What's the beef with the ACLU?

By the way, I have a policy to donate a certain percentage of my monthly salary to a charitable cause. This thread has inspired me to make this month's donation to the ACLU foundation.Although, to be honest, since they are working to protect my liberty (and so I may be benefiting from their activities), I'm not really sure whether my donation really should count as "charity".

---

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

Actually, this is kind of on topic. The fact that the typical conservative can't even get current events correct should call into question whether they have any deep knowledge of actual history, especially when they start to babble on about the "intents" of the framers of the Constitution.

---

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

So the decision to remove the cross was made by a Christian official of the college on his own initiative in an attempt to make the members of a diverse student body feel welcome.- So crosses aren't outlawed, probably not even discouraged.- And the action is supported by students, faculty, and various campus religious leaders.-And, after using a search function, I find that there is not mention of the ACLU at all in the article.-Added by edit:
I agree with Omnivorous -- what exactly is the First Amendment issue here?Edited by Chiroptera, : No reason given.

---

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

quote:

---

In my opinion we are today very far removed from the original dream of the Drafters and I'm willing to bet they'd be shocked to see the nation in its current state.

---

I agree that the Founding Fathers would be shocked if they could see the current political debate; however, as I have pointed out, they were quite aware of their own limitations, and I think they would be pretty shocked that so many people would be obsessing over their 200 year old views.

---

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

Um, okay. I guess my point wasn't very clear.What do the intentions of the Founding Fathers have to do with anything, and why should we feel any obligation toward their vision? I ask because you have, several times, brought up the "intent" and the "vision" of the Founding Fathers, and I'm wondering what this has to do with whether the or not the ACLU is a danger to our freedoms or a watchdog for our freedoms.Added by edit:
I'll just say, to make my point clear, that the intents and visions of our ancestors are really irrelevant to how we decide we should organize our society. Now I myself may quote one or more of the Founding Fathers (especially Thomas Jefferson or Thomas Paine), but only because they have expressed very nicely something with which I agree, not because I feel that they are any sort of moral authority to which we are beholden.Edited by Chiroptera, : No reason given.Edited by Chiroptera, : awkward wording

---

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

quote:

---

Abortions disgust me.

---

And this pretty much sums up why conservative extremists hate the ACLU. Fundamentalists see the world in black-and-white. There are no "maybes" or even uncertainties, and there certainly cannot be anything like a "difference of opinion". And so any challenge to any of their tenets becomes "evil", and any challenger the "enemy".

---

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

quote:

---

You could style the beliefs of many liberals that way if you wanted, too.

---

Sure. That's why I used the word fundamentalist. Although I am speaking in particular about conservative fundamentalists, I think that my sentence is a pretty good description of a fundamentalist in general: someone who believes that they are absolutely right, that no other belief is legitimate, and that everyone else absolutely must live according to their beliefs.You may or may not be a fundamentalist, but I should probably clarify that I wouldn't call someone a fundamentalist based on an uncompromising stand on a single issue. I was thinking of "fundamentalism" as describing a much larger system of beliefs.

---

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

Actually, they don't. They merely stand equal to regular laws. Congress can pass a law that contradicts a previously ratified treaty or simply abrogate a treaty like they can any other law.The clause in the Constitution that you are thinking of simply states that the US Constitution, treaties, and regular federal law take precedence over any state law.Added by edit:
Rereading your post, I think now that it's possible I misread your intent. If so, I apologize.Edited by Chiroptera, : No reason given.

---

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

Whatever.

---

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

I saw this, too, and was going to comment on it. What does it mean for a case to "pander" to the criminal?A case, as far as I know, is always to decide whether the defendent is a criminal. In examining the case, it may be determined that the defendent is not actually a criminal because(1) the facts are insufficient to determine that the defendent actually engaged in the actions attributed to her, in which case as far as anyone knows the defendent did not actually do what is being claimed, or(2) the law was misapplied to cover the defendent's actions or that the law was enacted in violation of the constitution, in which case there was never a law that was violated to begin with.To make sure that the facts of the case are determined fairly with the required expertise, the defendent is allowed an open trial in which to examine the facts, and legal representation to help in examining them, especially in regard to (2).In this sense, all cases pander to the criminal. (And to the non-criminals as well who were mistakenly charged with crimes they did not commit).

---

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

quote:

---

And I have no problem admitting that the ACLU is very, very good at what they do. In fact, they have a 67% win/loss ratio. They win more cases than they lose which obviously is a testimony to how well they debate.

---

Sure. One interpretation is that 67% of judges are so ignorant of law that they can be persuaded by anyone with a fancy argument.Another interpretation is that the lawyers at the ACLU are trained to understand constitutional law so that the cases they present really do pose pose legitimate constitutional questions and that they really do make legitimate, compelling arguments about the constitutional issues.-

quote:

---

And of the cases they win, a tremendous amount of those cases has gone all the way up to the Supreme Court which evidently shows how divided the cases themselves are.

---

And many of the cases that they lose also go all the way to the Supreme Court, showing how "divided" those cases are as well.Anyway, this just seems to be just another way of saying that there are legitimate issues of constitutional law that need to be thoroughly addressed.

---

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

Content deleted. Another example of a not-very-well-thought out statement that is probably not going to further the conversation.Edited by Chiroptera, : No reason given.

quote:

---

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.

---

Some special interests groups may very well have taken this narrow interpretation. However, the ACLU has not. In fact, they have actually defended the right to public displays of religion: Wow! That ACLU sure is fighting for the rights of Christians! Have you sent in your donation yet, nem?Added by edit:
Wow! Here's another one:
And another:
Edited by Chiroptera, : No reason given.

---

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

quote:

---

This is the extent of my argument, summarized very poignantly by Petro. I'm sorry that I didn't see this sooner.

---

Did you see the replies to that post?

---

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

I kind of wondered where you got off to. Sorry to hear you weren't feeling well. I hope that you are better soon.-

quote:

---

It seems I have alot of catching up to do!

​

I will read through and respond as soon as I can.

---

Oh, good lord!