Joining the ACLU?

X86Daddy writes "I'm currently a member of the EFF. I agree with everything they do. I'd like to further help protect liberty and freedom, and the ACLU advertises that they exist for that purpose. The ACLU is an organization well known for controversy. I've heard many opinions for and against it, and even a few citations of evidence. I've read their positions on their website, and although I strongly disagree with some of what they believe, I support the majority of their positions. I've also read some of their court filings, in search of more evidence of what they really do. I'm still undecided. I've even sent them an unanswered e-mail about the percentages of money spent on their main positions. So, I ask the Slashdot audience, what information do you have about the ACLU? I'm interested in facts about how they spend their efforts with regards to all of their efforts, electronic-related or not."

Comments

The organization has an obvious slant

[Henry V .009]

The ACLU believes that the first amendment protects the rights of child pornographers but that the second amendment has nothing to do with the right to bear arms.

Re:The organization has an obvious slant

[Otter]

The number one thing you always hear in praise of the ACLU is that they follow their principles regardless of whose behalf they're being applied. Two things I always found odd about that:

1) People act like ideological consistency is equivalent to saintliness. Is it really so extraordinary to have a basic sense of principle at the expense of convenience?

2) As you note, while the ACLU supports the most massively expansive interpretation of the First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment and that mysterious bit of the Constitution that guarantees abortions to teenagers, they have no interest in securing the rights guaranteed by the basic language of the Second Amendment.

Re:The organization has an obvious slant

[mcSey921]

And the Oscars are political? No shit?
Robin Williams

Of course the organization has an obvious slant, its stated goals are to protect what it views as the civil liberties of all Americans. When you're defending what you view as freedom you tend to get a little loony... see RMS for another example.

Unfortunately, somewhere along the way they certainly did forget about the second amendment. I read an article by an ACLU member pointing out that a great number of members disagree with the organization on the second amendment. He also pointed out that, while the groups stated position is that "the right to bear arms" is a "group right" (you know to let people keep a well regulated militia), the ACLU is not nearly as active in second amendment law as it is in other areas.

I joined the organization a few years back at the same time I joined the NRA. I figure I'll pay the ACLU to take loony positions on amendments 1 and 3-10, and I'll pay the NRA to take loony positions on number 2. Those loony positions will be shot down in courts and legislatures, but perhaps we will still have some rights a few years down the road.

When the government wants to go right, pull hard from the left. When the government wants to go left (yeah that's gonna happen), pull hard from the right.

Re:The organization has an obvious slant

[Anonymous Coward]

2) As you note [...] they have no interest in securing the rights guaranteed by the basic language of the Second Amendment.

There is no particular reason for the ACLU to defend the 2nd Amendment, as the NRA already does so quite strongly.

Re:The organization has an obvious slant

[Otter]

And the Oscars are political? No shit?
Robin Williams

I have serious disagreements with both the NRA and the ACLU, but flat-out loathe Robin Williams. Way to win me over! ;-)

Sure -- I agree that both organizations are worth existing. My point is simply that the ACLU gets tremendous credit for its supposed evenhandedness, that it doesn't obviously deserve.

Re:The organization has an obvious slant

[macdaddy357]

The NRA gun nuts will never defend anyone's personal liberty, because they love Bush, Ashcroft et al, and helped them take over. They are turning America into The Fourth Reich, and the NRA gun nuts stand and cheer. They will get theirs though, just as the SA did as soon as the neocons' power is completely secured. You don't really believe that Boom and Muffy Country Club want the rabble armed, do you? Use your head, NRA gun nuts! Even if you decided to try to stop the "army from taking over," you couldn't. Your pop guns are no match for military weaponry. Besides, as long as Bushy is Fuhrer, you would help the army take over. Fuck you NRA hillbillies pig sodomizers!

Re:The organization has an obvious slant

[Chasuk]

The ACLU didn't forget about the second amendment. They just disagree with the populist interpretation of it.

To quote them:

"If indeed the Second Amendment provides an absolute, constitutional protection for the right to bear arms in order to preserve the power of the people to resist government tyranny, then it must allow individuals to possess bazookas, torpedoes, SCUD missiles and even nuclear warheads, for they, like handguns, rifles and M-16s, are arms. Moreover, it is hard to imagine any serious resistance to the military without such arms. Yet few, if any, would argue that the Second Amendment gives individuals the unlimited right to own any weapons they please. But as soon as we allow governmental regulation of any weapons, we have broken the dam of Constitutional protection. Once that dam is broken, we are not talking about whether the government can constitutionally restrict arms, but rather what constitutes a reasonable restriction."

For what it's worth, I happen to agree with them.

Re:The organization has an obvious slant

[pmz]

When the government wants to go left (yeah that's gonna happen), pull hard from the right.

While I will cheer when GWB is not elected in 2004, I gravely fear that a Democrat replacement will seriously attempt nationalized health care (holy shit will that be a disaster of US Government proportions).

What we need is someone else, who understands that government meddling--whether Republican or Democrat flavored--is simply bad for both liberty and the economy.

Re:The organization has an obvious slant

[Quinn]

The ACLU's second amendment statement reeks of "leftist" politics, but has no bite. Thankfully, they usually stick to defending our freedoms, not abridging our rights. If anyone has evidence to the contrary, of the ACLU actively fighting against the second amendment, I'd very much like to see it.

Even so, I agree with others in that the ACLU is an effective counterbalance to fascist restrictions on liberty and facetious Constitutional amendments.

I can't recall a single ACLU action which has caused harm to anything but the clammy sensitivities of self-righteous busybodies.

Re:The organization has an obvious slant

[kableh]

Do you pay for health insurance at all? Did your rates go up yet again this year? Then care to tell me how the government can do worse?

The system Dean has proposed is basically the same as the system that covers government employees, and from what he says, the system they implemented at Vermont is cheaper than the equivelent coverage from a private company.

It is easy to blow off universal health care when you have it. My (single) mom often didn't have insurance when I was growing up. Spend a night with an inner ear infection because you can't afford to go to the doctor then tell me the worst thing you can imagine is the goverment spending a couple of your tax dollars giving a poor kid medical care.

Re:The organization has an obvious slant

[Cyberdyne]

Unfortunately, that argument works equally well against their own stance on the First Amendment:

"If indeed the First Amendment provides an absolute, constitutional protection for the right to free speech, then it must allow individuals to possess child pornography and to shout 'fire' in a crowded theater, for they, like letters to the Editor, are speech. Yet few, if any, would argue that the First Amendment gives individuals the unlimited right to any speech they please. But as soon as we allow government regulation of any speech, we have broken the dam of Constitutional protection. Once that dam is broken, we are not talking about whether the government can constitutionally restrict speech, but rather what constitutes a reasonable restriction."

For that matter, of course, we can apply something similar to many of the other amendments; the Fourth Amendment even mentions the last concept itself, protecting only from "unreasonable" search and seizure... The ACLU applies a logical tool of "reducit ad absurdum" to the obvious interpretation of the Second Amendment, to make it seem unreasonable, without applying the same rigour to their own position on the First. I don't believe the Second guarantees the right to nuclear weapons - nor do I believe the First guarantees a right to child pornography or sending death threats. If they want to ignore the Second entirely, they can, but they should not attack it like that when their own position falls to the same logic: people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones...

Re:The organization has an obvious slant

[invenustus]

Here's how it works.

