Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Ripsnort on December 18, 2004, 09:39:13 AM
-
...in this day and age, we can use them as an example of double standard.
A.C.L.U.'s Search for Data on Donors Stirs Privacy Fears
The American Civil Liberties Union is using sophisticated technology to collect a wide variety of information about its members and donors in a fund-raising effort that has ignited a bitter debate over its leaders' commitment to privacy rights.
Some board members say the extensive data collection makes a mockery of the organization's frequent criticism of banks, corporations and government agencies for their practice of accumulating data on people for marketing and other purposes.
-
the aclu making a mockery of itself? How can this be?
lazs
-
but but but its the ACLU....they are the champions of civil rights.....how can this be? :confused:
"Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes"?
-
the end justifies the means...
lazs
-
Other than fanatics, why do people dislike the ACLU ?
-
There are hundred of thousands of human rights violations and cases of injustice in the U.S. The ACLU chooses poorly.
lazs
-
I think Riptroll's tin foil hat has fallen off.
-
Originally posted by rpm
I think Riptroll's tin foil hat has fallen off.
Keep consistent, attack the poster, not the topic. :aok Excellent debate skills!~:rofl :rofl :rofl :cool:
-
I think Laz said it best......they'd rather go after some Govt employee who hangs a Christmas card in her cubical or a city's flag when most people like it or really don't care.......than fight for other REAL injustices of Civil Liberties.
-
Not to mention it seems the ACLU have more of an agenda than really trying to protect peoples' liberty.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Keep consistent, attack the poster, not the topic. :aok Excellent debate skills!~:rofl :rofl :rofl :cool:
Bait is not stinky enough, please try again.
-
So basically the only thing you guys have against them is that they're not aggressive enough? They do right, but not enough?
-
Originally posted by Suave
So basically the only thing you guys have against them is that they're not aggressive enough? They do right, but not enough?
No its the fact that they are Selective about who they go after and what civil liberties they fight for.
-
Isn't prioritizing a good thing?
-
I still don't understand why you guys are against an organization that protects peoples civil liberties. Even if they only try to protect the civil rights of a specific demographic, that's still a good thing. I might understand you better if you give less equivocal answers.
-
How about a link to the full story.
-
I think what he posted pretty much sums it up SOB.
ACLU members are concerned about abuse of privacy rights in general.
ACLU members are concerned about abuse of privacy rights within their organization.
Rip believes that this constitutes a double standard.
-
Ya know maby the good old ACLU has political overtones here.Well...of course they do.I can see the double standard and from some of the crap cases they have jumped on its like watching Jessy Jackson pick and choose what hes going to embarress himself over next.The ACLU used to mean something.Now there just like the UN.A bunch of overinflated self important jagoffs.
-
suave... that is it exactly... their way of prioritizing things makes them seem to be a joke with an agenda.
They seem to use what many of us would call "live and let live" things and "who cares" and "leave em alone and let em have their fun" stuff into outrages that need to go to the court system. They seem to be particularly angry with christians. I don't see christians as much of a threat... I don't see a nativity scene as much of a threat or saying "godbless" when someone sneezes..
They seem to be pretty silent about the second amendment. They have no official interpretation of it yet they seem to be all knowing on some of the others...
Some of the things they do are ment to harm groups like the boy scouts. Anyone with any sense knows that it is not a good idea to have a gay scout leader... no better idea than say straight men be girls scout leaders.
This group has been around forever yet I very rarely see them using their energies to improve things. How is destroyuing the boy scouts gonna make this a better place for instance?
lazs
-
Originally posted by SOB
How about a link to the full story.
Feel free to discount the story considering its the New York Times.
here (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/18/national/18aclu.html?ei=5006&en=1fb103f41ec09d84&ex=1104037200&partner=ALTAVISTA1&pagewanted=print&position=)
-
America's Communist Lawyers
The ACLU's holy war against the Boy Scouts, the LA County Official Seal (containing a tiny Cross), holidays like Thanksgiving and Christmas -- and even the Constitution itself -- has unmasked the ACLU as a tyrant less interested in civil rights than imposing judicial restraints that amount to suppression of majority rights by a tiny minority.
