The ACLU

[Electric Sceptic]

It seems that among some christians there's a great deal of hostility toward the ACLU. In recent threads, I've seen accusations such as that the ACLU:

- readily defend having a copy of "Playboy" or "Hustler" in plain view of children in a library
- fight to remove the Bible claiming separation of church and state.
- defend someones right to scream defamation, slander and obscenities from any public place.
- defend the supposed right of grown men to sodomized young boys through the North American Boy-Love Association (NAMBLA).
- fight to the teeth against someone speaking their mind if they invoke the name of God in a positive way or read from His Word in the same public arena.

Of course, none of them are true.

So my question is, why so much hostility to an organisation that acts to proctect the rights of all Americans?

 

[Aimee30]

I don't have hostility toward them as much as some of the issues they support, like as in fighting to keep creationism out of schools. I'd rather that schools give a broad spectrum of how the world formed rather than just the standard it must have been evolution. As no one was there to see it happen, we can't prove evoluton happened either.
Some were all right like keeping the a voting rights act and one for changes that need to made in the patriot act. It depends on your personal point of view and how you feel your religion should be followed whether you have hostility toward the ACLU. They're okay to me at times--I just wish they would limit what they push as rights.

 

[psychedelicist]

Because americans act so stupidly with the rights they have right now.

 

[variant]

I don't have hostility toward them as much as some of the issues they support, like as in fighting to keep creationism out of schools. I'd rather that schools give a broad spectrum of how the world formed rather than just the standard it must have been evolution. As no one was there to see it happen, we can't prove evoluton happened either.
Some were all right like keeping the a voting rights act and one for changes that need to made in the patriot act. It depends on your personal point of view and how you feel your religion should be followed whether you have hostility toward the ACLU. They're okay to me at times--I just wish they would limit what they push as rights.

Your mad at the ACLU because they want scientists to deside what should be taught in science class rooms rather than school boards with religious motivations?

 

[Electric Sceptic]

I don't have hostility toward them as much as some of the issues they support, like as in fighting to keep creationism out of schools. I'd rather that schools give a broad spectrum of how the world formed rather than just the standard it must have been evolution. As no one was there to see it happen, we can't prove evoluton happened either.

Not to derail the thread, but (a) science isn't about proof, (b) evolution has nothing to do with how the world formed and (c) the reason creationism isn't taught is not because it's unproven, but because it's a religious rather than scientific belief.

Some were all right like keeping the a voting rights act and one for changes that need to made in the patriot act. It depends on your personal point of view and how you feel your religion should be followed whether you have hostility toward the ACLU. They're okay to me at times--I just wish they would limit what they push as rights.

Limit them to what? They 'push' the rights guaranteed by the constitution. Would you rather they not do that where religious rights are concerned? Forget the establishment clause? What 'limits' do you want on what they 'push'?

 

[""]

Not to derail the thread, but (a) science isn't about proof, (b) evolution has nothing to do with how the world formed and (c) the reason creationism isn't taught is not because it's unproven, but because it's a religious rather than scientific belief.

First I want to say that I do agree with you. Science is not about proof. It's about experimention and theory, observing and identifying, etc.

Now, all of this having been said (Science is not about proof) and your statement that Creation hasn't been proved, you've just given all the more reason that Creation should be taught as well.

Thanks for that.

 

[Electric Sceptic]

First I want to say that I do agree with you. Science is not about proof. It's about experimention and theory, observing and identifying, etc.

Correct.

Now, all of this having been said (Science is not about proof) and your statement that Creation hasn't been proved, you've just given all the more reason that Creation should be taught as well.

No, I haven't, because creationism (not creation) is not about experimentation, theory, observing or identifying. It is about religion, not science.

Of course, creationism can easily be taught...in religion classes, if you're happy to ignore the establishment clause. Fortunately for those who don't want religious beliefs shoved down their throat, the ACLU isn't.

 

[charityagape]

A few examples from their website that I do object to.

ACLU Asks U.S. Supreme Court to Review Iowa's Sex Offender Residency Restriction (09/29/2005)
DES MOINES – The Iowa Civil Liberties Union announced today that its is asking the Supreme Court to overturn Iowa's unprecedented law that restricts where sex offenders with victims under the age of 18 can reside. The Court will likely decide by the end of the year whether to hear the case.


