What's the beef with the ACLU?

quote:

---

BTW, that clause did not prevent individual states from having State Churches.

---

True, until the 14th amendment was ratified. Now the 1st Amendment does apply to the states.-

quote:

---

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

​

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

---

And the judiciary as well. Since they have the responsibility to interpret the laws (including the Constitution), then this is pretty much what counts.

---

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

I'm not a legal scholar, as should be obvious, but didn't the 14th amendment extend the bill of rights to the states level, forcing the individual state to adhere to the establishment clause?Before the 14th amendment passed, it was only the federal government that was bound by the bill of rights, but afterwards it was all government.This means that it would not be unconstitutional for a state to have state sponsored church befor the 14th amendment passed in 1868. So your example is not relevant today!

quote:

---

This ... was not the origional intent of the Constitution.

---

The writers of the Constitution have been dead for close to 200 years. We are not bound by the decisions or intents of our ancestors. It is up to us to decide how we will organize our own society.

---

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

You are correct that the 1st Amendment only applied to Congress and Federal law, however a subsequent amendment applied it to the state and local governments as well.From The First Amendment Center

quote:

---

For the first 150 years of our nation’s history, there were very few occasions for the courts to interpret the establishment clause because the First Amendment had not yet been applied to the states. As written, the First Amendment applied only to Congress and the federal government. In the wake of the Civil War, however, the 14th Amendment was adopted. It reads in part that “no state shall ... deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law... .” In 1947 the Supreme Court held in Everson v. Board of Education that the establishment clause is one of the “liberties” protected by the due-process clause. From that point on, all government action, whether at the federal, state, or local level, must abide by the restrictions of the establishment clause.

---

Again the Establishment Clause states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.This means not only is the government forbidden to establish a national (or state or local since the passage of the 14th Amendment, or ,rather, subsequent court enforcements of it) church, but that they cannot promote (respect) one religion over another. This has been established several times in the last 215 years.So let's stop pretending that the Founders really wanted the government to promote any religion and didn't understand the danger inherent in government sponsorship of one religion over another(even "non-sectarian" religion since that implies Christian sects) It's not my interpretation, but the interpretation of numerous court decisions, countless lawmakers, multitudes of private citizens and Thomas Jefferson himself (among other Founders).In order to ensure that ALL people are free to exercise their religion, the government cannot endorse or appear to endorse ANY religion over another. This protects your religion as well. Since the government cannot interfere with the free exercise of your religion and does not collect taxes from religious establishments, it cannot respect it either. The church is not required to pay taxes and should not, therefore, be able to use taxes or grounds paid for by taxes to promote their particular brand of religion.You can't have it both ways. You cannot be exempt from public responsibility and still expect public support. This is true. The Establishment Clause did not apply to the states until much later. See my quote from the First Amendment Center above. I read the accompanying text and will delve into the documents (those I can actually read...alot of them are undecipherable) later.from your link:

quote:

---

Many Americans were disappointed that the Constitution did not contain a bill of rights that would explicitly enumerate the rights of American citizens and enable courts and public opinion to protect these rights from an oppressive government. Supporters of a bill of rights permitted the Constitution to be adopted with the understanding that the first Congress under the new government would attempt to add a bill of rights.
James Madison took the lead in steering such a bill through the First Federal Congress, which convened in the spring of 1789. The Virginia Ratifying Convention and Madison's constituents, among whom were large numbers of Baptists who wanted freedom of religion secured, expected him to push for a bill of rights. On September 28, 1789, both houses of Congress voted to send twelve amendments to the states. In December 1791, those ratified by the requisite three fourths of the states became the first ten amendments to the Constitution. Religion was addressed in the First Amendment in the following familiar words: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." In notes for his June 8, 1789, speech introducing the Bill of Rights, Madison indicated his opposition to a "national" religion. Most Americans agreed that the federal government must not pick out one religion and give it exclusive financial and legal support.

