What's the beef with the ACLU?

Yes, that is off-topic. Details of the case aside (I do not want this thread to devolve just yet), you attributed the "aiding and abetting of terrorists" to the ACLU. Lynne Stewart, as you mention here, was a member of the National Lawyers Guild. Did you mistake the ACLU for the NLG or do you have actual evidence that the ACLU "aids and abets" terrorists? You missed the part where he said that the ACLU has never defended an ACTUAL child pornographers. The ACLU does not advocate NAMBLA's stance. They do however believe that they have a right to have such a stance. They were not defending Jaynes' and Sicari's actions, but NAMBLA's right to voice their opinions.Just like the KKK has a right to voice their opinion. Just like William Pierce had the right to voice his opinion and the Turner Diaries remains on the shelves to this day.Just because you disagree (even if you disagree vehemently) with what somebody else says does not mean that they do not have the right to say it.Besides, I thought conservatives were all for "personal responsibility." Doesn't blaming behavior on a book (or a song or a movie or a TV show) run counter to that belief? I suppose you would rather they call it "baby killing?"I always find it funny when conservatives scoff at word play when they can use terms like "compassionate" and "surge" and "enemy combatants" and "collateral damage" with a straight face. If a private organization wishes to exclude certain people protected under anti-discrimination laws then they should become completely private entities and accept no subsidy or grant from the government. Again, I see alot of bare assertions without any evidence.I agree that the military preserves our rights (or is supposed to...I dunno what the hell they're doing in Iraq that helps preserve my freedom), but they are only one entity of many who do so.What "Establishments" are being attacked by the ACLU?Could you please give some examples and evidence?Pretty please?Edited by Jaderis, : misspelling

Fair enough. I guess my point is that, among conservatives, the ACLU is regularly trashed for things that didn't actually happen. The ACLU does an important job, but it's one that obstructs a large portion of what conservatives would like to do to America. As a result, the ACLU is slandered with the basest of imprecations based on assertions that are completely counter-factual.And then they're repeated by people like NJ, who present them as truth. I'm sure NJ has no idea as to the truth of the things he's repeating, and I don't mean to call him a liar. But it is true that NAMBLA materials aren't about how to murder children; to assert that is ludicrous. To print that would be criminal. The ACLU defended them because that's exactly what they didn't print.

I do understand your argument, and your frustration. I ask only that you come up with a better way of demonstrating your point.

I'll try to be less short.

I agree that its not always necessarily the case. They have certain beliefs, listed very prominently on its home page that lists all of its partisan beliefs. There is nothing wrong with partisanship in certain aspects of society, however, the law is not one of them. And contained within each subheading is clearly identified, pro-leftwing beliefs. Are you seriously going to deny that? I'm not saying that partisanship is necessarily a bad thing. What I am showing is that partisan beliefs pervade the ACLU's mentality as a whole, which accounts for why they "choose" to take on certain cases. In other words, its not because of the spirit of law why they take these case. This is a political and ideological platform for them. Rrrrrrrrrright..... That must be it. Um, because they are supposed to be lawyers, not political activists, for which they actually are. You don't see a problem with the scorecard because you agree with their agenda. Lets leave our own partisan beliefs out of the matter momentarily. Do you think it is appropriate for a group of lawyers in their professional capacity to be scoring Representatives and Congressmen on their stance about certain things? Don't you think that gives the impression of partisan politicking?

quote:

---

Interestingly enough they have tried to stymie every Supreme Court Justice who didn't conform to their brand of politics.

---

Its lost on you that the nomination of Justice Roberts and Alito was met with virulent hostility despite impeccable judicial records? Invectives for AlitoInvectives for Roberts

quote:

---

They regularly take on cases that not only defend anti-American terrorism, but they also aide and abet them.

---

Sure thing. Gitlow v. New York, Whitney v California, Brandenburg v. Ohio, were all cases where the ACLU defended clients over sedition. All cases went to the Supreme Court and trial was a victory for the ACLU. In Speiser v. Randall, ACLU attorney Lawrence Speiser, acted on his own behalf that challenged a California law that required veterans to sign an affidavit stipulating that in order to receive a tax exemption, one must sign an oath of allegiance. (Oh, but I thought communists were purged from the... oh never mind. I guess I was right).They also defended the famed Sacco and Vanzetti trial-- also about sedition against the United States.

quote:

---

They take on cases that support extreme patronage where an offender has been clearly indicted for a crime.

---

. ACLU v DoDCity of Indianapolis v. Edmond

quote:

---

They defend child pornographers and institutions who support crimes against children.

---

Curley v NAMbLA

quote:

---

They defend live sex acts irrespective of where and when. They have an unwaivering support of all forms of abortion, even partial birth abortion, and have the gall to now call it "reproductive freedom." They take on religious groups that want to display Nativity scenes, as if displaying baby Jesus is the crime of all crimes. They hate the boyscouts of America for crying out loud. They want all borders to be open, seemingly incapable of understanding the implications that would directly affect them. So on, and so on.

