Author Topic: ACLU: Did you know.... (Read 1639 times)

Gunslinger · « **Reply #75 on:** December 20, 2004, 08:08:09 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by -MZ-
Wrong.

The ACLU stops public officials from using their government powers to promote a religion.

Got it?

I'm all for that. Show me examples of ACTUALLY promoting religion and I will agree with that.

But what does that have to do with the ACLU going after the Boy Scouts? What does this have to do with the ACLU wanting to remove historical references to religion?

The ACLU is against religion IMHO. yes there are a FEW cases were they actually defended a client.........oops I should refrase that.....there are a FEW cases were the ACLU defended an ACTUAL client, and even more were they defended one against religious descrimination.

The ACLU is now owned by the secularist left who want all aspects of any kind of religion to be removed from public life for the simple reason with out religious morals their leftist agenda can be acted on more.

rpm · « **Reply #76 on:** December 20, 2004, 09:55:02 PM »

Ok, let me try to give you an example of what America would be like without the ACLU. Go to Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia. Walk out into the middle of the street and start preaching Christianity. You will notice the difference quickly.

Gunslinger · « **Reply #77 on:** December 20, 2004, 11:28:27 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by rpm
Ok, let me try to give you an example of what America would be like without the ACLU. Go to Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia. Walk out into the middle of the street and start preaching Christianity. You will notice the difference quickly.

So you are saying that in order for us to have our CONSTITUTIONALLY GARUNTEED RIGHTS! we need the ACLU and without the ACLU we would not have ANY RIGHTS at all? Funny all this time I thaught it was the people that gave us our rights by empowering the govt when all this time is was the ACLUs lawsuits.

RPM do me a favor and look around your room.....make sure there isn't any open paint cans sitting around.

Ping · « **Reply #78 on:** December 21, 2004, 02:39:05 AM »

I really hate to admit it, I agree with Rip.

And this is not just an American problem.

Suave · « **Reply #79 on:** December 21, 2004, 02:51:26 AM »

The constitution doesn't guarantee our rights, and empowering the government diminishes our rights. And if they were really were out to destroy the friends of jesus they should probably stop defending their rights to excercise their religion.

So far nobody's shown me that the ACLU is a bad organization. The one example of the boyscouts in the park isn't enough to outweigh all the good that they've done in my opinion.
I'm seeing the flake factor arrise, "they're trying to destroy christianity, homosexuals are mentally ill and dangers to children."

rpm · « **Reply #80 on:** December 21, 2004, 03:37:52 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Gunslinger
So you are saying that in order for us to have our CONSTITUTIONALLY GARUNTEED RIGHTS! we need the ACLU and without the ACLU we would not have ANY RIGHTS at all? Funny all this time I thaught it was the people that gave us our rights by empowering the govt when all this time is was the ACLUs lawsuits.

RPM do me a favor and look around your room.....make sure there isn't any open paint cans sitting around.

Guns, the ACLU is the people. If you don't have a watchdog guarding those constitutional rights, they will disappear. Remember Sen. Joseph McCarthy and his witch hunt?
The ACLU works the judicial branch to ensure those rights remain in effect. Lest ye forget, it does not matter who's rights they fight for, including Rush Limbaugh.

Suppose a law was passed by some small town or state saying all public school children MUST say an Islamic prayer before classes? How about a school refusing your children admittance based solely on the color of their skin? Maybe a law banning preachers from holding public office? Or a law that forbid you from placing a "For Sale" sign in front of your house?

Here is a list of landmark cases the ACLU has been involved with. Frontiero v. Richardson should be of particular interest to you.

Ripsnort · « **Reply #81 on:** December 21, 2004, 07:16:46 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by SOB
Well, I do remember that they had a reporter that was making up stories, that they canned. That doesn't make me assume that every story they publish is a lie. If you do, why did you use their story for your post?

Quote

Originally posted by Ripsnort
Feel free to discount the story considering its the New York Times.

here

Ripsnort · « **Reply #82 on:** December 21, 2004, 07:18:41 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Ping
I really hate to admit it, I agree with Rip.

And this is not just an American problem.