The ACLU claims to be an unbiased, “neither conservative or liberal” organization devoted exclusively to protecting the civil liberties of all Americans. But their record proves just the opposite.
ACLU Founder Roger Baldwin admitted as much, saying for the record that; “Civil liberties, like democracy, are useful only as tools for social change.”
Although they claim to defend constitutional rights, they don’t even believe in the document as written. They say that, “The Constitution as originally conceived was deeply flawed.” They even go so far as to brag, “The ACLU was the missing ingredient that made our constitutional system finally work.”
Roger Baldwin was a student of communist Emma Goldman who tutored him in subversive ideology of Lenin, together with secular humanism. He claimed Emma as “one of the chief inspirations of his life”.
During World War 1 Baldwin worked in the Bureau of Conscientious Objectors, a division of AUAM, to help draft dodgers with resistance and provide legal and financial aid.
This resulted in controversy and Baldwin renamed the organization The Civil Liberties Bureau to avoid some of the flack. Roger refused to tone down his liberal talk and the AUAM sought a split, which resulted in the bureau renaming again; The National Civil Liberties Bureau.
One paper Baldwin wrote for the Bureau was called “unmailable” by the Post Office because of “radical and subversive views” which resulted in a FBI raid on their offices. Shortly thereafter he was drafted and upon resisting and openly spouting social reform propaganda, was imprisoned for a year.
In 1920 he moved his offices in with the Communist Party’s paper, New Masses and renamed the group a final time to the ACLU. He developed many ties with the communist movement and even wrote a book, "Liberty Under the Soviets", which bragged about the “liberty won for anti-religion”.
Baldwin admitted in his book; "I joined. I don’t regret being a part of the Communist tactic, which increased the effectiveness of a good cause. I knew what I was doing. I was not an innocent liberal. I wanted what the Communists wanted…”
The ACLU was founded at a party attended by Socialist Party notable Norman Thomas, future Communist Party chairman Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, and Soviet agent Agnes Smedley.
In 1920, Rev. Harry Ward, the 'Red Dean' of the Union Theological Seminary was Chairman, Baldwin was director, and Communist publisher Louis Budenz, who would later go on to testify against Communism, director of publicity.
Other Communist and radical founders included William Z. Foster, author of “Toward Soviet America,” Harold J. Laski, Morris Hilquit, A.J.Muste, Scott Nearing, Eugene V. Debs, and John Dewey.
The 1930’s membership would include such radicals and change agents as Vito Marcantonio, Haywood Broun, Corliss Lamont, and Bishop G. Bromley Oxnan.
The 1940’s roll would include George S. Counts, Norman Cousins, Melvyn Douglas, Robert M. Hutchins, and Freda Kirchwey.
Most prominent American luminaries of the left were, and are, members of the ACLU.
On January 16, 1981, President Jimmy Carter awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom to ACLU founder Roger Nash Baldwin, calling him 'a champion of human and civil rights.'
Under the guise of 'protecting American civil rights', Baldwin's ACLU has sued to;
- Halt the singing of Christmas Carols in public facilities.
- Deny tax -exempt status for Churches.
- Remove all military chaplains.
- Remove all Christian symbols from public property.
- Prohibit Bible reading in classrooms even during free time.
- Remove In God We Trust from our coins.
- Remove God from the Pledge of Allegiance
- Deny federal funding for Boy Scouts until they admit gays and atheists
The ACLU championed the gay rights movement and Roe v. Wade. In 1977, the ACLU created its "Reproductive Freedom Project" that, over the next 16 years, utilized 17 full-time employees and a budget of $2 million.
In 1986 the ACLU created its "Lesbian and Gay Rights" project.
Some other causes adopted by the ACLU include the rights of AIDS patients to keep their diseases confidential and denying freedom of worship in public places.
