What's the beef with the ACLU?

Heh, gotcha.If it's been heated in the past, it's just a reflection of my passion for the issues. It was never personal. And I'm sorry if you took it that way. Anyway, back to your regularly scheduled demolition of the opponents of civil liberties...

Well, shit, NJ - they never start the erosion with the good people. They always start the erosion by eroding the liberties of those nobody else will stand up for. Why do you think Hitler started with the Jews? What's your evidence that they did so in this case? This is nonsense at best, NJ. The topic is the ACLU, not the NLG. They're not enough to support your assertions, no. Where does it advocate murder in the document you linked to? For doing something that they never advocated? Advocated against, in fact?I realize I'm drawing some fine distinctions, but what you're doing is ridiculous. To go from a pamphlet that advocates "consensual" relationships between adults and minors to "the ACLU supports raping and murdering children" is a flight of fancy, NJ. It's ridiculous. Fascinating but I don't see how that justifies special privileges. The nation is also comprised predominantly of white people. Should we all get a check from the government or something? Maybe you didn't notice, but they're the ACLU. As in "American." Not "Iraqi" or "Syrian."But I recognize that issues of geography are troublesome for you. This isn't the first time you've been unable to recollect exactly which country you live in. The Boy Scouts. Try to keep up, ok? I don't see the relevance; the Boy Scouts is non-denominational. An instance of what? The ACLU defended the religious school. On what planet is that evidence of an anti-religious agenda?You're not making a lick of sense, NJ. They defended a Christian school! NJ, how does this statement make any sense at all?You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you?

I know I replied already, but I'm going to break this section out because I think it basically proves my point about how conservatives approach the ACLU.You said: Which was a continuation of a point you've made several times:

quote:

---

Even worse! They know and have to respect the religious freedoms of the school. See, you and the ACLU want freedom for all, so long as "all" is inclusive to their beliefs. Its a case of, "you can believe in whatever you want, so long as you agree with me." That's the ACLU in a nutshell.

---

quote:

---

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.

---

quote:

---

But their defense of such cases is usually geared towards some individualistic right they have manifested in their minds. 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.

---

Now, I don't know if you misread the article, or you're being deliberately dishonest, or what; but you've completely misrepresented the facts of this case by portraying the ACLU as against the Adventist school, when in fact, from your own link:

quote:

---

ACLU of Oregon Defends Religious Liberty Of Adventist School Boys Basketball Players

​

June 27, 2005 - Should a basketball team from a religious school be required to violate church doctrine and play on the Sabbath or forfeit being part of the state tournament? The ACLU of Oregon doesn't think so and is representing players on the Portland Adventist Academy boys basketball team urging the Court to require reasonable accommodation of the players' religious tenets.

---

Now, I don't see how the actual circumstance of the case could possibly be consistent with NJ's description of the issue.What I think happened is what almost always happens with conservatives - NJ already believed that the ACLU was anti-Christianity, believed it because that's what conservatives told him to think about it, and so when he saw an article that said "ACLU" and "Christian school", he naturally leaped to the conclusion that the ACLU was suing the school, or otherwise arguing on the side against the school - rather than advocating for the school's right to not be excluded from championship games simply because of religious beliefs about when it was appropriate to be involved in sports.At this point, I don't see how it could possibly be consistent with the facts for NJ to claim that this action by the ACLU represents anti-Christian bias on the part of the ACLU. That's a completely incoherent claim on his part, and I patiently await his retraction.

NJ, it's astounding your links prove my point about conservative criticisms not being reality-based. In addition to your bizarre habit of posting cases the ACLU isn't even involved in as though that somehow impeaches them, your Media Matters link is a great example of how conservatives like Tucker Carlson ignore the facts to present a biased picture of how the ACLU operates:

quote:

---

On the May 1 2006 edition of MSNBC's The Situation, host Tucker Carlson attacked the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) for "not standing up for" nationally syndicated radio host Rush Limbaugh while he was being investigated for allegations of committing fraud to obtain prescription painkillers. Carlson asked: "Where is the ACLU?" and concluded: "They're not standing up for him because they think he's a right-wing creep. That's why." But in January 2004, the ACLU filed a friend-of-the-court brief in Limbaugh's case protesting the state of Florida's seizure of Limbaugh's medical records as a violation of his right to privacy.

---

Now, of course, you completely misrepresent the situation when you say: Apparently you're having some trouble with the timeline, here? Let me lay it out for you. First The ACLU defends Rush Limbaugh in his drug case, then Tucker Carlson accuses them of not defending Rush Limbaugh in his drug case.Not the other way around, as you state.As I've said, conservatives, finding no basis in reality to conclude that the ACLU plays favorites or has an anti-Christian agenda, apparently feel it's completely appropriate to simply argue from falsehoods to prove their point. What I can't understand is how you would read an article where Calrson criticizes them for not doing something they actually did do, and conclude that the ACLU only did it in response to Carlson's accusations.What, they responded two years before he made them? In what world is that supposed to make sense to us?

Eh. You could style the beliefs of many liberals that way if you wanted, too. For instance, myself. I can't think of anything more abhorrent than the idea that a 14-year-old rape victim would be forced to go to her rapist for permission to expunge the hideous, incestuous aberration growing within her, and I can't see any room for a "difference of opinion" on that. Making a girl do that is unconscionable, and it outweighs whatever social benefit is supposed to stem from parental consent laws in general.(What social benefit is supposed to stem from parental consent laws, anyway? More 14-year-olds raising children they didn't want in the first place, just because their parents told them to? How on Earth is it a parent's decision whether or not a child should become a parent themselves?)

Ok, but I am somebody that believes that everybody else absolutely must live according my my belief - and my belief is that people must live according to their own beliefs.So if we're lumping everybody together who doesn't see room for compromise, I find myself in the ridiculous position of having my adamant position that people be free lumped in with people who believe that a 2000-year-old book is going to tell you how to live, whether you like it or not.Which is why I find your construction somewhat ridiculous. No compromise can be possible between the position that prizes individual self-determination and the position that determines for everybody else what is best. Recognizing that isn't an act of fundamentalism; it's an act of sense.

You see? By simply inverting your post I've answered your question. To conservatives, the idea of an organization that defends civil liberties and individuals from government expansion is anathema. (What, did you think they were the party of small government, or something?)

LOL!Oh man, NJ. I just want you to know that I'm not responsible for this, either; obviously I'm nearly in complete disagreement with your views but only on my worst day would I respond to you in the tone they use over there.Which is not to say that it isn't funny; but I think arguments - even transparently silly ones - that people take the time to write down deserve to have their silliness unpacked and refuted, not simply ridiculed. (Although I thought the picture of "Even Jesus wants you to STFU" was pretty funny.)

I can't believe neither of you remembered Carico! She's responsible for something like half of the remarks quoted on the FSTDT page, and we certainly had a fair number of her doozies here, too.She certainly keeps herself busy. It's too bad that she didn't, apparently, learn anything while she was here.Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.