1. When the government provides it for free, the marginal cost to the consumer becomes zero. Therefore, people consume more than they otherwise would. If your gas were free, you'd drive more.

2. As people consume more, demand exceeds supply, and prices increase.

3. Government responds to this problem in one of two ways:

a. Paying the higher and higher prices. Everyone pays more, but since the amount they pay is only affected negligibly by how much they consume, this is no incentive for them to consume less. The costs to taxpayers overwhelmingly exceed what taxpayers were told it would cost.

b. Imposing price controls, and rationing the remaining supply. Get ready to wait in line.

4. Rich people go to other countries for medical treatments the government won't approve.

The really sad thing is that I'm still probably going to vote for Dean.

Re:The organization has an obvious slant

[WatertonMan]

Actually many of the attacks on to Patriot bill and other such things have come primarily from the right wing. The Democrats were running scared afraid to say anything until recently. And that was only when the aftermath of the war started to go bad and Howard Dean started making headway in the Presidential field.

Re:The organization has an obvious slant

[Loki_1929]

" The ACLU believes that the first amendment protects the rights of child pornographers"

The ACLU believes that every citizen is equally entitled to their rights. The only question here is where those rights end. In the case of child pornographers, I believe the ACLU would support the existence and literature of a group such as NAMBLA (Group of male paedophiles) while not supporting the production or distribution of child pornography as a protected right. Why is that? Because while NAMBLA has the right to hold a highly unpopular position (that it's ok for men and boys to engage in sex acts), the production of the pornography requires that the rights of the child (as covered under numerous UN conventions and such) be violated. The ACLU has always held that the rights of an individual should always extend as far as possible, limited only in such a way that they do not interfere with the rights of anyone else. If you look back, you'll also note that they've defended the KKK, cross-burners, flag-burners, and plenty more unpopular groups of people. It's not because they like those people; it's because they like the rights to which they, like those people, are entitled.

"The ACLU believes... that the second amendment has nothing to do with the right to bear arms."

This is an unfortunate misconception. The ACLU does believe that an individual has the right to bear arms to protect himself, his family, and his posessions from agression. The ACLU does not ignore the 2nd amendment, nor does it ignore such things as gun control and the like. The ACLU's position is much the same as the NRA's, in that each citizen has the limited right to hold and possess weapons. The ACLU is not in favor of the government coming to snatch your handguns, much like the NRA is not in favor of the government allowing individuals to have nuclear weapon stockpiles in their basements. The difference between the two is their activity on the issue. The NRA has a powerful lobby, plenty of support, and a single major issue on which to focus. The ACLU has a wide array of issues which drain their resources, and simply doesn't see a need at this time to get involved either way. That may seem hypocritical, but the basic position of the ACLU is that Congress and the Courts have taken reasonable stances on the issues surrounding the 2nd amendment, and that there exists significant protections in the form of groups like the NRA to protect it.

Show me the law passed by Congress and signed by the President which bans all guns, and I'll show you the lawsuit filed by the ACLU before the ink of the President's signature is dry. If I didn't honestly believe the ACLU was keeping a close eye on the issue, I would never have joined, and certainly would not renew. I don't believe our Founding Fathers would have stood for unfettered legal access to the heavy artillery available to the common man today if they'd had even the slightest idea of the kind of firepower we see all the time in modern times.

Re:The organization has an obvious slant

[jedidiah]

If you agree with the ACLU then you are clearly a fool.

Crew served weapons are not a modern invention. The fact that such weapons were not traditionally considered covered by the 2nd amendment clearly demonstrates that a non-collectivist interpretation need not include the right to bear torpedos or missiles of various varities.

They are claiming a slippery slope not supported by the historical record.

I've renewed my ACLU membership in the past even despite such flawed reasoning. It was the ACLU's unwillingness to fight the DMCA (and similar laws) that caused me to let my membership lapse.

Re:The organization has an obvious slant

[anthonyrcalgary]

Those opinions are often found in the same people that subscribe to weird notions like "by killing people, we make their friends more likely to try to kill us". I'd be happy if such a person was the next president of the US, but I am not holding my breath.

Re:The organization has an obvious slant

[Anonymous Coward]

I already lost one doctor who quit rather than wrestle with any more government paperwork and restrictions.

Re:The organization has an obvious slant

[Chasuk]

The ACLU argument which I quote above was merely trying to demonstrate that we already accept some restrictions on our possession of arms.

As the acceptability of some restrictions is thus established, the area of contention becomes where the borders of such restrictions can be drawn.

The ACLU would draw them in different places, and narrower, than the NRA. Unfortunately, the disputed area of restriction is difficult to discuss without zealots from either camp turning the argument into a farce.

To me, the thousands and thousands of dead bodies generated every year by loose gun control builds a good argument for tighter restrictions. I can be convinced otherwise, but not by anyone who is screaming hysterically as they are trying to persuade me. No, I am not accusing you or anyone else on this forum of taking this approach, but 100% of the time in my previous experience, it has degenerated into an irrational screamfest, and I'm not prepared to waste a single moment of my life in an argument that looks fruitless at the outset.

I would currently describe myself as gun-control agnostic, with slight leanings towards the gun control side. These leanings are shifting more towards the ACLU side every day, but I hold no beliefs which are intractable (I'm a big proponent of deductive reasoning and the scientific method: no cow is sacred).

Re:The organization has an obvious slant

[Cyberdyne]

The ACLU argument which I quote above was merely trying to demonstrate that we already accept some restrictions on our possession of arms. As the acceptability of some restrictions is thus established, the area of contention becomes where the borders of such restrictions can be drawn.

Just as we do with speech: this no more invalidates the NRA's position on guns than it does the ACLU's on speech.

To me, the thousands and thousands of dead bodies generated every year by loose gun control builds a good argument for tighter restrictions. I can be convinced otherwise, but not by anyone who is screaming hysterically as they are trying to persuade me.

I'd count the "thousands and thousands of dead bodies" as pretty close to hysterical screaming itself, especially the claim they're caused by "loose gun control". Once you remove entirely legitimate deaths - the police shooting people and self-defense, for example - and those which wouldn't be affected (or would be exacerbated) by gun "control", such as drug dealers (when they manage to import thousands of tonnes a week of illegal drugs, they'd have to be pretty incompetent to be unable to import a few guns at the same time - and most of the guns they use are illegal anyway) I doubt you're left with many. Even they wouldn't necessarily be affected: in Bowling for Columbine, for example, at least one of the shootings Moore describes involved a kid who stole the gun from a drug den. The drugs are already illegal - do you really believe banning the gun would have removed it from that drug den?

First, guns themselves aren't a problem. Look at Switzerland: higher gun ownership than the US (almost literally everybody has their own gun, thanks to national service). Second, would banning them really remove guns from the "bad guys", or just disarm the "good guys", leaving them defenseless? Experience in other countries where gun "control" has been attempted suggests the latter: after banning guns, the UK experienced a sharp increase in violent crimes: the drug dealers, bank robbers etc were completely unaffected, except their lives were safer (less chance of their victims being able to defend themselves). In short: gun "control" doesn't solve any problems - it just creates its own, as experience in other countries shows.

Worst of all for the ACLU: again, I could make exactly the same argument for "speech control" - banning "hate speech", racist propoganda, pornography - indeed, much the same argument is used to support censorship of adult material, based on claims it causes rape and other sexual violence. I consider that argument slightly stronger than the equivalent in favor of gun "control", since there is at least some correlation involved there.

