Understanding through Discussion

Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 87 (8993 total)
73 online now:
DrJones*, Juvenissun (2 members, 71 visitors)
Newest Member: Juvenissun
Post Volume: Total: 879,206 Year: 10,954/23,288 Month: 206/1,763 Week: 173/390 Day: 62/32 Hour: 1/1

Announcements: Topic abandonment warning (read and/or suffer the consequences)

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   What's the beef with the ACLU?
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 yet responded

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

Member (Idle past 3627 days)
Posts: 334
From: Portland, OR
Joined: 07-18-2003

Message 167 of 199 (384499)
02-11-2007 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by Hyroglyphx
02-11-2007 7:15 PM

Re: To summarize
It sounds like your problem is really with the Supreme Court, then?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-11-2007 7:15 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

Inactive Member

Message 168 of 199 (384503)
02-11-2007 7:59 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by Hyroglyphx
02-11-2007 7:15 PM

Re: To summarize
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-11-2007 7:15 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

Member (Idle past 324 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006

Message 169 of 199 (384505)
02-11-2007 8:12 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by Hyroglyphx
02-11-2007 7:15 PM

Re: To summarize
If this is really the extent of your argument, please explain why you "don't think there is any other organization with a more sordid reputation than the ACLU." I mean, I'm willing to allow that someone could have a reasonable disagreement with the interpretation of the First Amendment that the ACLU espouses, but I fail to see how that makes them "sordid."

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-11-2007 7:15 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

Member (Idle past 1093 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006

Message 170 of 199 (384525)
02-11-2007 9:30 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by arachnophilia
02-11-2007 7:16 PM

aside on george III
in a very technical sense, the colonies were fighting against george III, as he was the head of the british government. however, when one looks at the list of complaints issued against the british government, most of them deal with parliamentary actions--not george III. so in reality, we were fighting against parliamentary actions (no taxation w/o representation is famous--only parliament can levy taxes at this point in UK history.)

yeah, I've no clue why I brought this up. let's just say it has to do with the 2cd amendment in some really abstract way. yeah . . .

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by arachnophilia, posted 02-11-2007 7:16 PM arachnophilia has not yet responded

Member (Idle past 2005 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006

Message 171 of 199 (384544)
02-12-2007 1:09 AM

Sorry for disappearing guys...I have been quite ill these last few days. It seems I have alot of catching up to do!

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by Chiroptera, posted 02-12-2007 10:07 AM Jaderis has not yet responded

Inactive Member

Message 172 of 199 (384578)
02-12-2007 10:07 AM
Reply to: Message 171 by Jaderis
02-12-2007 1:09 AM

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


It seems I have alot of catching up to do!

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

Oh, good lord!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Jaderis, posted 02-12-2007 1:09 AM Jaderis has not yet responded

Member (Idle past 2005 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006

Message 173 of 199 (384703)
02-12-2007 7:10 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Hyroglyphx
02-08-2007 12:24 PM

Re: The ACLU
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?

Ok...let's go through the first 5 alleged "partisan beliefs." I will quote the ACLU statement regarding its mission for each issue and the first two cases listed on the subject page.

Criminal Justice: "Our constitution is meant to stop government abuses of power. But all too often, the rights of those involved in the criminal justice system are compromised or ignored. The Racial Justice Program, Drug Law Reform Project, National Prison Project, Capital Punishment Project and other ACLU projects and affiliates work to reform the criminal justice system and make the promise of fair treatment a reality for all people."

- Supreme Court Strikes Michigan Law
"The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Michigan law denying legal representation to poor people in a criminal appeal is unconstitutional. The ACLU of Michigan filed the one of a kind case after the law was passed in 1999.
Under the law, an indigent criminal defendant who wished to challenge his sentence after pleading guilty was generally not entitled to appointed counsel, even for a first appeal. Michigan was the only state in the country that denied appointed counsel under these circumstances."

