• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Does Anyone Think the ACLU is nuts?

"I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it."
 
Last edited:
ngdawg said:
Now, have they gone after South Dakota's outright banning of abortion? No.
They have gone after that judge down south that dared to have the ten commandments in the rotundra, yet in every court, one swears 'to tell the truth, the whole truth, so help me, God'. There's a WTF right there.

They released a statement on the abortion situation.
http://www.aclu.org/reproductiverights/abortionbans/24383prs20060306.html

They're going to need to wait for someone to challenge the abortion ban before they can support them, no? Wait and see before you make a premature criticism.
 
Strike For The South said:
"I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it."

I'm quoting this since it's what the ACLU has always been about, the right to free speech for all Americans not just free speech for the topics you like side with.

I think the biggest thing that gets so many of you up in arms about what the ACLU does is that you don't seperate emotional ties to a particular subject. There are certainly things the ACLU defends that I don't agree with, but the one thing I do agree with is that when you start limiting peoples freedoms it becomes a slipper slope to limiting all freedoms. To have true freedom I think you have to defend the rights of even those you do not agree with and sometimes even those you despise.
 
Mantrius said:
I'm quoting this since it's what the ACLU has always been about, the right to free speech for all Americans not just free speech for the topics you like side with.

I think the biggest thing that gets so many of you up in arms about what the ACLU does is that you don't seperate emotional ties to a particular subject. There are certainly things the ACLU defends that I don't agree with, but the one thing I do agree with is that when you start limiting peoples freedoms it becomes a slipper slope to limiting all freedoms. To have true freedom I think you have to defend the rights of even those you do not agree with and sometimes even those you despise.
But then, why did they take the case against the judge down south for having the 10 commandments sculpture removed ( after all, we 'swear to God in court, pledge allegiance to 'one nation under God', 'in God we trust' is on money and even the Constitution could be argued as being based out of the 10 commandments) and then turn around and take the WBC case?
The ten commandments are not singularly religion based, after all, so there was no bias to one particular practice by having the sculpture there. The WBC, KKK and other fringe hate groups get the right to march, protest, etc., on public property according to the ACLU, but a large slab of stone showing a moral compass can't be allowed? I'm not religious at all, but there's something amiss in this mindset of this organization and its choices of whom or what to defend.
 
ngdawg said:
But then, why did they take the case against the judge down south for having the 10 commandments sculpture removed ( after all, we 'swear to God in court, pledge allegiance to 'one nation under God', 'in God we trust' is on money and even the Constitution could be argued as being based out of the 10 commandments) and then turn around and take the WBC case?
The ten commandments are not singularly religion based, after all, so there was no bias to one particular practice by having the sculpture there. The WBC, KKK and other fringe hate groups get the right to march, protest, etc., on public property according to the ACLU, but a large slab of stone showing a moral compass can't be allowed? I'm not religious at all, but there's something amiss in this mindset of this organization and its choices of whom or what to defend.

I don't think the Constitution could remotely be considered as being based on the 10 commandments, modeled after perhaps but not based on. The other problem with that case was that the 10 commandments are singularly religion based, they are a Christian concept not a Buddhist concept, not an Islamic concept, not a Shinto concept etc. ad nauseum. Having them on public property in, on, or around a government building can be construed as a governmental endorsement of Christianity, whether they intended that or not that is what it amounted to.
 
Mantrius said:
I don't think the Constitution could remotely be considered as being based on the 10 commandments, modeled after perhaps but not based on. The other problem with that case was that the 10 commandments are singularly religion based, they are a Christian concept not a Buddhist concept, not an Islamic concept, not a Shinto concept etc. ad nauseum. Having them on public property in, on, or around a government building can be construed as a governmental endorsement of Christianity, whether they intended that or not that is what it amounted to.


Actually, they are from the old testament and Moses was a Jewish prophet, so the Christian basis for argument doesn't really hold water when saying that they are singularly based.
 
The Ten Commandments are the basis of the three largest monotheistic religions..

Christianity
Islam
Judiasm

They are also just a set of normal societal rules from all societies.

Don't steal
Don't commit adultery
etc.
 
ngdawg said:
Actually, they are from the old testament and Moses was a Jewish prophet, so the Christian basis for argument doesn't really hold water when saying that they are singularly based.

I'd still venture to disagree as all three of those religions share a common ancestry (my views on religion are slightly different that most).