Re:The organization has an obvious slant

[Chasuk]

I don't think you read my message very carefully. If you had, you would see that nowhere within it did I suggest banning guns. Enforcing stricter gun controls != banning guns.

This isn't Switzerland. There is obviously something about the Swiss psyche, or the Swiss human condition, that is very different from what we have here. I don't know what that something is: that is why I am agnostic regarding gun-control. I see the dead bodies, and those dead bodies have bullet-holes in them, so I come to the perhaps false conclusion that there is a connection between unrestricted gun ownership and those deaths.

Banning guns would require that we lived in a totalitarian state, and I definitely don't want that. However, something needs to be done to prevent those thousands of deaths, and I am willing to consider all options (excepting the imposition of a totalitarian state).

Thank you for your dialogue.

Re:The organization has an obvious slant

[Cyberdyne]

I don't think you read my message very carefully. If you had, you would see that nowhere within it did I suggest banning guns. Enforcing stricter gun controls != banning guns.

So what do you mean by "gun control"? The status quo, at least in TX, is that provided you have a clean criminal record, you're allowed a gun in your own home, provided it's a certain class of gun, and you're allowed to transport it to and from the gun shop and range - provided you do so in a locked container. Anything more requires a special state permit. What is your version of gun control - further limits on the kind of gun in your own home, or banning transporting guns?

This isn't Switzerland. There is obviously something about the Swiss psyche, or the Swiss human condition, that is very different from what we have here. I don't know what that something is: that is why I am agnostic regarding gun-control. I see the dead bodies, and those dead bodies have bullet-holes in them, so I come to the perhaps false conclusion that there is a connection between unrestricted gun ownership and those deaths.

A totally false conclusion, AFAICS. You started from the false assumption that "unrestricted gun ownership" existed in the US, added the false assumption that dead bodies from gunshot wounds are a bad thing (the majority of gun deaths are entirely legal) and reached the false conclusion that a problem is caused by something which doesn't exist in the first place.

Banning guns would require that we lived in a totalitarian state, and I definitely don't want that. However, something needs to be done to prevent those thousands of deaths, and I am willing to consider all options (excepting the imposition of a totalitarian state)

AFAICS, that's exactly what a lot of anti-gun zealots are aiming for: outlaw guns. What are you aiming for - some intermediate step, banning more guns than are currently banned but not quite all of them? This state, at least, already bans possession outside the home without a special permit - you want more restrictions than that? For that matter, DC currently does have a gun ban - and look how well that works!

Guns are already "controlled" - and even within the US, there is a clear correlation between the level of gun "control" and violent crime. The "gun control" advocates claim the answer is even more gun "control" - what more is there, between the status quo and an outright ban? AFAICS, the root problem is that there's already too much gun "control": the balance is tipped too far in favor of criminals.

Re:The organization has an obvious slant

[Chasuk]

I concede. You are correct: I made faulty assumptions, and I don't have sufficient evidence to support my claims.

That was naughty of me, and I apologize.

Until I have educated myself more thorougly regarding gun control, the jury will remain out.

I do have the following questions:

1. Out of gun deaths in the US each year, how many of them were committed by enraged/drunken husbands/wives/brothers/sisters of their spouses/siblings?

2. How many of the deaths were accidental?

3. How many were by police in their line of duty?

4. How many of the deaths prevented other losses of life/property, or prevented rape?

5. Why do the Canadians have so few homocides? Why do the Japanese?

Thank you for your dialogue.

Re:The organization has an obvious slant

[Cyberdyne]

1. Out of gun deaths in the US each year, how many of them were committed by enraged/drunken husbands/wives/brothers/sisters of their spouses/siblings?

A fairly small minority, although I don't remember the exact figure.

2. How many of the deaths were accidental?

1,400 in 1990 (compared to 1,900 back in 1910, despite the far lower population!). Meanwhile, an estimated 2.45 million crimes are prevented using guns in civilian hands every year.

Incidentally, 11% of those shot by police were mistaken, compared to 2% of those shot by civilians. Perhaps gun "control" should be applied to the police rather than the public?

3. How many were by police in their line of duty?

A significant number - one in nine of which were of the wrong person. Wrongful shootings by police are actually a statistically significant cause of death - and, despite civilian shootings of criminals outnumbering such police shootings by about 3 to 1, the police shoot twice as many innocent people by mistake as civilians do. (11%, vs 2% of a larger number.)

4. How many of the deaths prevented other losses of life/property, or prevented rape?

Deaths, I don't know, but use (often without a shot fired) prevents over a million crimes per year (estimated at up to 2.45 million). Simply having a gun is enough to scare most burglars, for example: the UK has a far, far higher rate of "hot" burglaries than the US, thanks largely to the UK's gun ban (burglars can be virtually certain the victim is unarmed). Statistically speaking, resisting with a gun is safer than resisting with any other weapon, as well as safer than compliance.

5. Why do the Canadians have so few homocides? Why do the Japanese?

Japan has the highest homicide clearup rate in the world (97%): you are virtually certain to be caught. That must have a considerable deterrent effect! It also appears part of a broader trend: most crimes, gun-related or not, are far less common in Japan than in the US, Canada or Europe. Then, as the Canadian government put it: "Japan is one of the most disciplined nations on earth, with an authoritarian and conformist culture that precludes large scale law-breaking. There are few constraints on police powers, especially with respect to search and seizure. Rates of crimes not usually associated with firearms - rape, mugging and assault, are the lowest in the world and are trifling by European and North American standards. Japanese do not kill each other in large numbers because they are, in all respects, extremely law-abiding people. Interestingly, the current Japanese suicide rate of 21 per 100,000 is double the Canadian rate and almost double the rate in the United States."

In short: Japan's lower crime rate (gun-related and other) is unlikely to be related to gun bans. More likely it's a combination of their more law-abiding nature and a more ruthless and effective police force (no Fourth Amendment, for example).

Canada? Since several American states have lower homicide rates than Canada, answering why Canada's rate is lower would be impossible! (Minnesota is a little lower than Canada's average; North Dakota is less than half.) Indeed, North Dakota has one of the lowest homicide rates in the world, per capita. To quote the Canadian report: "It was concluded that the regulation of possession of personal arms by private citizens has little or no effect on homicide rates." Their figures certainly support that conclusion, and show that gun "control" is, as they put it, a "futile exercise": violent crime has its roots in culture and sociology, and guns are merely tools - violence lies in the criminal, not in the weapon. Arm a non-violent population, and you have an armed non-violent population; disarm a violent one, and you still have violent people - they'll just turn to other weapons.

Re:I am so frosty!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Why offtopic? frosty is always up in 'em topic! mod parent back up!!!!!

Money

[FreeLinux]

I've even sent them an unanswered e-mail about the percentages of money spent on their main positions.

While an email may not be an adequate investigation, I believe that seeing where the money goes is a great idea and that you should follow up some more before giving them your money. You might be amazed at how many organizations you would not care to give to based on where the money goes. Even "highly respected" groups like the United Way become highly suspect when you examine the financials.

ACLU Wacked out

[walt-sjc]

The ACLU USED to represent the rights of ALL Americans, but in the past couple years is pushing an agenda that is SOOO far left that it has alienated the majority of people out there. This includes nutty stuff such as defending NAMBLA, having the Boy Scouts declared as a religious organization, etc.

