The ACLU

[TheBellman]

I'd like to ask just why so many people - particularly Christians - hate the ACLU so much. Its sole purpose is to protect the constitutional rights of all - why does that incur the wrath of so many? Speaking as a non-American, I very much wish my country had a similar organisation.

It seems to me that the only people opposed to the ACLU would be those opposed to giving everyone their constitutional rights - yet obviously this isn't so. So what am I missing?

 

[Voegelin]

I don't agree with the premise.

I never agree when the left accusses those who oppose it of "hate".

It is shallow and it is meant to shut down debate. The tactic is reprehensible.

Read the history of the ACLU. Read up on Corliss Lamont and Roger Baldwin. The purpose of the group was never to protect liberty. Both men were big supporters of the USSR.

Btw...no one "gives" us rights. They are given by God. It's in the Declaration of Independence.

 

[kermit]

Btw...no one "gives" us rights. They are given by God. It's in the Declaration of Independence.

But there are those out there who try to deny our God given rights. This is why I thank God for the ACLU to stand up for the protection of those rights.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Btw...no one "gives" us rights. They are given by God. It's in the Declaration of Independence.

And how much legislative authority does the Declaration of Independence have? Absolutely none. It's a historical document, and a well-written piece of anti-British propaganda, but not much else.

Now, the Constitution, on the other hand...

 

[JoyJuice]

And how much legislative authority does the Declaration of Independence have? Absolutely none. It's a historical document, and a well-written piece of anti-British propaganda, but not much else.

Now, the Constitution, on the other hand...

"Everything I learned about my country, I learned in Sunday school."

 

[Grizzly]

To paraphrase George Bush. They hate the ACLU because they hate freedom.

 

[ElvisFan42]

I don't agree with the premise.

I never agree when the left accusses those who oppose it of "hate".

It is shallow and it is meant to shut down debate. The tactic is reprehensible.

Read the history of the ACLU. Read up on Corliss Lamont and Roger Baldwin. The purpose of the group was never to protect liberty. Both men were big supporters of the USSR.

Btw...no one "gives" us rights. They are given by God. It's in the Declaration of Independence.

What, hate isn't PC enough for you? Bellman, could you change it "dislike" so no one is offended?

 

[blueapplepaste]

But there are those out there who try to deny our God given rights. This is why I thank God for the ACLU to stand up for the protection of those rights.

Exactly. And many of those same people are Christians; many of them would install a throcracy in a heart beat if they could and strip away the rights of many.

I, for one, thank God that we have the ACLU to stand up for rights that were given to us by Him.

 

[Harpuia]

I'm mixed. I sometimes wish the ACLU would stop making some real frivolous cases that give them basically no leg to stand on against judges, and I do wish they would at least be given a chance to SHOW that they are fair to all religions and not just bullying around the Religious Right, but other than that, they're not too bad.

 

[tollytee]

I'd like to ask just why so many people - particularly Christians - hate the ACLU so much. Its sole purpose is to protect the constitutional rights of all - why does that incur the wrath of so many? Speaking as a non-American, I very much wish my country had a similar organisation.

It seems to me that the only people opposed to the ACLU would be those opposed to giving everyone their constitutional rights - yet obviously this isn't so. So what am I missing?

Simple. They represent child-sex advocates. The represent the enemies of our nation. The represent those who would throw the great gems of our Constitution out the window. And they never, ever, represent a person of the majority class when those peoples' liberties are under attack.

I would urge you to take a long, hard look at their body of work, as a whole, and maybe your insight and opinion might change. And for the record, they are not always looking out for the interests of their clients. Sometimes it is just for headlines, and to stir the political pot.

Respectfully,

Tolly

 

[tollytee]

Exactly. And many of those same people are Christians; many of them would install a throcracy in a heart beat if they could and strip away the rights of many.

I, for one, thank God that we have the ACLU to stand up for rights that were given to us by Him.

I challange you to name one resulotion or bill ever introduced in the Congress that calls for the establishment of a theocracy. It has never happened.

I don't know a single Christian who wants to live in a theorcracy, not even a Christian state. So I think this is just hyperbole.

On the other hand, there are many on the anti-Christian side who deny that this country's ideals are based on Christian-based ideals, or at least religeous ideals. It would seem odd that one could come to this conclusion when considering what they built, the money they coined, the etchings on our government instittutions, and the words they wrote. Yes, indeed, but they have. The forefront of these being that men do have the right to freedom. But that freedom comes with obvious restrictions and rightfully so. Complete freedom would lead to chaos.

When the ACLU represents any person who has been denied the basics of the Bill of Rights, I applaud and support their efforts. I am always thankful when convicts are proved innocent and their freedom returned to them. However, when the ACLU represents some party who demands smooth peanut butter in his/her jailhouse sandwhich, as opposed to chunky, and elevates that to a 'civil rights' issue, I get pretty darn red in the face.

Furthermore, it is important to consider that when you contrast the number of cases in which the ACLU is party , or when they are acting in amicus curiae, to those in which they did not prevail, it becomes obvious that in the majority of court opinions, their views and interpretations of constitutional law are misguided. They have not succeeded in convincing our courts that they are correct.