---

Yes, that's one quote out of many pages, but I found nothing in the many pages in the exhibit to support your position that the Constitution allows for government sponsorship of religion.You may rail against the interpretation of the 14th Amendment by the Supreme Court, but I'm sure the Founding Fathers did not intend for slavery to end or for blacks to be able to vote or even be considered "whole" people. Do you also disagree with these interpretations of the 14th Amendment? The 14th Amendment brought the individual States under the jurisdiction of the Bill of Rights and this includes the Establishment Clause.I have a question for you.Do you believe we should have more or less government interference in our lives (i.e. "Big Government" or "Small Government)?BTW, could you also please address the rest of my OP? I'm sure everyone would appreciate it, especially me.

Yes, I have been to their website on a number of occasions. You may be a little perplexed as to why so many people have an aversion towards the ACLU when they seem so gosh darn nice and impartial. Well, truth be told, you have to do a little digging in the ACLU past all of the fluff. But you don't have to dig very far for the truth.A little history lesson: The ACLU was founded by Roger Baldwin who made it clear what his intentions for the ACLU and the nation of the United States of America were. He says,“I am for Socialism, disarmament, and ultimately for abolishing the state itself as an instrument of violence and compulsion. I seek social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and sole control by those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal.” -Roger BaldwinThe spin of the ACLU is that they are a non-partisan organization. This is the portrayal they want the average American to see and believe. Of course, that's beyond ridiculous as evidenced by their extreme slant to partisan belief. Here is how the ACLU "scores" Congressman and state Representatives , as if that has anything to do with the defense of civil liberties that they feel so obligated to take on. Interestingly enough they have tried to stymie every Supreme Court Justice who didn't conform to their brand of politics. But wait.... I thought they are non-partisan? I must have forgotten that oft-repeated mantra. Its just so hard to think of them as being impartial when their record is so obviously to advance an agenda. They regularly take on cases that not only defend anti-American terrorism, but they also aide and abet them. They take on cases that support extreme patronage where an offender has been clearly indicted for a crime. Being the spin doctors they are they find ways to paint a picture that doesn't exist to make it sound as if there are nefarious purposes at hand. They will hold somebody up in the spotlight in order to make the defendant seem like a Robin Hood, launching their iconic status in order to subvert the status quo. They defend child pornographers and institutions who support crimes against children. They defend live sex acts irrespective of where and when. They have an unwaivering support of all forms of abortion, even partial birth abortion, and have the gall to now call it "reproductive freedom." They take on religious groups that want to display Nativity scenes, as if displaying baby Jesus is the crime of all crimes. They hate the boyscouts of America for crying out loud. They want all borders to be open, seemingly incapable of understanding the implications that would directly affect them. So on, and so on.All of this they do under the banner of "freedom." They view themselves and want to be seen in romantic terms of the underdog who stands firm against a sea of oppressive political opposition-- you know, like all Communist groups do. The reality is they just want to subvert the status quo and to erode the United States from within because the US stands for everything they are against. And its working beautifully for them. Their tactic is actually working.I notice that you posted cases taken on by the ACLU who protected certain religious institutions. While its true that the ACLU takes on certain cases, its little more than social pittance, and they don't have warmhearted motives for doing it. They take on these cases to keep up the appearance of non-partisanship. But their defense of such cases is usually geared towards some individualistic right they have manifested in their minds. For instance, the ACLU of Oregon recently took on a case against a Christian school. Apparently, this private school observes the Sabbath. Long story short, their basketball team did very well and were scheduled to go to the championships. The school said that if the championship was to be played, they would have to schedule it on a day other than the Sabbath. A few students protested that reached the ears of the players. Naturally, the ACLU jumped all over it.

---

"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

A little more history: In the 1940s, Baldwin denounced communism, and purged the ACLU of all communist members. Don't let that stop your fun, though.