You money is better spent elsewhere. There are lots of other organizations that truly are worthy of your support.

Re:ACLU Wacked out

[JDWTopGuy]

Amen. I was going to post a tin-foil hat post about "THE ACLU IS IN CONTACT WITH THE ALIENS!!! I HOPE THIS ANONYMOUS THING WORKS!!!", but since there's no benefit from +1, Funny (really +0, funny) I just posted this.

Re:ACLU Wacked out

[Elwood P Dowd]

I'm kindof confused as to why you consider NAMBLA a far-left interest.

I thought *everyone* liked pedophiles.

Re:ACLU Wacked out

[PeteyG]

I think the logic behind their NAMBLA argument isn't that pedophiles are okay... it's that writing about a crime is separate from actually comitting the crime. Like, they're getting legal shit beacuse they're writing HOWTOs on how to nail young boys.

Is it illegal to write HOWTOs on how to rob a bank, or crack DeCSS? No. But actually doing the deed is. The only thing that makes NAMBLA different is that they're pedophiles.

I mean, everyone hates pedophiles... but they haven't actually done anything besides write stuff.

Re:ACLU Wacked out

[tm2b]

The Boy Scouts are a religious organization if they can expel members for being atheists.

Or maybe you, like Bush Sr., believe that Atheists should not be considered American citizens with the right of freedom of religion?

Re:ACLU Wacked out

[rmohr02]

Is it illegal to write HOWTOs on how to...crack DeCSS?

Actually, yes. But the law that makes that illegal is unconstitutional.

Re:ACLU Wacked out

[PeteyG]

yah, that's the subtle point i was trying to make.

Re:ACLU Wacked out

[anthony_dipierro]

The only thing that makes NAMBLA different is that they're pedophiles.

Isn't that enough of a reason in itself?

BTW, they're also gay.

Re:ACLU Wacked out

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah, right, like you haven't smoked a bit of the cock yourself.

dickpuffer.

OH, SURE, you want info for yourself

[L. VeGas]

Hmmm, if I ran an government agency and was looking for techy subversives, how could I get a list of dangeratti?

Maybe by posting a question somewhere....? Like, I don't know... HERE?

They're rather

[tm2b]

OK, keep in mind while reading the following that I'm a member of the ACLU. I'm going to touch on some of their less popular positions, though.

The ACLU tends to be fanatical on matters of speech, even when most people would not necessarily be on their side. The case that Bill O'Reiley likes to rail against is where they have helped defend the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA)... they really do believe that everybody has the right to say anything, no matter what it is and what might be done with that information.

They have also been famous in defending (and winning) the right of groups like the Ku Klux Klan and fascist Nazi-praising groups to march. Again, for them it's a bright line: no matter how vile the speech, the speaker has the right to say it.

They have also been very active in challenging the Bush Administration's position that they are able to keep suspected terrorists incommunicado for as long as they like.

I wouldn't necessarily want to live in a world where the ACLU positions always ended up prevailaing. I do, however, believe that they are a very necessary counterbalance to those interests that would drag us back to the bad old days of McCarthyism (I would ask Ann Coulter, "Have you no shame, Madame?") and other reactionary movements.

On September 11th, I sent money to two groups: the Red Cross and the ACLU.

Re:They're rather

[GigsVT]

You didn't touch on their real less popular position, that the ACLU's version of the constitution seems to be missing the 2nd amendment. They are also in favor of programs that render one group "more equal" than other's, like affermative action.

I never understood how formalizing and institutionalizing descrimination somehow is supposed to end it.

Re:They're rather

[ShipIt]

> On September 11th, I sent money to two groups: the Red Cross and the ACLU.

Amazing, I did the exact same thing a few days after 9/11.

One additional comment on the ACLU. There's no way you can be a member and not be offended by some of their positions. It's just not possible. If, however, they champion issues near and dear which no other organization has the will to address then it's a great way to support your cause.

Re:They're rather

[krsjuan]

there's no such the as "McCarthyism". Step away from the cool-aid and read a book with some facts in it.

Re:They're rather

[tm2b]

Have you no shame, sir?

Re:They're rather

[Anonymous Coward]

Ann Coulter would chew you up and flush you down the drain......the ACLU will defend just about anyone witrh one gaping exception -- Christians. Look closely at their stance on anything to do with Christianity, and you will fine the ACLU being the"devil's advocate." While this stance may not bother you now, someday you may find yourself on the receiving end of this type of mistreatment.

Re:They're rather

[IndependentVik]

Quite right, citizen! I'll dash off to the bookstore immediately to purchase Ann Coulter's new book!

Re:They're rather

[Loki_1929]

"I would ask Ann Coulter, "Have you no shame, Madame?""

I would ask her if she realizes that such a hardcore conservative as herself ought to idealize the societies of 1000 years ago. At which point I would point out that such an outspoken woman as her would likely be beaten, tortured, and murdered, assuming the man who owned her allowed it.

The fact is, she doesn't even understand that she's far more liberal than she thinks, depending on your perspective; time-wise.

I would love to see her try and bring her positions about in Jefferson's time. He'd probably wonder silently if she's possessed by the devil, or perhaps simply mad (insane).

Re:They're rather

[Anonymous Coward]

Jefferson would have hailed her as a genious. If she had been around back then, women would have had all the rights as men from the get-go.

Re:They're rather

[Door-opening Fascist]

I realize I'm responding to a troll, but I think this point deserves an explanation.

The ACLU Executive Director, Anthony Romero, came to my school (Earlham College), and was asked about the Second Amendment. He said that the reason they didn't defend it was that someone was already there to defend it: the NRA. He (nor I) doesn't think we are in any danger of losing our Second Amendment rights as long as the NRA is around.

Re:They're rather

[GigsVT]

I wasn't trolling. That's a tidy answer for the ACLU, but it seems like a cop-out to me. Sometimes the NRA doesn't touch some bills, such as some recent bills in state governments that link gun possession to drug posession, making simple possession of both something that qualifies you as a drug kingpin, even if you only have a single antique musket and a single hit of LSD.

The NRA won't risk looking "soft on crime". The ACLU won't touch gun issues. Things like this fall through the cracks.

Drug reform activists managed to get this repealed, at least in my state, but the ACLU was not interested, and neither was the NRA.

Re:They're rather

[CentrX]

That's a good point, but I think that the ACLU is doing the right thing politically, which makes their support for other issues much stronger. By avoiding the second amendment (which, it is true, is mostly covered by the NRA), they're getting a lot more support, financially and otherwise, from the huge number of people that support most civil liberties issues but not gun rights. While this conflicts with the principle of what the ACLU should do, it makes them much more effective as an organization for the issues that they do strongly advocate.

As for the particular case above, it seems like a case that they could have and should have taken even acknowledging redundancy with the NRA (which didn't do anything) and the political positions of its supporters. Even strong gun control advocates should recognize that the bills don't really have much to do with gun control, but instead simply manufacture punitive measures for illegal drug users, while doing nothing to help gun control. It's simply a bad law that conflicts with the principles of the Constitution, that the ACLU should have taken.

ACLU BARADA NIKTO

[Tumbleweed]

(ACLU pronounced 'ack-LOO')

That's the only funny thing I could come up with on this. What a crappy story. :)

Re:ACLU BARADA NIKTO

[Spudley]

ACLU pronounced 'ack-LOO')

That's the only funny thing I could come up with on this.

