The ACLU

[Corey]

Simple things such as pornography are usually the most well known. Other lesser known is when the ACLU opposes internet filters at libraries which is inteneded to prevent children from coming across porn sites. There are others, but I think this alone would be enough to make a point that cannot be argued against.

Actually it can be.

1) many of the filter companies have a religious agenda.

2) their filters suck and filter out things adults (and kids) should be able to read about...breast cancer...anatomy stuff...

3) http://www.peacefire.org/info/about-peacefire.shtml...not to mention dirty tricks against critics

 

[levi501]

Not that anyone would ever take what a certain group says and agree with it simply because that group said it. We are all independent thinkers here.

while a portion of you is consistently collectively wrong.

 

[Corey]

What do you mean? Are you saying porn does not encourage lust? Is this just word play?

Personally, I see nothing wrong with lust. I like lust. Lust is good.

 

[TeddyKGB]

I think we can conclude that we have differing views, but I feel confident that if this has been gone over before, you also understand the christian viewpoint enough to accept they have their reasons for disagreement with the ACLU in some cases.

That we have different views is self-evident. What I am trying to emphasize is that other Christians have different views than you as well. You, however, continue to use language like "Christian values" and "the Christian viewpoint," which suggest there is only one set of values or one viewpoint that a person may hold and be considered Christian.

 

[knightlight72]

No, I read the entire thread. But you're missing the point: Jesus does not teach us that we must prevent other people from doing things that contradict his teachings. The liberties the ACLU fights for are vital to the free exercise of Christianity. So what's the problem?

Sorry to make assumptions. My earlier posts pointed out the problem. That the ACLU work with issues that allow the encouragement of sin. As a christian, we would try and prevent such things. I understand your view may be different if you aren't a christian. But that is the reason a christian could have issue with the ACLU.

 

[charityagape]

while a portion of you is consistently collectively wrong.

Would that be the portion that disagrees with you?

 

[knightlight72]

And when some Bowdler decides that the Bible is pornographic, you'll be glad the ACLU fought to let people read what they want.

I am not arguing what the ACLU do that is good. I am speaking against why a christian could take issue with the ACLU. That was the original question from the first post of this thread.

 

[jayem]

The ACLU usually defends the rights of individuals, over the perogatives of government, or (and this is a key point) majorities. They have a view of the Constitution which is expansive in protecting individual rights, and very restrictive on what it allows government to do. They interpret the establishment clause as forbidding government at any level from endorsing, approving, promoting, or being involved in any kind of religious activity or practice. It demands strict separation of government and religious faith. And if even if a majority of residents in a community approve of a religious activity, if there is any government connection, the ACLU will side with any individual who objects to it.

I can understand how their broad and absolute separationism, and their anti-majoritarian leanings bother a lot of people. But the fundamental purpose of having a constitution is to protect individuals and minorities from the potential tyranny of a popular majority. And the ACLU is certainly vigilant about this.

 

[theeyesoftammyfaye]

Sorry to make assumptions. My earlier posts pointed out the problem. That the ACLU work with issues that allow the encouragement of sin. As a christian, we would try and prevent such things. I understand your view may be different if you aren't a christian. But that is the reason a christian could have issue with the ACLU.

look. the ACLU defends the freedoms of ALL americans. their work is solely based on the constitution of the united states. if you have a problem with what the aclu does, you, in effect, have a problem with the constitution. so why do you single out the aclu, who defends the constitution, and you do not single out the constitution itself?

 

[knightlight72]

Personally, I see nothing wrong with lust. I like lust. Lust is good.

But a christian on the other hand has a different view point. That was why i mentioned lust in response to a post.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

You could certainly make an argument against pornography from Jesus' teachings, although he never addressed the issue directly. But that has nothing to do with prohibiting pornography or with internet filters at libraries. Nowhere does Jesus teach us to force other people to follow his teachings.

Ah, that old premise that unless someone is tolerating or accepting something contrary to one's belief, they are by default "forcing people to follow His teachings" or forcing one's beliefs on another.

Romans 12:9,21
9Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good.
...
21Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

Revelation 2:2-7
2I know your deeds, your hard work and your perseverance. I know that you cannot tolerate wicked men, that you have tested those who claim to be apostles but are not, and have found them false. 3You have persevered and have endured hardships for my name, and have not grown weary. 4Yet I hold this against you: You have forsaken your first love. 5Remember the height from which you have fallen! Repent and do the things you did at first. If you do not repent, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place. 6But you have this in your favor: You hate the practices of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate. 7He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To him who overcomes, I will give the right to eat from the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God.

