Does the ACLU do more harm than good?

[SKILMATIC]

Well I knew it wasnt intentional. I was just making sure people knew.

 

[Columbusite]

How do you figure that the United States of America survived the 180+ years before the ACLU took on Christianity as the scourge of the Constitution?

We've been constantly battling in this country over the preference of Christianity in the government, not just since the formation of the ACLU.

People had fun at Christmas and it was special. There was a religious word in the Pledge of Allegiance and a religious motto on the coins and religious statues and icons and paintings all over the place with no obvious corruption of the government or judicial system. Children sang all manner of Christmas carols and decorated their classrooms for the holidays and the Fellowship of Christian Athlete's was a status symbol. Scout troops met at school and Baccalaureate was a religious service planned by the kids.

And despite all that, no theocracy developed.No particular religion was advocated and no religion was excluded. There were no stonings or people locked into stocks or scarlet letter outings in the town square or anything for more than a half century while legislation allowing unprecedented civil rights was passed. How do you explain that?

You conveniently forget about the fact that while all that was happening lot's of bad stuff was going on too: no women's equal rights, domestic abuse was OK, blacks were treated inhumanly (even killed), as were gays (also killed), communist hysteria, treating Atheists the same way because of stupid people thinking communism=Atheism, etc all in the name of Christianity. Those "good old days" (the 50's) weren't really all that good. This is what happened with Christianity given preference by the government. And remember that if we go back further in time we have slavery, slaughtering of Indians, and child labor all OKed by Christians and Christianity. It was in the 50's, however, where government endorsement of religion was very blatant.

What happened in the last 20 years or so that made religion suddenly so dangerous and sinister and a threat to our entire constitution, government, and way of life? There is absolutely nothing that I can think of other than a newly anti-religious ACLU. I think the country is far poorer for it.

Read the above and did you even read my last post about that organization and what their supportive organizations want? They want a theocracy, plain and simple. These people are not some small fringe group, they have power and are getting very involved in politics. Hell, they even have Chuck Norris.

Around 44% of all Americans say the rapture will happen. If you think about what that means for our politics it is scary. Religion, in general, isn't a bad thing, but you will always have extremists, which is that bad thing. These extremists have today made it known that they ARE a threat to our Constitution and openly use the pledge, 10 commandments, etc to push their agenda for a theocratic government.

 

[Donkey1499]

"Under God" wasn't put into the Pledge until sometime in the 50's-60's. I don't think it should be taken out tho. It doesn't really state an exact God. You know, it could mean ANY God, like Yahweh, Zeus, etc.

 

[Deegan]

Give me an example of one name that I called you? I used real, english, definitive terms to describe your character.

You also refuse to address my concerns. Yet you attack me in the aspect that i've called you names, when in fact, i've only used adjectives and not expletives.

I am not here for partisan debate. I am Independent. I could care less if you ride an elephant or a donkey. The more you patronize me with your partisanship the more I will slam you for it.

You have done nothing but been rude thus far, you start out with, "I assume you can read" then end with, "look what he's won, blah, blah, blah" You lack the debate skills for me to even begin to waste my time with you sir. If you are really here to debate, I would start by having your mother wash your mouth out with soap, and then teaching you some manners.

 

[hipsterdufus]

Right now the ACLU is working on these two items:

1. The trial in Dover, PA on Intelligent Design / Evolution
2. Plan B, a form of emergency contraception stalled for over the counter use by the FDA.

Are these un-American items? I don't think so.

 

[SixStringHero]

In reference to another post I read earlier...

The ACLU does get tax payer funded money in a round about way. For instance, they had the Boy Scouts use of a public park taken away because they used the word "God" in their prayers or oaths.

In cases like this if the city fights the case and loses, the ACLU recoups their lawyer fees and what not from the cities money.

 

[Donkey1499]

Right now the ACLU is working on these two items:

1. The trial in Dover, PA on Intelligent Design / Evolution
2. Plan B, a form of emergency contraception stalled for over the counter use by the FDA.

Are these un-American items? I don't think so.

The ACLU is also working on making pat-downs at football games "unconstitutional" because ONE old fart was offended by it. Now football fans here in Tampa have to watch the game with people who could possibly have a gun, knife, bomb, or other weapon. Banning pat-downs at football games is "unconstitutional" because it takes away MY right to sense of security. The ACLU needs to re-think this case.

 

[jamesrage]

Originally Posted by SixStringHero
The ACLU does get tax payer funded money in a round about way. For instance, they had the Boy Scouts use of a public park taken away because they used the word "God" in their prayers or oaths.

It is **** like this why anyone with some common sense can figure out that the ACLU has a beef with Jews and Christians.