---

"I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut."
-Stephen Colbert

I guess I don't understand the criticism. Republicans for several decades have embarked on a crusade to fundamentally undermine American civil liberties, particularly those of minority groups; therefore, naturally standing up for civil liberties is going to necessitate standing up to a lot of Republicans and their efforts to subvert the Judicial branch with Justices who take a counter-Constitutional view of liberty in America.How is that partisanship? Unfortunately for your side, terrorists have rights, too. Erosion of civil liberties doesn't start with regular citizens, it starts with those who regular citizens don't like. Hitler, after all, didn't go after Lutherans - he went after Jews, gypsies, and gays. Why do you think that is? Oh, I'm so very sure that the opponents (or "victims", as I suppose you style them) of the ACLU are all so very innocent and have no ulterior agendas whatsoever.Seriously, NJ. No, they don't. At no point has the ACLU defended a legitimate act of exploitation of children.The ACLU has defended those who have simulated child pornography using technical means or adult lookalikes; but again, while those activities may skeeve the hell out of you, they're constitutionally-protected expression and they don't harm children. Because that's what it is. On public property, to the exclusion of other religions? That is a crime. No, they don't. C'mon, NJ. Isn't it possible for the ACLU to oppose certain policies of the Boy Scouts without "hating" them? Don't be an idiot. Says you. Do you have any evidence for your accusations of bad faith? You're really making the point that criticism of the ACLU isn't based on any evidence but on an emotional reaction to the fact that they defend people who no one else will, but who have legitimate complaints against the government. And thank goodness they do. What the ACLU does preserves your freedom, NJ, even as they fight for your right to talk about what assholes you think they are. I hope someday you have the maturity to recognize that. Huh! You mean, a religious institution demanding special treatment from the government turned out to be against the first amendment? Imagine that!

No he didn't. The closest he ever came to that was realizing that his hero's turned out be vicious murderers which went against his pacifistic views. He simply went underground with his beliefs to avoid detection from McCarthy's own social cleansing.Even in the event he tried "purge" communism from the ACLU, (which is consequently against people's civil rights), he failed to meet the objective as evidenced by the totality of communistic views that survive and thrive within the Union today.

---

"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

quote:

---

But wait.... I thought they are non-partisan?

---

Do you know what non-partisan means? I'll give you a hint: it doesn't mean that you act as if all parties and organizations are equally in the best interests of society.Oh, alright, I'll tell you what non-partisan means. Non-partisan means that you have a set of criteria or positions on issues that you feel are important, and you rate every individual base only on these criteria regardless of what party they belong to. If one party ranks much, much lower than the other as a whole, then so be it.Partisan means that you support a party for the sake of the party rather than for any real policy reasons.

---

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

quote:

---

Unfortunately for your side, terrorists have rights, too.

---

Not only that, we don't know they are really terrorists until that has been determined by examining the facts in an open court of law.

---

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

Uh-huh. And it's your mind-reading powers that tell you this?I guess we're all waiting for you to present some evidence that the ACLU is so bad. But you seem content to do nothing but speculate bad-faith motives. Why is that?

quote:

---

I guess we're all waiting for you to present some evidence that the ACLU is so bad.

---

The ACLU does bad things. Therefore they hate Jesus. Therefore they want to put us all in reeducation camps and sing songs praising Osama bin Laden.

---

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

Well nuh-uh to you too.His book, "A New Slavery", is one massive screed against communism. He refers to it as "the inhuman communist police state tyranny." If anyone can read that book and think Baldwin was still communist, there's not a whole lot you can say to them. Ten years before McCarthyism? Seven years before McCarthy even became a senator? Wow! Not only was Baldwin a godless communist bent on destroying America, he also had pyschic powers!Cool!Meanwhile, back in Realityland, the event that tipped Baldwin against communism was the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. But again, don't let that stop you. I'm sure it's much more fun to say that he could see through time.

---

"I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut."
-Stephen Colbert

Wait, are we talking about the ACLU, or Dinesh D'Souza?

First of all, a private organization "purging" itself of people because of their political views is not any kind of civil rights violation. Private groups are able to make all kinds of distinctions that governments cannot, because private groups are not bound by the Bill of Rights or the 14th Amendment.Second, please show evidence of one "communistic" view espoused by the ACLU that does not relate to the protection of civil rights.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat