I'm kinda mixed on this one, a lot of the crap they pull is REALLY annoying but they do hold a place in society. I say they need to change a lot more!!!
Poll
ACLU, SHOULD it be:
| Disbanded completely. | 30% | 30% - 16 | ||||
| Changed slightly. | 11% | 11% - 6 | ||||
| Changed a lot more. | 18% | 18% - 10 | ||||
| Kept like it is today. | 18% | 18% - 10 | ||||
| Bombed like Beirut. | 20% | 20% - 11 | ||||
| Total: 53 | ||||||
Sorry but whats ACLU?
good job Albert - I voted on Disband
http://www.aclu.org/jord wrote:
Sorry but whats ACLU?
I wonder if there are any card carrying ACLU members here
I'm sure there's a mod we all know and love that is probably a card carrying member.SEREMAKER wrote:
I wonder if there are any card carrying ACLU members here
The idea is great if you sit back and look at it. It's when you start digging in and seeing what they are doing that worries me. I mean who doesn't want their freedoms protected ? These guys are just a little too much for me.
http://stoptheaclu.com/
http://stoptheaclu.com/
Last edited by Kmarion (2006-08-17 12:27:28)
Xbone Stormsurgezz
That sums up my feelings EXACTLY, thanks!!!Kmarion wrote:
The idea is great if you sit back and look at it. It's when you start digging in and seeing what they are doing that worries me. I mean who doesn't what their freedoms protected ? These guys are just a little too much for me.
They really piss me off, but they do serve a purpose. I don't think that they should disband completely, but the need a major overhaul in the way they go about protecting civil liberties. I can understand some of the stuff they do, but they really need to draw the line somewhere (i.e. trying to protect illegal immigrants, key word being illegal, protecting the rights of terrorists, etc.).
Last edited by mcgid1 (2006-08-17 12:32:57)
who, just curiousErkut.hv wrote:
I'm sure there's a mod we all know and love that is probably a card carrying member.SEREMAKER wrote:
I wonder if there are any card carrying ACLU members here
mcgid1
Today 15:29:38 They really piss me off, but they do serve a purpose. I don't think that they should disband completely, but the need a major overhaul in the way they go about protecting civil liberties. I can understand some of the stuff they do, but they really need to draw the line somewhere.
they serve a purpose to point, they can be very hypocritical, fight against guns and the 2nd amendment but fight for freedom of speech, they seem to only fight for what the majority wants and get into fights where they can get into exposure - they fight to have the death penalty abolished
I'm for disbandment ( my opinion) if we had stricter punishment and enforced the laws that we have, we won't need the ACLU
ACLU fights for Westboro Baptist ( the protesters at soldiers funerals) now set aside the protesting they do, Westboro also promotes the hated and discrimination against homosexuals, now I understand thats it freedom of speech for Westboro to preach whatever they want but theres the freedom to pursue happiness and not to be discriminated against
I guess you say that ACLU is in a " Catch 22"
Last edited by SEREMAKER (2006-08-17 12:48:31)
Before I post my own thoughts, let's get back to basics for those reading this who are unfamiliar with the ACLU. Let's look at the facts first, taken from the Wikipedia entry about the ACLU, which I think is very impartial. There is a lot more info at the page including a look at some conservative and liberal critics of the ACLU and I would encourage everyone to read it, whether you know nothing about the ACLU or you think you know everything.
What is the ACLU?
(taken from Wikipedia) The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is a major American non-profit organization whose stated mission is "to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States". It works through litigation, legislation, and community education.
Lawsuits brought by the ACLU have been influential in the development of U.S. constitutional law. The ACLU provides lawyers and legal expertise in cases in which it considers civil liberties to be at risk. According to its annual report, the ACLU has over 500,000 members as of the end of 2005.
The ACLU has been harshly critical of elected officials and policies from many political parties over the years, including both Democrats and Republicans. Outside of its legal work, the organization has also engaged in lobbying of elected officials and political activism. The ACLU is one of the most influential non-governmental organizations in the United States today; often controversial, its stances have drawn criticism from across the political spectrum.
Why are they controversial?