In 1986, 5th grade teacher Kenneth Roberts was ordered, following an ACLU suit, to remove his Bible from his classroom. (In 2001, it sued the Anahein public school system for refusing to put pro-homosexual propaganda in the district's high school libraries.)
In 1988, it barred a doctor from telling a Kansas man's former wife that her ex-husband had tested positive for AIDS. In the words of the director of the ACLU's Privacy and Technology Project, "The benefits of confidentiality outweigh the possibility that somebody may be injured."
In 1997, the ACLU convinced the Supreme Court to protect the rights of pornographers on the Internet - including the right to show their images to children.
In May 2000, Arizona Governor Jane Hull issued a proclamation celebrating the birth of Buddha. An ACLU spokesperson said, "Although we may think proclamations are inappropriate, they may not violate the Constitution."
(But two years earlier, when Governor Hull issued a proclamation declaring a "Bible Week," the ACLU sued, claiming a violation of the so-called "separation of church and state.")
Among the ACLU's pantheon of victories are cases involving the defense of Communists, anarchists, Ku Klux Klansmen, and those who sought to overthrow American government.
In order for the ACLU to tear down constitutional barriers to governmental power, they must extinguish America's fundamental belief in God, since such a belief is an essential denial of the supreme power of government.
According to the Declaration of Independence, rights come from God, not government. When God's presence in the American mindset ceases, however, people no longer look to God as the grantor of rights but to government.
Therefore, the ACLU argues that the more power the government has, the better off the people under it are. If one looks at the history of the Soviet Union and any other Communist country, one will be apt to find Communist leaders who predicated their form of government on atheism and a secular state religion.
The ACLU has been so successful that even the Declaration of Independence can be interpreted as unconstitutional, if the argument is framed properly.
A San Franscisco suburban teacher was forbidden to give out copies of the Declaration of Independence to his students by the school's principal, Patricia Vidmar, because it refers to God. Principal Vidmar has also required that Mr. Williams clear all his lessons first with her.
This has led to other materials that refer to God or Christianity being rejected, such as George Washington's journal, John Adams' diary, Samuel Adams' "The Rights of the Colonists," and William Penn's "The Frame of Government of Pennsylvania."
The Barna Research Group found in a recent poll that 40% of all Americans claimed to have read the Bible in the week preceding the poll. Fully 80% admitted to praying to God in the previous week, while 83% said that religion had 'changed their behavior'.
Two-thirds of Americans claimed they attend church at least once a month. Interestingly, more Americans believe in God than Israelis do. The National Opinion Research Center found that 62.8% of Americans believe in God, as compared with only 43% of Israelis.
Given these numbers, how can it be that the ACLU can impose such a 'through the looking-glass' worldview on the majority of Americans?
In the natural, there are plenty of reasons; the careful installation of anti-Christian activists judges, ninety years of brainwashing, the imposition of secular humanism as America's state religion, and the domination of professions like the law and teaching by secularists and homosexual activists.
-
I've never heard of the ACLU doing anything that I disagreed with, maybe some of you could provide some examples.
It's just usually the people I meet in real life that have a beef with the aclu are flakes who want organized prayer in public schools and think that the kkk flag should stay on the capital of SC, or that nazis and bolsheviks should all be arrested etc.
-
Originally posted by Suave
It's just usually the people I meet in real life that have a beef with the aclu are flakes who want organized prayer in public schools and think that the kkk flag should stay on the capital of SC, or that nazis and bolsheviks should all be arrested etc.
You've never met a Boy Scout?
Boy Scout Legal Issues (http://www.bsalegal.org/pentagon-192.htm)
-
If they're supported by the DoD they should not require their members to take an oath to God. So I agree with the ACLU on that.
I was a boyscout four a couple years, but we weren't required to take any oaths or wear uniforms, in fact none of us even had a uniform. The boyscouts I was in wasn't really the youth paramilitary organisation that it may be in other parts of the country. Our leader was a teacher at our school, and being former SF he had very low tolerance for stupidity and pomp like uniforms and formal rank and religous oaths.
-
You were a Boy Scout but did not memorize the Boy Scout Law, Oath or Motto? Did you learn about Baden Powell? Why were you a Boy Scout?
