 
Jiminnm
Member
Username: Jiminnm
Post Number: 1580
Registered: 02-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, January 27, 2008 - 10:55 pm: |    |
Actually Oldred, the ACLU is defending those rights that fit into whatever their agenda happens to be. Others are basically ignored.
Here in New Mexico, they have contested symbols in some cities' logos that could be construed as Christian (such as the crosses in Las Cruces). Many cities have told the ACLU to kiss off, because some have been around since the time, or before, the Bill of Rights was ratified. As a result, the ACLU has backed off. The ACLU is not currently held in high regard here.
I stopped contributing to the ACLU 12-15 years ago when they appear to have changed their agenda to defending certain rights and not others. |
Ferntruth
Member
Username: Ferntruth
Post Number: 314
Registered: 11-2006
| | Posted on Monday, January 28, 2008 - 12:41 pm: | |
"Actually Oldred, the ACLU is defending those rights that fit into whatever their agenda happens to be. Others are basically ignored"
As someone who is actually involved in the ACLU, and actually contributes money to them, I think you are missing the mark on this.
The ACLU simply cannot take on every case that is presented to them. They don't have unlimited resources.
It's not my role to defend the ACLU (nor do I think they need defending), but I always smile at those organizations or individuals who hate the ACLU until the ACLU takes on a case thats important to them - then suddenly, they don't hate the ACLU quite as much.
Bottom line for me is this: I sleep MUCH better at night knowing the ACLU exists, than I would if it wasn't around. |
Oldredfordette
Member
Username: Oldredfordette
Post Number: 3726
Registered: 02-2004
| | Posted on Monday, January 28, 2008 - 1:21 pm: | |
I heard the Saturday event went very well.
Jiminnm and Sstash, do you understand how the ACLU gets cases to present? |
Johnlodge
Member
Username: Johnlodge
Post Number: 4837
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 28, 2008 - 1:23 pm: | |
Many citizens of Berkeley were mad when the ACLU threatened action there regarding the Christmas display at city hall. They felt the residents of Berkeley were perfectly capable of deciding things for themselves, within their own governmental structure, without a large national organization coming in. Things like that are what leave a sour taste in some people's mouths regarding the ACLU. In the end, Berkeley did decide for itself, but likely only because it went the way the ACLU wanted.
The perception here is that Berkeley is a small community. Way too small to have something as large as the ACLU injected into their decision making process without seeming like "outsiders with an agenda".
More recently, the ACLU decided to pipe in regarding protesters encouraging drivers to honk on the corner of 9 mile and Woodward in Ferndale. Ferndale, which everybody knows is a fairly progressive city, felt that honking should be reserved for traffic safety reasons, and served as a distraction when used unnecessarily. Again, I think the citizens and council of Ferndale can decide what ordinances they want regarding inciting people to honk. |
Diehard
Member
Username: Diehard
Post Number: 252
Registered: 03-2005
| | Posted on Monday, January 28, 2008 - 1:31 pm: | |
Well said, ferntruth.
As for the 2nd Amendment, if I recall correctly, the ACLU challenged a law banning gun ownership in the Chicago housing projects in the '90s.
They tend to get a lot more ink for taking on "fringe" causes (like when the KKK wants to march, or church-state separation issues), but that's only because in those cases, politicians are too spineless and the general populace is too clueless to stand up and declare that the Constitution applies to everyone.
Politicians secretly love the ACLU because it's a good source for conservative rallying causes - like the good ol' "War on Christmas." (That's my favorite.) |
Lefty2
Member
Username: Lefty2
Post Number: 1068
Registered: 07-2007
| | Posted on Friday, February 01, 2008 - 9:06 am: | |
^ Just the opposite, the ACLU is a joke, the reason they take on fringe causes is so they can get attention and more donations from their fringe constituents. I have liked quite a few of the cases the aclu have taken on, but, most of their lawyers are of eastern european liberal leaning and have an agenda to overturn laws they don't agree with. |
Ferntruth
Member
Username: Ferntruth
Post Number: 341
Registered: 11-2006
| | Posted on Friday, February 01, 2008 - 10:08 am: | |
Just the opposite, the ACLU is a joke, the reason they take on fringe causes is so they can get attention and more donations from their fringe constituents. I have liked quite a few of the cases the aclu have taken on, but, most of their lawyers are of eastern european liberal leaning and have an agenda to overturn laws they don't agree with."