The organization's policy is that free speech rights must be available to all citizens and residents of the United States. This policy sometimes leads to cases where the Union defends unpopular people and organizations. The Union has taken on cases to defend the free speech rights of clients as diverse as Ku Klux Klan members, neo-Nazi groups, NAMBLA (a group which supports legalization of pederasty) and the Westboro Baptist Church, a group which uses signs reading "God hates fags" in its protest actions. In these and other cases, the ACLU has defended the free speech rights of people and organizations even when the content of that speech is in conflict with the ACLU's own positions and goals.
The ACLU defended Frank Snepp, formerly of the Central Intelligence Agency, from an attempt by the government agency to enforce a gag order against him. It also defended Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North, whose conviction was tainted by coerced testimony—a violation of his fifth amendment rights.
The ACLU's stance on spam is considered controversial by a broad cross-section of political points of view. In 2000 Marvin Johnson, a legislative counsel for the ACLU, stated that proposed anti-spam legislation infringed on free speech by denying anonymity and by forcing spam to be labeled as such: "Standardized labeling is compelled speech." He also stated, "It's relatively simple to click and delete." This analysis is rejected by many spam fighters as failing to address the effects of spam on network infrastructure and costs. This debate found the ACLU joining with the Direct Marketing Association and the Center for Democracy and Technology in criticizing a bipartisan bill in the House of Representatives in 2000; already by 1997 the ACLU had taken a strong position that nearly all spam legislation was improper, although it has supported "opt-out" requirements in some cases. The ACLU opposed the 2003 CAN-SPAM act suggesting that it could have a chilling effect on speech in cyberspace.
What is the ACLU?
(taken from Wikipedia) The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is a major American non-profit organization whose stated mission is "to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States". It works through litigation, legislation, and community education.
Lawsuits brought by the ACLU have been influential in the development of U.S. constitutional law. The ACLU provides lawyers and legal expertise in cases in which it considers civil liberties to be at risk. According to its annual report, the ACLU has over 500,000 members as of the end of 2005.
The ACLU has been harshly critical of elected officials and policies from many political parties over the years, including both Democrats and Republicans. Outside of its legal work, the organization has also engaged in lobbying of elected officials and political activism. The ACLU is one of the most influential non-governmental organizations in the United States today; often controversial, its stances have drawn criticism from across the political spectrum.
Why are they controversial?
The organization's policy is that free speech rights must be available to all citizens and residents of the United States. This policy sometimes leads to cases where the Union defends unpopular people and organizations. The Union has taken on cases to defend the free speech rights of clients as diverse as Ku Klux Klan members, neo-Nazi groups, NAMBLA (a group which supports legalization of pederasty) and the Westboro Baptist Church, a group which uses signs reading "God hates fags" in its protest actions. In these and other cases, the ACLU has defended the free speech rights of people and organizations even when the content of that speech is in conflict with the ACLU's own positions and goals.
The ACLU defended Frank Snepp, formerly of the Central Intelligence Agency, from an attempt by the government agency to enforce a gag order against him. It also defended Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North, whose conviction was tainted by coerced testimony—a violation of his fifth amendment rights.
The ACLU's stance on spam is considered controversial by a broad cross-section of political points of view. In 2000 Marvin Johnson, a legislative counsel for the ACLU, stated that proposed anti-spam legislation infringed on free speech by denying anonymity and by forcing spam to be labeled as such: "Standardized labeling is compelled speech." He also stated, "It's relatively simple to click and delete." This analysis is rejected by many spam fighters as failing to address the effects of spam on network infrastructure and costs. This debate found the ACLU joining with the Direct Marketing Association and the Center for Democracy and Technology in criticizing a bipartisan bill in the House of Representatives in 2000; already by 1997 the ACLU had taken a strong position that nearly all spam legislation was improper, although it has supported "opt-out" requirements in some cases. The ACLU opposed the 2003 CAN-SPAM act suggesting that it could have a chilling effect on speech in cyberspace.
The ALCU does a LOT of stupid crap and a little bit of good stuff. IMHO they've served their purpose and could be disbanded, but it doesn't matter what a bunch of people on a forum think. They have way too much money and power to just disappear.