It's not just the DoD issue that the link takes you to.
The scouts were not allowed a presence in Balboa Park in San Diego because the city believed that allowing a presence in the park was tantamount to municipal support for scouting activities.
Separation of Church and state was invoked and a city named after a catholic saint told the scouts to go elsewhere.
It used to be that achieving the level of Eagle Scout was an honor, but it seems that we are on the way to making it disreputable.
-
I was a scout because I liked hanging out with my friends and going camping.
I just read the link about the boyscouts not being able to use military bases. That's good, it makes them a legitimate private organisation. So they're free to be as pro god and anti-gay as they want. But at the same time they shouldn't expect any municipal support either now.
The aclu also doesn't have any case against them now that they are a private club, it's within their legal rights to be as exlusive as they wish.
-
Originally posted by Suave
I was a scout because I liked hanging out with my friends and going camping.
I just read the link about the boyscouts not being able to use military bases. That's good, it makes them a legitimate private organisation. So they're free to be as pro god and anti-gay as they want. But at the same time they shouldn't expect any municipal support either now.
The aclu also doesn't have any case against them now that they are a private club, it's within their legal rights to be as exlusive as they wish.
The Boy Scouts always were a private club. Doesnt matter who funds and or supports them they were (and are) a private club.
-
Well if a diest, anti gay organization is getting support from the federal govt. as the boyscouts were, that is wrong.
-
The Veteran's of Foreign Wars is a legitimate private organization and I would venture a guess that they are welcomed on DoD property.
Many scout troops were sponsored by DoD bases because the servicemen had children of the age that wanted their kids to experience scouting.
Having a group of servicemen's children get together to tie knots, whittle, and go camping didn't threaten the republic. The ACLU sued to keep this from happening because.... if this was the highest priority they could come up with it seems our country must be in pretty good shape civil rights-wise.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
You were a Boy Scout but did not memorize the Boy Scout Law, Oath or Motto? Did you learn about Baden Powell? Why were you a Boy Scout?
It's not just the DoD issue that the link takes you to.
The scouts were not allowed a presence in Balboa Park in San Diego because the city believed that allowing a presence in the park was tantamount to municipal support for scouting activities.
Separation of Church and state was invoked and a city named after a catholic saint told the scouts to go elsewhere.
It used to be that achieving the level of Eagle Scout was an honor, but it seems that we are on the way to making it disreputable.
I get really tired of hearing this term. It is not mentioned ONCE in our constitution
"Congress shall make no laws respecting the establishment of religion"
Well if a city or the Fed. Govt wants to support the boy scouts they are not respecting the establishment of religious they are supporting the Boy Scouts. If the City/Fed. supports other programs indescriminatly there is no problem and religion is not seeping into Govt.
AND
As far as DoD support goes. We just recieved an all hands message from the SecDef that we can still play host to scouts on DOD installations BUT the bases cannot provide them with any special funding or special support
IE Unit members that help out or give tours have to be all voluntary. We just had a scout tour last week AND our base has an actual "scout camp" on post.
-
None the less, it is a discriminatory organization, that shouldn't be supported by our tax dollars in anyway.
So again I agree with the ACLU position on this.
How many would agree with DoD support for an organisation that descriminates on basis of religion, sex orientation, AND race?
I'm thinking not many. But why, is racial descrimination worse than religious or sex orientation descrimination? No.
And if you think it is that's fine, just don't use our government facilities for your meetings.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Feel free to discount the story considering its the New York Times.
here (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/18/national/18aclu.html?ei=5006&en=1fb103f41ec09d84&ex=1104037200&partner=ALTAVISTA1&pagewanted=print&position=)
Err OK...I forget why it's OK to discount a NY Times story...Too Liberal? Too Conservative? Too something else? What?
-
Originally posted by SOB
Err OK...I forget why it's OK to discount a NY Times story...Too Liberal? Too Conservative? Too something else? What?
Because Rip said you could?
