Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 81 (8950 total)
47 online now:
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 867,372 Year: 22,408/19,786 Month: 971/1,834 Week: 41/430 Day: 41/63 Hour: 2/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What's the beef with the ACLU?
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 151 of 199 (384417)
02-11-2007 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by docpotato
02-11-2007 12:59 PM


Re: Summing up...
So what is the beef with the ACLU?

The ACLU seems to have a pretty rigorous definition of what they stand for as an organization and take legal cases based on that definition regardless of how their members might feel about the parties they're defending (Rush Limbaugh, Christian schools, NAMBLA, etc.) They appear to have very little bias in who they take on.

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?)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by docpotato, posted 02-11-2007 12:59 PM docpotato has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by Chiroptera, posted 02-11-2007 3:40 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
docpotato
Member (Idle past 3392 days)
Posts: 334
From: Portland, OR
Joined: 07-18-2003


Message 152 of 199 (384423)
02-11-2007 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by subbie
02-11-2007 1:03 PM


Re: Summing up...
As far as I can tell, nj's beef seems to be that he doesn't like the message of some of the groups that the ACLU defends. Can anyone get a better sense of it than that?

He said this recently:

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.

I know so little about the ACLU, but from what I've seen on this thread so far, it seems that the cases the ACLU takes on are about deciding whether or not someone or something is criminal. Am I wrong about this?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by subbie, posted 02-11-2007 1:03 PM subbie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by subbie, posted 02-11-2007 2:06 PM docpotato has not yet responded
 Message 155 by Chiroptera, posted 02-11-2007 2:13 PM docpotato has not yet responded

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 89 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 153 of 199 (384424)
02-11-2007 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by Hyroglyphx
02-11-2007 12:44 AM


Re: The ACLU
Don't you think that's odd that an extremely large percentage of Americans can recognize this about the ACLU, but you are sort of preening and fawning them every step of the way?

Given the tremendously diverse political views of this country, plus the abominable misrepresentations of what the ACLU does that you have amply demonstrated in this thread, I'd be amazed if there weren't a lot of antipathy toward the ACLU.

I don't think there is any other organization with a more sordid reputation than the ACLU.

Well, depending on which "extremely large percentage" of people you ask, how about the RNC, the DNC, Al Quaeda, NAMBLA, rap music artists, the Illuminati, Jews, Masons, vegetarians, left-wingnuts, right-wingnuts, teamsters, Walmart, the NRA, drug dealers, drug users, fornicators, smokers, drinkers, the Cincinatti Reds, whites, blacks, postal workers, the armed forces, peaceniks, environmentalists, "global warming deniers," men, women, feminists, gays, bisexuals, transvestites, transexuals, liberals, conservatives, libertarians, creationists, "evolutionists," papists, antidisestablishmentarians...

Don't you think that there might actually be some basis for my concern?

No.

Can they do no wrong?

Yes, Mr. Strawman, they can do wrong. So what?


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 133 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-11-2007 12:44 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 89 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 154 of 199 (384425)
02-11-2007 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by docpotato
02-11-2007 1:55 PM


Re: Summing up...
I think you are wrong, in a sense.

First, a great deal of what the ACLU does isn't litigation at all. A lot of it is education.

Second, I would guess (but do not know) that most of their litigation is civil, not criminal. If they sue a county for putting the ten commandments up in the courthouse, that may be against the Constitution, but it's not a crime.

I believe that in most criminal cases, the question isn't so much whether what the accused did is a crime. If the action violates a criminal statues, then it's a crime. Instead, the question is whether the state has the authority to criminalize the particular action in question. For example, in the Gitlow case mentioned above, the question was not whether New York law prohibited him from circulating pamphlets critical of the government, but whether the law prohibiting him from doing it was consistent with the First Amendment.


