Does the ACLU do more harm than good?

[argexpat]

I'm old enough to remember the bad old days of the Cold War, McCarthyism; the Communist Party under Gus Hall, Stalin and all of that. In my opinion, the ACLU is a far worst enemy of the Republic. It is a malignant cancer that has done virtually everything to undermine everything that is good about the United States. In point of fact, it ought to register as an agent of a foreign power. It plays into the hands of the terrorists who would destroy us. Compared to the damage that Joe McCarthy did to the body politic, the ACLU is 100 times worse. Bin Laden's name ought to appear on their letterhead if they were required to have full disclosure.

So you're old enough to remember Stalin, a totalitarian despot who killed millions of his own people, and yet the ACLU is a "worst enemy of the Republic"? Apparently, you're also old enough to be senile.

But let me humor your inane rant for a moment. So if the ACLU is a "far worst enemy of the Republic" than Stalin, a "malignant cancer" that undermines "everything that is good about the United States," "100 times worse" than McCarthyism and a tool of Bin Laden, wouldn't someone be justified in killing ACLU members? I mean, if they're that bad, they should be stopped by any means necessary, right? That would be the logical extrapolation of your argument. Anything short of that would be appeasement, wouldn't it?

So I ask you, are you advocating the assassination of ACLU members? If not, how do you propose we stop this evil that threatens the very existence of the United States? C'mon, Missouri Mule, you can't just call the ACLU a bunch of names and then run away. Have the courage of your convictions (aka balls) and propose a final solution.

 

[Duke]

I think my about post just about says it all. Think about it, the ACLU stands for EVERYTHING wrong. But those of you in the nipple ring set might like some of those things....

I have thought about it, and I have come to the realization that the ACLU stands for the American Civil Liberties Union. Furthermore, it represents the defense of the Constitution of the United States of America.


Duke

 

[Donkey1499]

Can anyone answer this? Does the ACLU defend the "right" to burn the AMERICAN flag?

 

[shuamort]

Can anyone answer this? Does the ACLU defend the "right" to burn the AMERICAN flag?

Yup, here's a snippet from their website where they explain their position and show Colin Powell's support of their beliefs as well:

Rather than properly armoring troop vehicles in Iraq and giving veterans the health care they deserve, Congress is again considering a constitutional amendment to allow the government to make it a crime to “desecrate” the flag. For the first time, however, unless the ACLU and its supporters really pull out all the stops, it will pass.

For more than a decade, numerous members of Congress have tried to amend the U.S. Constitution to give the government the power to prohibit the physical desecration of the American flag. We have fought back hard with coalitions of veterans, religious leaders and other Americans who believe that such a constitutional amendment would undermine the very principles for which the American flag stands. The amendment passed the House earlier this year by the widest margin ever. It must be stopped in the Senate.


Colin Powell, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has strongly opposed the proposed amendment. "The First Amendment exists to insure that freedom of speech and expression applies not just to that with which we agree or disagree, but also that which we find outrageous," he said. "I would not amend that great shield of democracy to hammer a few miscreants. The flag will be flying proudly long after they have slunk away."

And some more here:

The proposed amendment violates the very principles for which the flag flies.
Americans are an intensely patriotic people, but only because of our free heritage and the liberties embodied in the Constitution. One of these basic principles is the tolerance of dissent, even when obnoxious. This amendment stands for the exact opposite premise: that you can put people in jail merely for being offensive.

Flag burning laws are a hallmark of authoritarian regimes.
China and Cuba are just a few of the totalitarian regimes that ban the “desecration” of national symbols. In Hong Kong, democratic reformers have been prosecuted under the Chinese flag laws. Those regimes know that the power to put people in jail for flag burning is the power to silence dissent.

 

[Donkey1499]

Yup, here's a snippet from their website where they explain their position and show Colin Powell's support of their beliefs as well:

And some more here:

I know the constitution says "Free Speech", but where does it say "Free Expression"? I doubt if it does, but I could be wrong.

Anyways, burning the American flag, if you're an American, is definately anti-American. So any American (Even Colin Powell and the ACLU) who supports desecration of the AMERICAN FLAG is definately ANTI-AMERICAN. So the ACLU should actually be called: AACLU = Anti-American Communist/Liberal Union.