-
Gunslinger:
Although the phrase ‘Separation of church and state’ is not in the constitution, it has become a well established doctrine of our republic since, as president, on January 1, 1802, in response to the letter from the Danbury Baptist Association, Thomas Jefferson wrote:
Gentlemen:
The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which are so good to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association, give me the highest satisfaction. My duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should `make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore man to all of his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessings of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you and your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem.
Thomas Jefferson
However, On Dec. 3, 1803, as president, Jefferson asked Congress to ratify a treaty with the Kaskaskia Indians. It stated:
And whereas the greater part of the said tribe have been baptized and received into the Catholic Church, to which they are much attached, the United States will give annually, for seven years, one hundred dollars toward the support of a priest of that religion, who will engage to perform for said tribe the duties of his office, and also instruct as many of their children as possible, in the rudiments of literature.
Apparently Jefferson did not believe that the Dec. 3, 1803 request did not infringe on his January 1, 1802 opinion, even though it asked that government funds be spent in for the direct support of a catholic priest.
-
OK...but if the story can be simply ignored because it was published by the NY Times, why even post it?
-
SOB, I think he was being sarcastic.
What's up with you lately?
Be funny dammit!
-
I'm sorry. So, there's this guy who walks into a bar . . . he says "Ouch!" BWAHAHAHAHA! Damn, I'm good.
-
Oh I'm sure logically he did realize that it was an infringement.
More likely he saw it as a means to a favorable end, considering that it came from a man who harbored an unusual resentment of the christian church and it's clergy.
Some Jefferson quotes.
" The Christian priesthood, finding the doctrines of Christ levelled to every understanding and too plain to need explanation, saw, in the mysticisms of Plato, materials with which they might build up an artificial system which might, from its indistinctness, admit everlasting controversy, give employment for their order, and introduce it to profit, power, and pre-eminence."
""The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter."
I think that people often make the mistake of thinking that just because somebody lived a long time ago they were simple.
-
Originally posted by Suave
...considering that it came from a man who harbored an unusual resentment of the christian church and it's clergy.
And yet a man who compiled his own version of the bible, which he said included "a paradigma of His doctrines, made by cutting the texts out of the book and arranging them on the pages of a blank book, in a certain order of time or subject. A more beautiful or precious morsel of ethics I have never seen."
He told John Adams that he was rescuing the philosophy of Jesus and the "pure principles which he taught," from the "artificial vestments in which they have been muffled by priests, who have travestied them into various forms as instruments of riches and power for themselves."
After having selected from the evangelists "the very words only of Jesus," he believed "there will be found remaining the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man."
His separation from the church, apparently, was not a separation from God.
-
That's nice. But I don't think organizations that discriminate against atheists and homos should get any kind of support from our government, and I'm right. And the ACLU seems to agree with me.
Does anybody have any examples that would change my opinion of the ACLU?
-
Originally posted by Suave
... and I'm right. ...
Excellent logic... how can one argue with that?
-
Originally posted by Suave
Does anybody have any examples that would change my opinion of the ACLU?
What is your opinion of the ACLU?
-
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
now wouldn't banning the boyscouts from public properties or federal lands prohibit the free exercise thereof?
This is not at all a discrimination issue to me its an anti religion issue. The govt has supported discriminatory groups and has practiced laws that are discriminatory in nature.
If the Boyscouts want to ban gays based on religious grounds why can't people accept that. After all that is the free exercise thereof.
In my view govt making a ruling either FOR or AGAINST anything on this subject would seem to violate the vary nature of respecting an establishment of religion AND seperation of church and state.
-
Question for you Suave;
In the Balboa Park / Boy Scout case, since 1957, the Desert Pacific Council of the Boy Scouts leased a portion of Balboa Park for $1 per year with the proviso that they maintain all buildings, reforest a portion of the park, pay all utilities, and keep the area leased open to the use of the public.
A renewal of the lease for another 25 years was approved by the City, with the proviso that DPC of BSA spend another 1.7 million dollars on maintenance and upgrades to the leased property, and maintaining the previous 1957 rules as to public use and access.
