The Logic of the ACLU

miniverchivi said:

I can believe that. I think the same would probably be true of most civilized nations in Europe where the people, as a whole, are more considerate of others.

Lets take the Crips & Bloods out of our prison system and put them in that prison in Finland and see how that works out.

As I mentioned in my other thread pertaining to gun control, it's hard to try to use stats from Canada and most of Europe and compare them to the US. It's a totally different mentality and environment. When I visit the family cabin up in Ontario, I still can't get over the fact that people leave their doors unlocked. We would never think of doing such a thing down here.

Click to expand...

miniverchivi said:

I'm not saying they're dishonest, I'm just saying that they don't tell the whole story on their website when it comes to their position on Christianity. I'm sure they've helped some Christian causes when it's been convenient for them.

All of the resources available about the ACLU's position are either from the ACLU "we love Christian and want to defend their rights" or from Christian sites calling them the "Anti-Christian Liberals Union" so there's no real unbiased reporting on the matter. But, in hearing how the rep who came to our college class (I mentioned him earlier) answered some questions from the audience, their position was quite clear. (Either that, or their management has a horrible screening process and hired a public speaker that in no way represents their mission).

Click to expand...

miniverchivi said:

A girl in the class who was Christian (or at least that's the impression I got) brought up a question along the lines of "Why does the ACLU fight to remove Christian symbols in the town square of a mostly-Christian town, but has never challenged any depictions of Buddha in public places in China-town areas of major cities?" which I though was an excellent question to which he replied "well, the Buddhists (Chinese) are a much less represented group and we're trying to protect groups like that from a forced Christian influence" which I though was a lame answer. Either visual depiction in public are okay, or they're not. Personally, I don't have any problem with any depictions. If there's something I don't like the look of, my neck works, I turn my head and look at something else.

Throughout his entire presention, the word Christianity was used with the terms "infringing", "forcing", "agenda", "theocracy" and "separation of church and state". But when they were referring to other religions, they were coupled with words like "tolerance", "tradition", "freedom", "expression", and "acceptance".

Like I said, it could just be that they hired a lousy rep. However, I've spoken to other people who had similar visits at their schools and they got the same vibe I did.

Click to expand...

miniverchivi said:

As I mentioned before, I'm not a Christian, and I would in no way want a Christian-rule theocracy (or a theocracy based on any other faith for that matter), but I do understand where a lot of Christians are coming from when they feel like the ACLU is targeting them in particular in matters of separation of church & state.

Click to expand...

miniverchivi said:

This ALCU could almost be it's own topic of discussion instead of just the prison matter...
Back to the matter of the treatment of prisoners, you are correct, they shouldn't be beaten or abused, but we can't make it such a nice place where it's no longer a deterrent to crime. Sorry, but conditions that are as good as the outside (just with an early bedtime) isn't a valid punishment or a hard criminal nor should the tax payers be paying for that. If someone doesn't want to live in the oppresive environment of a federal prison...I have a simple solution: Don't rob a bank, don't kill anyone, don't rape anyone, don't kidnap anyone, don't assault an officer of the law, don't commit arson, and don't blow anything up. If you're old enough to be tried as an adult, you're old enough to know better.

Click to expand...

miniverchivi said:

I've watched a few documentaries on the prison system, and while there is some abuse of the solitary confinement treatment (no system is perfect and there's always corruption), typically it's reserved for those who have commited a physical or sexual assault (or attempted to do so) against a CO or fellow inmate so it's actually for the protection of the others around them.

Click to expand...

miniverchivi said:

I said before that I didn't want to post them, the Nihilist asked me to.

However, you failed to address the rest of the post where I provided the actual constitution text and explained why city hall decorations have nothing to do with Congress.

Click to expand...

miniverchivi said:

That's not what I meant at all. I also don't think the ACLU is an agent of Satan...because I don't believe in Satan.

Here's how it went:

You posted


To which I made my reply.



My reply was directed at the section I highlighted and had nothing to do with the Quakers, In fact I believe that I only actually quoted the 2nd block of text in my original reply to your post.

I was replying to part about the idea that solitary confinement is torture.

So, I'm not sure where you read into my post as an insult to the Quakers or the Left.

Are you sure that you're not the one who's "skimming for keywords" as you so nicely put it?

Click to expand...

miniverchivi said:

Prisoners' Rights - Recent Court Cases, Issues and Articles | American Civil Liberties Union

The ACLU is pushing for federal prisons to stop the use of solitary confinement, allowing criminals with life sentences to get out of prison once they're elderly, make sure that the punishments they receive don't conflict with their religious beliefs among many other things that they're pushing for to make prison less unpleasent for criminals.

Am I missing the whole point of prison?

Isn't it supposed to be a punishment?

If we're going to make it nice for them, I have some other ideas.

Instead of the weights out in the yard, we should use tax money to build an indoor, air conditioned, gym since making them bench press out in the heat would infringe on their rights.

Since the usual sleeping accomodations might infringe on the rights of those who are claustrophobic, we'll revamp it so everyone has their own private room with their own TV set and since it'd be cruel to make someone eat a particular food they don't like the taste of (and in some cases infringe on their religious beliefs), we can create an entire menu where they can order what they like and have it brought to their private cell (since they might be tired and overworking is also cruel as the ACLU has informed us). I also think that we need to build an pool and remodel the outside so it doesn't look so drab, we can't embarass the people staying there since according to the ACLU people have right to not be mocked or made to look singled out when they're serving their sentence.

It will cost about $14million per prison (on top of the $300 per night for each inmate) and when the the whole project is done, each of the prisons will look like this.

Now, our criminals can live in dignity and peace without fear of judgment, punishment, or being made to feel uncomfortable.

Click to expand...

miniverchivi said:

Yes, because "We know now that extended enforced isolation can be a form of torture, and there are limits beyond which solitary becomes "cruel and unusual." isn't a statement of fact, it's an opinion.

Cruel and unusual are ethical/moral terms based on an opinion. "Many think that it's cruel and unusual" would be the proper way of wording that since the interpratation of "cruel" would be different for different people so trying to enforce it as fact by a statement like "we know now" (as if it's a universally accepted fact) is a logical fallacy.

As I mentioned in one of my other posts, solitary confinement isn't used for rehabilitation of the criminal(in most cases, and yes I realize there will be articles citing instances where CO's have abused it, but that's on the individual and not the system itself and those CO's should be fired), it's commonly used to protect other inmates from that criminal if they are a threat to those around them.
(blue font mine)

Click to expand...

miniverchivi said:

Well, since sections 2, 3, 4, and 5 pertain to restrictions on voting & public office, public debt, and Congress's power to enforce, I'm assuming you're not referrring to those parts and you're referring to section 1. Which again, clearly states that the state & local lawmaking process isn't allowed to take away what's already been granted to the people by the federal government.

Again, a Nativity scene, a cross, and a Picture of Jesus have absolutely nothing to do with the lawmaking process or enforcing the laws so the ACLU suing local governments and forcing them to take them down has nothing to do with constitutional protection for any other group but does infringe on the folks who work there who wanted to put them in the lawn to express themselves.

Click to expand...