Respectfully,

Tolly

 

[tollytee]

ACLU To Represent NAMBLA

[SIZE=-1]By Martin Finucane[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Associated Press Writer[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Thursday, Aug. 31, 2000; 5:19 p.m. EDT [/SIZE]
BOSTON –– Saying important First Amendment issues are at stake, the American Civil Liberties Union is stepping in to defend a group that advocates sex between men and boys against a lawsuit brought by the family of a murdered 10-year-old.
The family of Jeffrey Curley of Cambridge claims in its lawsuit that the North American Man/Boy Love Association and its Web site incited the molestation and murder of the boy in 1997. The Massachusetts chapter of the ACLU said Thursday it will defend NAMBLA because the group's activities are protected under First Amendment guarantees of freedom of speech and freedom of association.

 

[HannahBanana]

ACLU To Represent NAMBLA

[SIZE=-1]By Martin Finucane[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Associated Press Writer[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Thursday, Aug. 31, 2000; 5:19 p.m. EDT [/SIZE]
BOSTON –– Saying important First Amendment issues are at stake, the American Civil Liberties Union is stepping in to defend a group that advocates sex between men and boys against a lawsuit brought by the family of a murdered 10-year-old.
The family of Jeffrey Curley of Cambridge claims in its lawsuit that the North American Man/Boy Love Association and its Web site incited the molestation and murder of the boy in 1997. The Massachusetts chapter of the ACLU said Thursday it will defend NAMBLA because the group's activities are protected under First Amendment guarantees of freedom of speech and freedom of association.

Okay, so the ACLU made one bad decision. Big whoop. Are you really going to judge them negatively because of that?

 

[blueapplepaste]

Simple. They represent child-sex advocates. The represent the enemies of our nation. The represent those who would throw the great gems of our Constitution out the window. And they never, ever, represent a person of the majority class when those peoples' liberties are under attack.

I would urge you to take a long, hard look at their body of work, as a whole, and maybe your insight and opinion might change. And for the record, they are not always looking out for the interests of their clients. Sometimes it is just for headlines, and to stir the political pot.

Respectfully,

Tolly

You have no idea what you are talking about. The ACLU has time and time again defended Christians' rights; but I guess it's more convienent to just ignore those facts.

 

[Nathan Poe]

ACLU To Represent NAMBLA

That darned First Amendment! You may not be allowed to have sex with children, but you're allowed to write about it.

 

[trivista]

You have no idea what you are talking about. The ACLU has time and time again defended Christians' rights; but I guess it's more convienent to just ignore those facts.

from aclufightsforchristians.com

Partial list


ACLU Files Suit to Protect Free Speech Rights of Christian Protesting Wal-Mart's Policy on Gays

ACLU of Georgia and Baptist Church File Religious Discrimination Lawsuit

ACLU of Rhode Island Files Appeal on Behalf of Christian Prisoner Barred from Preaching at Religious Services

ACLU of Michigan Defends Catholic Man Coerced to Convert to Pentecostal Faith in Drug Rehab Program

ACLU of New Jersey Joins Lawsuit Supporting Second-Grader's Right to Sing "Awesome God" at Talent Show

After ACLU Intervention on Behalf of Christian Valedictorian, Michigan High School Agrees to Stop Censoring Religious Yearbook Entries

ACLU Helps Free New Mexico Street Preacher From Prison

ACLU of WA Wins Right of Christian Minister to Preach in Spokane Plaza

ACLU Fights for Baptist Preacher in Illinois

 

[Nathan Poe]

Okay, so the ACLU made one bad decision. Big whoop. Are you really going to judge them negatively because of that?

I don't even see it as a bad decision -- isn't everyone entitled to a fair trial, even in the Divided States of America?

 

[HannahBanana]

I don't even see it as a bad decision -- isn't everyone entitled to a fair trial, even in the Divided States of America?

Exactly. Thank you, Nathan.

 

[Jetgirl]

Much like the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act for those of you overseas) the ACLU has ceased to function for it's original, and noble purpose, and has become a victim of unintended consequences.

They are now an outlet for petty squabbling rather than the protection of rights. They choose their interpretation of the Constitution which may or may not be accurate. Myself, and millions of others believe that they are dead wrong on their interpretation on the rights ennumerated in the Second Amendment.

The ACLU is taxpayer-funded, and has a vested interest in bringing suits. They get paid for each suit they bring, and at this point they have a fairly hefty beauracracy to support.

This taxpayer backing also means that they have a tremendous amount of funding. A private citizen, even if they are RIGHT, is most likely not going to have the simple funds to stand up to the ACLU in a protracted court battle, which, in the US, can be dragged out in appeals for decades.

It was a good idea, it has become a bloated, biased, juggernaut, and we'd be better off without it.

 

[USincognito]

And they never, ever, represent a person of the majority class when those peoples' liberties are under attack.

What odd language. "Person of the majority class"? What class might that be? For the record, if you mean rich conservative white men - Rush Limbaugh.

You need to edit "never, ever" to something else more accurate.