In this, the ACLU was opposed, due to the reverent requirement of Scouting, even though the San Diego leases land to churches and other organizations.
In Virginia, the congregation of Cornerstone Baptist Church used a city park for baptising. When Falmouth Waterfront Park in Richmond was declared off limits to Baptisms, the ACLU argued that freedom of exersise of religion was abridged, and that if church members wanted to wade in the water at Falmouth, they should be allowed to.
Government funds are not used for either activity, and the BSA lease in SD can even be argued to save taxpayer money. The gay issue is moot, because SD leases to churches and other religious organizations which have belief systems the require restrictive behaviors.
Why would the ACLU be for a religious group using a park on the east coast, and against it on the west coast?
-
I don't know, why do you think?
They fought for those people's freedom to exercise religion, and again I agree with the ACLU here.
-
Originally posted by Suave
I don't know, why do you think?
They fought for those people's freedom to exercise religion, and again I agree with the ACLU here.
this proves the point suave......how can you be for one thing but against the other when they are both examples of civil liberties being infringed apon.
The fair use of the parks in SD means that the Boy Scouts had to allow open access to the parks to the public.
The ACLU took a win win situation wich did not show AT ALL any religious encroachment on govt.
Plain and simple the ACLU has an agenda. They are for civil liberties unless it's the boyscouts. They are for privacy but wont subject themselves to the same standards.
How can you be a champion of civil liberties when you discriminatly defend one right but not another.
ALSO:
This whole fiasco with the LA County seal with a cross on it. The majority of the people did not mind the cross and it could easily be proven that the cross is their for historical and not religious reasons.
But here's the real kicker.
LA county chose not to fight the ACLU and give in to its demands. The council was quoted as saying that the cost would outweigh the rewards. BUT after the coucil ruled on the seal it was estimated that it would cost $1 MILLION in taxpayer money to replace it on all city property.
So here we have an organization going after a citys historical NOT religious reference that nobody minded in the first place and costing LA taxpayers $1million. had the city chose to fight it the lawyer fees would still have cost the taxpayers money.
AGENDA
-
Right, so your only problem with them is that they don't do enough, they're selective. Isn't that better than doing nothing at all?
Even if they fought only for the civil rights for a tiny demographic like say cuban's who can't dance, they are still fighting for someones liberties. Why do you think that is wrong?
Anymore examples? The boyscouts in the city park isn't enough to make me dislike them.
-
What do you think the secret agenda is ?
-
Originally posted by Suave
What do you think the secret agenda is ?
did you even read the post? they specifically target the Boy Scouts.
They specifically target Christian symbols.
-
You mean the post about them fighting for jesus followers to practice their religion ?
-
I think Riptroll is still mad about Miranda v. Arizona. Before that cops had it sweet and easy. It did'nt matter if you actually did the crime or not. It did'nt matter if you wanted an attorney or could afford one. It did'nt matter if they beat you with rubber hoses to get a confession. It did'nt matter if police violated The Constitution of The United States. Stupid ACLU.
-
Originally posted by Suave
That's nice. But I don't think organizations that discriminate against atheists and homos should get any kind of support from our government, and I'm right. And the ACLU seems to agree with me.
Does anybody have any examples that would change my opinion of the ACLU?
This one should have changed your mind.
Putting Gays with young boys is like putting a fox in the hen house.
-
Originally posted by Mighty1
This one should have changed your mind.
Putting Gays with young boys is like putting a fox in the hen house.
Now THAT is funny!
Be sure to confess your sins little boy, mm mmmmmm.
-SW
-
suave... it is perfectly fine to dicriminate against homsexuals so far as haveing men take young boys out on camping trips.. this is exactly the same kind of discrimination that prevents a hetro man from takintg young girls out on a camping trip. try to be a little logical.
the rights the aclu standw up for rarely interest me except in a peripheral way and the rights they espouse are gerneraly ones that I don't care about or, are oppossed to. I am not all hot about the seperation of church and state so far as saying the G word. I am not enraged by nativity scenes or confederate flags.. I don't get all warm and fuzzy about KKK rights either. I don't think there is a place for homo scout leaders.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Suave
Other than fanatics, why do people dislike the ACLU ?