The ACLU is racist.
That's a rather broad statement. References might make people take you more seriously...unnamednewbie13 wrote:
The ACLU is racist.
(Apologies for quoting everything, but I'm carrying this over from another thread and want to avoid confusion.)
What I hope everyone can appreciate is that the ACLU was established specifically to advocate freedom of speech, a constitutional right in this country, and to preserve the protection of a democratic minority as limited by the Bill of Rights. It takes action when it suspects that the civil liberties DEFINED BY THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTION are being denied. In other words, the ACLU works to uphold the constitution. The bill of rights itself was designed to protect the rights of a democratic minority.
I can fully understand how someone might be upset upon hearing that the ACLU has defended the civil rights of NAMBLA, the KKK, and the preacher who carries "God hates fags" signs to homosexual funerals. But the thing that is VITAL to understanding here is that the ACLU does not do so because it agrees with what these people think and say. In fact they have often had to put out press releases to help everyone understand this.
It seems to me that people who claim to be "against" the ACLU or calling for the organization's disbandment are choosing a convenient scapegoat. What they should be arguing against is the American Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Let's look at NAMBLA as an example. I don't think anyone other than paedophiles would argue that men should be allowed to have sex with children. Such an act is disgusting, shameful, and illegal. If NAMBLA was an organization with operations breaking the law, then it would be illegal. But that's not the case. NAMBLA is an organization set up to ARGUE that paedophilia should not be illegal if the boy consents to sex.
Personally, I think paedophilia is one of the sickest things possible, and paeophiles should be thrown in horrible prisons to rot until the day they die. However, I also agree with and support the American Constitution. Agreeing with the constitution means that I believe anyone accused of paedophilia deserves the right to a fair trial. I support freedom of speech as guaranteed by the First Amendment. As such, I support people's right to THINK about paedophilia and to SAY PUBLICLY that paedophilia should be legalized. Therefore I support NAMBLA's right to exist. But as soon as any of its members are found to have been guilty of paedophilia, I support locking them up forever.
And just as I support NAMBLA's right to exist while hating everything it stands for, I support the rights of every American to believe what they want and to say what they want, no matter how vile or unpopular their words and thoughts may be or how much I personally disagree with what they say.
In my opinion, if you are against paedophilia, then you are sane. But if you believe that NAMBLA should not have the right to TALK about legalizing sex between men and boys, then you do not believe in freedom of speech, and you do not respect the US Constitution.
I should have said "not addressing" rather than "avoiding", seremaker, my apologies for being harsh.SEREMAKER wrote:
avoiding the key issue no I don't think I am, I see your point and agree we need civil rights but we shouldn't have the ACLU to fight, we have laws - what we need is stricter punishment and we need to enforce the lawsThe_Shipbuilder wrote:
You're avoiding the key issue here: America supports fair trials. You can't do this without supporting unpopular causes. What's more important to you, fair trials for Americans or doing EVERYTHING possible to abolish NAMBLA? Are you so angered by NAMBLA that you would do away with civil rights? Would you also support torturing people after they are denied a fair trial? By your logic, the American government is giving support to murderers and criminals by having a justice system where they are allowed to argue their case.SEREMAKER wrote:
ok ACLU is trying to defend their freedom of speech but by ACLU defending their freedom they give support to them too sexual exploit minors ( against the law)
NAMBLA's goal is to end the extreme oppression of men and boys in mutually consensual relationships by:
building understanding and support for such relationships;
educating the general public on the benevolent nature of man/boy love;
cooperating with lesbian, gay, feminist, and other liberation movements;
supporting the liberation of persons of all ages from sexual prejudice and oppression.
I do not agree that the government should be allowed to pick and choose who has the right to a fair trial. This goes against the basic tenets of the United States of America. Every murderer, every shithead, every hateful fuck who should be obliterated from the face of the earth deserves a fair trial for us to prove that he has broken the law and should be punished accordingly.