 

[jamesrage]

Right, I definately have beef with myself.

One day you will see the light and you you see the ACLU for the scum they are.

 

[Duke]

Right now the ACLU is working on these two items:

1. The trial in Dover, PA on Intelligent Design / Evolution
2. Plan B, a form of emergency contraception stalled for over the counter use by the FDA.

Are these un-American items? I don't think so.

The ACLU, as an organization, are doing those things, but other lawyers, that are members of the ACLU but their actions do not necessarily reflect the beleifs of the ACLU itself, are doing other things.


Duke

 

[Vandeervecken]

"Under God" wasn't put into the Pledge until sometime in the 50's-60's. I don't think it should be taken out tho. It doesn't really state an exact God. You know, it could mean ANY God, like Yahweh, Zeus, etc.

Which still respects establishment of monotheisim as the officially sanctioned belief system.

This tells all atheists (of both types), agnostics, polytheists, deists, Hindus, Buddhists, Confucians, Pagans, Animists, Shamanists and my other types of people that the government believes they are wrong.

This clearly violates the first amendment.

By the way it was 1954 when Under God was added to the pledge and In God We Trust was added to our money and made our motto replacing the one our Founders gave us, E Plurbis Unum. So much for a respect for tradition.

 

[Vandeervecken]

In reference to another post I read earlier...

The ACLU does get tax payer funded money in a round about way. For instance, they had the Boy Scouts use of a public park taken away because they used the word "God" in their prayers or oaths.

In cases like this if the city fights the case and loses, the ACLU recoups their lawyer fees and what not from the cities money.

Nice spin. The ACLU took on the BSA's free use of public parks because it violates a Federal law that states such preference cannot be given to groups that discriminate on the basis of race, religion, or gender. As far as local and state parks the last time I saw a breakdown 46 of the states had similar laws.

The boy scouts discriminate on both gender and religion. It had nothing to do with the word "God" in any of their prayers or oaths.

Now if you want to be mad they got their fees back after the case, be made at the pandering state and local officials who took the ACLU when anyone who can read the law knows they had no leg to stand on. If the law says a group that discriminates on the basis of religion cannot be given preferential or free rides on state land, and the Boy Scouts have been, when it goes to court the law is clearly going to favor the plaintiff. Only a fool, or someone pandering to religious zealots is going to fight it and waste the money.

 

[Vandeervecken]

The ACLU is also working on making pat-downs at football games "unconstitutional" because ONE old fart was offended by it. Now football fans here in Tampa have to watch the game with people who could possibly have a gun, knife, bomb, or other weapon. Banning pat-downs at football games is "unconstitutional" because it takes away MY right to sense of security. The ACLU needs to re-think this case.

Well let us look at what the Constitution says shall we?

4th Amendment United States Constitution.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
violated; and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the
place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

Well, well, it seems the United States Constitution explicitly forbids such warrantless searches. Attending a football game is not probable cause of criminal behavior worthy of warranting such searches. Note also that the ACLU is not, "working on making it unconstitutional," as you claim, they are merely pointing out that the Constitution has forbidden such things since before there even was an ACLU.

Now, I have cited exactly what part of the Constitution I and the ACLU think backs our idea that just searching people without a warrant is clearly unconstitutional. Can you cite specifically where in the Constitution you think this vague and nebulous "right to {sic} sense of security," might be found?

One last question. While being a Detroit Lions fan I am quite familiar with all manner of on field tragedies over the years I must ask the following. In the history of the NFL how many fans have been shot, stabbed, or blown up by bombs inside the stadium while attending a football game? Oh? None? So why is this a big problem worthy of trashing the Constitution over?

 

[jamesrage]

By the way it was 1954 when Under God was added to the pledge and In God We Trust was added to our money and made our motto replacing the one our Founders gave us, E Plurbis Unum. So much for a respect for tradition.

"IN God we trust" was added way before 1954.And as far as I can tell I can still see E Plurbis Unum on any coin

 

[jamesrage]

One last question. While being a Detroit Lions fan I am quite familiar with all manner of on field tragedies over the years I must ask the following. In the history of the NFL how many fans have been shot, stabbed, or blown up by bombs inside the stadium while attending a football game? Oh? None? So why is this a big problem worthy of trashing the Constitution over?

MAybe not a NFL game,but there was a attempted suicide bombing at a college football game. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46640

 

[Vandeervecken]

"IN God we trust" was added way before 1954.And as far as I can tell I can still see E Plurbis Unum on any coin

Yes there was, very briefly, during the Civil War. After the war it was removed and declared improper. Try and find a coin between the end of the civil war and 1954 that says it.

