1
   

DOES THE ACLU DO MORE GOOD OR MORE HARM?

 
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Nov, 2005 09:19 pm
Okay, the Oregon case was heard in 1990 so technically that falls within the 20 years. I don't think the ACLU was taking on religious emblems and mottos etc in 1990, but I could be wrong.

Do you know when the Gonzales case was heard?

Both of course were based on the ACLU's advocacy for legalizing recreational drugs, but I won't question their motives in these two cases.

Have anything more recent?
0 Replies
 
kuvasz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Nov, 2005 09:38 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
Okay, the Oregon case was heard in 1990 so technically that falls within the 20 years. I don't think the ACLU was taking on religious emblems and mottos etc in 1990, but I could be wrong.

Do you know when the Gonzales case was heard?

Both of course were based on the ACLU's advocacy for legalizing recreational drugs, but I won't question their motives in these two cases.

Have anything more recent?


excuse me? did I not answer your challenge sufficiently that you ignore the actual statements made by the ACLU in the aforementioned cases?

if one is going to make statements like....

Foxfyre wrote:
Both of course were based on the ACLU's advocacy for legalizing recreational drugs, but I won't question their motives in these two cases.


surely, there is evidence in the ACLU briefs to support your claim? regardless of your opinion, both cases were argued on the right for people to practice their religion without interference by the state. it so happened that the practices included the use of pyschotropic drugs.

btw: the ACLU filed their brief in support of that nazi march in Skokey IL as a right of free assembly. it almost split apart the ACLU back in '78-'79.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Nov, 2005 09:39 pm
2005 isn't recent enough for you fox?
0 Replies
 
boomerang
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Nov, 2005 09:46 pm
kuvasz wrote:
btw: the ACLU filed their brief in support of that nazi march in Skokey IL as a right of free assembly. it almost split apart the ACLU back in '78-'79.


Really?

That was my mistake then.

I thought it was the other way around.

I'm glad I confessed to having to do some research before I posted that!
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Nov, 2005 09:49 pm
I think of civil liberties like being able to hunt and fish and provide for yourself. I don't think the ACLU represents me.
0 Replies
 
twinpeaksnikki2
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Nov, 2005 09:53 pm
cjhsa wrote:
I think of civil liberties like being able to hunt and fish and provide for yourself. I don't think the ACLU represents me.


Well they do. let anyone challenge your right to hunt and fish and they will be right there for you.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Nov, 2005 09:55 pm
Yeah, RIGHT!
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Nov, 2005 09:59 pm
Anybody see Rosa Parks' funeral? I'm sure she was rolling in her grave, laughing, at the idjits who showed up. "Civil" my ass.
0 Replies
 
goodfielder
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Nov, 2005 01:51 am
I thought the ACLU was against the mixing up of of religion and state, "state" as in political authority. I'm not under the impression that they are anti-religious per se, just careful to ensure that the US doesn't become a theocracy.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Nov, 2005 02:21 am
I'm rather sure, no-one would ever think of a village's/town's seal here (Germany/Europe) when being confronted with this

http://www.telladf.org/userdocs/tijeras_logo.gif

but of some Catholic institution or order.


Quote:
Even the village attorney has recommended the rosary and cross be changed on the logo. This advice was likely spurred by a legal precedent set in 1985, when the ACLU challenged the Bernalillo County seal that contained a Latin cross and Spanish motto that translated into "With This We Conquer," according to ACLU's letter to the village.
The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the ACLU, and the county changed its seal.


source: Albuquerque Journal, Thursday, September 8, 2005 , online edition



But if this really goes to court, the ADF-laywers and the ACLU attorney (who is working fulltime for them, btw) will get some more attraction ...
0 Replies
 