-Ensuring Young People's Access to Counsel in Ohio "The American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio, ACLU National, The Children’s Law Center and the Ohio Public Defender’s Office filed a petition with the Ohio Supreme Court on March 9 calling for the court to protect children’s right to counsel when they are accused of a crime."

So one of the ACLU's "partisan" missions is to ensure a fair and constitutional criminal justice system. I see.

Death Penalty: "The death penalty is the ultimate denial of civil liberties. In the past 30 years, 123 inmates were found to be innocent and released from death row. Learn more about the Capital Punishment Project and how you can get involved."

-ACLU Amicus Brief, Lawrence v. Florida "On October 31, 2006, the United States Supreme Court heard arguments in Lawrence v. Florida. The case addresses questions surrounding the deadline that death-row and other inmates must meet in filing an application for a federal writ of habeas corpus. One question before the Court is whether inmates whose state-selected lawyers inexcusably miss the deadline should receive a short extension so that they are not executed without a federal judge ever reviewing their case. The ACLU CPP's amicus brief demonstrates the abysmal quality of representation received by many death-row inmates in Florida."*

-ACLU Challenges the Conviction and Death Sentence of a Mentally-Ill Man Read more about the death penalty and mental illness*

Granted, the death penalty is a contentious issue for many, but I hardly think that the views fall along party lines since both the Democrats and the Republicans support the death penalty. I would think instead views on the death penalty are quite personal and are influenced by religious or philosophical views, arguments regarding the application of the penalty, cruel and unusual punishment, etc, and views on prison's in general (are they supposed to be solely for punishment or should they be for rehabilitative purposes and can anyone be reformed?) along with countless other thoughts.

*I did not list the first two items on the page because they were stories about polls and physicians' roles in executions and not news about actual cases.

Disability Rights: "The evidence of the Americans with Disabilities Act is everywhere: Handicap parking spaces, Braille instructions on ATM's, and ramps built into sidewalks. The ACLU continues to fight for the civil rights of the disabled Americans. Learn more and take action to protect the rights guaranteed to all Americans."

"Despite ample evidence that the ADA is working, people with disabilities are still, far too often, treated as second class citizens, shunned and segregated by physical barriers and social stereotypes. They are discriminated against in employment, schools, and housing, robbed of their personal autonomy, sometimes even hidden away and forgotten by the larger society. Many people with disabilities continue to be excluded from the American dream."

- ACLU Welcomes U.S. Department of Justices Support in Boca Raton Housing Discrimination Case (9/20/2006) "BOCA RATON, FL -- The U.S. Department of Justice filed a lawsuit in federal court today intervening in the city of Boca Raton’s unconstitutional discrimination against persons with disabilities. The American Civil Liberties Union of Florida’s Palm Beach Chapter, which filed suit on behalf of residents with disabilities in 2004, welcomed the DOJ’s support on this important civil liberties case."

- ACLU of Rhode Island and Community Groups Denounce Rules Denying Compensation to Certain Crime Victims (7/27/2006) "PROVIDENCE, RI -- Seven organizations that service people with substance abuse problems today sharply criticized as “discriminatory and mean-spirited” regulations approved earlier this week by General Treasurer Paul Tavares, allowing the state to deny compensation to victims of violent crimes based solely on their past drug-related criminal history."

While I'm not quite sure why a case involving discrimination against former drug abusers is listed on the "Disability Rights" page, I am also not quite sure why disability rights are a partisan issue. Perhaps you can explain.

Drug Policy: "The ACLU Drug Law Reform Project is a division of the national ACLU. Our goal is to end punitive drug policies that cause the widespread violation of constitutional and human rights, as well as unprecedented levels of incarceration."

- In Response to Court Ruling, ACLU of Washington Calls on Legislature to Clarify Medical Marijuana Law (11/22/2006) "OLYMPIA, WA - The Washington Supreme Court today rejected a seriously ill woman’s plea to use medical marijuana to alleviate chronic pain, even though she had a doctor’s written recommendation. The American Civil Liberties Union of Washington said the 6-3 ruling points to the need to clarify the state’s medical marijuana law to ensure that patients are able to exercise their rights."