 

[tryreading]

You were the one who suggested the President saying "God bless America" should be enough. I gave you a list of other freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution and asked you if you would think it enough if only part of any one of those freedoms should be allowed. You must have missed that though the question was asked several times.

To your entire premise here, I stand on my previous posts. If you would like to answer any of the questions I have asked and that have been ignored, then we could move forward. Otherwise the conversation has become entirely too circular to be productive.

You missed the point again. My point is that there is religious expression in government, as when President Bush says "God bless America" during a public address. God is mentioned regularly by government figures. Listen to some of them while they are speaking or being interviewed. You will hear religious expression which is open, proper, and legal even though spoken in public venues and state owned buildings. Also, Trent Lott can carry his Bible into Senate meetings, and Joe Lieberman can bring his Torah, and anybody who would try to stop them should be jailed. Religious expression is everywhere in government, but you can't see it.

Let's have religious expression, but let's not have Roman Crosses mounted in courtrooms or other state buildings, nor a monument depicting the Torah, nor a statue of Muhammed, nor any other religious symbol on public property.

 

[tryreading]

Ok, but if you get rid of religious public displays, then you have to be fair and get rid of ALL public displays, because you might offend someone if you don't. Like in San Francisco, when all those gays were getting married on PUBLIC property (was it city hall or the court house? I can't remember at this moment). That display was offensive to me and others. Or when the gov't buildings put up displays for, I dunno, Veterans Day. That might be offensive for anti-war buffs. What if a courhouse has red roses in front of it, but a group of people want tulips in front of it. The display will be offensive to them.

So, if you're gonna stop one display, then you need to stop them all and be FAIR about it. STOP PICKING ON RELIGION!!!

Okay, I agree with you, let's get rid of all public displays that are Un-Constitutional. Every one of them. You are right. Tear them down and burn them to ash. No more public displays that are Un-Constitutional.

But Un-Constitutional, not offensive. We are not talking about offensive, we are talking about illegal.

You seem to have a persecution complex like AlbqOwl.

 

[tryreading]

It's funny how this stuff is kept quiet, though. I've never heard about it anywhere. Not even on Fox News. But, there's no news like bad news.

There are many other examples where the ACLU defended religious liberties. Do a search.

 

[Mr. D]

I agree with you.I think they are nothing more than dinasaurs who have outlived their usefulness and they are trying to hang on.

First of all, I’m not a member of the ACLU and I’ve never given it a penny, I’m not a lawyer, nor have I had any contact with them! I’m not speaking for the ACLU!

What is misunderstood about the ACLU is it’s mission!

In my limited understanding, the ACLU believes that one of the most important things that protects freedom and civil liberties “for all of us” under the Constitution is the “actual, real” ability of every person in the U.S. to get legal representation no matter how loony, misguided, bigoted or hated by others they are! If a person cannot get represented by a lawyer because the majority of Americans think they are a loon or are against their beliefs, then you may not be able to get a lawyer and a fair trial someday if the public doesn’t agree with you, or you’ve been made to look like a loon or pervert by a large company, organization or our government! Sure if it’s by our government you get a public defender with a giant pile of cases!

What history has shown is that if your cause is unpopular, lawyers may have to pay a great price in public anger and attack if they represent you!
In the 1950’s if you represented a black man in the South regarding civil rights issues, or for allegedly attacking a white woman , you’d better sleep with a gun and relocate your practice north after the trial, because you were done as a lawyer with the whites in that town and your kids might hear some interesting remarks at school from the other kids!

If you represent some despicable organization or even an average person the public has “already tried in the press and found guilty ” or a crazy loon that wants his day in court, ( who isn’t a O.J. or Michael Jackson so the lawyer can become rich and famous) the lawyer may be have his practice hurt by people who hate the client!

If they had a prison just for child molesters, some doctor would be employed to work at that prison and many brilliant types would say, “What kind of a doctor wants to be with child molesters all day? I would let him touch my child!” Get the point! I wouldn’t want to be that guy, would you?

So the ACLU will represent any crazy loon or nazi, or whatever without judging their character or the common sense of their case so that you and I will always have a place to go when lawyers say, “You deserve representation, but I have a family and I can’t afford to risk their safety and their financial future by representing you!” The ACLU lawyer is often assigned from a different area so angry people can’t threaten his family or give him a little payback for representing the guy they hate!