Oh come on! ;-) You could have tried a bit harder...

How about coming up with silly alternate meanings for the acronym?

Say... "Aardvark Council for the Legalisation of Unicorns"
or.... "Asphalt County Landfill University"
or.... "Airplanes Can't Land on Us"
or.... "A Clearly Litigous Unit"
or.... "Anyone Can Learn Urdu"

Wow. The fun just never stops, does it? :-D

Re:ACLU BARADA NIKTO

[Tumbleweed]

> Oh come on! ;-) You could have tried a bit harder...

That would've required some thought, and I always try to go for the easy laugh. :)

ACLU = A Clever Little Universe
Access Control List, Uhhh
Alabama's Career-Limiting University
Accelerated Coffee-Loving Unixian
After Cleavon Little's Ultimatum
A Cleft Little Uvula
A Cat-Loving Undine
After Caffeine Lives Unrest

There. Happy?

Definitions... Discuss

[benjamindees]

Natural Rights/Human Rights- Rights granted by virtue of existence

Civil Rights- Rights granted by virtue of citizenship

Civil Liberties- Rights granted by virtue of legislative fiat

Re:Definitions... Discuss

[Dr. Bent]

Natural Rights/Human Rights- Rights granted by virtue of existence

Some people would argue (including the Founding Fathers), that Human Rights are granted by a Higher Power and not simply by the virtue of existence.

I'm not one of those people, but for a complete discussion, you must at least consider it.

Re:Definitions... Discuss

[themo0c0w]

Natural Rights/Human Rights- Rights granted by virtue of existence
Civil Rights- Rights granted by virtue of citizenship
Civil Liberties- Rights granted by virtue of legislative fiat

If you are suggesting that the "civil liberties" that the ACLU defends are arbitrary rights designated by a government body, you need to go back to POL101. Read some Locke and Hobbes as well.

According to people like Hobbes and Locke, freedom is the natural state of man. Governments, created by the people, impose certain restrictions on that freedom to further the goals of order and prosperity. It wouldn't do a society much good to have everyone killing each other.

Thus, your definitions fail since all rights are natural rights. Of course, this argument assumes you agree with social compact theory.

Re:Definitions... Discuss

[benjamindees]

Oh, did Locke and Hobbes talk about affirmative action? Did they say that everyone has a 'right to clean air' or 'affordable housing'?

I must have missed those chapters. Feel free to cite...

Re:Definitions... Discuss

[benjamindees]

That would be Natural Rights to which you refer. Human Rights are a product of modern liberalism, and preclude the existence of a Higher Power.

Since, under Natural Law, human existence is dependent upon a Higher Power, the common feature of both Natural and Human rights is existence, from whatever source derived.

I don't necessarily aim to present a historical depiction of the evolution of rights; rather a modern, self-consistent description of those rights.

Re:Definitions... Discuss

[sharkey]

Read some Locke and Hobbes as well.

Be careful reading Locke, though. I've heard he's just some kid with delusions of grandeur.

Re:Definitions... Discuss

[kinnell]

According to people like Hobbes and Locke, freedom is the natural state of man

That doesn't make it true. Being a social animal, I think it would be more accurate to say that the natural state of man is a hierarchical tribal structure.

Re:Definitions... Discuss

[pmz]

According to people like Hobbes and Locke, freedom is the natural state of man.

Geez, Hobbes and Locke were morons. The true natural state of man is binary--one of "horny" or "drunk." I can't believe these guys put forth so much effort and couldn't even figure that out!

Bullshit

[missing000]

The ACLU says that the second amendment does not apply to individuals, but to state militia.

You could read it before you infer that it says something it does not say.

Re:Bullshit

[benjamindees]

I'm sorry, did you say that states have rights?

Re:Bullshit

[Henry V .009]

I know exactly what they say. And my point still stands. The ACLU has quite an expansive view of personal liberty, including some views that take a great deal of effort to read into the constitution (like abortion). Why is it that they back off on personal liberty in this one issue, and call it a matter of state's rights? It doesn't seem consistent, does it?

Re:Bullshit

[missing000]

Because the law does not infer an individual liberty. How can they be expected to defend a right that you do not have?

Also, if you do decide that the right is personal, you have to admid that it is as applicable to tactical nuclear weapons as to hunting rifles.

Re:Bullshit

[Dr. Bent]

Funny. That's not what the Founding Fathers said. You'd think an orginization devoted to defending the Bill of Rights would have at least read it's user manual.

Re:Bullshit

[Henry V .009]

Actually, if you take a look at the first amendment, you'll notice that it only applies to Congress. Our view of the freedoms stated in the bill of rights have expanded from the time when they were first written. (Also note that while Congress is supposed to make no law respecting the establishment of religion, it also restricts Congress from prohibiting any free exercise of religion.)

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.

What is it that shall not be infringed in the above? "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms." Why? "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State."

As for your tactical nukes statement, another harm that the ACLU perpetuates is the idea that the amendments should be taken to extremes. Individuals should not have access to tactical nukes any more than child pornographers should be protected by the first amendment.

Re:Bullshit

[benjamindees]

It's become obvious to anyone who has studied the issue that those who deny and disparage the right to keep and bear arms do so under either extreme ignorance or outright dishonesty. I don't know which category you fall under, but you obviously haven't studied the issue.

nuclear weapons are not 'arms':

In Colonial times "arms" usually meant weapons that could be carried. This included knives, swords, rifles and pistols. Dictionaries of the time had a separate definition for "ordinance" (as it was spelled then) meaning cannon. Any hand held, non-ordnance type weapons, are theoretically constitutionally protected. Obviously nuclear weapons, tanks, rockets, fighter planes, and submarines are not.

It is an individual right:

The proposal finally passed the House in its present form: "A well regulated militia, being necessary for the preservation of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." In this form it was submitted into the Senate, which passed it the following day. The Senate in the process indicated its intent that the right be an individual one, for private purposes, by rejecting an amendment which would have limited the keeping and bearing of arms to bearing "For the common defense".

Re:Bullshit

[Tom7]

In Colonial times "arms" usually meant weapons that could be carried. This included knives, swords, rifles and pistols. Dictionaries of the time had a separate definition for "ordinance" (as it was spelled then) meaning cannon. Any hand held, non-ordnance type weapons, are theoretically constitutionally protected. Obviously nuclear weapons, tanks, rockets, fighter planes, and submarines are not.

Well, if we're going to take a time machine back to interpret this wording, what do we do about hand-held weapons that weren't invented when the constitution was drafted? Assault rifles with armor-piercing explosive bullets? Zip-lock bags filled with sarin gas?

Though I agree the constitution does guarantee the right to bear arms, I don't agree that the definition of "arms" can't be interpreted in a modern context to exclude weapons that fall outside the spirit of the amendment. (I'm not sure if this is what you're arguing, but it is what some people argue!)

Re:Bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

How many Founding Fathers can dance on the head of a pin?

Re:Bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

Might be wise to point out that constitution.org is maintained by those groups that advocate tax evasion.

Re:Bullshit

[joelt49]

Amendment 1:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment 2:
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.

Amendment 4:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particu larly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Notice they ALL say the same thing -- "The right of the people." If "the people" means only a select group, then I guess we're f***'ed as far as our constitutional rights go.

BTW: In amendments 5, 9, AND 10 also mention "the people." Remember, these were all written by, and passed by, the same people at the same time.

