the ACLU defended. Presents and Santa Claus? It kind of depends who you ask, doesn't it? And not everybody calls it "Christmas", by the way. Maybe you've heard of a religion called "Judaism", that celebrates a holiday right at about the same time?No? Not ringing any bells? Typical of a Christianist to forget that there are other religions, I guess. I am a Boy Scout, and I can tell you that's bullshit. The stuff the ACLU objects to is the same stuff I object to, and absolutely none of it is crucial to the scout experience. I never bashed gays when I was a scout, and it's bullshit to even suggest that's what makes the Scouts what they are.It's insulting, quite frankly; and it just goes to show that there's absolutely no organization that a Christianist won't shit all over just to make a point. You're really disgusting sometimes, do you know that? It's both. The military doesn't defend us against the government. That's what the courts are for, but the courts don't do it by themselves. Who was in charge of scheduling the championship, NJ?And why is it that you can't present the least evidence for any of your assertions? Is it because they're all falsehoods?

This, along with several other notable examples, is coming REALLY close to the line, crash.Fair warning.