Does the ACLU do more harm than good?

[Donkey1499]

The ten comandments aren't required in a courthouse to conduct business. I don't give a **** about leaving the ones that are already there, there, but its retarded to use tax payers money to put up religious symbols in the courthouse when we aren't supposed to do so. Historical Shmistorical, We still don't need it there. Any small religious symbol around our government is always defended by, ITS HISTORICAL! We could find many more appropriate HISTORICAL symbols to put around our government buildings.

As for the comment about the Crosses and Veterans Cemetaries. The veterans cemetary at Camp Lejune, where my grandpa and grandma are buried, have some old tombstones in the old school tombstone shape, and then the flat landmarkers. On the land markers each veteran has his/her own religious symbol on it. There is nothing wrong with that. Ive seen stars of david, christian crosses, islamic moon cresent thingies... There is nothing wrong with burying a veteran under his/her own religious symbol.

As for this post up here, again, your only using the cases that are unpopular in your arguments. NAMBLA, Islamics, the Patriot Act, and the whole speil on our 'HISTORIC' (yea right) religious symbols on government property.

I have one question, Is it really wrong to have an organization that is meant to protect the rights of the people? To make sure that government (local,state, or federal) isn't violating thier own constitutions? Is that so bad? Would you rather HAVE a totalitarian state?

Even the unpopular minorities deserve thier rights, thats what our form of republic is for. Your type of thinking on the other hand would lead someone to believe that only the majority rules in everything. So if 4 jurors don't believe a man is guilty, who gives a **** cause the rest of us do right?
We would still have slavery or segregated schools if this were true.

Could you please give me a definition of a "minority"?

 

[Donkey1499]

a group that's not the majority

DERRRRRRRR! I knew that. I wanted to see what Caine's opinion was. I know it's gonna be something about race. Like, "Duhhhh.... blacks are minorities and so are hispanics.... hahahahahahahahaaaaaaaa..... Derp de derp!":rofl

 

[Caine]

Could you please give me a definition of a "minority"?

A minority is anyone who is not the majority....rofl.

This could be a race, a certain religion with a small number of practitioners in the country/state. This could be cricket players in the USA.... jesus, just about anyone who isn't the majority in an area.

This could ALSO be those who aren't liked, example child molesters, they aren't liked, but they still have rights that should not be violated. I don't like child molesters, I'd like to slice thier balls off with my ginsu, but, they, like everyone else, are protected by rights in the constitution reguarding court proceedings and free speach, etc. No, Im not saying child molestation is covered by the constitution (for you airheads out there who only see things in black and white). This, sadly enough, could also be citizens of the USA who have decided they wanted to be terrorists and bomb ****. They are still covered because they are citizens, thus they have rights given to them in the constitution reguarding court proceedings. No, im NOT talking about bail, cause bail isn't a right (again for you idiots who can't read).

 

[jamesrage]

Originally Posted by Caine
The ten comandments aren't required in a courthouse to conduct business. I don't give a **** about leaving the ones that are already there, there, but its retarded to use tax payers money to put up religious symbols in the courthouse when we aren't supposed to do so. Historical Shmistorical, We still don't need it there. Any small religious symbol around our government is always defended by, ITS HISTORICAL! We could find many more appropriate HISTORICAL symbols to put around our government buildings.

What about voter initiatives to put up such religious symbols?
What about a group of private citizens who decided to pay for and take care of what ever religious monument?

As for the comment about the Crosses and Veterans Cemetaries. The veterans cemetary at Camp Lejune, where my grandpa and grandma are buried, have some old tombstones in the old school tombstone shape, and then the flat landmarkers. On the land markers each veteran has his/her own religious symbol on it. There is nothing wrong with that. Ive seen stars of david, christian crosses, islamic moon cresent thingies... There is nothing wrong with burying a veteran under his/her own religious symbol.