Why would ANY organization who lives primarily on donations deliberately only take on "fringe" cases in order to get donations from "fringe constituents", thereby omitting the vastly larger pool of potential doners from liberals and moderates (yes, it's true! It's not just liberals who support the ACLU)? We'll have to disagree on that Lefty, since that does not seem very likely.
"More recently, the ACLU decided to pipe in regarding protesters encouraging drivers to honk on the corner of 9 mile and Woodward in Ferndale. Ferndale, which everybody knows is a fairly progressive city, felt that honking should be reserved for traffic safety reasons, and served as a distraction when used unnecessarily. Again, I think the citizens and council of Ferndale can decide what ordinances they want regarding inciting people to honk."
I understand the point you are trying to make about Ferndale and Berkeley. However, I think you miss the bigger point. If left to the individuals in the city, most issues that threaten civil liberties would go relatively unchallenged (IMO) since who has the resources and time (and ability) to fight it in court? Cities would simply drag out the process, as they have much more resources at their disposal.
As Progressive as Ferndale is NOW, it certainly was not that way when the horn honking law was passed. So, I don't think it's fair to imply that Progressive Ferndale supports the law by its continued existence. I've lived in Ferndale for a decade and a half, and it certainly was not always the great city it is today. =)
Interestingly enough, the Judge recently decided in the Ferndale case that the horn honking ordinance did violate First Amendment rights. |
Oldredfordette
Member
Username: Oldredfordette
Post Number: 3774
Registered: 02-2004
| | Posted on Friday, February 01, 2008 - 10:12 am: | |
What does "most of their lawyers are of eastern european liberal leaning" mean? Sounds like code to me. |
Rb336
Member
Username: Rb336
Post Number: 4926
Registered: 02-2007
| | Posted on Friday, February 01, 2008 - 10:29 am: | |
"Why would ANY organization who lives primarily on donations deliberately only take on "fringe" cases"
you are obviously living in total ignorance of the work of the ACLU. the are the ONLY group out their whose entire existence is predicated on defense of our constitution and the bill of rights. Protecting those "fringe" groups is the only way to prevent tyranny:
(Pastor Martin Niemöller)
When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out |
Sstashmoo
Member
Username: Sstashmoo
Post Number: 1005
Registered: 02-2007
| | Posted on Friday, February 01, 2008 - 11:06 am: | |
Quote: "you are obviously living in total ignorance of the work of the ACLU. the are the ONLY group out their whose entire existence is predicated on defense of our constitution and the bill of rights."
Any free thinking individual is all for that. It's when they get off on nativity scenes and the display of the ten commandments in public places and other idiocies that they lose favor. They are a joke, plain and simple. And anyone who gets upset about viewing the ten commandments is just hateful and psychotic.
Rb, the ACLU clearly has an agenda. And it's sure as hell not mine. |
Ferntruth
Member
Username: Ferntruth
Post Number: 342
Registered: 11-2006
| | Posted on Friday, February 01, 2008 - 11:18 am: | |
"you are obviously living in total ignorance of the work of the ACLU. the are the ONLY group out their whose entire existence is predicated on defense of our constitution and the bill of rights. Protecting those "fringe" groups is the only way to prevent tyranny"
Rb, why accuse me of total ignorance, and then go on to AGREE with me? I SUPPORT the ACLU. My point was in disagreement with Lefty's that the ACLU takes on ONLY fringe cases. IMO that is untrue.
No need to quote Pastor Niemoller to me, I'm a Jew who lost relatives in the Holocaust - I'm quite familiar with it.
" And anyone who gets upset about viewing the ten commandments is just hateful and psychotic. "
I have no problem viewing the Mitzvot, all 613 of them. I just don't agree that it should be in public so that EVERYONE has to view them.
Houses of Worship are the appropriate place for that viewing. Just as I think that Government should stay out of Religion, I think Religion should stay out of Government. |
Rb336
Member
Username: Rb336
Post Number: 4931
Registered: 02-2007
| | Posted on Friday, February 01, 2008 - 11:19 am: | |
let's put it this way:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"
Why should MY tax dollars go towards something promoting YOUR religion? sorry, bub, that is not right. can we use YOUR tax dollars to put up monuments to Hinduism or a giant Buddha? |
Lefty2
Member
Username: Lefty2
Post Number: 1071
Registered: 07-2007
| | Posted on Friday, February 01, 2008 - 11:33 am: | |
RB336, You forgot the next sentence.