BodiSatva said:
They are also just a set of normal societal rules from all societies.

The Bible said:
1. I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
2. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.
3. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them.
4. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
5. Honor thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long.
6. Thou shalt not kill.
7. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
8. Thou shalt not steal.
9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ***, nor anything that is thy neighbor's.



Note commandments 1, 2, 3, and 4. None of those are societally based like stealing or adultery are. 1,2 and 3 are specifically relating to believing that the god of the old testament is your god and worshiping him as such. Keeping the sabbath holy, again this was religious in nature not having to do with any societal ill. Though I'd be happy to keep the 6 commandments posted (that would be commandments 5 through 10) as they are the basis of our normal societal rules.
 
I guess that I should have read all ten before making that statement.

Yeah, those first four are not societal. I still think that they are fine to be posted on gov. buildings though...I think people worry about too much. Other religions should be displayed as well though.
 
BodiSatva said:
I guess that I should have read all ten before making that statement.

Yeah, those first four are not societal. I still think that they are fine to be posted on gov. buildings though...I think people worry about too much. Other religions should be displayed as well though.

You know, I can completely respect an opinion like that. I'd be perfectly alright seeing them if all other religions could be given a fair shake. I think the real problem is that in our country any religion other than Christianity isn't given a fair shake. For example if the wiccan tennet of "If it harm none, do as thou will" were posted all over government buildings we'd probably have a lot of issues with extreme right wing Christian conservatives. In this case it's better to choose none at all.
 
Mantrius said:
Then who defends the non-christians against the extreme right?

Just a joke :2razz: nothing more
makes for a humorous bumper sticker...
much like --- I'd rather hunt with Dick Cheney than ride with Ted Kennedy

...to answer the original question...
Does anyone think the ACLU is nuts? I give a resounding YES.
 
ngdawg said:
But then, why did they take the case against the judge down south for having the 10 commandments sculpture removed ( after all, we 'swear to God in court, pledge allegiance to 'one nation under God', 'in God we trust' is on money and even the Constitution could be argued as being based out of the 10 commandments) and then turn around and take the WBC case?

The Constitution can't be argued as coming from the Ten Commandments, unless you've never read the Constitution.

The Commandments are 'do nots' important to certain religious people. The Constitution is 'do nots' for the government, and rights for people.
 
tryreading said:
The Constitution can't be argued as coming from the Ten Commandments, unless you've never read the Constitution.

The Commandments are 'do nots' important to certain religious people. The Constitution is 'do nots' for the government, and rights for people.

Perhaps...but...that is not exactly what I said.
And the jist of it is that in every part of our government workings, God is placed, from the justice system to our money. One recent case, a father proclaiming his atheism, trying to take 'one nation under God' out of the Pledge of Allegiance, was denied by the USSC and was NOT taken by the ACLU, if I recall. The reasoning behind the USSC refusing to hear the case was based on him not being primary guardian, but what differentiates this otherwise from other cases they DO decide to take?
The question is stil basically unanswered: Why did they fight AGAINST a judge to post non-secular biblical 'do not's'( which, except for 3 are totally not deity-worship based),when this country and its lawmakers use 'God' in their procedures, then fight FOR a whacko group to be able to spout its blatantly false bible-based vile during what actually is a government-backed ceremony-the burial of an American soldier?
 
ngdawg said:
Perhaps...but...that is not exactly what I said.
And the jist of it is that in every part of our government workings, God is placed, from the justice system to our money.

No.

Our justice system has nothing to do with God. Last time I checked, God isn't mentioned in the Constitution once. The only mention of religion is that the Congress can't establish one. That's it.

Since the Ten Commandments have nothing to do with American law, it's really absurd to hang them all over our courts. I mean, that first commandment has so much relevance to the real world of today, doesn't it?

ngdawg said:
One recent case, a father proclaiming his atheism, trying to take 'one nation under God' out of the Pledge of Allegiance, was denied by the USSC and was NOT taken by the ACLU, if I recall. The reasoning behind the USSC refusing to hear the case was based on him not being primary guardian, but what differentiates this otherwise from other cases they DO decide to take?

