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.
I've post references for this on like 20 different threads on here, and I really don't feel like finding them all again. Look back through my posting history or spend 20 minutes googling and you'll find them very easily.
Last edited by ramanboy33; 07-02-2009 at 04:37 PM..
Hitler wouldn't fit in to his own eugenics program and wouldn't have been a member of his own "Master Race". So to think they Keller might have thought the same way isn't much of a stretch.
The founders of the ACLU, including Keller, were adamant supporters of communism and were members of the Socialist party. Socialists advocate all sorts of things that wouldn't allow people like Keller to exist.
These are just lies and half-truths that people on the authoritarian-right throw around to try and discredit the ACLU.
"In 1940, the ACLU formally barred communists from leadership or staff positions, and would take the position that it did not want communists as members either. The board declared that it was "inappropriate for any person to serve on the governing committees of the Union or its staff, who is a member of any political organization which supports totalitarianism in any country, or who by his public declarations indicates his support of such a principle."
The purge was led by Roger Baldwin, the main founder of the ACLU. Of course, those who hate the ACLU will rile on and on how Baldwin was a communist. In his teens and early 20's (turn of the century), he did in fact, hang out with communists and was philosophically aligned with them. Of course, these detractors won't mention he denounced communism more than a decade before he started the ACLU.
That said, can we not make this an ACLU thread anymore?? Please.
I'm not going to go into detail on everyone of these but the ACLU had ulterior motives on every one of these. ACLU Fights For Christian Inmate's Right to PreachThe ACLU will defend ANY criminal for ANYTHING. What happened to the seperation of church and state? Its OK for the criminal to preach but not the victim? The ACLU has fought tooth and nail thousands of times to ban prayer in a multitude of places including prison. For them to turn around and taut this as DEFENDING a christian. Get real. This is spin doctoring at its worst. ACLU of Northern California Fights Law that Got Quakers Fired Over Loyalty Oath They weren't defending quakers. They were defending communists. The quakers just happened to get caught up in the same law. ACLU Defends Right of Individual Christian to Display Nativity Scene on Public Property
The ACLU wasn't defending her right to put up a nativity scene. A law was passed that prevented non-residents from putting up displays. They were fighting against that law. It had nothing to do with her religion. ACLU Defends Christians Protesting Gay Rights in Florida The ACLU was protecting their own ability to protest. If the anti gay rights rally was put under restraints then ALL rallys would be under the same restraints, including PRO gay rights rallys.. The ACLU can't have that. ACLU Champions Religious Freedom Of Mormon College Student This was about a scholarship. The ACLU didn't in anyway defend his religious freedom. ACLU Fights for Christian Church's Mission to Feed the Poor The ACLU didn't fight for anything. They made a phone call. Thats it. A Republican did the fighting. ACLU Fights for Christmas Tree
This is the most laughable one of all. IT WAS THE ACLU THAT WAS THROWNIG A FIT. They didn't defend a damn thing.
There's not one single case were the ACLU didn't have its own agenda.
The ACLU is of the liberals, by the liberals, and for the liberals. The rest of US be damned.
all this entire post proves is how little you know of the US Constitution not to mention fundamental US law.
(Did you write those bolded headlines yourself? And then... argue against them?)
My first impulse was to insult you right back, but then I realized that pointing out that you have posted nothing to support your statements was more appropriate. If you can't back up your accusations, maybe you need to do more to educate yourself.
As for your remarks about the ACLU's agenda, um, their agenda is to defend the civil liberties that are part of our heritage as per the Constitution and other legal instruments. While they may not pursue every case where a person feels their civil liberties have been violated, and those decisions might be construed to suggest an agenda, the fact that I provided you a list of cases where the ACLU defended conservative or right-leaning individuals/groups shows that whatever agenda they have, it is not only liberal or left-leaning individuals/groups who benefit.
NO! It's not intended to promote idolatry, something forbidden by the Quran (and even the Bible for that matter). Truth is depictions of the Prophet aren't exactly strictly forbidden in the Quran - a fact that Muslims seem to forget themselves hence their aversion to any kind of artistic depiction of him in general! Besides, Muslims should feel flattered that their Prophet was recognized by the Supreme Court of the most powerful nation on Earth as one of the most "influential" lawmakers in all of history!
In the US Supreme Court building there is a statue of the Muslim Prophet Mohammed included in a frieze. Should it be there?
Why not?
The display is of lawgivers throughout history and mythology -- lawgivers, because it's a court. It's about as religious as the depiction of Mercury on the old dimes -- which is to say, not at all.
Why would we take down historical symbols down? It makes no sense and solves nothing but start controversy.Why not just burn all teh books that you don't agree with that our ancetors wrote;its the same thing really.It like those that want to erase all thew religious influenece that played thru out our history;it just falsifies history.
I think this is the first time I ever agreed with you. LOL!
In the US Supreme Court building there is a statue of the Muslim Prophet Mohammed included in a frieze. Should it be there?
If that's truly who it is, then yes, it should be there.
Let's not open up that can of worms.
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.