Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What's the beef with the ACLU?
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 43 of 199 (383299)
02-07-2007 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Jaderis
02-07-2007 4:06 PM


Re: The ACLU
How are civil liberties a partisan issue?
evidently, because republicans don't believe in them.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Jaderis, posted 02-07-2007 4:06 PM Jaderis has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 121 of 199 (384106)
02-10-2007 3:06 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by Hyroglyphx
02-09-2007 9:57 PM


Re: What is wrong with Communism?
That’s it! That’s all that the 1st Amendment means. If you have bought into a lie, or read more into it than that, I am not shy to inform you that you’re wrong.
similarly, the fourth amendment says nothing about a right to privacy.
this "lie" we've bought into is the sum of the 200 year history of the supreme court of the united states. luckily for us, the field of constitutional law and civil rights is not merely restricted to a singular document written at the birth of our nation -- but the findings of many, many judges who have had to deal with real world situations, applications, precedent, and changing technology and society.
i'm sorry that republicans do not believe the supreme court should operate this way, deciding what is and what is not acceptable under the constitution. but you'll have the take that up with marbury v. madison.
I happen to agree wholeheartedly that the government should be kept free from forcing individuals to side with any particular dogma.
well, let's examine that statement for a second, and perhaps i can demonstrate the above a little better.
your child goes to school, according to the law. he attends a public school, which recieves state funding. in his science class, he is taught a single religious idea of creation -- say the hindu one, just to mix things up -- and no others. is this acceptable under the constitution, which says "congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion?"
certain, congress was not even involved. and no law has been made. and no one is establishing a religion. so why is this unacceptable? clearly, this is not ALL the first amendment says -- somehow, we are still violating the idea of it, if not the technicalities.
the first thing to understand is the basis of the federal system, as clarified by the 14th amendment. the 1st amendment, essentially, grants the freedom of religion. and under the 14th, no state may infringe on the freedoms granted by the federal gov't. schools act as part of the state gov't -- so the restrictions that apply to state and federal gov't also apply to them.
the second thing is that it is not "law" that's neccessarily important. the government may not, itself, establish a religion. "congress" has effectively been extended to mean the entire government -- the president may not do it, and the legal system may not do it, even if they are not members of congress. and making laws is not the only method of infringing on the freedom to establish our religions as we please. "establishment" has come to mean, in the course of many supreme court cases, the government espousing one religion over others. granting favor in a biased fashion. which is clearly what is going on in the example.
it's especially salient in schools, were young minds are being formed. teaching one religion, and only one religion, as truth has become equivalent to indoctrination: establishing that as the official governmental religion in the children's minds. and thus, is against the intention and modern readings of the first amendment.
that's why the aclu fights against such cases, as much as they defend the rights of christians practicing privately. the line exists because, when crossed, it is damaging to the freedom of association and religion. "us and them" really doesn't cut it, just because it is often christians who try to get religion into schools. they are really trying to protect the freedom of ALL religions, including yours, from government intrusion.
What you may not be aware of is that one could legitimately argue that the public school system, itself, violates the US Constitution. I say this because Article 10 of the US Constitution says that any powers not specifically cased by the Federal Government must allow the states to decide for themselves. This is not the case because the public school system is ultimately overseen by the Federal government.
they are state-run, actually. it's the states that are ultimately overseen by the feds. ...but welcome to the difference between the federal system, and confederation. it could be argued that the constitution supports either, but we hashed that one out a long time ago. and NOT in a court room.
The public school system was designed to afford everyone the opportunity to receive an education. There is nothing inherently wrong with that, except for the fact that its long been used as a vehicle to foist anti-religious sentiments.
apparently, education is dangerous to some religions. that is not the government's fault. stating historical or scientific facts is not establishment, even if some religions disagree with those facts.
Besides, if the ACLU is so about Constitutionality, perhaps they should delve in to this.
the aclu argues cases currently open or under review, and helps with legal proceedings for lawsuits. the case that establishes public education is quite old. if you disagree with it, feel free to sue the government, and ask for the aclu's help.