Ezekiel 3:16-21 16 At the end of seven days the word of the LORD came to me: 17 "Son of man, I have made you a watchman for the house of Israel; so hear the word I speak and give them warning from me. 18 When I say to a wicked man, 'You will surely die,' and you do not warn him or speak out to dissuade him from his evil ways in order to save his life, that wicked man will die for his sin, and I will hold you accountable for his blood. 19 But if you do warn the wicked man and he does not turn from his wickedness or from his evil ways, he will die for his sin; but you will have saved yourself.
20 "Again, when a righteous man turns from his righteousness and does evil, and I put a stumbling block before him, he will die. Since you did not warn him, he will die for his sin. The righteous things he did will not be remembered, and I will hold you accountable for his blood. 21 But if you do warn the righteous man not to sin and he does not sin, he will surely live because he took warning, and you will have saved yourself."

Matthew 4:17
From that time on Jesus began to preach, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near."

Mark 16:15
He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation.


As I read it, the notion that one is to support or accept wickedness without speaking up as to what is right or wrong is somehow "good" would be NOT in keeping with Jesus' teaching. But with all things, there is a balance as to how the battles are fought.

I'm sure some may realize that by default "the world" and the Christian will be at opposing values and typically at opposition. I have no problem accepting that and unless the rights of a citizen are stripped from those of us with religious convictions, "we" are still to be represented by the government and can still vote our values.

 

[Corey]

But a christian on the other hand has a different view point. That was why i mentioned lust in response to a post.

I know...I'm just bored...

 

[MidnightBlue]

Ah, that old premise that unless someone is tolerating or accepting something contrary to one's belief, they are by default "forcing people to follow His teachings" or forcing one's beliefs on another.

That's obvious. How can you refuse to tolerate other people's beliefs and behavior without coercion?

 

[MidnightBlue]

As I read it, the notion that one is to support or accept wickedness without speaking up as to what is right or wrong is somehow "good" would be NOT in keeping with Jesus' teaching. But with all things, there is a balance as to how the battles are fought.

Nobody said you can't speak up. Just that you can't forbid other people to do something just because it's against your religion.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

look. the ACLU defends the freedoms of ALL americans. their work is solely based on the constitution of the united states. if you have a problem with what the aclu does, you, in effect, have a problem with the constitution. so why do you single out the aclu, who defends the constitution, and you do not single out the constitution itself?

For some of us, the ACLU is not an entity that is by default and always "righteous"; also, the Constitution is not some holy doctrine.
Sure, I will still try to conform to that which is not contradictory to my faith; but seriously, the ACLU and the Constitution isn't something I worship.

The premise that if one opposes the one is automatically opposing the other is not a legitimate claim. The ACLU is an organization that represents many ideologies, people and groups. The Constitution is a tool for our Nations agreed upon union.
see: non sequitur

 

[knightlight72]

look. the ACLU defends the freedoms of ALL americans. their work is solely based on the constitution of the united states. if you have a problem with what the aclu does, you, in effect, have a problem with the constitution. so why do you single out the aclu, who defends the constitution, and you do not single out the constitution itself?

An interesting point. But I think you should keep in mind that the laws of the land change due to social changes, and is not some written law that everyone uses to the letter of the law. Many changes to how it is interpreted are fought in court, sometimes repeatedly. And while sometimes these changes are fought well, others, such as those that a christian may oppose, feel the constitution is written accurately, but the intrepretation by a liberal judge is not accurate.

I'm sure you agree that with the more people yu have, the more opinions there are. The battles fought in court are sometimes argued from previous issues, and not just the way something is written.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

Nobody said you can't speak up. Just that you can't forbid other people to do something just because it's against your religion.

I hope I'm not the first person to state the obvious irony here:
in that your declaration there is an expression of forbidding me to do something.
Don't we love irony.

 

[MidnightBlue]

I hope I'm not the first person to state the obvious irony here: in that your declaration there is an expression of forbidding me to do something.
Don't we love irony.

There's nothing ironic, or even contradictory, about it. You have freedom of religion, and I have freedom of religion. Nobody gets to force his religion on anybody else. That does not mean you have unlimited freedom to do whatever you want, to the exclusion of somebody else's freedom.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

There's nothing ironic, or even contradictory, about it. You have freedom of religion, and I have freedom of religion. Nobody gets to force his religion on anybody else. That does not mean you have unlimited freedom to do whatever you want, to the exclusion of somebody else's freedom.

Perhaps if you quoted or linked to where I stated there was unlimited or even unaccountable freedoms, that may help me understand what you are arguing against here.

I'm thinking there is some out of context or straw involved with that...

 

[MidnightBlue]

Perhaps if you quoted or linked to where I stated there was unlimited or even unaccountable freedoms, that may help me understand what you are arguing against here.

You didn't say that. You implied that what I said led to that conclusion. You were very much mistaken about that.