Good thing there is not a ACLU over in Normandy

As for this post up here, again, your only using the cases that are unpopular in your arguments. NAMBLA, Islamics, the Patriot Act, and the whole speil on our 'HISTORIC' (yea right) religious symbols on government property.

I have one question, Is it really wrong to have an organization that is meant to protect the rights of the people? To make sure that government (local,state, or federal) isn't violating thier own constitutions? Is that so bad? Would you rather HAVE a totalitarian state?

Over the years the government has made a lot of laws we do not like.EX PARTE QUIRIN,Sedition Act of 1918,Espionage Act of 1917 and few others like them.We know in a time of war the government does things to protect it's citizens.Reguardless of what type of government a country has, it's main responsibility is to protect it's citizens.

Even the unpopular minorities deserve thier rights, thats what our form of republic is for.

UNpopular?You make the pedophiling vermin seem as though they are like Band Geeks or the Chess Club or those nerds who enjoy starwars or play D&D.

Your type of thinking on the other hand would lead someone to believe that only the majority rules in everything. So if 4 jurors don't believe a man is guilty, who gives a **** cause the rest of us do right?
We would still have slavery or segregated schools if this were true.

Can you show me a voter initiative results for segregation or Slavery?

 

[Donkey1499]

A minority is anyone who is not the majority....rofl.

This could be a race, a certain religion with a small number of practitioners in the country/state. This could be cricket players in the USA.... jesus, just about anyone who isn't the majority in an area.

This could ALSO be those who aren't liked, example child molesters, they aren't liked, but they still have rights that should not be violated. I don't like child molesters, I'd like to slice thier balls off with my ginsu, but, they, like everyone else, are protected by rights in the constitution reguarding court proceedings and free speach, etc. No, Im not saying child molestation is covered by the constitution (for you airheads out there who only see things in black and white). This, sadly enough, could also be citizens of the USA who have decided they wanted to be terrorists and bomb ****. They are still covered because they are citizens, thus they have rights given to them in the constitution reguarding court proceedings. No, im NOT talking about bail, cause bail isn't a right (again for you idiots who can't read).

Ya, I knew what a minority was, I just wanted to see if you'd go all flipping and say that anyone who isn't a rich, white christian is a minority. But you didn't.

Now, if I was the only white person in a black neighborhood, would that make me a minority? (of course it would, but what's your take on it?)

 

[Caine]

Ya, I knew what a minority was, I just wanted to see if you'd go all flipping and say that anyone who isn't a rich, white christian is a minority. But you didn't.

Now, if I was the only white person in a black neighborhood, would that make me a minority? (of course it would, but what's your take on it?)

Hell yeah that would make you a minority. And, depending on what kinda town you were in, I'd feel very sorry for you.

But, on the other hand, yes, Whites can be minorities too.
I know a few white people who have recieved a minority scholarship to go to Fayetteville State University or NC A&T University, or NC Central University.

These are just three in my state which are an example of how a white could be a minority in a pre-dominately black school.

 

[Caine]

What about voter initiatives to put up such religious symbols?
What about a group of private citizens who decided to pay for and take care of what ever religious monument?

And, why can't these people who pay for and take care of these monuments have them placed on private land instead of government?

UNpopular?You make the pedophiling vermin seem as though they are like Band Geeks or the Chess Club or those nerds who enjoy starwars or play D&D.

You still haven't shown a reason why pedophiles do not deserve thier constitutional rights.........

 

[Duke]

Personally, i think that the ACLU does do more good than people think they do. They protect student rights in high school, they do the smaller cases you never hear about because they are constntly being overshadowed by their "ultra-liberal" cases like the "under god" debate.

Uber-liberal? Enforcing the Constitution is Uber-Liberal? What does that say about conservatives?


Duke

 

[Duke]

Well the thing is they would defend osama and any other terrorist for that matter. And guess who its mostly run by if not all? Thats right liberals. Who woulda thought.