i'm not sure of the veracity of your quotes, but the biases of the founders really should have no bearing on the status of actual public education TODAY, under the law. in fact, many such restrictions on the school system's treatment of various faiths (including christianity) have been placed in large part due to supreme court cases argued by the aclu. if you feel that the public school system is in any way slighting your faith, or your child's faith, feel free to sue, and ask for the aclu's help. they take quite a lot of those cases.
t has been increasingly apparent that many Americans want a Socialistic/Communistic society. Do they really understand what it entails or are they just being anti-establishment because its emo? I don’t know what to tell you, other than the proof is in the pudding. We don’t see Americans clamoring aboard makeshift rafts, risking life and limb, in order to go to Castro’s Utopia
no. but we do see them buying medicine from canada. as i'm sure you're aware, canada's medical system is socialized. a little bit of socialism, in the right place, strongly moderated by democracy is not neccessarily a bad thing. socialism is an economic theory, not a political one. it is not entirely incompatible with representational democracy.
THEISTIC: Constitutional Republic
” The Creator sets moral standards.
” God-given rights are recognized.
constitutional republics can have any range of religious beliefs associated with them. our government is secular because they do not have the right to establish an official religion.
ATHEISTIC: Socialist Government
” Morals set by man’s opinions (usually one man or one system).
” Rights are granted by the state government only.
” Gov’t is the all-powerful provider, only.
none of that has anything to do with socialism. fascism, maybe, but you are playing a dangerous game of finger-pointing and false dichotomies. in any case, socialism is an economic idea, not a political one.
“My objective in life is to dethrone God and destroy Capitalism.” -Karl Marx
Mmmm, yes, I see how Jesus and communism parallel.
unfortunately, marx is not the end-all, be-all of communism. his ideas, even on a strictly academic level, are quite faulty. he proposes violent revolution to destroy the monarchy, and replacing the government with one that establishes socialism -- and then expects them to slowly give up power. yeah, right, marx. pull the other one.
he sought to destroy religion because he saw religion being used as a tool to manipulate people into doing the government's bidding. tactics i'm sure he would see in today's neo-cons. by his government, religion was simply replaced with nationalism. same function, different mask.
but religion itself is not incompatible with true communism. in fact, the only working models of real communism that exist in the civilized world today are rather strictly religious. and jewish.
Eight rules for a Communist Revolution:
now, i haven't read my copy of the communist manifesto in a while, but i certainly don't remember those. in fact, any of those statements regarding government are quite... strange when applied to communism, which by definition has no government.
In 1929, Joseph Stalin established gun control. From 1929 to 1953 he massacred an estimated 30-100 million dissidents because no one could defend themselves.
socialist/fascist.
Under Mao-Tse Tung, China from 1935 to 1949 exterminated 20 million of his own people.
fascist.
From 1939 to 1949, Adolph Hitler introduced gun control. The outcome was 13 million people murdered, because no one could defend themselves.
nazi - national socialist = fascist.
Which brings me to my next question. If the ACLU is so keen on protecting the Constitution and using the Amendments to back their play, why no mention of the 2nd Amendment? When was the last time they came to the aid of an offense against the Second?
why not ask the aclu?
now, i'm not sure i agree with them here, as i parse the second amendment a little differently. it says:
quote:
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
this does not say that all firearms have to be in a well regulated militia. there are two groups being described, the militias, and the people as a whole. because, it says, the rights of the smaller group (militia) are so neccessary, the rights of the larger group (the people) must be maintained. the idea being that we can form our own army, if need be, not that we have to be in one to own guns. the key word, i think, is "free" and that should clue us into our own government as a potential enemy, as seen by the founding fathers. they had, afterall, just won an armed revolution against their government.
but there might be problems with this, of course. you can make a decent argument for balancing this with public safety, order, etc, which is evidently how we feel about this issue as a society. we may not like gun control laws, but we also don't like when a madman drives a tank down our street. this is another instance where the views have been revised a little with time, only in the other direction. it was a little different when all anyone had was ball and powder muskets and rifles.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-09-2007 9:57 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-11-2007 4:04 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 134 of 199 (384355)
02-11-2007 12:56 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by subbie
02-10-2007 12:36 PM