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 152 by docpotato, posted 02-11-2007 1:55 PM docpotato has not yet responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6841
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 6.1


Message 155 of 199 (384427)
02-11-2007 2:13 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by docpotato
02-11-2007 1:55 PM


Re: Summing up...
...they choose cases, intentionally, that pander to the criminal.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by docpotato, posted 02-11-2007 1:55 PM docpotato has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by kuresu, posted 02-11-2007 2:21 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 858 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 156 of 199 (384431)
02-11-2007 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by Chiroptera
02-11-2007 2:13 PM


Re: Summing up...
well, you know what they say:
guilty until proven innocent.

that's all I could make out from the statment that they pander to criminals.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Chiroptera, posted 02-11-2007 2:13 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6841
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 6.1


Message 157 of 199 (384439)
02-11-2007 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by Hyroglyphx
02-11-2007 12:44 AM


Re: The ACLU
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

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

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6841
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 6.1


Message 158 of 199 (384443)
02-11-2007 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by crashfrog
02-11-2007 1:16 PM


Re: Summing up...
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by crashfrog, posted 02-11-2007 1:16 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5881
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 159 of 199 (384447)
02-11-2007 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by arachnophilia
02-10-2007 3:06 AM


Re: What is wrong with Communism?
this "lie" we've bought into is the sum of the 200 year history of the supreme court of the united states.

Arach, the lie I was referring to is any one who extends the argument beyond its merits. The Separation of Church and State means that no government entity will preference a religion over another. It doesn't mean that individuals that happen to work for the government aren't allowed to believe whatever they do or that they couldn't read the Qur'an or the Bible on their lunch break. It means that the government will not endorse a religion in its official capacity. Right on! That's the way it should be.

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. In this way, special interest groups are preferring one portion of it over the other. But it says that government won't show preferential treatment to any religion, nor will it abridge the freedoms of those want to practice religion.

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?"

Insofar that it is teaching, and by extension respecting a religion, then no it isn't Constitutional.

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.

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.

quote:
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.

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.

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.

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. And before you ask, no, I'm not suggesting that we abandon the public school system. I only said it to show that the ACLU could make an enormous case against the government if they wanted to instead of worrying about a cross in on a memorial.

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.

Law is law, and fair is fair according to the ACLU.

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.

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.

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.

I see it as Roman in approach, where they didn't really define any particular religion, prior to Constantine of course, and they also were real big on not disrespecting any one's religion, save Nero, who used to be infatuated with killing early Christians.

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.

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. I don't think anyone actually contends with that. However, both are in denial about human nature. It also demonizes a laissez faire approach to economics which invents an Us vs Them dichotomy. That's where it has historically failed.

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.

Did you know that both Marx and Stalin were seminary students before they rejected their faith and embraced communism? Its funny that they felt religion was a tool for manipulation, which it certainly can be, but they completely overlook their own tools of manipulation.

Also, the term "Neo-Con" is used inappropriately. A neo-con is not a new or extreme form of conservativism. In its pejorative use, its meant to be used as an invective. But in reality, the term neo-con was given to defectors of the left to the right. A prime example is David Horowitz. He used to be a communist but left the Left after a series of events. The straw that broke the camel's back for him was the murder of his assistant by Black Panthers and people of his ilk turning a blind eye or even condoning it.

but religion itself is not incompatible with true communism.

Life is incompatible with communism.

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.

You may be confusing the eight rules for a communist revolution with the ten tenets of communism.

quote:
Under Mao-Tse Tung, China from 1935 to 1949 exterminated 20 million of his own people.

fascist

Mao Tse Tung was a communist, not a fascist. Stalin was a communist, not a fascist.

nazi - national socialist = fascist.

The Nazi party was certainly fascist, yes.

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.

Oh, I absolutely agree. The Framers made it so that if ever the government went awry, that the People were granted the ability to defend themselves against the tyranny of the State. Some fringe groups, particularly white identity and anti-American groups have taken this to the extreme. 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.

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.

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. Apparently he is incapable of understanding that the bad guys, who defend against in the first place, don't play by the rules. The bad guy will always find a way to arm himself. Should we not have the right and the ability to defend ourselves?

At the other opposite end of the spectrum, we have extreme views where there should be no restrictions or gun laws, bringing us back to the wild west. Arming every single citizen is not the idea. There needs to be moderation. And it really should be a privilege of upstanding citizens to own guns. I guess I'm somewhere in the middle with gun control.


"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by arachnophilia, posted 02-10-2007 3:06 AM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by subbie, posted 02-11-2007 4:11 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded
 Message 161 by Chiroptera, posted 02-11-2007 4:55 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded
 Message 166 by arachnophilia, posted 02-11-2007 7:16 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 89 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 160 of 199 (384448)
02-11-2007 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by Hyroglyphx
02-11-2007 4:04 PM


Re: What is wrong with Communism?
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.

I call bullshit. Find an example of a special interest group that has tried to do this. More on topic, show me an example of the ACLU doing it.

