The ACLU

[Morcova]

Why do some people hate the ACLU? Easy, they think Christians has a right to free speech. And they think they have the right to use everyone elses money for it.

 

[Brimshack]

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.

As long as we are honestly urging people to take a good long look at things, perhaps you ought to take a good hard look at the inconsistency in these statements.

 

[theeyesoftammyfaye]

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.

only the courts can decide if their interpretation of the constitution is accurate. the courts have, time and time again, sided with the ACLU on a wide variety of issues.

Myself, and millions of others believe that they are dead wrong on their interpretation on the rights ennumerated in the Second Amendment.

please explain the ACLU's stance on the second amendment, and also please explain why the ACLU chooses to defer second amendment cases to the NRA. i know the answer to this question, just curious if you do.

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.

the ACLU only receives "tax-payer money" when they win a case and a judgement to cover court costs is lodged in their favour. no direct tax money goes to the ACLU, it is primarily funded by private contributions. if a party is wronged by the government, and the government forces the wronged party into a lawsuit to rectify the misdeed, why then should the wronged party not be able to collect damages to cover their court costs? (edit: woah that was a lot of "wrongs.")

for example, if Nowhere, Alabama enacted a law tomorrow that forbid black citizens from voting in city council elections, and the ACLU had to be called in to rectify the situation, why then should the ACLU not be able to collect their court costs? why should the financial burden of cases rest solely on the shoulders of the wronged?

the ACLU only receives "taxpayer money" when they win a court case and recover their court costs. to state otherwise is a fabrication.

oh, by the way, you know who DOES financially support the ACLU?

average americans like me. and lots of other CF members..

 

[dlamberth]

....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.

So the Religious Right feels that they are being bullied around by the ACLU?. That images causes me to wonder what sorts of freedoms the Religious Right is in the way of such that they do feel that the ACLU is bulling them about.


.

 

[Nathan Poe]

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.

Well, that's your opinion and you have a right to it -- you can thank the ACLU in part for that.

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's position on the Second Amendment happens to match the Supreme Court's position on the second Amendment -- which is why they don't jump in to 2ndA cases (besides, the NRA has that Amendment pretty well covered). So your issue is with SCOTUS, not the ACLU.

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 is simply not so -- the ACLU is funded entirely by donations from its members, and receives no money from taxpayers except court costs for the cases it wins -- just like anyone else who wins a court case. IOW, the ACLU makes back its expenses, but makes no profit from going to court -- and they only recoup those expenses when they win.

If you think about it for a minute, you'd see why this must be so. Otherwise, only the wealthy would be able to afford going to court, because defending your rights can be very expensive.

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.

Except when does ACLU go up against a private citizen? The ACLU sides with private citizens, most often against government and its organizations.

Again, a private citizen, even if they are RIGHT, is most likely not going to have the simple funds to stand up to the US government in a protracted court battle, which, in the US, can be dragged out in appeals for decades, if not for the promise of receiving court fees.

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

And the ACLU will fight tooth and nail for your right to disapprove of them.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Why do some people hate the ACLU? Easy, they think Christians has a right to free speech. And they think they have the right to use everyone elses money for it.

Well, all speech is "free" when someone else pays the price.

 

[Voegelin]

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.

It founded by communists. Funded by the Lenin and Stalin via the CPUSA (documented in Yale's Annals of Communism series). Roger Baldwin only broke with Stalin over the German-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact of 1939. But others in the ACLU never broke (22 year ACLU director Corliss Lamont, for instance, who defended Stalin into the 1960s and beyond). The goal was always to use our system, our love of liberty, to undermine liberty. The ACLU did purge communists from its ranks in the 1940s and early 1950s. But not a lot has changed.

The history is here and here

From Last of the Cold War Spies; The Life of Michael Straight. The only American in Britain's Cambridge Spy Ring:

Straight bought a red convertible in New York, and he and Simonds drove north to the Adirondack Mountains, to meet up with Roger Baldwin, the 53-year-old lawyer running the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). Straight's communist contacts had linked him up with Baldwin. Straight had offered to chauffeur him on a tour of the centers of unrest in the industrial midwest and to "help while he makes speeches to local civil liberties groups, " if he would let him and Simonds come with him. His union would turn up wherever there was trouble to add comrade support to the communist controlled unions of the CIO . . . The communist aim was first to unionized, then to disrupt in order to weaken the United State's industrial might. The long-term aim (a decade or more) was to have the union and political base so powerful that a communist revolution would be possible . . .