Re: The ACLU
quote:
Benjamin Gitlow was convicted in New York for having published and circulated, unlawfully, pamphlets and leaflets detrimental to the government. One of the pamphlets, called the Left Wing Manifesto, advocated overthrowing organized government by violent and other unlawful means.
actually, allowing for the right to advocate violent overthrow of the government is the purpose of the first amendment. not only is it speech, it's precisely the kind of speech the founding fathers had in mind when they wrote the bill of rights.
Edited by arachnophilia, : omitted word


This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by subbie, posted 02-10-2007 12:36 PM subbie has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by macaroniandcheese, posted 02-11-2007 12:17 PM arachnophilia has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 164 of 199 (384477)
02-11-2007 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by Hyroglyphx
02-10-2007 2:44 PM


Re: The ACLU
quote:
"After the Oklahoma City bombing, Louis Freeh, head of the FBI, came to President Clinton-- I know because I was there-- and he said, "Look Mr. President, can't we change the rules; can't we get a search warrant just because a guy is a member of a terrorist organization that we no is planning an act of violence, even if we don't when or how?" And Clinton said, "No, no ,we're not going to do that. It violates civil liberties." And he was right. But then Freeh says, "Ok, just let us get the information to protect life, but we won't turn it over to the prosecutor. We won't use that information to prosecute this guy. We'll just use it to stop him from the action." Clinton still said no. So, as a result from that "no," and believe me, it was a big 'N'-'O', when they picked up Zacarias Moussaoui, neither the INS or the FBI could access the computer. The main purpose of the Patriot Act is to dismantle that wall. The fourth, fifth, and sixth amendments are designed to stop prosecution by unfair police tactics. We still have those, it doesn't change them. The point is, the system didn't work and that most people still have no idea what the Patriot Act actually is and what it isn't." -Dick Morris; former Campaign Advisor to President Clinton
this quote is actually contradictory. the flaws of the system morris initially describes is that probable cause -- evidence -- is required to obtain a warrant, which is required for a search. this is stipulated by the fourth amendment. according to morris, then, the fourth amendment (and what it specifically says) is the problem that the patriot act corrects. he then goes on to say this is not the case.
is it, or isn't it? this is just pure political obfuscation. we have rules, and we have rights. yes, it's not as efficient as a gestapo. but we like it that way.
quote:
...Although the ACLU lobbies Congress and state legislatures, its accomplishments derive chiefly from judges who share the ACLU's view of the Constitution as a 'living document'-more accurately described as the 'Gumby' version. Only a constitution that can be stretched, twisted and tied in knots could support most of the causes advocated by the ACLU."
again, take it up with the supreme court, which has been "twisting" and "stretching" the document for 200 years. start with marbury v. madison (1803) in which the court unconstitutionally grants itself the right to do so.
The plain fact about this nation is that it is predominantly comprised of Christians. For anyone to complain about that makes about as much sense as me going to Israel and throwing a hissy fit over that nation displaying more Menorahs and Star's of David than it does crucifixes.
israel is rather strictly secular in its government. i don't know if you'd noticed or not.
but this is actually a rather vapid argument. the fact that we are MOSTLY christian in this nation does not mean that we have the right to trample on the civil liberties of OTHER religions. not only is it against our political principles, it SHOULD be against our christian morals.
we protect the rights of all, including and especially the minorities. that is what makes us american, and not totalitarian.
Maybe they should suck it up and stop being a bunch of pansies. Maybe they should go visit Iraq or Syria where Christians are shot inside their homes. That's some real hardship.
demanding civil liberties is not "being a pansy." quite often, it requires going against the grain of society as a whole, and facing a lifetime of hardship and scorn. see, for instance, the interned japanese boys that protested the draft in ww2. they spent most of their lives in jail.
The reality is that allowing gay men to be a scoutmaster will go against the tenets of a religion, thus discriminating against their beliefs.
are the boy scouts a religious organization? if they are, they should be a private organization. if they're not -- there's that "establishment" of bias again. it's really one or the other. you cannot be both a private organization with the rights to discriminate, and get funding from the government.
That's just one instance. I've already posted others, like the Mount Soledad war memorial, (a place that I used to bike to when living in San Diego), which is on city property. The ACLU is even trying to bring Donald Rumsfeld in to the mix. Its just ridiculous.
actually, the lawsuit is against rumsfeld. it's "jewish war veterans v. donald rumsfeld." the jwv brought the aclu into the mix. think about the first part of that docket title for a second. jewish war veterans.
the government erected a monument using the symbol of one faith, to represent soldiers of many faiths that died. that's the government showing bias towards one religion -- establishment. it's unconstitutional. they are not trying to disrespect christian soldiers. they are trying to STOP the government from disrespecting JEWISH soldiers.
how would you like it if your father was a christian and a soldier, gave his life for the country, and they honored his memory with a crescent moon? that's what it's like for the jewish war veterans.
like i said, the "us v. them" idea really does not work well here. you can't say, "they're trying to take down a cross, therefor they are against christianity, qed." they are trying to promote equality and fairness for ALL religions, not just your own favored religion.
Crosses aren't supposed to be on Federal property right? Why don't they start with the desecration of the dead by removing the crosses over all federal cemeteries.
no. crosses can be on federal property. go visit ANY military cemetary. they're all over gravestones there -- as are stars of david, crescents and stars, etc. you're still getting this backwards. personal expressions of individual faith are allowed by the government, on government property. governmental expressions of one faith over others are NOT allowed.
It shows that they go against Christian ideals a particular ardor. If there is even a little wiggle room for interpretation, they're all over it.
going against christian ideals how? arguing that "play or forfeit" rules are unfair to be applied to seventh day adventists on their sabbath day? are you seriously contending that somehow arguing for the rights of christians is against christian ideals? or are you just failing to understand what you cited?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-10-2007 2:44 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 166 of 199 (384489)
02-11-2007 7:16 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by Hyroglyphx
02-11-2007 4:04 PM