Merry Andrew
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Nov, 2005 05:57 pm
kuvazs, thanks for that note on the Skokie case. Reading Boomer's post, I, too, thought that I remembered the ACLU filing a brief on behalf of the Nazis, not the other way 'round. But you beat me on the research. I thought at the time that their position was correct, but it cost them one helluva lot of members who were outraged.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Nov, 2005 06:28 pm
I remember it that way as well, and also agreed with it.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Nov, 2005 06:30 pm
I have dropped my annual donation to the aclu, they continue to support free speech for christians. An abomination I tell you!
0 Replies
 
Merry Andrew
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Nov, 2005 06:32 pm
Chritians have as much right to act uppity as you and I do, Dys.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Nov, 2005 06:33 pm
They do? Fargin' bastiches. I demand superior rights.
0 Replies
 
kuvasz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Nov, 2005 07:10 pm
Merry Andrew wrote:
kuvazs, thanks for that note on the Skokie case. Reading Boomer's post, I, too, thought that I remembered the ACLU filing a brief on behalf of the Nazis, not the other way 'round. But you beat me on the research. I thought at the time that their position was correct, but it cost them one helluva lot of members who were outraged.




http://www.n24.de/php-bin/data/cgalerie/content/n24_boulevard_de_050831_bluesbrothers/01.jpg


http://161.58.5.90/blues/illnazis.wav
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Nov, 2005 08:58 pm
Kuvatz writes
Quote:
surely, there is evidence in the ACLU briefs to support your claim? regardless of your opinion, both cases were argued on the right for people to practice their religion without interference by the state. it so happened that the practices included the use of pyschotropic drugs.


The question is, would the ACLU have taken these cases if they had not involved taking psychotopic drugs? I acknowledged your point here and simply asked if you had anything else?
0 Replies
 
kuvasz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Nov, 2005 09:40 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
Kuvatz writes
Quote:
surely, there is evidence in the ACLU briefs to support your claim? regardless of your opinion, both cases were argued on the right for people to practice their religion without interference by the state. it so happened that the practices included the use of pyschotropic drugs.


The question is, would the ACLU have taken these cases if they had not involved taking psychotopic drugs? I acknowledged your point here and simply asked if you had anything else?


no way, buckeroo, your question was this:

Foxfyre wrote:
I'm asking you specifically if you can find any case in the last 20 years in which the ACLU has defended any person's right to the free exercise of religion or defended any entity's right to display a religious object d'art etc.


and I answered it, with two specific cases where they did.

if you want to act like Daffy Duck and constantly draw new lines in the sand whenever Bugs Bunny steps over the one you just drew, go find another playmate. your premise on this thread has been how the big bad ACLU does not support religious rights in its efforts in the courts. you are just plain wrong and adding later caveats and qualifiers is hysterical.

that's all, folks

http://www.animationconnection.com/images/76692s.jpg
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Nov, 2005 11:07 pm
The ACLU went to bat for Rush Limbaugh to keep his medical records private.

They take on a lot more than just separation of church and state issues.

But I bet they went to college which brainwashed them into being liberals.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Nov, 2005 11:16 pm
DrewDad wrote:
The ACLU went to bat for Rush Limbaugh to keep his medical records private.

They take on a lot more than just separation of church and state issues.

But I bet they went to college which brainwashed them into being liberals.


Yes and they took Terri Schiavo's parents' side too which in my view was the right side of that issue. They did file one brief in defense of Limbaugh and one in defense of Kelo in Kelo vs New London, all in my view being the right side of the issues. I certainly have no blanket condemnation of the ACLU. I also have not revealed my vote on the initial question in the poll.

The quarrel is in them taking it upon themselves to object to our military having access to chaplains, military bases sponsoring Boy Scout troops, and the frontal assault on emblems and object d' arts representing the religious history and heritage of this country. And to add insult to injury, I'm having to pay them with my taxes to do it. Remove the profit motive, and I think they would care a whole lot less. And that I think is what is rotten in Denmark.

To Kuvatz. I did ackowledge your post, made my observation, and asked if you had anything else? A simple yes or no would have sufficed.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/18/2024 at 03:54:10