ACLU of Washington Files Lawsuit over Issaquah Housing Ordinance (08/31/2005)
ISSAQUAH, WA -- The American Civil Liberties Union today filed a lawsuit on behalf of a local mother and her son, challenging a recently passed Issaquah ordinance that imposes highly restrictive limits on housing for people with past convictions for sex offenses.

(note: the restrictions are also on sex offenders that aren't typically dangerous, ie 19 yo boyfriend 15 yo girlfriend, I personally think the restrictions should be restricted to child molestors.)

This one:

ACLU Letter to the House of Representatives Regarding H.Res. 97 and the Interpretation of the Constitution in International Law.

It is my opinion that we shouldn't base very much of our law on international law. Our forefathers came to this country and made a separate consitution and its an awesome one. We really don't need to depend on what the rest of the worlds laws are in determing what our laws should be.

American Civil Liberties Union:
... DMV employees would be required to identify illegal immigrants and deny them driver's
licenses ... they lack training in federal immigration law. This use of state ...

Can an illegal immigrant get a US driver's license? They shouldn't.

This one:
ACLU Announces Nationwide Action Aimed at Combating Dangerous Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Curricula in the States

Of course Their stance on abortion.

Just a few issues I personally have with the ACLU. I'm not hostile towards them or "mad" at them. I simply hold a different view than most of their stances. Although to be fair, in some cases they do some good work.

 

[Lokisdottir]

(note: the restrictions are also on sex offenders that aren't typically dangerous, ie 19 yo boyfriend 15 yo girlfriend, I personally think the restrictions should be restricted to child molestors.)

Law enforcement can't very well sift through cases of sexual offenses and make an arbitrary judgment call on who is dangerous and who is not.

 

[charityagape]

Law enforcement can't very well sift through cases of sexual offenses and make an arbitrary judgment call on who is dangerous and who is not.

I didn't say law enforcement should sift through cases to determine who is dangerous or not. IMO they're all highly potentially dangerous. I said:

(note: the restrictions are also on sex offenders that aren't typically dangerous, ie 19 yo boyfriend 15 yo girlfriend, I personally think the restrictions should be restricted to child molestors.)


And that they do determine on a very regular basis. It's on their record. I believe the restrictions should apply to any crimes related to a child.

https://records.txdps.state.tx.us/soSearch/soResults.cfm#jump_SO
Aggravated Sexual Assault
Indecency w/child Sexual Contact
Aggravated Sexual Assault
Indecency with a Child by Exposure
Indecency w/child Sexual Contact
Indecency w/child Sexual Contact

 

[Talyn]

I didn't say law enforcement should sift through cases to determine who is dangerous or not. IMO they're all highly potentially dangerous. I said:

(note: the restrictions are also on sex offenders that aren't typically dangerous, ie 19 yo boyfriend 15 yo girlfriend, I personally think the restrictions should be restricted to child molestors.)


And that they do determine on a very regular basis. It's on their record. I believe the restrictions should apply to any crimes related to a child.

https://records.txdps.state.tx.us/soSearch/soResults.cfm#jump_SO
Aggravated Sexual Assault
Indecency w/child Sexual Contact
Aggravated Sexual Assault
Indecency with a Child by Exposure
Indecency w/child Sexual Contact
Indecency w/child Sexual Contact

I'm torn with having sex offender records public as being a gross invasion of privacy and a really great idea.

However back to the topic at hand, since I'm not american, I have no idea what ACLU is. So I googled it. I haven't had time to read about it much. Like I said, I'm not american so it doesn't really interest me. But I don't think creationism should be taught in schools. No religious factors for that matter.

 

[TeddyKGB]

First I want to say that I do agree with you. Science is not about proof. It's about experimention and theory, observing and identifying, etc.

Now, all of this having been said (Science is not about proof) and your statement that Creation hasn't been proved, you've just given all the more reason that Creation should be taught as well.

Thanks for that.

A brilliant argument, at least until you take into consideration that (a) science does permit falsification and (b) creationism (the young-earth variety, anyway) has been falsified.

 

[Electric Sceptic]

I'm torn with having sex offender records public as being a gross invasion of privacy and a really great idea.

I, too, am torn by this.

A big part of me says "Hey, he's done his time, paid his debt to society, it's NOBODY's business that he's been in jail/convicted of a certain crime, doesn't matter what the crime is."