Re: What is wrong with Communism?
Arach, the lie I was referring to is any one who extends the argument beyond its merits.
yes. that would be the supreme court, over the last 204 years of its history.
The Separation of Church and State means that no government entity will preference a religion over another.
yes, excatly, for instance by erecting a religious symbol in the honor those who died in battle, when that symbol does not represent all who died. oh, wait, you don't agree with that, do you?
However, the other portion stipulates that no one's religious freedoms will be hindered by an outside agency, such as the government. Special interest groups have taken a very narrow interpretation of it to mean that the nowhere in the public square can anyone so much as mention the name of Jesus or display a crucifix in their cubicle or pray at school if they so desire.
uh. no. this is simply a myth, and one perpetrated by christians with a conspiracy complex. the aclu routinely argues for the rights of students to pray in schools, and for people's individual rights to display symbols of their religion. you were given about a dozen cases that demonstrated this in the op.
I'm not sure why you are mentioning all this though. Presumably you are making allusions about creationism being taught in public school. I certainly agree that it is unconstitutional.
and yet, if the aclu argued against creationism, that would be one more strike against them in your book, wouldn't it?
Actually, this jousting was going on from the beginning which the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers illustrate. We had one group who wanted the Federal Government to be the preeminent overseer of all the states that consolidate it under one unification. We had the other group that wanted the Federal government to be the ultimate overseer of each individual state, however, there was an emphasis placed on the states individualistic rights.
i never said otherwise. it was a debate from the very foundation of our country about who to organize federal and state powers, and what exactly states' rights were. what i DID say is that case was settled, oh, say, about 1865. since then, we've been pretty solid in our federal heirarchy.
Religion has nothing to do with this argument, nor does it have to do with school itself. The argument I made was that Article 10 says that any standard not specifically cased must be left up to the states to decide for themselves. There was no public institutions at that time. I am saying that, technically speaking, the Federal government should not have any entitlements to public schools, nor is it supposed to guide the curriculum.
they don't. public education is overseen and entirely organized by the states. the federal level oversees the states, and there is not exactly a lot of legislation on the books regarding public schools at the federal level. the only bits i'm aware of say that students are required to recieve SOME form of schooling, beit it public, private, or home schooled. all the rest are stipulations of students' rights within the school systems, as decided buy the sup-ct. the states are free to do whatever they like under those requirements.
but the system itself only exists on the state level.
I agree that it is not necessarily a bad thing. I mean, socialism was invented to escape the pitfalls of the restriction of freedom that communism was so apt to, while still maintaining a "commune" ideal, but still supporting a free trade market compatible with capitalism. Its supposed to be the best of both worlds.
uh, also no. communism is an economic idea. there is no "restriction of freedom" just a lack of a free market because everything goes into the collective pot. socialism is also an economic idea, the OPPOSITE of free trade: the collective pot is controlled by the government.
socialism is incompatible with a free market. if something is socialized, it is NOT capitalistic.
I agree that it is supposed to be an economic idea.... But then again, so was communism. At the heart of socialism and communism is a wonderful ideal.
"socialism" and "communism" have definitions. the fact that people called themselves communists does not mean that they were. stalin called himself a communist. he was really a socialist -- anyone maintaining a government cannot be a communist, since communism is the opposite of "having a government." communism is where things are run by the community, not an elected (or tyrannical) body.
Also, the term "Neo-Con" is used inappropriately
i agree. today's "new conservatives" are hardly conservative at all.
Life is incompatible with communism.
no, human nature makes it highly unsuccessful. it requires that people not be greedy or lazy. yet you ignore the examples of working communes in israel.
You may be confusing the eight rules for a communist revolution with the ten tenets of communism.
you may be confusing "stuff people wrote about communism" with "communism."
Mao Tse Tung was a communist, not a fascist.
mao held a governemt. "communist government" is an oxymoron. and "socialist" is not a description of governing style, just economic function. mao was a fascist.
Stalin was a communist, not a fascist.
stalin held a government. see above.
They have taken it upon themselves to separate from the modality of American society and view the government as dictators who need to be abolished. I think the United States is in no immediate danger of this, but it is good that such a concession is on the books.
george iii didn't pose any immediate danger to the colonies, either.
There are extremes on both sides. On the extreme left, we have Michael Moore who wants to have Americans loose their right to defend life, limb, and property
michael moore is a card-carrying member of the nra.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-11-2007 4:04 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by kuresu, posted 02-11-2007 9:30 PM arachnophilia has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 183 of 199 (384960)
02-13-2007 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by nator
02-13-2007 10:00 AM