And that my friend was a post that made sense. The ACLU would be better if it actually stood for 1 thing that america is about.

The ACLU stands for, or defends, the Constitution of the United States of America. Some say that the Constitution is what America stands for. Some also say that when the ACLU stands up for the Constitution that they are being anti-Christian or uber-liberal. They are actually being Pro-Constitution. And if it is the liberals that are leading the ACLU, protecting the Constitution, then my chest swells with pride.

Literally, the ACLU stands for the American Civil Liberties Union. Think
about it.

By the way, Skilmatic, don't believe everything that Michael Savage tells you.


Duke


Yay, Post Number 300!!!

 

[jamesrage]

And, why can't these people who pay for and take care of these monuments have them placed on private land instead of government?

If these private groups are taking care of it, who cares?Do you think they will be standing outside a court house ready to spray you with holy water?

You still haven't shown a reason why pedophiles do not deserve thier constitutional rights.........

With the recent rash of activist judges the one thing I learned is that as long as a judge or a scumbag from the ACLU is clever enoughs the constitution can be interpreted any way the judge wants it.

The way I look at it if you want to be a degenerate scumbag then you give up certian rights.Sort of like if you commit a felony you give up your right to own a gun or join the military.

 

[AlbqOwl]

The ACLU stands for, or defends, the Constitution of the United States of America. Some say that the Constitution is what America stands for. Some also say that when the ACLU stands up for the Constitution that they are being anti-Christian or uber-liberal. They are actually being Pro-Constitution. And if it is the liberals that are leading the ACLU, protecting the Constitution, then my chest swells with pride.

Literally, the ACLU stands for the American Civil Liberties Union. Think
about it.

By the way, Skilmatic, don't believe everything that Michael Savage tells you.


Duke


Yay, Post Number 300!!!

Congratulations on Post 300. Probably many if not most members of the ACLU do see themselves as pro-Constitution, but many others think their view of what is and is not constitutional is based more on skewed notions than anything ever intended by the Constitution.

The Constitution was written and was always intended to allow for the ethics, mores, values, and traditions of the people who are governed under constitutional protections. As those cultural qualities change over time, the amendment process allows the Constitution to adapt. As we have become a more tolerant and inclusive society, adaptions such as the equal rights amendment reflect that. At one point there was prohibition; then a repeal of prohibition when it became obvious that the law did not reflect the cultural values of the people.

The ACLU I think has been guilty of short circuiting that process.

For example, one of our more timeless cultural values has been that young people should be under the authority of adults until they reach the age of majority. That implied that parents and other adults in authority (teachers, principals, police officers, librarians, etc.) get to make the rules and call the shots where minors are concerned. The ACLU however has pushed and pushed for kids to have more and more 'rights' that circumvent adult authority. They have filed suit against dress codes, pushed for minors to get an abortion without parental notification, challenged curfews, and supported kids in lawsuits against their parents. The results have been pretty well 100negative so far as I can see.

If the ACLU were stict originalists and did not seem to attack so many values that many/most Americans cherish, I would view them much more favorably.

 

[Caine]

If these private groups are taking care of it, who cares?Do you think they will be standing outside a court house ready to spray you with holy water?



With the recent rash of activist judges the one thing I learned is that as long as a judge or a scumbag from the ACLU is clever enoughs the constitution can be interpreted any way the judge wants it.

The way I look at it if you want to be a degenerate scumbag then you give up certian rights.Sort of like if you commit a felony you give up your right to own a gun or join the military.

Can you tell me what part of the constitution you interpret that if your a pedophile you give up your rights to the same judicial system as the rest of the country? Can you tell me what part of the constitution you interpret that takes away a pedophile's right to free speach?

As for the other part, the only reason I care is because having private religious groups to pay for and maintain these monuments, and then claim they are not religious but "HISTORICAL" is another way to attempt to diminish the establishment clause. Any time something religious is brought up, christians want to say its "HISTORICAL". That is a load of bull.
Of course, not with your black and white way of interpreting things, you probably think im just an anti-religion athiest who hates religious people. And, I would be pleased to inform you that you are wrong.