Personally, I support our forefathers' goals. I support civil rights for everyone, even people with whom I disagree. This is the American way. Americans who do not believe in these civil rights , such as those who can't see the service provided by the ACLU, should rethink their allegiance to this country and what it stands for, and consider repatriating elsewhere.
(my opinion) ACLU has done worse then good and I'm for the disbandment of them, they want to pick apart the Constitution that our forefathers put together
ACLU has dug themselves a hole they won't be able to get out, on 1 side of the coin they fight to help but flip it over and they are helping to tear apart America
What I hope everyone can appreciate is that the ACLU was established specifically to advocate freedom of speech, a constitutional right in this country, and to preserve the protection of a democratic minority as limited by the Bill of Rights. It takes action when it suspects that the civil liberties DEFINED BY THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTION are being denied. In other words, the ACLU works to uphold the constitution. The bill of rights itself was designed to protect the rights of a democratic minority.
I can fully understand how someone might be upset upon hearing that the ACLU has defended the civil rights of NAMBLA, the KKK, and the preacher who carries "God hates fags" signs to homosexual funerals. But the thing that is VITAL to understanding here is that the ACLU does not do so because it agrees with what these people think and say. In fact they have often had to put out press releases to help everyone understand this.
It seems to me that people who claim to be "against" the ACLU or calling for the organization's disbandment are choosing a convenient scapegoat. What they should be arguing against is the American Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Let's look at NAMBLA as an example. I don't think anyone other than paedophiles would argue that men should be allowed to have sex with children. Such an act is disgusting, shameful, and illegal. If NAMBLA was an organization with operations breaking the law, then it would be illegal. But that's not the case. NAMBLA is an organization set up to ARGUE that paedophilia should not be illegal if the boy consents to sex.
Personally, I think paedophilia is one of the sickest things possible, and paeophiles should be thrown in horrible prisons to rot until the day they die. However, I also agree with and support the American Constitution. Agreeing with the constitution means that I believe anyone accused of paedophilia deserves the right to a fair trial. I support freedom of speech as guaranteed by the First Amendment. As such, I support people's right to THINK about paedophilia and to SAY PUBLICLY that paedophilia should be legalized. Therefore I support NAMBLA's right to exist. But as soon as any of its members are found to have been guilty of paedophilia, I support locking them up forever.
And just as I support NAMBLA's right to exist while hating everything it stands for, I support the rights of every American to believe what they want and to say what they want, no matter how vile or unpopular their words and thoughts may be or how much I personally disagree with what they say.
In my opinion, if you are against paedophilia, then you are sane. But if you believe that NAMBLA should not have the right to TALK about legalizing sex between men and boys, then you do not believe in freedom of speech, and you do not respect the US Constitution.
I would definitely argue that any American accused of terrorism or any other crime deserves the right to a fair trial. I believe the ACLU should be allowed to protect the rights of ANYONE if that is something they want to do that is supported by their paid membership base. If you disagree with their actions, the only thing you really can do is to not give the ACLU any money, and to complain about it in Internet forumsmcgid1 wrote:
They really piss me off, but they do serve a purpose. I don't think that they should disband completely, but the need a major overhaul in the way they go about protecting civil liberties. I can understand some of the stuff they do, but they really need to draw the line somewhere (i.e. trying to protect illegal immigrants, key word being illegal, protecting the rights of terrorists, etc.).