"or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The ACLU is prohibiting the free exercise thereof and abridging the right of the people.
When the Nazi's marched in Skokie, what did you do?
Why should my tax dollars go to liberals who want me to pay for their stupid art, or dumb begathon radio stations like NPR that no one listens to etc. Why should tax dollars go to putting in religious baths at a public University,
"ACLU. the are the ONLY group out their whose entire existence is predicated on defense of our constitution and the bill of rights."
- You obviously have no clue what you are talking about. |
Rb336
Member
Username: Rb336
Post Number: 4932
Registered: 02-2007
| | Posted on Friday, February 01, 2008 - 11:54 am: | |
there is no "prohibiting the free exercise" being done. there is a HUGE difference between keeping the government from promoting religion and prohibiting practice of the religion. The ACLU has, in fact, backed groups leasing the public space for religious use.
show me one instance when the ACLU tried to stop the free exercise clause. you have made it very clear that you are in total ignorance of what they do. |
Lefty2
Member
Username: Lefty2
Post Number: 1072
Registered: 07-2007
| | Posted on Friday, February 01, 2008 - 3:10 pm: | |
The ACLPeww wants NO religious symbols on public property, no matter what the cost.
The ACLEewww (publicly) preferred religion is Atheism.
Just because a religious thing takes place on public land does not mean the government promotes it. Just as when all these protester's go on public land and spew their crap.
On the one hand they promote tolerance, on the other they don't want certain type of speech being spoken, very intolerant.
They obviously do not truly believe in the First Amendment. The first Amendment was to protect religion from government intrusion, not to squash it when some people deem it intolerable.
Why is the ACLWho SO VERY SELECTIVE as to what cases they will take?
What laws are being made or religions established when a religious symbol is temporarily put in a public square?
In fact if you go down that line, why not promote taking all signs off all religious buildings because they are not paying "their (Clinton's) fair share of taxes". |
Oldredfordette
Member
Username: Oldredfordette
Post Number: 3783
Registered: 02-2004
| | Posted on Friday, February 01, 2008 - 3:16 pm: | |
Wrong, wrong and wrong. Try doing a little research about the work of the ACLU and the method they use to determine what cases to accept, then come on back here. |
Rb336
Member
Username: Rb336
Post Number: 4939
Registered: 02-2007
| | Posted on Friday, February 01, 2008 - 3:26 pm: | |
"Just because a religious thing takes place on public land does not mean the government promotes it."
oh barely literate one, if you paid attention you would know that the ACLU has backed the right of religious groups to rent space from govts for whatever -including nativity scenes, etc
you are VERY selective, as your ilk are,in reading the first amendment which seeks to prevent govt involvement in ANY WAY with religion, whether repressing or promoting it.
when a government has a religious image, etc on its property it is promoting a religion
as for your last line, that is simply reductio ad absurdum |
Diehard
Member
Username: Diehard
Post Number: 287
Registered: 03-2005
| | Posted on Friday, February 01, 2008 - 3:57 pm: | |
It's actually pretty simple: Religion stays out of government, and government stays out of religion, period. That means no Ten Commandments on the public courthouse lawn. If you want them in front of the church next door, or on a billboard, on your front lawn, on a bumper sticker or tshirt, have at it. That's your free exercise, on your own dime, in your own place.
Whether somebody's "offended" is not the issue. That's Bill O'Reilly's Kool-Aid, and it works to drum up votes for Bible-thumping candidates, but it's wrong. They're preying on the Christian persecution complex (and willful ignorance, in most cases) and it works.
And please don't pull out the old "but the Ten Commandments are on the Supreme Court building!" People who do that don't know how to use Google.
IMHO, The ACLU shouldn't have to waste its time on the whole religion/government thing, but people just don't seem to get it. |
Johnlodge
Member
Username: Johnlodge
Post Number: 4932
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 01, 2008 - 4:22 pm: | |
I'm not an Aethiest, but I don't see why my, or anybody else's religion, needs to be displayed by the government. This is a government of the people, by the people, for the people. Not by God, of God, for God. There are churches and temples and synagogues and mosques all over the place, nobody is having their freedom to exercise their religion repressed. We have a fantastic system here for accomodating all sorts of faiths. There is no reason to get greedy about it. |
Lefty2
Member
Username: Lefty2
Post Number: 1080
Registered: 07-2007
| | Posted on Saturday, February 02, 2008 - 1:31 pm: | |
I know ACLU lawyers in LA, don't even give me they accept all qualified cases. |
Irish_mafia
Member
Username: Irish_mafia
Post Number: 1199
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 02, 2008 - 1:39 pm: | |
Freedom of Religion...not from it.
