The ACLU

[TeddyKGB]

The OP asks why there would be hostility towards the ACLU. This would be one.

In relationships, not those who wish to engage in a relationship if it were legal, but those who are in relationships. They wish to end the oppression of boys in these relationships.

Of course their goal is to make it legal, but they do support those who are currently envolved in this illegal activity.

Of course they do. But they are not speaking to or about anyone in particular; they do not say, "Leave Bob and little Johnny over here alone." They do not say, "You pederasts, go find yourselves a kid or two. We'll cover for you."

Should we vigorously oppose NAMBLA? You won't get an argument to the contrary from me. But we should do it by loudly and publicly presenting the perils of man-boy sex, even by imploring parents to treat overly-friendly male adults with caution. We should not try to find covert Constitutional loopholes with which to silence speech we find abhorrent. We should not oppose advocacy groups who fight to make sure those loopholes don't get used against us.

 

[Polycarp1]

Not because we don't like what they say, because they are vigorously advocating illegal activities.

I absolutely hate the ACLU/NAMBLA discussions, because defending freedom of speech always sounds like you're defending man/boy sex. But I really need to speak up on this question.

The ACLU will (usually) not defend anyone's right to advocate illegal activities. ("Usually" because civil disobedience as a protest is occasionally something they might consider defending.)

What they defended NAMBLA's right to do, was to advocate removing age of consent laws. That is, their legal right to say that they think the law should be changed. Granted that most decent people would not want such a change, I think that you'd say that they have just as much freedom to say they want the age of consent law changed as, say, the Family Values Foundation has to say that they want the abortion-is-legal law changed.

In other words, ACLU considers freedom of speech so valuable that they'll take on even the most noxious of clients in order to assure that everybody has freedom of speech.

It may sound like a technical distinction, but a lot of the freedom we possess was defended on the basis of exactly that sort of technicality. Like the kid who wanted to get a Bible-study club started at school, and was told no by the principal. The ACLU advocated for his right to start a club if the school allowed any other clubs -- and, ironically, used the precedent of a gay teen who wanted to start a Gay-Straight Alliance in arguing the case for the Bible-study club. Schools have the right to ban all clubs, but, subject to the exception for clubs promoting illegal activities, they may not discriminate about clubs on the basis of what the club's interest is. If one club is permitted, they must permit any club (with that sole exception).

 

[Moros]

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

Because they don't. They have an obvious political agenda and manipulate courts to achieve their various goals. My personal problem with them is that they undermine democracy by going straight for the judges and pressuring them to issue a ruling.

 

[Phred]

They have an obvious political agenda and manipulate courts to achieve their various goals. My personal problem with them is that they undermine democracy by going straight for the judges and pressuring them to issue a ruling.

Please, specify an instance of your claims. Any one would be fine.

I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for your answer. This post is nonsense that you're pretending is a valid opinion.

You know what I find most offensive? Most of the time people who post as you have are the same ones pressuring the courts to rule in favor of their personal beliefs, you know, prayer in schools and such, but they don't see that as undermining democracy. It's all about getting what you want, isn't it? Anyone who stands in your way... well, you have a "personal problem" with them...

.
​

 

[Electric Sceptic]

They have an obvious political agenda and manipulate courts to achieve their various goals.

Yes, their agenda is to ensure the constitution is applied to everyone and nobody is denied their rights. What an evil group.

My personal problem with them is that they undermine democracy by going straight for the judges and pressuring them to issue a ruling.

I suggest you learn a little about democracy, what the US really is, and how the three governmental arms work before you make such a stupid statement again.

 

[b4uris]

i'm curious as how you consider an organization standing up for constitutional rights to be "secular extremists"

Of course, the ACLU has done good things too, but it also promotes politically biased initiatives sugar coated as protection of civil liberties.
- First thing that comes to mind's when the ACLU demanded Lousiana's abstinence program be removed on the basis of separation of church and state. It would be dishnonest to deny mainly Christians were the promoters of the program; however, sex til' marriage is another way of preventing getting STDs, and I see no reason why it shouldn't be taught to teenagers alonside the use of preservatives.

- To try to remove the cross from the LA County seal. Catholic missions in California make an important part of the state's history. That cross only reflects that heritage, but it seems to me the ACLU wants anything related to Christianity out of public property no matter it's significance.

After this they call me a conservative, no matter how much I think right-wing nuts, the NRA,and all those biblical-literalist fundies make everything even worse.

 

[charityagape]

bump.

 

[loriersea]

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?

The ACLU has defended the rights of conservative Christians many times, even after all of the lies that community says about them. That shows a lot more integrity than their enemies show.