Edited by subbie, : No reason given.


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 159 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-11-2007 4:04 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6841
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 6.1


Message 161 of 199 (384456)
02-11-2007 4:55 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by Hyroglyphx
02-11-2007 4:04 PM


The right to public religious displays.
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:

One of Warren’s Christmas creches was seized last year by Fairfax County officials. She filed suit in Federal Court, not for monetary damages, but for the right to hold a public display. She contends these rights are afforded her by the First Amendment and the U.S. Supreme Court. She was defended in the case by attorney Victor Glasberg of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

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:

After years of being arbitrarily excluded from the Utah State Fair because fair patrons complained about the content of their religious message, in 1996, a California-based evangelical Christian ministry was finally allowed to set up a booth to display its religious books. However, unbeknownst to the ministry, its contract contained restrictions not imposed on other vendors, and when fair patrons once again objected to the ministry’s message, fair officials with the help of several Salt Lake City police officers used those restrictions as a pretext for forcibly evicting the ministry from the event. In 1998, we filed a lawsuit against fair officials and individual police officers for their unconstitutional and illegal actions, and last November, we were finally able to negotiate an amicable settlement that resulted in full compensation and a promise that the ministry will be invited back to the Utah State Fair on the same terms and conditions as other vendors.

And another:

The ACLU of Pennsylvania Greater Pittsburgh Chapter (1995) secured the right of a minister from the United Methodist Church to hold meetings in the Harmony Township Borough building that was open for use by community groups.

Edited by Chiroptera, : No reason given.


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 159 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-11-2007 4:04 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by subbie, posted 02-11-2007 5:07 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 89 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 162 of 199 (384457)
02-11-2007 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by Chiroptera
02-11-2007 4:55 PM


Re: The right to public religious displays.
Actually, I'd say the ACLU owes nemmy a debt of gratitude.

His service here to them in giving us an opportunity to show how much of the criticsm of them is horseshit is commendable.


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 161 by Chiroptera, posted 02-11-2007 4:55 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 4217 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 163 of 199 (384475)
02-11-2007 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by docpotato
02-11-2007 12:59 PM


Re: Summing up...
So what is the beef with the ACLU?

You obviously haven't paid close attention.

1. When the ACLU takes on a case that protects society from religion, especially Christianity, or runs counter to cherished conservative positions, they are evil, leftist, pro-Communist, anti-American, unpatriotic, God-hating scumbags.

2. When the ACLU takes on a case that protects religion, especially Christianity, or supports cherished conservative positions, they are sneaky evil, leftist, pro-Communist, anti-American, unpatriotic, God-hating scumbags who are trying to protect their public image.

Conclusion: The ACLU is a bunch of evil, leftist, pro-Communist, anti-American, unpatriotic, God-hating scumbags who are probably also baby-raping wife-beaters. Some of 'em may even have subscriptions to Playboy.

Got it now?

Edited by Quetzal, : weird paragraph break


This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by docpotato, posted 02-11-2007 12:59 PM docpotato has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 323 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?


אָרַח

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

  
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5881
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 165 of 199 (384488)
02-11-2007 7:15 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by petrophysics1
02-07-2007 9:43 AM


To summarize
So the beef is here, you and the ACLU think that:

"an establishment of religion" = "government endorsement of religion"

This is simply untrue and was not the origional intent of the Constitution. You and I and the ACLU all know that clause was inserted to prevent the establishment of a Federal( US) church. Let's stop pretending otherwise.

I am not the one trying to change the meaning of this clause, but you and the ACLU appear to be doing just that. Some reason I should blindly accept your new interpretation of this clause?

BTW, that clause did not prevent individual states from having State Churches. Massachusetts had a State Church (Congregationalists) until 1830 as I recall, supported by tax dollars. It was never declared unconstitutional, but the law was changed.

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/overview.html

Read all of the above Library Of Congress exhibit, then come back and support "the ACLU definitely fights against government endorsement of religion (whether it is tacit or overt)" from a Founding Father's/historical perspective in regards to what the Constitution actually states.

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


"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by petrophysics1, posted 02-07-2007 9:43 AM petrophysics1 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by docpotato, posted 02-11-2007 7:52 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded
 Message 168 by Chiroptera, posted 02-11-2007 7:59 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded
 Message 169 by subbie, posted 02-11-2007 8:12 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019