- California's Medical Marijuana Laws Get Nod from Court (11/16/2006) "SAN DIEGO - Medical marijuana patients around the country scored a major win today, as a California Superior Court judge issued a preliminary ruling that state medical marijuana laws can co-exist with the federal law that prohibits all use."

These first two cases involve medical marijuana, but the ACLU does not only take on these cases. Both Republican's and Democrat's argue for tougher enforcement (see "On the issues" link above), but the Democrat's do argue for more treatment and the Republican's argue for more jail time. The ACLU's involves itself in cases involving racial disparity in sentencing (harsher sentences for crack as opposed to powder cocaine, for example), privacy issues (mandatory drug testing for students, welfare recipients, etc), religious freedom (use of drugs in religious ceremonies and also certain government subsidized "faith based" programs that compel the enrollee to convert), policies that deny student's college aid due to past drug convictions and deny ex-felons the right to vote and deny past drug users access to certain jobs no matter how long ago the drug use was, asset forfeiture (you know when law enforcement can seize everything you own based on probable cause before a conviction and good friggin luck getting it back). You can find out more information on the main drug policy page which link is above.

Now how are any of these things partisan issues and not constitutional issues?

Free Speech: "Freedom of speech is protected in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights and is guaranteed to all Americans. Since 1920, the ACLU has worked to preserve our freedom of speech. Learn more and take action to protect the right to free speech."

- ACLU Returns to Court to Defend Right to Online Free Speech (10/23/2006) "PHILADELPHIA -- The American Civil Liberties Union today presented opening arguments in federal district court in its longstanding challenge to an Internet censorship law, ACLU v. Gonzales. The censorship law was signed by President Clinton in 1998 and has never been enforced.

'The right to free speech is one of the core values of this country," said ACLU Senior Staff Attorney Chris Hansen, who is lead counsel on the case. "Congress does not have the right to censor information on the Internet. Americans have the right to participate in the global conversation that happens online every moment of every day.' "

- Net Neutrality

- Artistic Freedom

- ACLU Lauds Senate Hearing on Science Saying, Fund Research Not Ideology (2/7/2007)
WASHINGTON - The American Civil Liberties Union applauded the Senate Commerce Committee’s hearing today on oversight of government research on climate change, noting that recent government funded scientific studies have often put politics above facts.

The following can be attributed to Caroline Fredrickson, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office.

"Public policy must be based on accurate information, not on wishful thinking: The government has no business funding ideology in the guise of research. Congress is stepping up and doing the oversight needed to assure Americans that their research dollars are going to real research - not spin."

- ACLU Challenges Baltimore County Sign Ordinance That Unconstitutionally Restricts Political Speech (2/2/2007) BALTIMORE - Alarmed that Baltimore County has elected - for the second time in a decade - to waste taxpayer resources trying to restrict the free speech rights of it own residents, the American Civil Liberties Union of Maryland today filed suit seeking to overturn a new county law that unconstitutionally limits when individuals can place political signs on their private property.

Please find me something regarding freedom of speech that is a partisan issue.

Now I know you are going to bring up the fact that abortion and gay rights were not included ( I picked the top 5 so as not to seem biased in my selections) and are indeed partisan issues, but I will argue that the ACLU, even with regards to these very contentious issues still concentrates on the constitutional aspects surrounding them. And they keep winning because the courts find that the constitutionality of their arguments is solid.

I, however, do not want to delve into the right and wrong of these two issues here because that is one surefire way to unravel this thread. There are other threads where these are constantly being hashed out.

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?