---

Their undying support for abortion apparently abrogates the right for parents to know when a serious surgical procedure can be done. Interestingly enough, abortion is the ONLY medical procedure that now does not need parental consent. As far as the ACLU's stance on partial birth abortion, they released this statement.

​

The ACLU's attack on anything Christian in nature is easily identifiable when considering the cases they take on, juxtaposed by what they don't. Have a look at McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky, ACLU v Schundler, ElkGrove School District v Newdow, City of San Diego and Mt. Soledad Memorial Association v Paulson, Allegheny County v ACLU of Pittsburgh

​

The Boyscouts of America were taken on by the ACLU in the case of Boy Scouts of America v Dale because apparently Dale thought that hanging out with little boys as a homosexual was a great idea. It makes as much sense as a grown heterosexual man taking girl scouts on an overnight outing. I wonder how many parents would feel comfortable with that.

​

I have provided links to support my contentions. Please refrain from making bare assertions.

​

Most of these cases are well known, except, I guess, for members of EvC. I wasn't aware that I was making a "bare assertion" since this is all common knowledge.

​

Racial segregation was once the status quo and all the horrors that came along with it.

​

This is true, however, it went against the very Constitution that stated all men are created equal with certain unalienable rights. Racial segregation should never have even existed once the Drafters placed those words in the Constitution. It should have been no contest.

​

Being able to rape and/or beat your wife with impunity was once the status quo.

​

Raping and beating wives with impunity used to be the status quo? Evidence, please, that this used to be the norm. Please don't make bare assertions.

​

quote:

---

For instance, the ACLU of Oregon recently took on a case against a Christian school. Apparently, this private school observes the Sabbath. Long story short, their basketball team did very well and were scheduled to go to the championships. The school said that if the championship was to be played, they would have to schedule it on a day other than the Sabbath. A few students protested that reached the ears of the players. Naturally, the ACLU jumped all over it.

---

​

Naturally? How?

​

Because they got to come to the aid of a few basketball players who went to a religious school, but got to come down on the school and its philosophies itself.

​

Would you disagree if the tournament was scheduled on Easter Sunday?

​

What I think is for how much the ACLU takes on cases that supposedly infringe on others rights, here they are sticking their nose in the business of a private school trying to subvert its rights to follow the Sabbath. The easy fix is don't go to that school if you don't like the policies of the school, all of which was known well beforehand. Their religious freedoms are being subverted in a rather underhanded way. Now, would it be cool if the school laxed up a bit? Sure it would. But they don't have to. And they certainly have no legal obligation to do so.

​

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.

---

​

quote:

---

(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.

---

​

quote:

---

(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.

---

​

I'm not sure why you posted this because its in the favor of the school. No child was "discriminated" against, however, the school's religious freedoms were undermined. The parents of the students placed their children in that school, and knew the schools policies beforehand. So who is infringing on who here?

​

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??)

​

For some people, observing the Sabbath is a commandment from God, which means, there is no compromising. And they have every right in the world to believe that and to observe that. The state, or any entity, such as the ACLU, has no right to infringe on their religious freedoms.

​

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?"

​

It proves their bias. I just presented at least 5 cases where they attack Judeo-Christian beliefs and spin it so that it infringes the Establishment Clause separation of church and state.

​

Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : fixed links

​

---

"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

Well I am looking at your source and see no "pro-leftwing beliefs".

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Really?Please point to where that is stated in the Constitution?Here is the text if you would like to search for the exact phrase. Good luck finding it in the Constitution.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

So you are not upset when the rights of criminals are infringed?Personally, I do get upset and I am glad there are orginizations out there that work to protect the rights of everyone including criminals.Taking the roadblock case for example, the method the state used to conduct its operation was in disagreement with the 4th ammendment. Period. Aren't you happy that Indiana can no longer abridge the 4th ammendment rights of its citizens?What if poliece starting going randomly door to door with drug sniffing dogs, knocked on your door to see if you were high, and bust into your house just because Officer Fido barked at one of your wife's lillies?Who would you call to make they couldn't do that? Or do you not care as long as it occasionally turned up a house where someone had drugs 9% of the time?Personally, I would call the ACLU.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