When Nazi Germany and the USSR signed their non-aggression pact, when Britian was fighting for its life with a handful of Spitfire pilots and not enough planes, Roger Baldwin's communist friends in the CIO called strikes at aircraft and other munitions factories to prevent FDR from sending more aid to Churchill. That is the history of what the ACLU accomplished. It propped up Stalin and its work with the CIO aided Hitler.

Btw...Michael Straight was the publisher of that flagship of the left, The New Republic

America is owed an apology. Both from the ACLU and from The New Republic.

 

[Jacey]

It founded by communists. Funded by the Lenin and Stalin via the CPUSA (documented in Yale's Annals of Communism series). Roger Baldwin only broke with Stalin over the German-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact of 1939. But others in the ACLU never broke (22 year ACLU director Corliss Lamont, for instance, who defended Stalin into the 1960s and beyond). The goal was always to use our system, our love of liberty, to undermine liberty. The ACLU did purge communists from its ranks in the 1940s and early 1950s. But not a lot has changed.

The history is here and here

From Last of the Cold War Spies; The Life of Michael Straight. The only American in Britain's Cambridge Spy Ring:

When Nazi Germany and the USSR signed their non-aggression pact, when Britian was fighting for its life with a handful of Spitfire pilots and not enough planes, Roger Baldwin's communist friends in the CIO called strikes at aircraft and other munitions factories to prevent FDR from sending more aid to Churchill. That is the history of what the ACLU accomplished. It propped up Stalin and its work with the CIO aided Hitler.

Btw...Michael Straight was the publisher of that flagship of the left, The New Republic

America is owed an apology. Both from the ACLU and from The New Republic.

The United States was founded by white men who owned black men. These black men did not have any rights.

George W Bush's grandfather Prescott Bush made the family fortune by doing business with the Nazis in WWII.

I don't ever see you railing against the United States or the Bush family, why don't you be fair and balanced and do some of both?

 

[USincognito]

Ford Motor Company's founder had his newspaper publish The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and Mitsubishi Motor Company produced fighters used to kill Americans. If one wishes to practice guilt by decades old association then don't drive a Mustang or Galant. Don't get me started on Credit Suisse...

And I'm wondering about one apparent stretch of connectivity - since the Hitler's Nazi Germany was virulently anti-communist, why would the communist ACLU support both Stalin and Hitler despite the non-agression pact?

 

[Maynard Keenan]

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

They didn't make a bad decision. If NAMBLA wants to say "man-boy sex is positive and should be legal and socially accepted," and if they want to lobby for that, then they are perfectly within their rights to do so. Absolutely sick, but perfectly within their rights.

 

[Harpuia]

I think I'm gonna hurl...

 

[ElvisFan42]

Ford Motor Company's founder had his newspaper publish The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and Mitsubishi Motor Company produced fighters used to kill Americans. If one wishes to practice guilt by decades old association then don't drive a Mustang or Galant. Don't get me started on Credit Suisse...

And I'm wondering about one apparent stretch of connectivity - since the Hitler's Nazi Germany was virulently anti-communist, why would the communist ACLU support both Stalin and Hitler despite the non-agression pact?

Maybe we should come up with a statute of limitations for these things, of course, it would have to apply equally across the board, nah, I guess that wouldn't work.

 

[tollytee]

As long as we are honestly urging people to take a good long look at things, perhaps you ought to take a good hard look at the inconsistency in these statements.

I apologize for the grammar, but the point as intended stands. I can not find any evidence that any person of Christian believes is advocating a 'Christian Country', as many on this forum imply. That was my point.

Respectfully,

Tolly

 

[Brimshack]

I think you should read the rest of your own post. Grammar was not the problem.

 

[Voegelin]

Everyone remember "Cootie Shots"? The mandatory assembly in an elementary school in Novato, California? The one which kids as young as 7 years old were forced to attend? The one which featured a cross dressing young boy wearing his mother's high heels? The ACLU was delighted with the outcome of that. When parents objected, the ACLU crushed them with its legal team. After two years, the parents gave up. ACLU staffer Julia Harumi gloated, "(This) sends a message throughout the state that schools have the authority to require mandatory attendance in tolerance-building and diversity education programs."

Roger Baldwin would be proud. His beloved total state, not the parents, got to decide what moral lessons their children would be taught.

 

[USincognito]

This NAMBLA thing just keeps jumping out at me. For myself, no, I don't think NAMBLA should be able to publish, etc. Do I think they have a right to a day in court and representation if they feel their free speech and association rights are being denied? You bet.

I feel the same way about Phelps and his bunch of sickos. My dad was buried at the D-FW VA cemetery in 2001 and I would have done something violent had they showed up, so I'm glad I didn't have to worry about it then (not that they'd have been allowed on a VA cememtery), and I think they should be barred from being in the vacinity of military funerals. But do I think they deserve a day in court and representation because they feel their speech and assembly rights are being denied? As in the case with NAMBLA, you bet they do.