Yes, I agree with their "agenda" of guaranteeing all citizens the rights enshrined in the constitution. Scoring lawmakers on their votes regarding constitutional issues makes perfect sense for such an organization. It also serves to let us know which bills are being introduced that would threaten (or strengthen) our rights and seeing which lawmakers are voting for or against these issues helps us make an educated decision at the polls as to whether or not we want lawmakers who support stripping us of our rights sitting in Congress.

Besides, I've already stated that the scorecard scores reps not on general issues, but their votes on specific bills that would erode (or strengthen) our rights. You snidely denied that this would be the purpose of the scorecard, but the evidence speaks for itself.

I do not think that an organization devoted to preserving and guarateeing our civil rights and liberties is acting inappropriately in informing the voters of how individual lawmakers are acting with regards to these issues.

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

Several people have covered this remark, but I would just like to reiterate their points that there is no evidence of "virulent hostility" in your links, just reasoned argument and evidence of their prior judicial opinions running counter to preserving civil liberties.

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.

Hmmm...I seem to recall asking you to provide evidence that the ACLU defends terrorists and "aids and abets" them.

Sedition is not terrorism.

From Answers.com:

se·di·tion (sĭ-dĭsh'ən)

1. Conduct or language inciting rebellion against the authority of a state.
2. Insurrection; rebellion.

Sounds familiar...

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Our country was founded on sedition.

Accusation of sedition is also not sedition.

You still need to provide evidence for your claim that the ACLU defends terrorists (which by itself means nothing as everyone is entitled to a defense and not even terrorists should be denied basic human rights...two wrongs do not make a right and all...you would still need to explain how that is un-American and justifis your claims about the ACLU) AND "aids and abets" them.

You have done neither.


City of Indianapolis v. Edmond

You have yet to explain to any of us what you mean by "extreme patronage." Until you do so I cannot address these examples.

Curley v NAMbLA

They defended them against claims that they were responsible for the death of a boy based on the killers having had some of their pamphlets in their possession (none of which advocated murder, BTW). They were defending NAMBLA's right to free speech (one of their specialties), not the organization itself. You still seem to fail to see the difference and I'm not sure how anyone can make it clearer for you. They didn't choose to take the case because it involved NAMBLA and they would like nothing better than to see little boys raped, but because it involved freedom of speech.

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.

Actually, having a baby does not require parental permission, either.

Crash already addressed one of the reasons why it should not require parental permission (do victims of child abuse have to get their parents permission to treat their broken bones?) I would like to add that parental consent for abortion smacks of the way abortion used to be treated in this country which was declared unconstitutional. Very desperate girls who feel, for whatever reason, that they cannot tell their parents or know that they would deny consent WILL find a way to have an abortion and that often entails dangerous methods OR they will hide their condition and have their baby in a bathroom and many will abandon or kill it.

As for "partial birth abortion", your link does not say much about how the ACLU feels about it. It does say that the ACLU fought that particular law because "it bans safe and common abortion methods used in the second trimester of pregnancy, well before fetal viability. It also lacks an exception to protect women's health -- a requirement that is constitutionally compelled, as the Supreme Court made clear in its recent ruling in Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914 (2000)."

Again, they are debating the constitutionality of these laws. If you have an issue with this then take it to court and prove that the laws are constitutional or that prior court decisions are wrong. However, your conscience is not evidence in our court system.

Please, everyone, if you want to debate the ACLU's stance on reproductive rights, you may do so here, but I do not want this thread to be a platform for either side of the abortion debate.

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

What do you mean "juxtaposed by what they don't?" What cases DON'T they take on?

As for your examples, none of them involve "attacking Christianity." All of them (except the Newdow case) involve a religious group or religious people within government trying to establish their religion over others on public spaces.

If you want to put up a creche during Christmas, do so on your OWN property or on the private property of someone who supports you OR allow other religions and non-religions to put their own displays alongside yours.

If you want people to associate the 10 Commandments with Western Law then open a friggin museum dedicated to Judeo-Christian morals and the law or some such.