Ummmm, how about he didn't have legal standing to press the suit? That might have some relevance. Just a little.

ngdawg said:
The question is stil basically unanswered: Why did they fight AGAINST a judge to post non-secular biblical 'do not's'( which, except for 3 are totally not deity-worship based),when this country and its lawmakers use 'God' in their procedures, then fight FOR a whacko group to be able to spout its blatantly false bible-based vile during what actually is a government-backed ceremony-the burial of an American soldier?

Well, if it is bible-based, it has to be false. You got that part right, anyway.

Oh, and the Ten Suggestions aren't "non-secular", they're biblical.
 
Yes, but not singular-religiously followed as Bodi pointed out.
I never said God is mentioned in the Constitution, please pay attention.
What I DID say was the word God is used in courts, in our Pledge of Allegiance and on our currency. In these instances, no singular religion is used, but the belief of one deity is.
I also DID say why the man's suit was denied, so you're preaching to the choir there.:roll:
My questioning of the ACLU's pick and choose method has to do with why do they make such a huge issue out of something and turn around and fight FOR the very same thing in another instance while proclaiming to be defenders of the Constitution.
The states that have passed restrictions on the whacko's protesting rights basically own the majority of the property they use while interrupting a government-back solemn ceremony and their freedom of speech has not been
squashed.
 
The ACLU is a terrorist organziation.

They should be tried for sedition under the RICO Act (The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act)...it was meant for organized crime and that is what they do. They threaten our freedoms by challenging everything... if they have their way, government will be unable to play its initial role of protecting our rights.

Ruth Bader Ginsberg is not my
Arch Enemy for no reason. Trial lawyers and insurance companies and Liberalism among other things are a disgrace.
 
ngdawg said:
Perhaps...but...that is not exactly what I said.
And the jist of it is that in every part of our government workings, God is placed, from the justice system to our money. One recent case, a father proclaiming his atheism, trying to take 'one nation under God' out of the Pledge of Allegiance, was denied by the USSC and was NOT taken by the ACLU, if I recall. The reasoning behind the USSC refusing to hear the case was based on him not being primary guardian, but what differentiates this otherwise from other cases they DO decide to take?
The question is stil basically unanswered: Why did they fight AGAINST a judge to post non-secular biblical 'do not's'( which, except for 3 are totally not deity-worship based),when this country and its lawmakers use 'God' in their procedures, then fight FOR a whacko group to be able to spout its blatantly false bible-based vile during what actually is a government-backed ceremony-the burial of an American soldier?

Swearing to God in court is a choice. It is not required.

The father, Newdow, you are talking about sued to stop the mandatory recital of the Pledge with the added 'under God.' He ended up pursuing the case with another parent who was guardian of a child. From what I understand, his next battle will be against 'In God We Trust' on money.

All of the Commandments are Deity-worshipped based. They are from the Bible. The three laws in our legal code that resemble part of the Ten Commandments are laws against killing, laws against theft, and laws against lying in legal venues. And I guess adultery may be illegal in some areas.

Establishment, and freedom of speech (to your last sentence).
 
ngdawg said:
Yes, but not singular-religiously followed as Bodi pointed out.
I never said God is mentioned in the Constitution, please pay attention.

I do pay attention. Watch.

ngdawg said:
What I DID say was the word God is used in courts,

Outside of the occasional "God damnit" by a witness, God has no place the courts. It's not even part of the swearing in.

ngdawg said:
in our Pledge of Allegiance and on our currency.

Not only does the word "God" have no business being in either, neither application was in use in the first 80 years of this nation's history.

ngdawg said:
In these instances, no singular religion is used, but the belief of one deity is.

See? Establishing religion. That's verbotten per the First Amendment.

ngdawg said:
I also DID say why the man's suit was denied, so you're preaching to the choir there.:roll:

Yeah, like I didn't notice that as well. You see, that's the important part about that suit. That it may have had merit, but it was kicked out on a technicality. Which is fine, the lower courts should have seen that first.

ngdawg said:
My questioning of the ACLU's pick and choose method has to do with why do they make such a huge issue out of something and turn around and fight FOR the very same thing in another instance while proclaiming to be defenders of the Constitution.

1) They're lawyers seeking money. Lawyers don't typically care who wins, but if the signature on the check is any good.

2) They're mostly liberal left fascists seeking to undermine the Constitution. Not always, but that's what the majority of the cases they accept try to do. Not the Newdow case, of course, that's one of the anomalous ones.

ngdawg said:
The states that have passed restrictions on the whacko's protesting rights basically own the majority of the property they use while interrupting a government-back solemn ceremony and their freedom of speech has not been
squashed.
 