The ACLU believes that without legal representation and a “fair” day in court YOUR rights are in jeopardy! So their mission is to be there to represent anyone who they think will be unpopular to represent! Of course if you’re Michael Jackson you don’t need the ACLU! You’ve got money! Whether we will admit it or not, money buys you a better chance in court and in our halls of government! Money talks and justice walks! Did I get that quote wrong? Yes, but it’s still true!



:2wave:

 

[tryreading]

Did you even read it? It wasn't a quote at all. It was a historical explanation of a practice enjoyed by both Jefferson and Madison. .

I posted an explanation of Jefferson's reasons for starting this practice earlier in this thread. He did it for political purposes. He was being called an athiest early in his presidency, and wanted to publicly appease those who took the accusation seriously, and members of his own party. So he made the choice to very publicly, on horseback, travel to church held in a government building (he also used the opportunity to write the letter to the Danbury Baptists for the same reason). It was an error in judgement, a mistake he made for the sake of political expediency.

 

[hipsterdufus]

I know the constitution says "Free Speech", but where does it say "Free Expression"? I doubt if it does, but I could be wrong.

Anyways, burning the American flag, if you're an American, is definately anti-American. So any American (Even Colin Powell and the ACLU) who supports desecration of the AMERICAN FLAG is definately ANTI-AMERICAN. So the ACLU should actually be called: AACLU = Anti-American Communist/Liberal Union.

But aren't you supposed to burn the flag when it's old and tattered as a means of disposal?
What about a flag on a tee-shirt? or a flag smiley? :hm

More importantly, how about a flag made for slave wages in Saipen displaying the "Made In America" label?

I might think about burning that one myself to protest forced prostitution and forced labor in a country that is granted US Citzenship.

 

[tryreading]

And if you go back in this thread, at least on this board, you'll see where I replied to you and explained that we can pull quotes from BOTH sides of the fence about seperation of church and state. And that makes the point moot.

Regarding AlbqOwl's post to you about Jefferson's/Madison's churchgoing:
There is a very political reason why Jefferson decided to attend these
services so visibly, as the paragraphs and link below indicate. But,
his political frailties in 1801 do not excuse the practice he began.

During the presidential campaign of 1800, Jefferson had suffered in
silence the relentless and deeply offensive Federalist charges that
he was an atheist. Now he decided to strike back, using the most
serviceable weapon at hand, the address of the Danbury Baptists.

...for the Danbury Baptist letter was never conceived by Jefferson to
be a statement of fundamental principles; it was meant to be a
political manifesto, nothing more.

...going to church solved Jefferson's public relations problems, for he
correctly anticipated that his participation in public worship would
be reported in newspapers throughout the country.



http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=AhifUfqko...http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danbury.html

 

[AlbqOwl]

I posted an explanation of Jefferson's reasons for starting this practice earlier in this thread. He did it for political purposes. He was being called an athiest early in his presidency, and wanted to publicly appease those who took the accusation seriously, and members of his own party. So he made the choice to very publicly, on horseback, travel to church held in a government building (he also used the opportunity to write the letter to the Danbury Baptists for the same reason). It was an error in judgement, a mistake he made for the sake of political expediency.

Do you have a credible, unbiased source for this opinion? Or is it strictly your own? Personally, I find it quite unlikely that Jefferson gave a flying fig as to what anybody thought about his religious beliefs as they were well known when he was authorized to do the final edit on both the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. I don't think he felt the least bit insecure. And I think his letter to the Danbury Baptists was 100% consistent with all his expressed views, was heartfelt, and sincere.

 

[hipsterdufus]

Here's a case I love. I always thought that having to sign loyalty oaths to attend a speech by Bush during the campaign was very Orwellian. Now the ACLU has taken on the case of some people kicked out of a Bush event FOR HAVING THE WRONG BUMPER STICKERS!

ACLU suing over ouster from event
Action taken on part of 2 people booted from Bush speech
STORY TOOLS
Email this story | Print By Ann Imse, Rocky Mountain News
November 21, 2005
The American Civil Liberties Union is taking up the case of two of the three people ejected from a presidential appearance in Denver over a bumper sticker and has named a federal bureaucrat in Denver as the mystery man who ousted them.
The ACLU filed suit today in federal court in Denver, alleging violation of the pair's civil rights

http://rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_4255652,00.html

 

[tryreading]

Do you have a credible, unbiased source for this opinion? Or is it strictly your own? Personally, I find it quite unlikely that Jefferson gave a flying fig as to what anybody thought about his religious beliefs as they were well known when he was authorized to do the final edit on both the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. I don't think he felt the least bit insecure. And I think his letter to the Danbury Baptists was 100% consistent with all his expressed views, was heartfelt, and sincere.