Don't know about other states, but here in Wyoming where we do things right, the state constitution specifically says that the "militia" shall consist of all able-bodied persons between the ages of 18 and (I think) 60. So, come be a Wyoming resident, and you have the guaranteed right to bear arms, no matter what bullshit the courts are saying the "people" mean.

Re:Bullshit

[Red Warrior]

WA's constitution made it clear, for the hard of thinking: "The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired..."

Also, it specifies that the GVT will purchase and safeguard military weapons.

Re:Bullshit

[pmz]

...state militia.

How is "militia" defined? I would take a true militia to be local citizens organizing for a common defense. To this end, they would wield whatever they could, including their own guns.

Re:Bullshit

[pmz]

In Colonial times "arms" usually meant weapons that could be carried.

I hate to say this, but there are human-portable nuclear weapons out there, I believe. And, if those 1-gram 50 kiloton gamma burst thingies get out...holy shit.

I think a more constrained definition of "arms" would be weapons suitable for personal defense. Even a machine gun can kill only a few people at a time, but nuclear or gamma-burst devices can each take out a city. So, guns, knives, ninja-gear, etc. are fine, but nukes are way out.

Re:Bullshit

[pmz]

Though I agree the constitution does guarantee the right to bear arms, I don't agree that the definition of "arms" can't be interpreted in a modern context to exclude weapons that fall outside the spirit of the amendment.

There is certainly an element of scale, here. While personal guns and knives are perfectly okay, "weapons of mass destruction" that happen to fit in a back-pack are not.

The issue, here, is defense. Pure defense. Tactical nukes and bags of sarin gas are not defensive weapons, unless they are used as deterrents (meaning they are never used). Deterrents are really only effective on global scales. I don't want to think what would happen one county starts using threats of bioweapons against their neighboring counties (that is insanity!).

Re:Bullshit

[gowen]

The Federalist Papers are not a user manual for the Bill of Rights. They're a collection of essays and (then) anonymous letters designed to lobby for ratification of the constitution. They don't represent the opinions of the founding fathers en masse, but rather a small number of them: namely Hamilton, Madison and Jay.

They're fascinating documents, but never forget that they were
a) never ratified by the founding fathers, the states or the office of the president.
b) written purely for the sake of propaganda.

Don't they teach this stuff in schools any more?

Re:Bullshit

[zhar]

Well, unfortunitly, the state militia as mentioned in the constitution no longer exists. What the courts interpret to be it's modern day successor is the National Guard. However, if you look at notes and letters writtin by the founding fathers, you see quite specificly that they had no intention of the Federal Government funding, training, or having any control over the militia. The Federal Government provides arms(Which they are only suppossed to specify what kind the states should buy), training(National Guard troops go through basic and combat training alongside regular army personnel), and the Federal Government has on serveral occasions commited National Guards men to duty inside a state, even directly over ruling a state governer. So, the state militia no longer exists as stated in the constitution, and that power MUST fall back to the individual, NOT to the federal government as has happened.

Re:Bullshit

[CentrX]

Actually, it explicitly states in the U.S. Code (10 U.S.C. 311, 32 U.S.C. 313) that the militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and under 45 years of age, or under 64 years of age and former members of the Regular Army, Regular Navy, Regular Air Force, or Regular Marine Corps, who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

The classes of the militia are the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Maybe a party would be better

[Ledge]

Depending on your political beliefs, perhaps the Libertarian Party would be a better place to put your time and money. I don't know what actions of ACLU offend you. (For me, it is some of thier more Leftist defenses.) That's how I ended up contributing to the Party. Just my humble, undereducated, red necked, opinion.

Re:Maybe a party would be better

[captainktainer]

I would say that the Libertarian party is *not* the best place to put in time or money, unless the poster enjoys strengthening those who would pronounce a death sentence on what's left of our pitiful environment and on those who depend on social programs to live. Personally, I have been fundamentally frightened by the Libertarians I have met, without fail. I accept the possibility that I've just run into a bad crop, but the Libertarians I've met are in favor of abolishing minimum wages, abolishing OSHA, eliminating the right of workers to sue their employers, eliminating all environmental regulations without exception, and even getting rid of the FAA. Three of the Libertarians I've known who have pursued these goals have run for public office with the Libertarian Party's support.

Read up on the Libertarian Party and talk to Libertarians, and then make your decision based on what you hear. Personally, given a choice between anyone and a Libertarian- even George W. Bush, whom I loathe- I would vote for the non-Libertarian- but that may just be me.

By the way, Ledge, I sincerely doubt that you're undereducated or a redneck. Scary in your support of the Libertarians, but probably not ignorant.

Re:Maybe a party would be better

[fwc]

Just a few points:

Libertarians I've met are in favor of abolishing minimum wages.

This is correct. Why should the government get involved in the relationship between employers and employees? If an employer wants to get the level of employee that they get for $1/hr then they should be able to do so.

abolishing OSHA

This is correct. Again, the government shouldn't be involved in the employee/employer relationship. HOWEVER...

eliminating the right of workers to sue their employers

This is not correct. In absence of OSHA and government regulation, employees will have every right to sue employers in the case of negilence. If employees have the right to sue when they are injured, then there should be no need to have OSHA around. Plus, insurance companies will rate employers based upon safety issues - I.E. unsafe workplace, higher premiums.

eliminating all environmental regulations without exception,

This isn't correct either. The Libertarian party believes in a strict liability method of dealing with pollution. In addition, the party would like to modify the tort system so that polluting a neighbor's property - either by air, water, radiation, noise, etc. etc. etc - can be covered by trespass and nuisance laws which provide for a private right of action.

Or in other words - each person is responsible for the mess they make and the costs to clean it up if it leaves their property.

and even getting rid of the FAA.

This one is strictly true. However, it isn't as bad as it seems. A lot of the functions of the FAA can be handled by private industry (such as Air Traffic Control). In addition, consumers should be able to decide whether or not they want to be strip-searched before getting on a plane and airlines should be able to offer a "we don't check anyone" option if they desire.

The key most people miss about the Libertarian Party is that it is both about Personal Liberties and Personal Responsibility. YOU have the right to do anything you want, but you also have the responsibilty to not cause others harm. If you do, then you should pay for those actions.

Re:Maybe a party would be better

[CokeBear]

I have lots of issues with the libertarians, but this one statement is the ultimate silliness:

...and airlines should be able to offer a "we don't check anyone" option if they desire...

If there were an airline that didn't check passengers for weapons as they boarded, then which ones do you think the bad guys would fly? Before 11/09/01 I would have glossed over this one, but now we know that an airline with lax security puts far more people at risk then just those on board. The problem I have with libertarians is the same one I have with the ACLU. They take principled positions to silly extremes, and even where I might otherwise tend to agree with their principles, one would be foolish to follow them all the way to those extremes.

Re:Maybe a party would be better

[fwc]

If there were an airline that didn't check passengers for weapons as they boarded, then which ones do you think the bad guys would fly?

The one where the passengers aren't permitted to have weapons. Seriously.

I think most criminals are smart enough to realize that if weapons are permitted on airplanes then they have an increased chance of getting shot. The potential rewards of successfully sneaking a weapon through security are much greater when noone else on the airplane has any sort of meaningful weapon.

Now if you mean "fly to get somewhere" as opposed to "fly with intent to hijack" then yeah, I suspect a higher percentage of the "bad guys" would fly on the weapons-permitted airline.