In God we trust, One nation under God...if you don't like it, go to a nice country formed by Atheists... |
Oldredfordette
Member
Username: Oldredfordette
Post Number: 3792
Registered: 02-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, February 02, 2008 - 2:39 pm: | |
Like this one? |
Sstashmoo
Member
Username: Sstashmoo
Post Number: 1010
Registered: 02-2007
| | Posted on Saturday, February 02, 2008 - 2:51 pm: | |
Just curious when all the concerned are going to start crying about the open display of Christianity on our road sides. Public display of crosses and crucifixes. I know it just grinds them to no end to know 80% of population doesn't agree with them.
Our president and government holds a lighting of the menora ceremony every year in the whitehouse, where is the outrage? Where is the ACLU on that one?
All these jerk lawyers running around suing everyone over bullshit has made us the laughing stock of the rest of the world. People in Europe that have one faucet in their house that takes care of the tub, sink and toilet, and we have people in our country crying about a nativity scene.
Irish, You are exactly right. I think our government needs to get more involved with righteous thinking, instead of less. Yes, a nice country formed by atheists, which is an oxymoron. |
Alan55
Member
Username: Alan55
Post Number: 1192
Registered: 09-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, February 02, 2008 - 3:49 pm: | |
Freedom of Religion...not from it.
(No - One Nation, Indifferent to Religion.)
In God we trust, One nation under God...if you don't like it, go to a nice country formed by Atheists...
- Or, you can go to a country that actually was formed by religious fanatics....like Iran, or Saudi Arabia. Take your burka. |
Rb336
Member
Username: Rb336
Post Number: 4959
Registered: 02-2007
| | Posted on Monday, February 04, 2008 - 9:48 am: | |
Jefferson, Adams (both) Franklin, Paine -- all denounced at some point by "mainstream" religious leaders as heretics. |
Lefty2
Member
Username: Lefty2
Post Number: 1085
Registered: 07-2007
| | Posted on Monday, February 04, 2008 - 1:03 pm: | |
The ACLU supposedly protects the constitution, yet they support preferential treatment based on one's melanin content. |
Diehard
Member
Username: Diehard
Post Number: 289
Registered: 03-2005
| | Posted on Monday, February 04, 2008 - 1:39 pm: | |
Just curious when all the concerned are going to start crying about the open display of Christianity on our road sides. Public display of crosses and crucifixes. I know it just grinds them to no end to know 80% of population doesn't agree with them.
Billboards? Privately paid for and put up on private property? Perfectly legal, no problem. The only possible legal issue would be local sign ordinances, if they're too tall or too brightly lit. Again, you're drinking Bill O'Reilly's Kool-Aid and assuming the problem is that someone's "offended."
Or did you mean those tacky roadside "memorials" that people put up at fatal crash sites? They're illegal (for safety reasons, and it's technically littering), but they're put up by ordinary people without any official permission, and there seems to be a reluctance to take them down out of respect for the dead. Personally, I'd love to see them all gone, but not on religious grounds.
To review: Publicly-funded religious displays on public property? Nope, sorry. Privately-funded religious displays on private property? Knock yourself out. |
Lefty2
Member
Username: Lefty2
Post Number: 1162
Registered: 07-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, February 14, 2008 - 10:26 am: | |
Why doesn't the ACLU fight against religious foot baths at U of M. Are they scared they might get blown up? |
Rb336
Member
Username: Rb336
Post Number: 5144
Registered: 02-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, February 14, 2008 - 10:34 am: | |
from the ACLU:
"[T]he issue of the University of Michigan Dearborn installing footbaths is complicated. This issue would be simpler if the government were building inherently religious facilities. Here, the footbaths are not inherently religious facilities -- they are not blessed, cannot be desecrated and are open to everyone for any purpose. They are essentially spigots in the bathroom wall." |
Lefty2
Member
Username: Lefty2
Post Number: 1166
Registered: 07-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, February 14, 2008 - 11:37 am: | |
so why did they need them again? |
New threads cannot be started on this page. The threads above are previous posts made to this thread.