Upholding the Constitution and protecting people's rights is a neverending job, unfortunately.kilgoretrout wrote:
IMHO they've served their purpose and could be disbanded
I disagree with your contention that they are hypocritical. They always support the civil rights of EVERYONE, regardless of what those people stand for or believe. Maybe you're talking about something else though? If so could you please provide more details or sources?seremaker wrote:
they serve a purpose to point, they can be very hypocritical, fight against guns and the 2nd amendment but fight for freedom of speech, they seem to only fight for what the majority wants and get into fights where they can get into exposure - they fight to have the death penalty abolished
I disagree. Stricter punishment has nothing to do with the ACLU. You can't be punished before you get a fair trial, which is guaranteed by American law. The ACLU gets involved in litigation - in other words, what happens BEFORE punishment is meted out. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point? And the ACLU IS helping to enforce the most important laws that we have: the Constitition and the Bill of Rights.seremaker wrote:
I'm for disbandment ( my opinion) if we had stricter punishment and enforced the laws that we have, we won't need the ACLU
The freedom to pursue happiness is not impeded by some idiot holding signs, shouting slogans, or posting disagreeable bullshit on the Internet. And there is no "freedom not to be discriminated against" if by discrimination you mean shouting slogans in the street. If the Westboro Baptist guy owned a convenience store and kicked out someone because they were gay or refused to hire them because they were gay, THAT would be illegal.seremaker wrote:
ACLU fights for Westboro Baptist ( the protesters at soldiers funerals) now set aside the protesting they do, Westboro also promotes the hated and discrimination against homosexuals, now I understand thats it freedom of speech for Westboro to preach whatever they want but theres the freedom to pursue happiness and not to be discriminated against
Finally, I want to post a press release from the ACLU which explicitly states their "stance".
ACLU Statement on Defending Free Speech of Unpopular Organizations (8/31/2000)
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
NEW YORK--In the United States Supreme Court over the past few years, the American Civil Liberties Union has taken the side of a fundamentalist Christian church, a Santerian church, and the International Society for Krishna Consciousness. In celebrated cases, the ACLU has stood up for everyone from Oliver North to the National Socialist Party. In spite of all that, the ACLU has never advocated Christianity, ritual animal sacrifice, trading arms for hostages or genocide. In representing NAMBLA today, our Massachusetts affiliate does not advocate sexual relationships between adults and children.
What the ACLU does advocate is robust freedom of speech for everyone. The lawsuit involved here, were it to succeed, would strike at the heart of freedom of speech. The case is based on a shocking murder. But the lawsuit says the crime is the responsibility not of those who committed the murder, but of someone who posted vile material on the Internet. The principle is as simple as it is central to true freedom of speech: those who do wrong are responsible for what they do; those who speak about it are not.
It is easy to defend freedom of speech when the message is something many people find at least reasonable. But the defense of freedom of speech is most critical when the message is one most people find repulsive. That was true when the Nazis marched in Skokie. It remains true today.
ACLU Statement on Defending Free Speech of Unpopular Organizations (8/31/2000)
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
NEW YORK--In the United States Supreme Court over the past few years, the American Civil Liberties Union has taken the side of a fundamentalist Christian church, a Santerian church, and the International Society for Krishna Consciousness. In celebrated cases, the ACLU has stood up for everyone from Oliver North to the National Socialist Party. In spite of all that, the ACLU has never advocated Christianity, ritual animal sacrifice, trading arms for hostages or genocide. In representing NAMBLA today, our Massachusetts affiliate does not advocate sexual relationships between adults and children.
What the ACLU does advocate is robust freedom of speech for everyone. The lawsuit involved here, were it to succeed, would strike at the heart of freedom of speech. The case is based on a shocking murder. But the lawsuit says the crime is the responsibility not of those who committed the murder, but of someone who posted vile material on the Internet. The principle is as simple as it is central to true freedom of speech: those who do wrong are responsible for what they do; those who speak about it are not.
It is easy to defend freedom of speech when the message is something many people find at least reasonable. But the defense of freedom of speech is most critical when the message is one most people find repulsive. That was true when the Nazis marched in Skokie. It remains true today.
Americanjord wrote:
Sorry but whats ACLU?
Criminal
Liberties
Union
Basically they run around wasting tax money defending rapists' rights to have the option of crunchy peanut butter in folsom prison and shit like that, as kilgore, said they pull one rare attempt to do something truly good for society once in a while so they can point to it and say "no really we're not biased"
ACLU in theory- good
ACLU in practice- bad
alot like unions, a good idea at first, but people began abusing it's power to fight their own petty battles at the expense of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and as such it has been perverted into a tool for the minority to impose their will over the majority, if they are really out to fight for equality then they would use their resources for things like making sure that the 2% of people in a community that are jewish have their religion represented appropriately in a community during christmas/hannukah instead of telling the other 98% of the community that's christian that they can't even use the word "christmas" during public functions
They're either going to take that statement as sarcasm/irony (correct), or just disregard it as not being debate or serious talk (also correct). Either way, I didn't spend enough effort on that post to care.kilgoretrout wrote:
That's a rather broad statement. References might make people take you more seriously...unnamednewbie13 wrote:
The ACLU is racist.