There's a lot of cases where I personally hope the judge rules against the plaintiffs, that doesn't mean they don't deserve a hearing and counsel.

 

[Voegelin]

If the ACLU just helped NAMBLA and only in one case, it might be understandable. But a pattern is easily detectable. Look at the Novato "Cootie Shots" case I mentioned earlier. Look at [SIZE=-1]Anthony D. Romero himself[/SIZE].

 

[Brimshack]

Speaking of detectable patterns, how about those who actively defend mass murderers? The pattern is very clear.

 

[Victory of the Cross]

Hey All

The thread has been reviewed and cleaned by CF Debate staff please try to keep within CF rules

[rule2.1]

Was the most common violation

Godbless
Saleucami
CF Debate Supervisor

 

[feral]

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

Do you agree when the right accusses those who oppose it of "hate"? In my experience, that tactic has been used on both sides. It's useless and childish on either.

They represent child-sex advocates. The represent the enemies of our nation.

What?? Please provide sources. I've never heard the ACLU defending someone't right to molest children. And what 'enemies of our nation' are being represented by the ACLU??

The represent those who would throw the great gems of our Constitution out the window.

The purpose of the ACLU is to defend constitutional rights. Please provide a source for when they have done this.

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

In general, it is not the rights of the majority which are trampled but the rights of minorities. Think about it. In a country where most people are Christian, it is absurd to think Christians aren't treated fairly much of the time. It's just a fact that those with the power will find themselves exposed to less prejudice than those with dissenting and/or minority views. Christians make up the majority of business owners, politicians, lawmakers, educators and voting citizens, after all. That said, I very much doubt the ACLU, which after all employees a number of Christians, would turn down a request to help if you or another Christian had sincere proof you had been discriminated against or denied a legal right. And since you'll undeniably ask for proof, here goes...

Crayton peacefully picketed for about 40 minutes on a public sidewalk with a sign that said "Christians: Wal-Mart Supports Gay Lifestyles And Marriage. Don't Shop There." He was approached by a Natchitoches police officer who refused to allow him to continue without obtaining a permit from the city. Crayton had received permission from the chief of police to hold an "open air meeting," but he also needed permission from the Mayor. The Mayor has failed to approve Crayton's application even though it was submitted several weeks ago.
"The right to be heard on matters of religious and political significance is at the core of our constitutional system," said Katie Schwartzmann, Staff Attorney for the ACLU of Louisiana. "The city of Natchitoches has effectively silenced Mr. Crayton on what for him is an important religious issue, and this type of government censorship cannot stand unchallenged."

LINK: http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/protest/27266prs20061027.html

NEWARK, NJ - The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey today filed a friend-of-the-court brief in a case seeking to uphold an elementary school student's right to religious expression.

The Frenchtown Elementary School student, whose initials are O.T., wanted to sing the song "Awesome God" in a voluntary, after-school talent show. School officials refused to allow the student to sing her song, saying it would give the impression that the school favored religion. “O.T.” remains anonymous to protect her privacy.

LINK: http://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/25799prs20060605.html

ATLANTA - The American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia today filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of the Tabernacle Community Baptist Church, charging that the city of East Point, Georgia violated a federal religious discrimination law when it denied the church a zoning permit needed to establish its house of worship.
“We simply want a permanent house of worship, where church members can gather for ministry, education and fellowship,” said Nathaniel Smiley, pastor at the Tabernacle Community Baptist Church. “The East Point property is perfect for our church and we don’t believe that we should be denied the ability to move in because we are a church.”

LINK: http://www.aclu.org/religion/discrim/25518prs20060419.html

"Mr. Miller has a guaranteed right to stand on a street corner and proclaim his faith in God to all who pass by," said ACLU of New Mexico Executive Director Peter Simonson. "He wasn't harassing or intimidating anyone. He certainly should not have spent time under lock and key for such a minor incident."

The ACLU became involved after Miller's wife, Theresa, sent a letter requesting assistance. She and her two children had been with Miller on April 17 when he was arrested by Portales police for "disorderly conduct." Miller had been preaching in the lot of an abandoned gas station that is commonly used by street vendors. "I was preaching the word of God and not hurting anybody," said Miller.

LINK: http://www.aclu.org/religion/gen/19918prs20050804.html

That should be enough for now. Unless someone is purposely remaining ignorant of these good works, it should be enough to convince anyone that the ACLU cares for Christian values as much as any other religion.