Re:Maybe a party would be better

[CokeBear]

You miss my point. The in-flight shootout between hijacker and NRA members doesn't just endanger those on board, who took a calculated risk, but as we learned the hard way, also endangers the lives of people on the ground, and in tall buildings, who did not opt in to the risk of flights free of security checkpoints.

Re:Maybe a party would be better

[captainktainer]

I'm not going to touch on the first two points, except to say that we had those first two conditions in the early part of the 20th century and all the time before, and the result was a disease-breeding, undernourished, undereducated labor class that in other countries fueled the Nazi and Bolshevik revolutions. As for the third, the Libertarians I had spoken to before said that if an employer wanted to include a "no legal action" clause in a contract, then they should be allowed to do so and all legal claims against the company from that individual should be dismissed. With such a contractual system there would be no need for insurance. It was a very unsettling example they gave of the primacy of contracts they sought. If our goal is to reduce government oversight and "interference" as much as possible, pushing for that sort of measure would be consistent with that set of views.

Environmental regulations... ehh, I can see some flaws in that model even at this hour, including 1) nonspecific pollutants and development in ecologically sensitive areas. Nonspecific pollutants like CFCs and nitrogenous oxides, for instance, cause havoc at a distance, and it's impossible except in extraordinarily rare circumstances to prove that a specific polluter caused a specific type of damage. It would be rightly impossible to prove in court that a specific company caused harm. And lest you bring up "self-regulation" I'm going to say that self-regulation is a myth perpetrated by the clueless. Humans are fundamentally greedy and corporations (much as they are necessary, useful, and sometimes beneficial) are concentrated greed. And if you're going to bring up published data, on emissions there aren't enough people now who care enough to make purchasing decisions based on environmental issues now or to inform themselves on said issues- so why would people in this hypothetical utopia? It's a recipe for barely mitigated disaster.

As for getting rid of the FAA, I know it needs work, but sheesh. I'm sorry, but I don't want to live in a country in which bombs with wings are being controlled by nervous, armed people in front of a cabin of nervous, armed people with itchy trigger fingers. After all, it might be *my* house with *me* in it that gets flown into. Our current system is clunky, and I hate the current security system as much as anyone, but I find your solution absolutely *terrifying*. Even if it were only put into practice for a short period of time, the potential for absolute havoc and loss of life would be extreme.

I think the key most Libertarians miss about their party is that to replace the current sometimes clunky machinery of the modern United States government, citizens would have to spend most of their waking hours suing or defending themselves from suits- or, if the legal machinery became too clunky, engaging in or defending themselves from violence. That's fine if you're reasonably wealthy- you can afford to spend your time doing that. But in a society with limited resources, it puts too much strain on those with the least ability to absorb it.

Re:Maybe a party would be better

[CentrX]

OK, I can understand how you might think that some or most libertarians take issues to silly extremes, but how has the ACLU done this? They defend the power of the supreme law of the land.

ACLU Acts on Principles, Not Popular Perception

[4of12]

They're really an admirable organization in being dedicated to principles of civil liberties.

This often takes them into positions that are strictly correct in terms of principle, but extremely unpopular in terms of practice.

They will defend the rights of Nazis and pornographers to free speech, for example.

And they will sue to exclude any possible mention of God, Ten Commandments in official government documents.

And the right to refrain from saying the Pledge of Allegiance.

All of this makes great fodder on talk shows, where people can emotionally vent about how ridiculous this is.

Some people like that emotional venting more than they like the fundamental principles of liberty. That's fine for them.

Personally, I take those liberties very seriously. They are special conditions of being an American that make our country unlike most others.

As soon as you concede that any of those rights can be abridged for any reason under any circumstance, then you open up a potential Pandora's box.

If someone can decide Nazis and pornographers belong to a special class of people for whom civil liberties do not apply, then you have to admit that someone will have the power to put you into a similar classification some day and to silence your opinion. Your opinion could be "hate-speak" or "obscene" by John Ashcroft and you could be jailed.

If you say that mixing religion with government is OK, then you admit that it would be just fine if ever a hypothetical Muslim majority in the United States should decree that the Koran and sharia law would be posted in all schools and to which everyone must memorize and adhere, rigth after one of the 5 prayer sessions during the day.

[One very good reason our founding fathers tried to separate church and state was based on centuries of bloody evidence in Europe. Recall that Catholics and Protestants killed each other viciously for a long time. Many nations today Muslim fundamentalist are going down the same road today with wars between Shia, Sunni, Muslim and Hindu or Christian. How many centuries it will take for those conflicts to prove the point our foudning fathers recognized in the late 18th century I don't know.]

It's not popular or always expedient to be principled, but it's more enduring.

Re:ACLU Acts on Principles, Not Popular Perception

[jgardn]

If you say that mixing religion with government is OK, then you admit that it would be just fine if ever a hypothetical Muslim majority in the United States should decree that the Koran and sharia law would be posted in all schools and to which everyone must memorize and adhere, rigth after one of the 5 prayer sessions during the day.

The "Seperation of Church and State" has no foundation in the constitution. This is the text of the first amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;...

The Founding Fathers were openly religious. The practice of praying to God, and not just any God, the Christian God embraced by the Christian religions, in government has continued even today.

The Constitution specifically states that the federal government cannot infringe on my right to practice my religion, whether I am elected or not, nor whether I am appointed a judge or hired as a soldier. The Constitution specifically states that I am allowed to practice my religion, whether I am in my home, at church, on the floor of the senate, or in the office of the President of the United States.

Let's pretend we do obtain a Muslim majority. Let's pretend we elect a Muslim fanatic to be the president, and the Supreme Court is stacked with Muslim fanatics as well. They have no right under the constitution to prevent me from practicing my Christian religion. They have no right to support the Muslim religion above the Christian one. But they have every right to pray to Allah and to call on us Christians to embrace Islam.

That's what I believe. That's what my forefathers agreed to. And that is what has held our nation together, despite the varieties of religions.

Now answer me this question: Why does the ACLU insist on enforcing Atheism in my schools, in my government, and in my courts? Why are they trying to force the hand of government to respect one religions (Atheism, Islam) over another (Christianity, Judaism)? Why am I not allowed to pray in schools, whether it be to God, Eloheim, or to Allah? Why am I forced to pay tribute to the pagan gods of Mother Earth, Environmentalism, or Atheism?

The ACLU stands for the Anti-American Civil Liberals Union, just like the NAACP should be called the NAALCP (LCP = Liberal Colored People, not those who happen to agree with the rest of the nation).

Go ahead and spend your dollars where you like. I spend mine on President Bush and his reelection campaign, and getting conservative, Christian God-Fearing representatives elected, so if you want your Anti-Christian, Atheistic views to be held in government, you'd better mobilize.

Re:ACLU Acts on Principles, Not Popular Perception

[PeteyG]

hy am I not allowed to pray in schools, whether it be to God, Eloheim, or to Allah? Why am I forced to pay tribute to the pagan gods of Mother Earth, Environmentalism, or Atheism?

Actually, the ACLU has taken cases where school districts have prevented students from praying publicly. Rightly so, too, since the government has no place telling you when and how to pray.

Re:ACLU Acts on Principles, Not Popular Perception

[jfruhlinger]

Now answer me this question: Why does the ACLU insist on enforcing Atheism in my schools, in my government, and in my courts? Why are they trying to force the hand of government to respect one religions (Atheism, Islam) over another (Christianity, Judaism)? Why am I not allowed to pray in schools, whether it be to God, Eloheim, or to Allah?