Their 'claim' though, is one of upholding the basic tennents of the Constitution regardless of the litigants' personal stance and this simply does not appear to be the case at all.
Whether we feel the word God has place or not in the pledge or on currency is of little matter as they ARE there and attempts to have them changed have failed. In some courts, it IS part of the swearing in-at least in local courts. I have no experience in federal court.
It is not establishing religion as outlined in the Constitution, so it can be sidestepped. The basis of separation of church and state is that not one religion could be the 'official' one of this country, ie; everyone as a citizen must follow Lutheran doctrine, pay taxes to the Lutheran church, etc. Churches are considered non-profit charities (yea, let's have a group eye-roll on that one) to which tithes are tax deductible so to me, at least, this contradicts at least part of the spirit of the Constitution.
If there's going to be total separation as it's implied, then tithes should not be tax deductible, the sliding in of God on currency and pledges and in courts (a recent real-life program on A&E had a court as it's backdrop with a large 'In God We Trust' across the back wall). And the ACLU could stop pretending it's only goal is upholding Constitutional law.
 
ngdawg said:
Their 'claim' though, is one of upholding the basic tennents of the Constitution regardless of the litigants' personal stance and this simply does not appear to be the case at all.
Whether we feel the word God has place or not in the pledge or on currency is of little matter as they ARE there and attempts to have them changed have failed. In some courts, it IS part of the swearing in-at least in local courts. I have no experience in federal court.
It is not establishing religion as outlined in the Constitution, so it can be sidestepped. The basis of separation of church and state is that not one religion could be the 'official' one of this country, ie; everyone as a citizen must follow Lutheran doctrine, pay taxes to the Lutheran church, etc. Churches are considered non-profit charities (yea, let's have a group eye-roll on that one) to which tithes are tax deductible so to me, at least, this contradicts at least part of the spirit of the Constitution.
If there's going to be total separation as it's implied, then tithes should not be tax deductible, the sliding in of God on currency and pledges and in courts (a recent real-life program on A&E had a court as it's backdrop with a large 'In God We Trust' across the back wall). And the ACLU could stop pretending it's only goal is upholding Constitutional law.

Newdow sued and won his 'under God' case, which, last I heard, is still being appealed

Nobody anywhere has to swear on the Bible in court, not in your area's court or anywhere else.

Churches can remain untaxed as long as they follow certain rules, the same as any other non-profit. This is separation, as no money from churches influences government (in theory, but there is cheating).

God on currency will be challenged at some point, Chaplains in Congress will be challenged sooner. I think Michael Newdow has already filed on the latter, or will soon. Did you know that James Madison was completely against this practice?

Prayer in public schools was found illegal in 1963. It was a very ingrained practice in this country, but was still successfully fought. So probably some of the new separation cases will win too.
 
tryreading said:
Newdow sued and won his 'under God' case, which, last I heard, is still being appealed

Nobody anywhere has to swear on the Bible in court, not in your area's court or anywhere else.

Churches can remain untaxed as long as they follow certain rules, the same as any other non-profit. This is separation, as no money from churches influences government (in theory, but there is cheating).

God on currency will be challenged at some point, Chaplains in Congress will be challenged sooner. I think Michael Newdow has already filed on the latter, or will soon. Did you know that James Madison was completely against this practice?

Prayer in public schools was found illegal in 1963. It was a very ingrained practice in this country, but was still successfully fought. So probably some of the new separation cases will win too.
Uh...first point: Nowhere did I say anyone swore on a bible. What I did say was they swear to 'tell the truth, so help me, God.' (why do I have to keep repeating myself?)
Second point: Nowhere did I mention anything about prayer in school. I was around when it was declared illegal. We had always started the day with Psalms.
Third point: Courts and court officers do still have to swear with 'so help me, God', ie; http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/stats/358/07.html and is used in the Presidential inauguration.
 
ngdawg said:
Third point: Courts and court officers do still have to swear with 'so help me, God', ie; http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/stats/358/07.html and is used in the Presidential inauguration.

JESUS! Go read the freakin' Constitution and find out what's really required. The nonsense about "so help me dog!" or whatever else any president may care to add at the end of his oath is NOT part of the required Oath of Office.
 
Back
Top Bottom