I'm sorry; which part of those materials are you characterizing as "virulent hostility"? In fact they appear to me to be very reasonable rebuttals to your assertion that these figures have "impeccable judicial records."Are they hostile to you simply because you believe that Alito and Roberts were qualified to sit on the Supreme Court? From what expertise did you make that determination? Or did you simply support the nominations of those two men because George Bush picked them?Who's being partisan, exactly? So then they didn't actually commit "sedition", now did they? Perhaps you're not aware that the current historical consensus is that those two men were in fact innocent of what they were executed for? I mean had you read your own link you would have seen that another man confessed to the crimes they were convicted of.I'm not exactly sure how you think it impeaches the ACLU that they regularly defend people being railroaded for crimes they didn't commit, or how exactly it's "anti-American" to obstruct the government from malicious, fraudulent prosecution. Can you explain your thoughts further in this matter? An indictment, as you know, is not a conviction. As they saying goes, "you can indict a ham sandwich." Again can you explain how defending innocent people constitutes "anti-American" activities?Or is it your position that the government has a right to convict people of crimes they didn't commit? Not true; emergency care doesn't require anybody's consent. And, of course, abortion is arguably the only medical procedure where one would have to get permission from their rapist.But, hey. If you think forcing a 14-year-old girl to confront her rapist to secure permission to terminate the result of that crime is something the state has a legitimate interest in promoting, perhaps you could advance that argument in another thread. But my guess right now is that you simply haven't thought through this at all. What's common knowledge is that conservative pundits regularly attack the ACLU on fraudulent premises (even after they've been personally defended by that organization.) You appear to simply be repeating many of these false premises, which begs the question of who exactly is ignorant of "common knowledge" in this instance. You have to have it spelled out? The private school is infringing on all the other schools who would have to reschedule the championship simply because the players from that school demanded special consideration for their religions faith. That's fine. They don't have the right to demand others make concessions to their beliefs. There's no "spin" involved. Just your topsy-turvey worldview that asserts the primacy of Christianity to demand special concessions to its dogma, contrary to the clear phrasing of the First Amendment.

quote:

---

ACLU attorney Lawrence Speiser, acted on his own behalf that challenged a California law that required veterans to sign an affidavit stipulating that in order to receive a tax exemption, one must sign an oath of allegiance.

---

So it is anti-American to want to make sure that the laws conform to the Constitution, which is supposed to be the supreme law of the land, and which places limits on the types of laws that may be enacted? I would think that trying to support the Constitution would be pro-American.

---

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

first thing--you're last statement, about heterosexual men leading girl scouts. my mom is the assistant scoutmaster in the troop I was in (and I was one for about 5 months--until moving to colorado for college). so that means you would have a problem with women leaders in the BSA. no one in my troop (parents) had a problem with my mom being a leader at these outings. there are very few troops left in the area (SW VA) that have a male-only leadership policy (which is the decision of these troops, not of the councils or districts).oh, and why didn't you mention the lesbian girl scout leaders? gotta be fair in your prejudice, ya know.secondly, and far more importantly, the BSA has very specific rules on the issue of leaders and outings. whenever you do any activity, I mean any at all, you have to have at least two leaders. this policy is designed to limit the oppurtunity for abuse. not only that, but its a safety issue--better to have two heads in case one is lost.To me, it doesn't matter what gender/sexuality you are. If you're a good leader, you're welcome to help. god knows that we need good leaders, and they are far to scarce to limit to just males or just heterosexual males.

---

Question. Always Question." . . .and some nights I just pray to the god of sex and drugs and rock'n'roll"--meatloafWant to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

I would like to clear up this fact: Page not found | ACLU of OregonThe ACLU was actually DEFENDING the christian school against discrimination based on their religious beliefs.From the link: You seem to have a nasty habit of inventing facts just like in the GD thread. This one is particularly funny because you got it totally opposite.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

You got this backwards, probably no fault of your own. The ACLU was defending the 7th Day Adventist school.The issue is that the basketball organization is public and even though the team from the private school plays in that league they are not excluded from any of the other standard regulations applied by that league. The argument was that because the league is public that they should be required to take reasonable measure to accomidate the religious beliefs of the team from the private school.I am not sure where I fall on this. I dont think given that there are only 2 days for which a tournament could be played both of which are claimed by different religions as sabbath that the league could make a reasonable concession to accomidate the SDA team. Maybe there are more details that I am missing though.The funny thing is though is that this is an example of the ACLU defending a religious institution even under not so clear cut lines of civil liberties. I think it actually takes more effort to support the school in this case.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

Yes Chiro. Every man, woman, and child, irrespective of the alleged crime, is entitled to a defense. I firmly believe that with every fiber of my being. However, the ACLU specifically chooses to take on cases that are particularly heinous in nature. If they are just willing to defend any one that needs legal representation, then I would have no problem with it on the basis that it was done so arbitrarily. Oh, but not so with the ACLU. Again, they specifically look for these kinds of cases with a particular ardor that could only reasonably mean one thing-- they like the romanticism of the underdog. They don't seem to really give a whit about the actual case. They seem to be grossly invested in whatever may paint the victim as the victimizers and to paint the victimizers as the victims.The fact that they pick and choose which cases they want to represent coupled with the heinous nature of the crimes they take, can only mean one thing. You make the deduction. The specious claim every one is now making that, "everyone is entitled to a defense" is rendered completely ineffectual when its not done arbitrarily. Its evident that they have special interests in mind.

---

"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

No thanks, I already have an attorney.

---

"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