But another big part of me says "The guy moving in next door to me is a convicted child molester? You sure as hell BETTER tell me!"

I honestly don't know...

 

[TeddyKGB]

I, too, am torn by this.

A big part of me says "Hey, he's done his time, paid his debt to society, it's NOBODY's business that he's been in jail/convicted of a certain crime, doesn't matter what the crime is."

But another big part of me says "The guy moving in next door to me is a convicted child molester? You sure as hell BETTER tell me!"

I honestly don't know...

To further muddy the water, not all crimes are created psychologically equal. Property crimes are strongly associated with urban poverty, suggesting a situational motivation.

Sex criminals, however, almost always have an underlying mental defect.

Maybe longer sentences, comparable to capital murder.

 

[Yusuf Evans]

Your mad at the ACLU because they want scientists to deside what should be taught in science class rooms rather than school boards with religious motivations?

Yes, the majoriy of religions and beliefs have taught about a higher being(s) creating the earth and all of its wonders. Also, there are a great number of scientists who once previously believed in evolution, now through discoveries have found unparalleled evidence in intelligent design. What is wrong with teaching that in public schools?

I know what the problem is. The ACLU, the Darwinists, and those bent on keeping religous points of view out of the classroom beleive that teaching intelligent design is a way around the separation of church and state when it comes to the public school system. I will do some research and post a thread concerning this, but allot of reputable scientists across all fields, believe in intelligent design, and they are not even Christians.

As for the ACLU, I have no outstanding problems with them. Only, just as many other political organizations, they can be corrupt, and some of the cases they present are a little over the top.

 

[Electric Sceptic]

Yes, the majoriy of religions and beliefs have taught about a higher being(s) creating the earth and all of its wonders.

Certainly true.

Also, there are a great number of scientists who once previously believed in evolution, now through discoveries have found unparalleled evidence in intelligent design.

No, there aren't. This is a popular creationist fable. It goes right along with the stories that have been told for the last hundred and fifty years about how scientists are abandoning evolution. It's just false. Certainly, there are some few scientists who are ID proponents; there are more who believe that they see the hand of a divine being in his creation. However, the number who are abandoning evolutionary theory for ID is miniscule.

What is wrong with teaching that in public schools?

Teaching what? That the vast majority of the world's scientists, and virtually all of the world's scientists in biological fields, accept evolutionary theory? Nothing at all. Teaching counter to that is simply false.

And regardless of their numbers, any beliefs they hold about ID are great, and good luck to them - but they're not scientific beliefs, and accordingly should not be taught as science. ID is not science. Despite over a decade of trying, it has made no predictions, published no papers, produced no experiments...it's not science.

I know what the problem is. The ACLU, the Darwinists, and those bent on keeping religous points of view out of the classroom beleive that teaching intelligent design is a way around the separation of church and state when it comes to the public school system.

Provide some evidence it isn't. So far the overwhelming opinion of science si that ID is just creationism in a cheap suit.

I will do some research and post a thread concerning this, but allot of reputable scientists across all fields, believe in intelligent design, and they are not even Christians.

Depends on your definition of "a lot". As a percentage of the world's scientists, "a miniscule fraction" would be more accurate.

 

[Katya]

I find evolution fascinating. I don't believe it, but I find it very interesting.l I didn't want to be taught in school what I'm taught at home. That's boring.

 

[knightlight72]

ACLU has a history of handling cases that are in opposition to Christian beliefs. I don't think there is any hatred, but certainly some concern from christians, about what the ACLU is defending.

I think that answers the first post of this thread. That really shouldn't be a surprise. If one group encourages others to maintain actions differing to one's belief, you too would be concerned about that group.

 

[MidnightBlue]

It depends on your personal point of view and how you feel your religion should be followed whether you have hostility toward the ACLU.

That's right. Those whose religious views entail forcing other people to participate in their religion dislike the ACLU. All the more reason for those of us who prefer not to have our religion chosen by the state to like the ACLU.

 

[MidnightBlue]

(note: the restrictions are also on sex offenders that aren't typically dangerous, ie 19 yo boyfriend 15 yo girlfriend, I personally think the restrictions should be restricted to child molestors.)

And what purpose do you think the restrictions serve?