Re: Elective
The point is, though, that an abortion and a hysterectomy are not really equivalent operations, and are not undertaken for the same reasons.
yes, the hysterectomy is throwing the bathwater out with the baby...
seriously though, i'm not sure there's a huge difference. both are performed by doctors, so the argument about a difference regarding doctors and legitimzing is void.
mm, I see what you mean, although someone with symptoms as "benign" as heavy menstrual flow elect to have their uteruses removed.
There are "purely" elective hysterectomies that are done for sex-reassignment surgery, but those wouldn't be very common.
yes, and abortion is elective in that in it is done in repsonse to another non-life threatening medical condition: pregnancy.
i just don't see the difference, other than the religious issue of whether or not you are terminating a life.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by nator, posted 02-13-2007 10:00 AM nator has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 186 of 199 (385773)
02-17-2007 12:58 AM
Reply to: Message 185 by Jaderis
02-16-2007 10:42 PM


Re: Bump
there's something of a conundrum with this kind of debate. when your opponent cannot reply, you have won. and so good posts often go unanswered, and the thread becomes buried.
your posts here have all been top notch (i might go nominate some for potm, actually). your reward is the silence of the opposition -- and the burying of the thread.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by Jaderis, posted 02-16-2007 10:42 PM Jaderis has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 196 of 199 (386698)
02-23-2007 12:38 AM
Reply to: Message 194 by Dr Adequate
02-21-2007 7:40 PM


I wonder why Baptists and Methodists and Presbyterians hate Christianity so much. It's baffling.
well this explains it:
quote:
Union for Reform Judaism
they're in league with jews! they can't be real christians!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-21-2007 7:40 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024