Are you serious?? How old are you?
-
Originally posted by rpm
I think Riptroll is still mad about Miranda v. Arizona. Before that cops had it sweet and easy. It did'nt matter if you actually did the crime or not. It did'nt matter if you wanted an attorney or could afford one. It did'nt matter if they beat you with rubber hoses to get a confession. It did'nt matter if police violated The Constitution of The United States. Stupid ACLU.
Problem with the ACLU is they threw the baby out with the dirty bath water.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
suave... it is perfectly fine to dicriminate against homsexuals so far as haveing men take young boys out on camping trips.. this is exactly the same kind of discrimination that prevents a hetro man from takintg young girls out on a camping trip. try to be a little logical.
the rights the aclu standw up for rarely interest me except in a peripheral way and the rights they espouse are gerneraly ones that I don't care about or, are oppossed to. I am not all hot about the seperation of church and state so far as saying the G word. I am not enraged by nativity scenes or confederate flags.. I don't get all warm and fuzzy about KKK rights either. I don't think there is a place for homo scout leaders.
lazs
I didn't think about gay scout leaders, I was thinking about gay scouts.
-
Originally posted by Suave
I didn't think about gay scout leaders, I was thinking about gay scouts.
but why would that matter. The US govt. today endorses or respects the establishment of many organizations that are in fact discriminatory in nature and in some sense religious.
So you like the fact that the ACLU likes to cost the taxpayers $1million for a reference to a historical heratige?
-
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?
Originally posted by Suave
I don't know, why do you think?
They fought for those people's freedom to exercise religion, and again I agree with the ACLU here.
The ACLU fought against it on the west coast, for it on the east coast.
I'm confused... you are both for it and against it, or do I misinterpret your stance?
-
I said that I agraid with their stance protecting peoples right to have religious rites and ceremonies on land that they lease from public parks. So obviously I can't agree with the opposite.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
but why would that matter. The US govt. today endorses or respects the establishment of many organizations that are in fact discriminatory in nature and in some sense religious.
That doesn't make it right.
-
As far as gay scouts, I seem to remember an eagle scout getting his stuff taken away from him because he was gay, am I wrong?
If I'm right that's fluffied up.
And mighty you're confusing pedophilia with homosexuality.
-
Originally posted by SOB
Err OK...I forget why it's OK to discount a NY Times story...Too Liberal? Too Conservative? Too something else? What?
Too many big words.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
LA county chose not to fight the ACLU and give in to its demands. The council was quoted as saying that the cost would outweigh the rewards. BUT after the coucil ruled on the seal it was estimated that it would cost $1 MILLION in taxpayer money to replace it on all city property.
Los Angeles County is a county, not a city, and has a Board of Supervisors, not a 'council'. And they will not be 'replacing' the old county seals, only the new ones ordered will be different.
Do you make a conscious effort to be ill-informed?
-
Originally posted by Suave
And mighty you're confusing pedophilia with homosexuality.
No I'm not. Both are mental illness that should not be allowed around kids.
Besides I read some where (I'll have to find the article again) that over 80% of child molesters (non- family members) were gay.
-
See my previous post about flake's who have a beef with the ACLU.
-
Originally posted by SOB
Err OK...I forget why it's OK to discount a NY Times story...Too Liberal? Too Conservative? Too something else? What?
Stories that are made up? Or do you selectively forget things like that? ;)
-
Originally posted by rpm
I think Riptroll is still mad about Miranda v. Arizona. Before that cops had it sweet and easy. It did'nt matter if you actually did the crime or not. It did'nt matter if you wanted an attorney or could afford one. It did'nt matter if they beat you with rubber hoses to get a confession. It did'nt matter if police violated The Constitution of The United States. Stupid ACLU.
The ACLU is similiar to the unions...they've not only outlived their usefulness, but carry a political agenda that propogates income for their organizations.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Stories that are made up? Or do you selectively forget things like that? ;)
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?