 

[jamesrage]

Originally posted by galenrox
So, speaking from a logical place, why do you think that NAMBLA doesn't have constitutional rights?

THey are a pro-pedophiler/child rapist group.Why the **** do you want them in business?

Originally posted by Caine
Can you tell me what part of the constitution you interpret that if your a pedophile you give up your rights to the same judicial system as the rest of the country? Can you tell me what part of the constitution you interpret that takes away a pedophile's right to free speach?

A convicted felon looses his right to own a gun and I guess somewhere the courts have determined this is legal.The Military has basically said no to convicted felons.So I guess the courts have determined that if you commit a felony you give up certain rights and privileges.SO I think a group of sick ****s who are trying to get their extreamly illegal behavior legalized should be silenced since the behavior is illegal.

 

[Duke]

"Congratulations on Post 300."

Thank you!!!

"Probably many if not most members of the ACLU do see themselves as pro-Constitution, but many others think their view of what is and is not constitutional is based more on skewed notions than anything ever intended by the Constitution."

This is unfounded. The people who are not fighting for the Constitution are probably not in the ACLU, or they are not fighting court battles.

"The Constitution was written and was always intended to allow for the ethics, mores, values, and traditions of the people who are governed under constitutional protections. As those cultural qualities change over time, the amendment process allows the Constitution to adapt. As we have become a more tolerant and inclusive society, adaptions such as the equal rights amendment reflect that. At one point there was prohibition; then a repeal of prohibition when it became obvious that the law did not reflect the cultural values of the people."

I think that personal values should not get in the way of freedom and liberty. The ACLU promotes toleration and inclusion. If the majority of the USA was not for toleration of a race, that should not change the laws concerning the specified minority.

"The ACLU I think has been guilty of short circuiting that process.

For example, one of our more timeless cultural values has been that young people should be under the authority of adults until they reach the age of majority. That implied that parents and other adults in authority (teachers, principals, police officers, librarians, etc.) get to make the rules and call the shots where minors are concerned. The ACLU however has pushed and pushed for kids to have more and more 'rights' that circumvent adult authority. They have filed suit against dress codes, pushed for minors to get an abortion without parental notification, challenged curfews, and supported kids in lawsuits against their parents. The results have been pretty well 100negative so far as I can see."

These values are not promoting freedom, and are not represented in the Constitution. All of these cases have to do with that. From your point of view, the results may be negative, but yours is not the only one. They have to do with defending the laws expressed in the Constitution.

"If the ACLU were stict originalists and did not seem to attack so many values that many/most Americans cherish, I would view them much more favorably."

The values that many Americans cherish may not be a good thing from a certain point of view, for instance, a legal view.


Duke

 

[jamesrage]

Originally posted by galenrox
Please, show me examples of quotes of theirs where the ACLU admits to being pro-pedophilert.

I was talking about NAMBLA.

They are fighting for a cause that they believe in. Who are you to say that they should be silenced? you know, you do have the option not to listen.

Again I am talking about NAMBLA.

 

[Caine]

THey are a pro-pedophiler/child rapist group.Why the **** do you want them in business?



A convicted felon looses his right to own a gun and I guess somewhere the courts have determined this is legal.The Military has basically said no to convicted felons.So I guess the courts have determined that if you commit a felony you give up certain rights and privileges.SO I think a group of sick ****s who are trying to get their extreamly illegal behavior legalized should be silenced since the behavior is illegal.

So, should these hippies who want legalization of weed be legally punished as well because they want to speak out?

I still don't see where you are comparing a convicted felon to an organization that represents very poor taste.

 

[jamesrage]

Originally posted by Caine
So, should these hippies who want legalization of weed be legally punished as well because they want to speak out?

