Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Hey, if they can manage to pi$$ off both the liberals and the conservatives at the same time, then they must be doing something right!
Exactly.
But there is this persistent meme and propaganda from the extreme Right that the ACLU is biased this way or that.
In every case, in my experience, they aren't getting their information from any credible source (like an actual court opinion), but from some nutter's online blog or a website that clearly has a specific agenda.
The NAMBLA case is a perfect example. With the possible exception of the Stella Leibeck McDonald's hot coffee case, I have never seen a legal proceeding so utterly misrepresented and misunderstood.
These people have the most superficial understanding of the law and our legal system, but it never seems to stop them from constant screeching and disseminating false information about it.
How about when the ACLU defended Rush Limbaugh, or when they defended Oliver North, or when they defended Jerry Falwell?
None of the three you cite are even close to what the Westboro Baptist Church does to grieving families by protesting funerals of their fallen sons and daughters.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee is threatening school officials across the state to not include anything Christian in their holiday celebrations.
In a letter to 137 public school superintendents, the ACLU told administrators that holiday celebrations containing a Christian message amounts to a school’s unconstitutional endorsement of religion, reports the TriValley Central.
ACLU Threatens Tennessee Schools About Upcoming Holiday Programs | Christian Law Journal (http://www.christianlawjournal.com/featured-articles/aclu-threatens-tennessee-schools-about-upcoming-holiday-programs - broken link)
Barry Lynn, of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, says however that the law is murky on these expressions of faith. And the American Civil Liberties Union says overt religious symbols like crucifixes are not legal, but whether Muslim foot baths and prayer rugs fall into that category is not clear.
"That's a difficult one, and it's right on the edge," says Jeremy Gunn, director of the ACLU program on freedom of religion and belief in Washington, D.C.
None of the three you cite are even close to what the Westboro Baptist Church does to grieving families by protesting funerals of their fallen sons and daughters.
I truly hope you can understand this.
The ACLU finds many of their clients, including these pieces of human excrement, to be obnoxious.
They are not defending the IDEAS of these people. They are defending the First Amendment.
It's ALWAYS going to be the cases with an obnoxious defendant spewing a controversial or offensive message where the erosion of our rights begins. It's just the nature of the business.
That's why they defended the Nazis' right to march through Skokie.
Every day the ACLU holds its nose and does the dirty work of keeping the government from overstepping its bounds, something any real conservative should appreciate. The front lines of this battle are always going to involve defendants that are unpopular. That's just the nature of the system.
Again, I'll cite to the now infamous NAMBLA case. IN NO WAY did the ACLU defend NAMBLA's substantive opinions. If you actually read the case filings, it is abundantly clear (as it is in any controversial case they take on), that the ACLU was worried about the effects a civil wrongful death case could have on First Amendment law - and frankly, they were absolutely right. The plaintiffs in that cases were understandably upset about what happened to their child, but they were trying to sue someone who had no connection to the actual crime for simplying talking about how to commit a crime. That the crime was pedophilia just makes it that much easier for a disgusted jury or judge to be tempted to erode the first amendment in their understandable, but emotional, motivation to react to a disgusting point of view.
It seems, however, that no matter how many times the concept of defending the Constitution on principle is explained to some people, they just don't seem to be able or willing to look past their disgust of a defendant to the underlying constitutional principle being defended.
Thank God the ACLU holds its nose and does just that.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee is threatening school officials across the state to not include anything Christian in their holiday celebrations.
Because that is an Establishment clause issue, not a Free Exercise one.
You persist in your willful ignorance regarding the difference between this kind of case and the ones I cited above.
What is it going to take to get you to understand constitutional law?
Quote:
In a letter to 137 public school superintendents, the ACLU told administrators that holiday celebrations containing a Christian message amounts to a school’s unconstitutional endorsement of religion, reports the TriValley Central.
Ditto.
Quote:
ACLU Threatens Tennessee Schools About Upcoming Holiday Programs | Christian Law Journal (http://www.christianlawjournal.com/featured-articles/aclu-threatens-tennessee-schools-about-upcoming-holiday-programs - broken link)
Ditto ditto. The ACLU upholds BOTH religion clauses. When it is Free Exercise under threat, they will always side with the religion. When it is Establishment under threat, they will always side against the religion.
What part of this do you just not get?
Quote:
Barry Lynn, of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, says however that the law is murky on these expressions of faith. And the American Civil Liberties Union says overt religious symbols like crucifixes are not legal, but whether Muslim foot baths and prayer rugs fall into that category is not clear.
Of course it is murky. It is in fact both murky and extremely complicated. That's why we have lawsuits to sort this stuff out. We have an organic, self-correcting legal system, and this is part of the process of sorting this complicated stuff out.
Quote:
"That's a difficult one, and it's right on the edge," says Jeremy Gunn, director of the ACLU program on freedom of religion and belief in Washington, D.C.
Hence the need for guidance from the courts, which can only be obtained via a lawsuit that results in a court opinion. The courts cannot just sua sponte go around expressing opinions. That really would be legislating and is not permitted in our system of government. The courts only have power when a controversy is propertly presented to him.
I've already cited an example of the ACLU going after a Muslim school where they believed the school was violating the Establishment clause.
Now before you go down the road of "but but it seems the ACLU goes after Christians more often", you're right, but for the wrong reasons. The reasons for that are simple demographics. More Christians = more incidents of Establishment violations.
None of the three you cite are even close to what the Westboro Baptist Church does to grieving families by protesting funerals of their fallen sons and daughters.
I was just pointing out that they defend EVEYBODY whose first or fourth amendment rights are being violated (they're primarily a 1st and 4th amendment advocacy group). It's doesn't matter if the person or group is liberal, conservative, mean, nice, Christian, Muslim, atheist, gay, straight, black, white, etc. The ACLU defends freedom and the Constitution - not particular interests.
They've defended the Westboro Baptist Chruch, the KKK, neo-Nazis, NAMBLA, Rush Limbaugh, Oliver North, Jerry Falwell, John Scopes (the creationism-evolution case in 1925), gay-rights groups, Churches denied advertising space in the Boston subway, etc, etc, etc. And if some governmental agency tried to deny me or you our 1st or 4th amendment rights, they'd defend us.
Actually, I don't pull the same conclusion from the article as the OP does.
It depends on the definition of "defend." If the ACLU is putting its monetary and legal resources into "defending" this person in a court of law, then I could see how the word "defend" could be used.
However, I don't necessarily see that happening, at least not the way the article is worded. It sounds more like to me they are "defending" him in principle only through verbal acknowledgement. That's not exactly doing much. Anyone can defend the guy in that manner.
Does anyone have a more conclusive article?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A Tale Of Two ACLUs