These cases are NOT an attack on Christianity and pretending at martyrdom is not going to make it otherwise.

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.

Funny how they failed to mention that. They only mentioned that homosexuality was incompatible with their beliefs as scouts. Not a damn thing about overnight camping trips.

It's also funny how most sexual crimes against boys are committed by men who are otherwise heterosexual (if they indeed have any attraction to adults at all as many child molesters are strictly fixated on children)

What's really funny is that the BSA claims to be a private organization but they have no problem taking public funds nor with having a Congressional charter

To answer your question,though, I would feel fine with a heterosexual man taking my daughters on an overnight trip, especially if another adult was with him (male or female) which, incidentally, is scout policy. At least two adults accompany the kids on their overnight excursions.

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.

My apologies.

Details about the Violence Against Women Act

Wiki on Spousal Rape

Many United States rape statutes used to preclude prosecution of a man for sexually assaulting his own wife, including if the couple are estranged or even legally separated. In 1975, South Dakota removed this exception. By 1993, this was the case throughout the United States.[2] However, 33 of 50 U.S. states regard spousal rape as a lesser crime [Bergen, 1999]. The perpetrator may be charged with related crimes such as assault, battery or spousal abuse.

FOX News story on marital rape

Synopsis of the Tracey Thurman case - the first woman to win a civil suit against law enforcement for not coming to her aid after repeatedly reporting abuse by her estranged husband and his violations of restraining orders (culminating in him stabbing and kicking her repeatedly, so that now she is permenantly disabled and disfigured), effectively denying her "equal protection under the law" by treating her differently than anyone else reporting a crime simply because she was married to her abuser.

So, like I said...the "status quo" isn't always what it is cracked up to be and often needs major overhaul.

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.

I'm letting this one go for now in the hopes that you finally realize that the ACLU was defending the school.

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.

Again, I'm going to let this go since it has been shown to you that the ACLU was not trying to "subvert" anyone's rights, much less the SDA school it is defending.

I'm not sure why you posted this because its in the favor of the school.

Because, I, unlike you, recognize rights violations regardless of whose rights are in question. And because, I, unlike you, can actually read through a link to find out what the information is instead of making a snap judgement based on what I think about a particualr organization.

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.

Please explain how any of the cases you presented constitute an "attack on Judeo-Christian beliefs" and while you're at it explain to me which particular Judeo-Christian beliefs you perceive to be under attack in these cases.

Edited by Jaderis, : typo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-08-2007 12:24 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

Member (Idle past 2005 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006

Message 174 of 199 (384708)
02-12-2007 7:17 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Hyroglyphx
02-08-2007 2:13 PM

Re: 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.

OR, to a reasonable person, it means that they specifically take on cases involving constitutional law and civil liberties, which often, unfortunately, involve an "underdog" fighting against the government or another rather large entity who are violating said rights and also sometimes involve organizations or individuals that most people find to be "heinous" but whose rights still need to be protected all the same.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-08-2007 2:13 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

Member (Idle past 2005 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006

Message 175 of 199 (384710)
02-12-2007 7:19 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by jar
02-08-2007 3:06 PM

Re: What is wrong with Communism?
Jesus certainly believed in joint ownership of the resources. Admittedly he did subscribe to the manifesto as laid out in Animal Farm that while all critters are equal, some are more equal than others.

Whether or not Jesus was a Communist is definitely not on topic, Jar. You know better.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by jar, posted 02-08-2007 3:06 PM jar has not yet responded

Member (Idle past 2005 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006

Message 176 of 199 (384727)
02-12-2007 8:07 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Hyroglyphx
02-08-2007 5:31 PM

Re: The ACLU
Radical Islam and the Radical Left are all in bed with one another, as evidenced by who defends who, and who attacks what. The whose-who of the legal Left includes the ACLU, the NLG, and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

I read this post last night and I am still laughing at your "proof" that "Radical Islam and the Radical Left are all in bed with one another" by posting a chart with a bunch of lines.