I didn't say he was insincere. He was not lying. But he had become a politician.
I have posted this info and link to you before:

During the presidential campaign of 1800, Jefferson had suffered in
silence the relentless and deeply offensive Federalist charges that
he was an atheist. Now he decided to strike back, using the most
serviceable weapon at hand, the address of the Danbury Baptists.

...for the Danbury Baptist letter was never conceived by Jefferson to
be a statement of fundamental principles; it was meant to be a
political manifesto, nothing more.

...going to church solved Jefferson's public relations problems, for he
correctly anticipated that his participation in public worship would
be reported in newspapers throughout the country.


http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=AhifUfqko...http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danbury.html

 

[AlbqOwl]

I didn't say he was insincere. He was not lying. But he had become a politician.
I have posted this info and link to you before:

During the presidential campaign of 1800, Jefferson had suffered in
silence the relentless and deeply offensive Federalist charges that
he was an atheist. Now he decided to strike back, using the most
serviceable weapon at hand, the address of the Danbury Baptists.

...for the Danbury Baptist letter was never conceived by Jefferson to
be a statement of fundamental principles; it was meant to be a
political manifesto, nothing more.

...going to church solved Jefferson's public relations problems, for he
correctly anticipated that his participation in public worship would
be reported in newspapers throughout the country.


http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=AhifUfqko...http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danbury.html

There will always be those who try to temper the effect of something by calling it 'political'. But then you have to decide: is the politician purely bogus and/or a hypocrite? Or is the something simply fortuous for him/her as it turned out? Would the person have taken that position without the politics being mixed in? Hutson does not provide any supporting commentary for that question which an investigative reporter might have done.

But you did provide a credible source for your point. Thank you.

 

[tryreading]

There will always be those who try to temper the effect of something by calling it 'political'. But then you have to decide: is the politician purely bogus and/or a hypocrite? Or is the something simply fortuous for him/her as it turned out? Would the person have taken that position without the politics being mixed in? Hutson does not provide any supporting commentary for that question which an investigative reporter might have done.

But you did provide a credible source for your point. Thank you.

Jefferson was not really a churchgoer, from everything I have read. This does not mean he had no religion, of course. He became a church regular in 1801, in a very visible way, in response to the referenced damaging charges, I think. This does not make him a hypocrite, provided he was indeed religious.

Do you remember there were questions about Ronald Reagan in the eighties? He believed in a God, but rarely went to church, which made some people curious as to the depth of his religious beliefs. As I remember, though, (this is all from memory, I may have some details wrong) he did not change his habits. I wish Jefferson had done the same. Like he said below, his beliefs were between him and his God. So, if the show was only for political reasons, I find fault with it, but it doesn't make him any less the Founder or President.

I was going to stop with the last sentence, because you were so polite in your last post, but I am compelled to maintain that the use of the building and venue where he began these services was not right.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Jefferson was not really a churchgoer, from everything I have read. This does not mean he had no religion, of course. He became a church regular in 1801, in a very visible way, in response to the referenced damaging charges, I think. This does not make him a hypocrite, provided he was indeed religious.

Do you remember there were questions about Ronald Reagan in the eighties? He believed in a God, but rarely went to church, which made some people curious as to the depth of his religious beliefs. As I remember, though, (this is all from memory, I may have some details wrong) he did not change his habits. I wish Jefferson had done the same. Like he said below, his beliefs were between him and his God. So, if the show was only for political reasons, I find fault with it, but it doesn't make him any less the Founder or President.

Yes, and I was listening in when Reagan explained that he didn't go to Church because there was no Church he could go to without disrupting the service what with all the extra security, secret service, and the entourage of reporters. Those who hated Reagan didn't buy it citing that other presidents didn't let all that stop them. I didn't hate Reagan and I believed him.

I was going to stop with the last sentence, because you were so polite in your last post, but I am compelled to maintain that the use of the building and venue where he began these services was not right.

Not right to you because, based on your comments, you don't want anything religious associated with government in any way. Perfectly right to me who apparently defines 'establishment' completely differently than you do and do not consider religious art, music, symbols, slogans, or mottos, representing the culture and history of our nation, to violate the establishment clause in any way.

