Court slaps down ACLU

[JoeEpcotRocks]

The question I asked earlier still stands....why do people oppose an organization whose function is to uphold the Constitution of the United States?

It's stated function sounds so noble, but what we've really seen over the years was best said by the judge in the article ("same tired arguments" and "not a reasonable person" etc.).

This country would be better off without the ACLU in my not-so-humble opinion.

 

[Lord Fantasius]

The question I asked earlier still stands....why do people oppose an organization whose function is to uphold the Constitution of the United States?

Mainly because of their duplicity...there have been far too many times, and those are only ones I'm aware of, were the ACLU declined to help out solely because the person was a Christian, or didn't support abortion, or wanted school prayer, etc. In one case a Christian women requested help because she was being harassed at her job inwhich she was a minority but the ACLU said, in effect, too bad you should have known what you were getting into before you took the job, and then turned around to argue a case against a Christian family businessman when he was trying to get get rid of a worker that after he was hired all of a sudden turned disruptive and combative because he couldn't work amongst all "those Christians."

It's instances like those that make people think twice about whether the ACLU is neutral on anything; in general, the ACLU isn't there to uphold the Constitution, just their own agenda.

-R

 

[WebmasterAlex]

It's stated function sounds so noble, but what we've really seen over the years was best said by the judge in the article ("same tired arguments" and "not a reasonable person" etc.).

This country would be better off without the ACLU in my not-so-humble opinion.

Well..while I don't agree with every case they have ever taken the fact is they win a whole ton of them. If their cases were that unreasonable they wouldn't win them.

 

[JennyMominRI]

Very well said!

I'm tired of them tried to scrub every once of God from this nation's public institutions and traditions and tired of their numerous attacks on private groups, such as the Boy Scouts.

If they really had any stones, they would take their circus act into foreign countries and "really" fight for freedoms.

Well Joe. I don't belive that G-d should be in ANY public office.I'm not in favor of ANY religious symbols on public ground,including those of my own religion,like a menorah. I would NEVER participate in boyscouts, although I would protect your rights to do so... As for taking my acts to a foreign countries,as a 100 % P+T disabled United States Marine and Gulf War Era veteran, I think that probably speaks for itself

 

[JoeEpcotRocks]

Well Joe. I don't belive that G-d should be in ANY public office.I'm not in favor of ANY religious symbols on public ground,including those of my own religion,like a menorah. I would NEVER participate in boyscouts, although I would protect your rights to do so... As for taking my acts to a foreign countries,as a 100 % P+T disabled United States Marine and Gulf War Era veteran, I think that probably speaks for itself

I was talking about the ACLU taking its act to foreign soil instead of pretending to fight for freedoms here.

In any case, thank you for your service to our country.

 

[JennyMominRI]

I was talking about the ACLU taking its act to foreign soil instead of pretending to fight for freedoms here.

In any case, thank you for your service to our country.

Well,then I'm sorry to.I thought that was a general criticism of people who felt that way and not the ACLU.. Sorry again

 

[Judge Smails]

It's stated function sounds so noble, but what we've really seen over the years was best said by the judge in the article ("same tired arguments" and "not a reasonable person" etc.).

This country would be better off without the ACLU in my not-so-humble opinion.

Yea your right Joe. We sure didn't need that tired argument in 1954 Brown v. Board of Education, which led to the ban on segregation in U.S. public schools.

 

[castleview]

I was talking about the ACLU taking its act to foreign soil instead of pretending to fight for freedoms here.

Actually, a few years ago in Providence, the mayor tried to force firefighters to march in the gay pride parade. He didn't care about the firemen who felt it went against their religion or just weren't comfortable doing it. Guess what - it was the ACLU who came in to defend the firemen who didn't want to march...and they won.

 

[JennyMominRI]

Yea your right Joe. We sure didn't need that tired argument in 1954 Brown v. Board of Education, which led to the ban on segregation in U.S. public schools.