Anyone familiar with the history of the ACLU will get the joke.
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2006-08-17 17:48:01)
Kr@cker, you offer a lot of opinion but no sources or citations. Would you please cite any specific examples, so we can read about the details ourselves? Would appreciate a link to an online newspaper article, rather than a link to a highly biased opinion site (eg stoptheaclu, worldnetdaily, renewamerica, etc.) Both the prison thing and the Christmas thing would be interesting to read. Thankskr@cker wrote:
Americanjord wrote:
Sorry but whats ACLU?
Criminal
Liberties
Union
Basically they run around wasting tax money defending rapists' rights to have the option of crunchy peanut butter in folsom prison and shit like that, as kilgore, said they pull one rare attempt to do something truly good for society once in a while so they can point to it and say "no really we're not biased"
ACLU in theory- good
ACLU in practice- bad
alot like unions, a good idea at first, but people began abusing it's power to fight their own petty battles at the expense of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and as such it has been perverted into a tool for the minority to impose their will over the majority, if they are really out to fight for equality then they would use their resources for things like making sure that the 2% of people in a community that are jewish have their religion represented appropriately in a community during christmas/hannukah instead of telling the other 98% of the community that's christian that they can't even use the word "christmas" during public functions
seremaker wrote:
they serve a purpose to point, they can be very hypocritical, fight against guns and the 2nd amendment but fight for freedom of speech, they seem to only fight for what the majority wants and get into fights where they can get into exposure - they fight to have the death penalty abolished
The_Shipbuilder
I disagree with your contention that they are hypocritical. They always support the civil rights of EVERYONE, regardless of what those people stand for or believe. Maybe you're talking about something else though? If so could you please provide more details or sources?
The_Shipbuilder
I disagree. Stricter punishment has nothing to do with the ACLU. You can't be punished before you get a fair trial, which is guaranteed by American law. The ACLU gets involved in litigation - in other words, what happens BEFORE punishment is meted out. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point? And the ACLU IS helping to enforce the most important laws that we have: the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Before I get into my post I think from this point on we should stop mentioning NAMBLA or using them as an example its starting to creep me out and just saying it or reading it makes me sick
ok make on topic here : ACLU {my opinion} hypocrites why you may ask? you mentioned they "enforce the most important laws that we have: the Constitution and the Bill of Rights" ACLU will go to court for you to defend your freedom of speech - thats good, thats very good freedom speech is what makes us American but theres an amendment that ACLU is fighting {along with many others} to remove from our Bill of Rights - the 2nd Amendment "The Right to Keep and Bear Arms" - this amendment also makes us American {I'm very proud of this amendment}
In my eyes this is a very hypocritical thing for the ACLU to do - on 1 side they will defend your freedom of speech, they will uphold the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to highest standards and on the other side they have begun to pick away at it to try to remove certain rights and laws, if somehow they were able to convince the Supreme Court to rewrite our Constitution and our Bill of Rights what would stop them at the 2nd amendment
Another point that has fallen over America and the last few years schools and religion - now I don't have a kid {or at least I don't think I have one hmmm } but a child or teenager can not practice religion at school, now I am referring to public {I know that this falls under separation of church and state} but wheres the freedom of religion, ACLU has abolished that freedom
Another one toward schools - the pledge of allegiance, I did it in school and was proud to do it but today they are not allowed because they are pledging allegiance to America, heres where freedom of speech should step in If you want to stand proud with your hand of your heart and say it then we should let them, if you don't want to then you can sit there it only takes about 30 secs but because of the ACLU a child doesn't have that decision anymore ACLU took care of that by putting a stop to it - they took away the freedom of speech to say the pledge of allegiance
as much as I would like to carry on - I need to get some rest - its 02:13 hundred and I've been up late BF2ing and getting wedding plans settled ---- yep thats right, the lady in my life finally pulled a gun on me and demanded a marriage so I have no choice but to give in and make her part of my family - if she wasn't so hot I might have told her no but its hard to say that to a woman thats an insurance agent {good money} and fitness instructor
they serve a purpose to point, they can be very hypocritical, fight against guns and the 2nd amendment but fight for freedom of speech, they seem to only fight for what the majority wants and get into fights where they can get into exposure - they fight to have the death penalty abolished
The_Shipbuilder
I disagree with your contention that they are hypocritical. They always support the civil rights of EVERYONE, regardless of what those people stand for or believe. Maybe you're talking about something else though? If so could you please provide more details or sources?