E Plurbis Unum is on some of our money still, but it was replaced as our national motto by the religious zealots in 1954 quite unconstitutionally.

 

[Vandeervecken]

MAybe not a NFL game,but there was a attempted suicide bombing at a college football game. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46640

No, there wasn't. Forgiving your less than reliable source for the moment even your own cite says he never even tried to enter the stadium. He blew himself up more than 100 yards away in front of the engineering building, Cross Hall. He was an engineering student. Could there be a connection? LOL.

Our own source citation refutes your claim, sorry but that is just priceless.

 

[jamesrage]

Yes there was, very briefly, during the Civil War. After the war it was removed and declared improper. Try and find a coin between the end of the civil war and 1954 that says it.

You must not have never collected coins in your whole entire life.Damn this is almost too easy.

 

[Vandeervecken]

You must not have never collected coins in your whole entire life.Damn this is almost too easy.

Well done, and note without profanity or seething anger!

Interesting I must admit my information on that was wrong as you have clearly shown. No, I never collected coins. I collect stamps historical firearms and political collectibles. Any interesting coins I get I give to my father in law, those are his thing.

 

[jamesrage]

No, there wasn't. Forgiving your less than reliable source for the moment even your own cite says he never even tried to enter the stadium. He blew himself up more than 100 yards away in front of the engineering building, Cross Hall. He was an engineering student. Could there be a connection? LOL.

Our own source citation refutes your claim, sorry but that is just priceless.

http://thepoliticalteen.net/2005/10/17/mtapscottbrown/
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=2180366
http://www.google.com/search?q=+Joel+Henry+Hinrichs+III+bomber&sourceid=mozilla-search&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial

 

[jamesrage]

Any interesting coins I get I give to my father in law, those are his thing.

http://www.pandaamerica.com/subcategory.asp?subcat=95&categ=2&grp=1

 

[Vandeervecken]

http://thepoliticalteen.net/2005/10/17/mtapscottbrown/
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=2180366
http://www.google.com/search?q=+Joel+Henry+Hinrichs+III+bomber&sourceid=mozilla-search&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial

None of these links back your claim either. All say he detonated it alone and away from the stadium. None claim he ever tried to enter either the stadium or the stadium grounds.

Of course this is all a diversion you hope will make us forget you cannot rebut bu citation of the 4th amendment. Also that you cannot cite any part of the Constitution to back up your claim of a right to, "sense of security."



On an aside, does anyone else have a problem with the forum here eating replies? About every 5th reply I make doesn't post. Also about half the pages I try to view just come up the background colors and the header and nothing else. Both my computers have this same problem, any suggestions?

 

[Donkey1499]

Well let us look at what the Constitution says shall we?

4th Amendment United States Constitution.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
violated; and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the
place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

Well, well, it seems the United States Constitution explicitly forbids such warrantless searches. Attending a football game is not probable cause of criminal behavior worthy of warranting such searches. Note also that the ACLU is not, "working on making it unconstitutional," as you claim, they are merely pointing out that the Constitution has forbidden such things since before there even was an ACLU.

Now, I have cited exactly what part of the Constitution I and the ACLU think backs our idea that just searching people without a warrant is clearly unconstitutional. Can you cite specifically where in the Constitution you think this vague and nebulous "right to {sic} sense of security," might be found?

One last question. While being a Detroit Lions fan I am quite familiar with all manner of on field tragedies over the years I must ask the following. In the history of the NFL how many fans have been shot, stabbed, or blown up by bombs inside the stadium while attending a football game? Oh? None? So why is this a big problem worthy of trashing the Constitution over?

Ever heard of Murphy's Law?
Why must ppl like you be afraid of pat-downs? Are you hiding something? I'd rather go to a football game and feel safe knowing the EVERYONE was searched before entering the stadium. Think of what time we live in. Terrorists would like nothing better than to blow up a target like Lambeau Field (which holds about 200,000 plus fans; I'm guessing on the #). Can you imagine the the chaos?
And besides, the decisions for pat-downs comes from the OWNERS of the stadiums, which means it is PRIVATE PROPERTY! So thus, the owners can do what they like, and if you don't like it, too bad, don't go to the game then. Stay home and watch it on tv.

 

[tr1414]

Yep, you got that right. But these are libs we're talking about. They don't care about right or wrong. Just what could destory America.

 

[FinnMacCool]

Yep, you got that right. But these are libs we're talking about. They don't care about right or wrong. Just what could destory America.

Are you such an expert on me? What else am I?

This is why I think this countries going to hell. People will only believe what they want to believe and if someone even trys to think a little bit outside the box BOOM people like this guy above me will come charging in calling anyone who disagrees with them a terrorist or a traitor etc.