I'll make it less painful for you:

You agree with the story that the ACLU is practicing double standards as reported.

Ripsnort · « **Reply #83 on:** December 21, 2004, 07:20:25 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by rpm
Guns, the ACLU is the people. If you don't have a watchdog guarding those constitutional rights, they will disappear. Remember Sen. Joseph McCarthy and his witch hunt?
The ACLU works the judicial branch to ensure those rights remain in effect. Lest ye forget, it does not matter who's rights they fight for, including Rush Limbaugh.

Suppose a law was passed by some small town or state saying all public school children MUST say an Islamic prayer before classes? How about a school refusing your children admittance based solely on the color of their skin? Maybe a law banning preachers from holding public office? Or a law that forbid you from placing a "For Sale" sign in front of your house?

Here is a list of landmark cases the ACLU has been involved with. Frontiero v. Richardson should be of particular interest to you.

rpm, the ACLU is very selective of who's rights they defend. They may have been useful back in the '60's when their political agenda didn't stink like a wet dog, but I truly believe they need to be restructured bottom up.

Anyway, I'm off to school...

Ping · « **Reply #84 on:** December 21, 2004, 08:21:06 AM »

Both comments.
Double standards and they've not only outlived their usefulness, but carry a political agenda that propogates income for their organizations.

lazs2 · « **Reply #85 on:** December 21, 2004, 08:42:02 AM »

I worry about very strong religions with a lot of power but I worry a lot more about an organization of lawyers with an agenda.

I want less power for lawyers not more. I fear lawyers more than christians. I think the ACLU does more harm than christains or boy scouts do to me. I do not agree with about 90% of the views most lawyers hold. I believe in god given rights and I believe in tort reform. I believe that the government can't grant me rights... only take them away. I am more offended by two men kissing than I am by a ntivity scene or statue of budda or whatever.

lazs

-MZ- · « **Reply #86 on:** December 21, 2004, 12:23:03 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Why would the ACLU be for a religious group using a park on the east coast, and against it on the west coast?

Because they are different issues.

1st Amendment provides for freedom of association and assembly. In 'the public square' or land set aside for public assembly, the GOVERNMENT cannot pick and choose which organization will be allowed to exercise their first amendment rights. So if the Boy Scouts want to use a public park, they have every right to do so.

The 1st Amendment also provides that the government may not respect the establishment of a religion. This means that the GOVERNMENT may not extend preferential treatment to a particluar religious organization. The courts have held that the Boy Scouts are in fact a religious organization, and therefore they are not entitled to special treatment and exclusive public benefits at the whim of elected officials.

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #87 on:** December 21, 2004, 01:14:51 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by -MZ-
Because they are different issues.

...

The courts have held that the Boy Scouts are in fact a religious organization, and therefore they are not entitled to special treatment and exclusive public benefits at the whim of elected officials.

But Balboa Park is leased to other religious organizations...

Quote

The City leases public property to religious organizations (e.g., San Diego Calvary Korean Church, the Point Loma Community Presbyterian Church, the Jewish Community Center, the Salvation Army). The City also leases to organizations that limit their membership or services based on race or ethnicity (e.g., the Vietnamese Federation of San Diego, the Black Police Officer’s Association), sex (e.g., Girls Scouts), and age (e.g., Camp Fire USA San Diego County Council, ElderHelp of San Diego, Inc.).

The City leases to all of these nonprofit organizations without regard to their religious or moral viewpoints or their internal membership requirements. Nondiscrimination provisions of the City’s leases with nonprofits regulate access to the properties by the community but do not apply to the lessees’ internal policies.

So the ACLU doesn't object to San Diego's leasing policy, just apparently the Boy Scouts.

-MZ- · « **Reply #88 on:** December 21, 2004, 01:38:49 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
But Balboa Park is leased to other religious organizations...

I have a strong suspicion those leases you cited are made with public bidding at 'market rates'.

Maybe you know about the Mt. Soledad Cross fight which is also in San Diego (but not Balboa park)?

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #89 on:** December 21, 2004, 01:41:15 PM »

San Diego Calvary Korean Church, the Point Loma Community Presbyterian Church, the Jewish Community Center, the Salvation Army