Sort of OT,but I realy foud it fascinating that Boston was the last large city in the US to end segregation and that was in the mid to late 70's

 

[nwdisgal]

I support our Founding Fathers who penned out a distinct separation of Church and State. If I want to say a prayer, or hear the Ten Commandments, I go to church. It's too bad the Federal Government wants to be in my bedroom and every place else these days.

 

[Charade]

But when President Bush wants to overule the states that passed a gay marriage law with a constitutional ammendment, for instance, that's ok, right? .

That's how the system is setup. If an amendment that banned gay marriage was ratified by 3/4 of the states, California and Taxechuesettes would just have to "get over it".

 

[nwdisgal]

Very well said!

I'm tired of them tried to scrub every once of God from this nation's public institutions and traditions and tired of their numerous attacks on private groups, such as the Boy Scouts.

If they really had any stones, they would take their circus act into foreign countries and "really" fight for freedoms.

You better brush up on your Boy Scout manual. The manual allows boys to worship any god - as long as they worship a deity. Even they realize that there are multiple religions that their boys worship.

 

[Charade]

Just like you, right Joe? I'm assuming you're posting this from Iraq.

HA! That's an old one. K, you need some new material.

 

[richiebaseball]

Yea your right Joe. We sure didn't need that tired argument in 1954 Brown v. Board of Education, which led to the ban on segregation in U.S. public schools.

Is that a subtle attempt to suggest that anyone that disagrees with you is a racist? I must not have read that right. You can't possibly be that intellectually inept.

Back to the point, while not a fan of the ACLU they have it right on this one. Despite our founding father's sometimes contradicting themselves, I believe there is enough evidence to suggest that separating church and state, in practice if not in theory, was their aim.

 

[Galahad]

I support our Founding Fathers who penned out a distinct separation of Church and State. If I want to say a prayer, or hear the Ten Commandments, I go to church. It's too bad the Federal Government wants to be in my bedroom and every place else these days.

FWIW, they "penned" nothing intended to segregate religion and prayer to churches.

 

[eclectics]

That's how the system is setup. If an amendment that banned gay marriage was ratified by 3/4 of the states, California and Taxechuesettes would just have to "get over it".

Yes, adding an amendment is such a big deal, I'm sure the Presidents that wanted one agonized long and hard over it, and God forbid, never thought of pushing one forward for a purely personal reason. Well, most Presidents anyway .

 

[Galahad]

Yes, adding an amendment is such a big deal, I'm sure the Presidents that wanted one agonized long and hard over it, and God forbid, never thought of pushing one forward for a purely personal reason. Well, most Presidents anyway .

But there really is a very good reason for suggesting an amendment for this - or especially for abortion (either for or against - doesn't really matter). If the country is forced to go through the "great debate" necessary for 3/4 of the states to either agree or disagree with an amendment, then the issue (whatever it is) is really well and truly settled and the argument is over. This piecemeal through referendums or the courts just keeps issues alive for future elections and partisan fund raising - solving nothing.

 

[Charade]

But there really is a very good reason for suggesting an amendment for this - or especially for abortion (either for or against - doesn't really matter). If the country is forced to go through the "great debate" necessary for 3/4 of the states to either agree or disagree with an amendment, then the issue (whatever it is) is really well and truly settled and the argument is over. This piecemeal through referendums or the courts just keeps issues alive for future elections and partisan fund raising - solving nothing.

 

[Judge Smails]

Is that a subtle attempt to suggest that anyone that disagrees with you is a racist? I must not have read that right. You can't possibly be that intellectually inept.

Back to the point, while not a fan of the ACLU they have it right on this one. Despite our founding father's sometimes contradicting themselves, I believe there is enough evidence to suggest that separating church and state, in practice if not in theory, was their aim.

Ah no I was citing a famous case that most folks are familiar with regarding the ACLU. I'll thank you in advance for the forthcoming apology.

 

[nwdisgal]

As I stated, our founding fathers penned separation of Church and State. End of FF discussion. Then, the next portion stated was my own opinion. I said nothing about the Founding Fathers segregating religion to a church.