The_Shipbuilder
I disagree. Stricter punishment has nothing to do with the ACLU. You can't be punished before you get a fair trial, which is guaranteed by American law. The ACLU gets involved in litigation - in other words, what happens BEFORE punishment is meted out. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point? And the ACLU IS helping to enforce the most important laws that we have: the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Before I get into my post I think from this point on we should stop mentioning NAMBLA or using them as an example its starting to creep me out and just saying it or reading it makes me sick
ok make on topic here : ACLU {my opinion} hypocrites why you may ask? you mentioned they "enforce the most important laws that we have: the Constitution and the Bill of Rights" ACLU will go to court for you to defend your freedom of speech - thats good, thats very good freedom speech is what makes us American but theres an amendment that ACLU is fighting {along with many others} to remove from our Bill of Rights - the 2nd Amendment "The Right to Keep and Bear Arms" - this amendment also makes us American {I'm very proud of this amendment}
In my eyes this is a very hypocritical thing for the ACLU to do - on 1 side they will defend your freedom of speech, they will uphold the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to highest standards and on the other side they have begun to pick away at it to try to remove certain rights and laws, if somehow they were able to convince the Supreme Court to rewrite our Constitution and our Bill of Rights what would stop them at the 2nd amendment
Another point that has fallen over America and the last few years schools and religion - now I don't have a kid {or at least I don't think I have one hmmm } but a child or teenager can not practice religion at school, now I am referring to public {I know that this falls under separation of church and state} but wheres the freedom of religion, ACLU has abolished that freedom
Another one toward schools - the pledge of allegiance, I did it in school and was proud to do it but today they are not allowed because they are pledging allegiance to America, heres where freedom of speech should step in If you want to stand proud with your hand of your heart and say it then we should let them, if you don't want to then you can sit there it only takes about 30 secs but because of the ACLU a child doesn't have that decision anymore ACLU took care of that by putting a stop to it - they took away the freedom of speech to say the pledge of allegiance
as much as I would like to carry on - I need to get some rest - its 02:13 hundred and I've been up late BF2ing and getting wedding plans settled ---- yep thats right, the lady in my life finally pulled a gun on me and demanded a marriage so I have no choice but to give in and make her part of my family - if she wasn't so hot I might have told her no but its hard to say that to a woman thats an insurance agent {good money} and fitness instructor
Last edited by SEREMAKER (2006-08-18 07:03:07)
Welcome to America, folks. Freedom and justice for all. Allowing everyone to have a say in this country is one thing, but attempting to legislate morality because someone says or believes in something you don't like is something else altogether.
I am strongly for the ACLU, even though on a personal level, I tend to disagree with a lot of people that they have to defend.
If you attempt to silence one group of people, then it just becomes all the more easier to silence more groups of people until everyone is thinking in only one way. That does not sound like Freedom to me.
@Seremaker:
About your Pledge of Allegiance case there...you fail to understand the intricacies of being able to say it freely on a school campus and having the pledge be mandatory for all children to say. Forcing it to be mandatory causes unrest amongst those who choose not to say it, and therefore can cause direct conflict amongst their peers.
The ACLU stopped the Pledge from being mandatory in schools, which I agree with. It's not something you should need to indoctrinate yourself into America, especially every single day at 7:30 in the morning. I've met several people from both sides of the conflict...even a sect of christianity which forbids the Pledge from ever being said by their members, as Pledging Allegiance to a flag is idolatry, something which one of the 10 commandments forbids.