Your trying to compare smoking weed to molesting little children?

Most of the idiots who are for the legalization of Marijuana also smoke weed.
Most of the people who are for members of the NRA own guns.
Most of the people who are part of a auto club own a car.
So that would lead me to beleave that the vermin known as NAMBLA participates in molesting little children.

I still don't see where you are comparing a convicted felon to an organization that represents very poor taste.

Are you talking about the ACLU or NAMBLA?I am confused.

 

[Duke]

Are you talking about the ACLU or NAMBLA?I am confused.

Can you seriously not figure it out for yourself?
How sad.


Duke

 

[jamesrage]

Originally Posted by Duke
Can you seriously not figure it out for yourself?
How sad.


Duke

The ACLU is an orginization that represents very poor taste.NAMBLA also is an organization that represents very poor taste.

Although to say that NAMBLA is an orginization that represents poor taste kind of trivializes what the group wants in the same catagory as smoking.
The same could also apply to a orginization that wants to overturn laws designed to protet children.So both groups are scum of the earth despicable vermin.

 

[Duke]

The ACLU is an orginization that represents very poor taste.NAMBLA also is an organization that represents very poor taste.

Although to say that NAMBLA is an orginization that represents poor taste kind of trivializes what the group wants in the same catagory as smoking.
The same could also apply to a orginization that wants to overturn laws designed to protet children.So both groups are scum of the earth despicable vermin.

To say that an organization that protects liberty and the Constitution of the United States of America is "scum of the earth despicable vermin" reflects pretty badly on you.
Well, each to his own.


Duke

 

[The Mark]

To say that an organization that protects liberty and the Constitution of the United States of America is "scum of the earth despicable vermin" reflects pretty badly on you.
Well, each to his own.
Duke

This is what we are debating. Is the ACLU and organization that protects the liberty and the Constitution of the United States of America? To just say that it does this without explaining anything does not further the debate.

Now, I have no idea either way at this time............must find out.

 

[Duke]

This is what we are debating. Is the ACLU and organization that protects the liberty and the Constitution of the United States of America? To just say that it does this without explaining anything does not further the debate.

Now, I have no idea either way at this time............must find out.

In this debate so far, it is given that the ACLU's purpose it to defend the Constitution and protect liberty. (Think American Civil Liberties Union.....)


Duke

 

[The Mark]

Hmm......well, I would be debating if they were living up to their name or not.

But that's just me.

 

[Caine]

Hmm......well, I would be debating if they were living up to their name or not.

But that's just me.

I would say that they are. Given they take extreme cases that these neo-cons like to put all the focus on. Then, in the other cases where they are defending the constitution against religious-ness in the government (for lack of a better term), they act as if the ACLU is trying to destroy our country, and they always throw out the government part and act like the ACLU is trying to take religion out of our society entirely. Thats ridiculous, that would be going against what they stand for, which is the people's right to freedom of speach/religon/etc, Not the government's right to surround themselves in religious symbology and they claim its "historic". There are better "historic" items they can use than christianity.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

I would say that they are. Given they take extreme cases that these neo-cons like to put all the focus on. Then, in the other cases where they are defending the constitution against religious-ness in the government (for lack of a better term), they act as if the ACLU is trying to destroy our country, and they always throw out the government part and act like the ACLU is trying to take religion out of our society entirely. Thats ridiculous, that would be going against what they stand for, which is the people's right to freedom of speach/religon/etc, Not the government's right to surround themselves in religious symbology and they claim its "historic". There are better "historic" items they can use than christianity.

If the extreme cases they take are not the norm why then do they support NAMBLA's right to free speech yet fail to support the rights of the minute men to protest on the border of Mexico, not only did they not support them but actually made public statements denouncing their actions. One day you're going to have to face up to the reality that this organization which was formed with the best of intentions has been hijacked by radicals with an agenda all their own and do not have the best interests of the U.S. at heart.