-
Originally posted by Suave
What do you think the secret agenda is ?
You need to go back and carefully read my post. It is no secret , the purpose of the ACLU is to destroy Christianity. They want every ones rights to be granted by Government. Our system of Government was based on the premise of "God given rights". The Declaration of Independence spells this out. "Endowed by their Creator (God) with certain "inalieable rights" (Unchangeable not up to debate}. It was the Declaration of Independence that made the Constitution possible.
-
Originally posted by -MZ-
Los Angeles County is a county, not a city, and has a Board of Supervisors, not a 'council'. And they will not be 'replacing' the old county seals, only the new ones ordered will be different.
Do you make a conscious effort to be ill-informed?
Does anyone even like you? Quit being an arse, 1. The story I read was that under agreement the "board" would have to replace all the old seals, 2. The majority of their constituents did not want this. and 3. They just rolled over and bowed down to the demands of the ACLU.
Now you tell me. WHat does your post have to do AT ALL with the topic? You can chew up my post all you want but the mesage is still there.
-
Originally posted by Suave
That doesn't make it right.
Nore does it make it right for the ACLU to SPECIFICALLY target certain orgainizations and not others....it shows they have a political agenda.
-
Originally posted by weaselsan
You need to go back and carefully read my post. It is no secret , the purpose of the ACLU is to destroy Christianity.
Wrong.
The ACLU stops public officials from using their government powers to promote a religion.
Got it?
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
>>Does anyone even like you?
Not really.
>> Quit being an arse,
That's asking quite alot.
>>1. The story I read was that under agreement the "board" would have to replace all the old seals,
The story you read was wrong. They just aren't ordering any more of the old symbols for business cards, vehicle stickers, etc.
>>2. The majority of their constituents did not want this.
Probably, there wasn't a vote on it. I am a member of the ACLU and I think this case was a waste of time myself.
>>3. They just rolled over and bowed down to the demands of the ACLU.
3 of the 5 decided not to spend more money fighting a case they were advised by County Counsel they would lose. If the people don't like it they can vote them out, but that hasn't happend to a LA County Supervisor in over 20 years.
>>Now you tell me. WHat does your post have to do AT ALL with the topic? You can chew up my post all you want but the mesage is still there.
This is a topic about the ACLU.
You post, I correct.
-
Originally posted by weaselsan
You need to go back and carefully read my post. It is no secret , the purpose of the ACLU is to destroy Christianity. They want every ones rights to be granted by Government. Our system of Government was based on the premise of "God given rights". The Declaration of Independence spells this out. "Endowed by their Creator (God) with certain "inalieable rights" (Unchangeable not up to debate}. It was the Declaration of Independence that made the Constitution possible.
Well let's line up those heathen Jews, Buddists,and Muslims and wipe them out. How dare they have the right to a religion other than yours! NOBODY EXPECTS THE AMERICAN INQUISITION!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. ;)
-
I really hate to admit it, I agree with Rip.
And this is not just an American problem.
-
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."
-
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 (http://www.acluprocon.org/bin/procon/procon.cgi?database=2%2e%20Facts%2edb&command=viewone&id=5) is a list of landmark cases the ACLU has been involved with. Frontiero v. Richardson should be of particular interest to you.
-
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?
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Feel free to discount the story considering its the New York Times.
here (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/18/national/18aclu.html?ei=5006&en=1fb103f41ec09d84&ex=1104037200&partner=ALTAVISTA1&pagewanted=print&position=)
-
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. :)
-
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 (http://www.acluprocon.org/bin/procon/procon.cgi?database=2%2e%20Facts%2edb&command=viewone&id=5) 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...
-
Both comments.
Double standards and they've not only outlived their usefulness, but carry a political agenda that propogates income for their organizations.
-
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
-
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.
-
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...
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.
-
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)?
-
San Diego Calvary Korean Church, the Point Loma Community Presbyterian Church, the Jewish Community Center, the Salvation Army