I am strongly for the ACLU, even though on a personal level, I tend to disagree with a lot of people that they have to defend.
If you attempt to silence one group of people, then it just becomes all the more easier to silence more groups of people until everyone is thinking in only one way. That does not sound like Freedom to me.
@Seremaker:
About your Pledge of Allegiance case there...you fail to understand the intricacies of being able to say it freely on a school campus and having the pledge be mandatory for all children to say. Forcing it to be mandatory causes unrest amongst those who choose not to say it, and therefore can cause direct conflict amongst their peers.
The ACLU stopped the Pledge from being mandatory in schools, which I agree with. It's not something you should need to indoctrinate yourself into America, especially every single day at 7:30 in the morning. I've met several people from both sides of the conflict...even a sect of christianity which forbids the Pledge from ever being said by their members, as Pledging Allegiance to a flag is idolatry, something which one of the 10 commandments forbids.
I've not heard about ACLU before, but I think every country needs to have at least one such organization to deliver constant kicks in the government's ass about freedoms, human rights and such. Because as soon as people stop screamng about human rights violations and unjustice, a country will start drifting from democracy into something worse.
The ACLU will defend your right to try and disband it. They take it to extremes pretty often, but they're needed.
Again, the ACLU believes in upholding the Constitution. Let's take a look at the Second Amendment.SEREMAKER wrote:
ok make on topic here : ACLU {my opinion} hypocrites why you may ask? you mentioned they "enforce the most important laws that we have: the Constitution and the Bill of Rights" ACLU will go to court for you to defend your freedom of speech - thats good, thats very good freedom speech is what makes us American but theres an amendment that ACLU is fighting {along with many others} to remove from our Bill of Rights - the 2nd Amendment "The Right to Keep and Bear Arms" - this amendment also makes us American {I'm very proud of this amendment}
In my eyes this is a very hypocritical thing for the ACLU to do - on 1 side they will defend your freedom of speech, they will uphold the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to highest standards and on the other side they have begun to pick away at it to try to remove certain rights and laws, if somehow they were able to convince the Supreme Court to rewrite our Constitution and our Bill of Rights what would stop them at the 2nd amendment
The ACLU reads this as a full sentence rather than skipping the first half like most of us do when we remember it. They uphold the interpretation of the second amendment as was established in Stevens v United States in 1971:THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTION wrote:
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
USA vs Miller in 1939 was the only time that this issue ever made it to the Supreme Court. They ruled that the second amendment should be interpreted as intending to guarantee the states' rights to maintain and train a militia.STEVENS VS USA wrote:
Since the Second Amendment right "to keep and bear Arms" applies only to the right of the State to maintain a militia and not to the individual's right to bear arms, there can be no serious claim to any express constitutional right of an individual to possess a firearm.
Therefore the ACLU's stance is in agreement with the Supreme Court's ruling on the Second Amendment: it specifically protects individual states' rights to maintain militias but does not guarantee individual right to bear arms. However the ACLU is not IN FAVOR of gun control, nor are they against gun control. They just believe it is a matter to be decided by Congress.USA VS MILLER wrote:
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.
In practice, I don't think anyone really wants the unabashed right to bear arms. Do you believe that convicted murderers discharged from prison should be allowed to purchase semi-automatic shotguns or pistols? Does anyone actually believe that the average American should be allowed to own bazookas, missile launchers, or nuclear warheads? These are all "arms", and if you believe the Second Amendment unequivocally protects the right to bear arms, you're saying that all Americans deserve the right to own these. Most people would agree that a line should be drawn somewhere - we may not agree on where, but the fact that we believe that there is a line that should not be crossed means that we all believe restrictions can and should apply and that the Second Amendment does not guarantee any American to own whatever "arms" they want.
Congrats!seremaker wrote:
yep thats right, the lady in my life finally pulled a gun on me and demanded a marriage so I have no choice but to give in and make her part of my family
THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTION wrote:
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
I wonder how many thousands of people have died because someone didn't think out the wording of one sentence very well....
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
I wonder how many thousands of people have died because someone didn't think out the wording of one sentence very well....