Seriously, tho...do you have any actual evidence that the ACLU "aids and abets terrorists?"

You must have missed the part where the ACLU are defending Jaynes and Sicari.

No, really, you must have missed the part where they were actually defending NAMBLA's right to free speech and did not, in fact, defend Jaynes and Sicari.

Why then is a handbook on how to have sex with children and get away with considered protected literature under the First Amendment, but the Anarchists Cookbook is not? Why is this handbook that teaches men how to abduct children legally protected, but a pamphlet about the social caveats that homosexuality can bring considered "hate speech?" Explain that unique position of the ACLU.

Please show some evidence that the Anarchists's Cookbook is illegal in the US. I bet you can't because it is in fact legal

Please also show how labeling something "hate speech" constitutes censorship and also that the ACLU advocates such a position.

You have a problem with those words? What about those words is egregious?

I never said they were "egregious." I was simply pointing out that those words are euphemisms and the hypocrisy of conservatives who complain about phrases like "reproductive freedom" yet use their own convoluted euphemisms.

LOL! The ACLU, which is supposed to be a not-for-profit organization receives money from the Federal government under this statute! I wonder if they'd hire a conservative lawyer with an immaculate judicial record.

Sure they would. Do you have any evidence that they have discriminated in their hiring practices? Otherwise, your "point" really has no meaning. Put up or shut up.

Secondly, it was the Clinton Administration that officially deemed the Boy Scouts of America to be a "religious institution" which means their religious beliefs are to be protected under the First Amendment.

Please explain to me how Clinton has anything to do with this.

Please provide evidence that anyone in the Clinton administration declared the BSA to be a religious organization or that they had any need to since the BSA describes itself as such , which I find interesting because they then try to deny that they are when it comes to their presence in public schools and conservative poster boy Bill O'Reilly even disputes that consider themselves a religious organization.

But that presents a real conundrum here. Because defending one automatically means the abrogation of rights for the other. Guess which one they chose to abrogate?

Explain please.

The Establishment-- the historical United States of America. They want their own version of the United States of America where leftist ideal can reign unchecked and unquestioned.

What leftist ideals would these be and how do they contradict the Constitution and the ideals of the USA?

I've given you numerous cases with links showing that they are unequivocally slanted to the left. Either you are ignorant of what you are looking at or intentionally being obtuse.

You've misrepresented every single case without fail so you have essentially shown me nothing but your own speculation that the ACLU wants to topple the US government.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-08-2007 5:31 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

Member (Idle past 2005 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006

Message 177 of 199 (384731)
02-12-2007 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by Hyroglyphx
02-09-2007 8:06 AM

Re: The ACLU
Jaderis asked me to show evidence that the ACLU personally and professionally sought to undermine the nomination of Justices Roberts and Alito.

No, I asked you to present evidence that the ACLU fought against judicial nominees that didn't "conform to their brand of politics."

You have yet to show that the ACLU didn't have legitimate complaints about their records on civil liberties and were simply playing partisan politics.

Read up about the "Wren Cross" and tell me what you think of the First Amendment in that situation

I think that the First Amendment is in great condition at that school.

The president of the publicschool decided that some students would be more comfortable if the cross was not present during assemblies (which were held in the chapel) and during days when the Christian students were not using the chapel to worship. The cross would be returned on Sundays, but otherwise would be put away in order that the other students of other faiths could use the chapel for whatever personal purposes without a Christian symbol glaring in their faces.

What problem, exactly, do you have with Mr. Nichol's decision? It seems mighty fair to me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-09-2007 8:06 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

Member (Idle past 2005 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006

Message 178 of 199 (384732)
02-12-2007 8:22 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by subbie
02-09-2007 8:16 PM

Re: The ACLU
Let me ask you a question. Can someone burn a flag in a solemn ceremony for purposes of destroying a worn flag?