 

[tryreading]

Not right to you because, based on your comments, you don't want anything religious associated with government in any way. Perfectly right to me who apparently defines 'establishment' completely differently than you do and do not consider religious art, music, symbols, slogans, or mottos, representing the culture and history of our nation, to violate the establishment clause in any way.

I did not indicate that 'I don't want anything religious associated with government in any way.' A couple of posts ago I talked about a couple of ways religion is associated with government, and they are fine and legal. There are many other ways too.

I do not consider most religious practices to be in violation of anything. Placement of symbols and monuments in state buildings, led prayer in schools, and other overt efforts (and covert efforts) are in violation, I think.

 

[Columbusite]

Certainly. If a majority of the people want no religious references in any form of government, then all religious references should be gone. But the atheists should not be able to promote their doctrine either. The government is constitutionally mandated to be neutral.

And if a majority of the people do want religious references in government or on government properties that they collectively own and finance, then they should have them; however, these should be of a cultural and historical nature so as not to promote a specific religion and nobody, not even the atheists, who want to be excluded should be excluded. The ACLU seems to be promoting non-religion or atheism against the will of a huge majority, and that is just wrong.

Jesus H. Christ. How many times to I have to point this out? A RELIGIOUSLY NEUTRAL GOVERNMENT ≠ A PRO-ATHEIST GOVERNMENT. The problem here is your understanding of "neutral". Allowing no religious symbols or all, including non-religious symbols, are what I'd say are neutral stances. The ACLU promoting no religion in government is in no way the same as promoting Atheism. If this was the case, I'd have a huge beef with them. Now just to clear things up, define your definition of "neutral".

It is impossible to put Christian symbols all over government building and have them seen as just historical or cultural. They are RELIGIOUS and are seen as such not only by non-believers, but especially by Christians themselves. Hence the "We are a Christian nation" and "This country was founded on the Bible" BS that is spouted by a number of Christians.I saw a quote that perfectly sums up my point of view, "To make a religious statement is to make a religious choice." Looking at the actions of some Christians it is obvious they want that choice to be made by the government.

Oh, did you pass on that info about that fringe group to your friends? If so, I'd like to know the reaction and if not, please do.

Lastly, just admit that you in fact are not as knowledgeable of Ingersoll as you claimed and that your comparison of Rosa Parks sitting in the front of the bus to Christians such as Moore sticking a particular religious symbol on government property is not a very good analogy. In case you didn't notice, Christians are free to practice their religion whenever, wherever. Not to mention just about every president was a Christian. I hope you can see how I tire very quickly of these claims of Christian "persecution" in this country.

 

[Duke]

Can anyone answer this? Does the ACLU defend the "right" to burn the AMERICAN flag?

*coughconstitutioncough*


Duke

 

[Donkey1499]

But aren't you supposed to burn the flag when it's old and tattered as a means of disposal?
What about a flag on a tee-shirt? or a flag smiley? :hm

More importantly, how about a flag made for slave wages in Saipen displaying the "Made In America" label?

I might think about burning that one myself to protest forced prostitution and forced labor in a country that is granted US Citzenship.

It really depends on the situation. If they're burning it to retire it, fine. But if they're burning it because of some stupid protest against America, then it is anti-American.

 

[steen]

You cannot 'prove' intelligent design or make a case for it using objective criteria, but that does not mean that it does not exist. You can't 'prove' Darwin's theory either, but you can use objective criteria to make a very good case for it.

Darwin voiced a hypothesis. It didn't become a Scientific theory until it was processed through the Scientific method, which thus generated The Scientific Theory of Evolution.

In other words, no religious beliefs were promoted, solid science was taught, and no child was diminished or made to feel an outcast because of his/her religious beliefs no matter what they were.

Yes, such sensitivity. We should extend that to those kids whose religion dictates that the Earth is flat, right?

 

[steen]

ANYONE who thinks the ACLU does good is just as sick as the org. itself.

:2dance: Trolling, trolling, trolling. Keep that trolling rolling (set to appropriate music)

 

[steen]

I think my about post just about says it all. Think about it, the ACLU stands for EVERYTHING wrong. But those of you in the nipple ring set might like some of those things....

Trolling, trolling, trolling. Keep that trolling rolling (set to appropriate music)