No need to respond, of course they can. In fact, that's the method recommended. Now, what's the difference between that and someone burning a flag to protest what the government has done? I'll answer that one for you as well. The message they are sending.

That's it.

Now, you explain why it's not speech.

Excellent subbie!!

I couldn't have put it better myself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by subbie, posted 02-09-2007 8:16 PM subbie has not yet responded

Member (Idle past 2005 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006

Message 179 of 199 (384740)
02-12-2007 9:06 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by Hyroglyphx
02-11-2007 12:44 AM

Re: The ACLU
What? Please explain and substantiate how Alito and Roberts want the President to hold unitary powers above and beyond those specified in the Constitution that you liken to a Monarchy.

Wiki entry on the Unitary executive theory

FindLaw commentary on unitary executive theory

Justice Alito and the unitary executive theory

Subscribers to the "unitary executive theory" advocate an imbalance of powers and the granting of powers to the president that are go against the constitutional checks and balances.

Both Justice Roberts and Justice Alito advocate this theory.

You forget that a President can't even wipe his own ass without two thirds of Congress' approval.

And yet, our president decides time and time again to bypass the legislation passed by Congress by issuing signing statements declaring that he does not have to adhere to the legislation instead of clarifying his own understanding of the legislation as the pratice was intended to do.

Justice Alito is quite clear in his support for this and even proposed the strategy currently employed in the Oval Office.

And the President has veto powers. Its a checks and balances system so that no entity can become too powerful.

And yet, both of your examples of judges with "impeccable judicial records" advocate or have advocated a stronger executive branch with virtually unchecked powers.

That (among other things) is what the ACLU had issues with. Not their personal politics.

But just because someone is good at being an intelligent sycophant doesn't make it good, moral, or just.

And just whose ass are they kissing? You do know the definition of "sycophant" don't you?

Oh, I get it...you think that the judges in the cases they win cave into flattering debate techniques by the ACLU lawyers. Not that the ACLU actually presents a cogent argument with regards to constitutional law.


What is wrong, in my estimation, is that they choose cases, intentionally, that pander to the criminal. They often come down on the side of criminals in an attempt to impugn those who don't deserve it.

Did you know that drinking out of the wrong water fountain used to be a crime? Sometimes there are unjust and unconstitutional laws on the books. The people who commit actions proscribed by these laws are criminals.

What the ACLU does is in these cases is point out the unconstitutionality of these laws. Once overturned, such a person is no longer a criminal nor had they ever really been a criminal because the law was unjust and should not have been on the books in the first place.

You can't elect to have a hysterectomy without a doctor to legitimize the need, no matter how old you are, which is actually apart of one's body, but you can elect to remove a body inside of your body at your own discretion.

No, a doctor diagnoses a need for a hysterectomy. If none exists or if a better alternative exists, then the doctor advises against the procedure. I'm not sure about the medical ethics regarding a situation where a woman elects to have a hysterectomy without need, but I doubt there are any laws regarding this.

Besides, no one has an abortion when no fetus is present (hence, no need).

Could you please substantiate?

I'm not even sure what statement the ACLU issued concerning this case.

They didn't. Wanna know why? Because they were not involved in the case.

That's twice now that you've brought up cases where the ACLU wasn't even involved in order to impugn them. Keep up the good work!!

As for the parts of your post I didn't respond to...I am not trying to quotemine. I am deferring to our other esteemed members' responses. I don't have much else to add beyond what they have covered.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-11-2007 12:44 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

Member (Idle past 750 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001

Message 180 of 199 (384827)
02-13-2007 8:50 AM
Reply to: Message 133 by Hyroglyphx
02-11-2007 12:44 AM

Re: The ACLU
You can't elect to have a hysterectomy without a doctor to legitimize the need, no matter how old you are,

That is completely untrue.

People have elective hysterectomies all the time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-11-2007 12:44 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by purpledawn, posted 02-13-2007 9:52 AM nator has responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020