Please cite evidence as to when the ACLU has tried to stop someone from praying in school. What they try to stop is people in positions of authority from leading prayers in schools. Private prayer is your own business, and the ACLU I believe has worked to get people the right to have private prayer time in school if they want it.

Why is it that (in this country) Christian conservatives feel they are being discriminated against if they are not allowed to impose their religion on others?

jf

Re:ACLU Acts on Principles, Not Popular Perception

[deanj]

And they will sue to exclude any possible mention of God, Ten Commandments in official government documents.

Apparently they've forgotten that's freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.

Re:ACLU Acts on Principles, Not Popular Perception

[scotch]

Do you get all your political ideas from bumper stickers?

My thoughts on them

[Experiment 626]

The ACLU are pretty aggressive organization about pursuing various causes, but they have a very obvious idealogical axe to grind that prevents me from personally supporting them. If you happen to like civil liberties with a severe leftward slant (and many Slashbots do) then by all means go for it.

Some examples of my problems with them...

On the First Amendment, they will argue the "separation" part of freedom of religion till they are blue in the face, but completely ignore the "free exercise" part. I think the framers of the Constitution did a brilliant job of balancing these two concepts and to wildly expand on one by gutting the other detracts from what makes this amendment so great.

For a so-called civil liberties organization to actively pursue the anti-civil liberties side of the debate over the Second Amendment seriously undermines their credibility.

In too many stories I read in the news, they just seem to "get it wrong". For instance in the current debate over the California Recall, the ACLU wants a postponement until electronic voting machines are ready in all districts. Given that electronic voting really doesn't enhance the democratic process or voting security, this strikes me as an overly partisan move to buy embattled Mr. Davis more time. I would prefer an organization that raises issues for their own merit, not as some sort of political tactic.

In short, I would much rather there be a non-tech counterpart to the EFF... someone who doesn't just champion liberal civil liberties causes, or conservative civil liberties causes, or what have you, but consistently argues for freedom and liberty itself. While individual members no doublt have partisan leanings, keeping a pure message of "we support civil liberties, period" would better serve an organization than confounding the message with unrelated or contradictory positions for political sake.

Re:My thoughts on them

[jfruhlinger]

On the First Amendment, they will argue the "separation" part of freedom of religion till they are blue in the face, but completely ignore the "free exercise" part. I think the framers of the Constitution did a brilliant job of balancing these two concepts and to wildly expand on one by gutting the other detracts from what makes this amendment so great.

I would love to hear an instance of the ACLU cracking down on "free exercize" of religion. Really, I would. I don't claim to have followed every ACLU religion case, but every time someone claims that the ACLU is restricting the exercize of reigion, that "exercize" turns out to be by someone in a government-backed position of authority (and yes, public school teachers fall under this category) who try to "exercize" their religion in the course of their duties.

jf

Re:My thoughts on them

[StillDocked]

On the First Amendment, they will argue the "separation" part of freedom of religion till they are blue in the face, but completely ignore the "free exercise" part. I think the framers of the Constitution did a brilliant job of balancing these two concepts and to wildly expand on one by gutting the other detracts from what makes this amendment so great.

Just my $0.02, but, don't you believe that the ACLU is fighting for the rights of religious exercise? Freedom of religion also means freedom from religion. In a public space, supported by my tax dollars, I do not want to be compelled by law or by social code, to express a belief system that I do not adhere to. The posting of the Ten Commandments (which, I believe are good rules to live by) in a courtroom is tantamount to an endorsement of the religions of the 'people of the Book' (Jews, Christians, Muslims), thereby discriminating against those who are not in the aforementioned group. I concure that the Founding Fathers did an excellent job, however, the country was not nearly as diverse, and what was once acceptable behavior needs to be modified not in the name of political correctness, or liberalism, but in the name of tolerance and understanding.

Re:My thoughts on them

[Anonymous Coward]

but completely ignore the "free exercise" part

Sigh. It's really simple:

You can say whatever the hell you want, so long as I don't have to see, listen or finance it.

It's that simple. You have all the "free speech" you want, so long as the burden of you putting forward your self-expression does not fall on me, my government, my schools, anything that I pay tax dollars for and that I can easily ignore you. Just as you can easily ignore me. Public servants are there to serve the public, not to push religion.

Think about it. Because without the separation of religion, I would expect the right to place Muslim, Wiccan or even blatantly Christian-offending satanic articles alongside your religious ones should I be so inclined (or indeed of any religion). It's all or nothing, folks.

America was founded on the principals of freedom of religious expression - NO MATTER WHAT THOSE RELIGIONS ARE. It's impossible to give all religions equal coverage and therefore certain things set up to serve the community - including the government - must remain entirely NEUTRAL.

Now: tell me what part of this you still don't understand?

Re:My thoughts on them

[sribe]

In too many stories I read in the news, they just seem to "get it wrong".

Exactly. As in suing school districts to prevent the class valedictorian from praying or even talking about his/her faith. The government, under the guise of the school district, should not in any circumstance coerce any student to pray. But neither should the government, under the guise of a judge responding to an ACLU suit, be able to ban a student from expressing religious beliefs at appropriate times. (As when asked or required to talk/write about personal beliefs or experiences. I'm fine with kicking out a student who tries to disrupt class.)

Let's get one thing straight: I'm an atheist and some of the ACLU's attacks on public expression of religious beliefs make me angry, because in my opinion they so obviously go too far. I do believe that the ACLU has an anti-religious bias which causes them to not be able to tell the difference between government-coerced religious expression, and individual religious speech in a public setting.

The whole thing about defending the KKK, neo-nazis and pedophiles doesn't bother me at all. Scumbags have basic rights too, and one of those rights is to be able to express ignorant and hateful opinions.

Re:My thoughts on them

[FroMan]

I love hearing athiests and anti-Christians say that that 10 commandments are good rules to live by. Dollars to donuts you do not know what they are, otherwise you would outright despise the 10 commandments.

The first commandment is that you shall love your God with all your being. Second is to have no false gods before you. Third is not to use the Lords name in vain. Fourth is to honor the sabbath day and keep it holy.

Right there you have fourr commandments to honor God, do you believe you should live by those?

So, in reality, you believe the 5-10 commandments are good ones to live by. So, perhaps you suggest we hang the "last six commandments?"

Re:My thoughts on them

[smashingpumpkins]

Actually, electronic voting does enhance the democratic process and voting security, especially in California, where there is a mixture of both punchcard style ballots and optical scan/touchscreen products. My father works for a company that sells election equipment, and he knows for a fact that debacles like the one in Florida happen in every election, only no one usually cares about them. If you look at the ballot in California to be used for punchcard machines, you can easily tell it is a disaster and lawyers' paradise waiting to happen. As a side note, I would expect Gray Davis to step down before the election comes to a head because California law as currently written does not allow for a recall of the Lieutenant Gov.

Re:My thoughts on them

[StillDocked]

Funny, I am neither an athiest nor an anti-Christian. I was raised Roman Catholic, and was several weeks away from taking my initial vows as a DeLaSalle Christian Brother.

No... they...

[benjamindees]

they really do believe that everybody has the right to say anything, no matter what it is and what might be done with that information.

don't

Re:No... they...

[tm2b]

They support the right to say anything, not bully people who disagree with them in front of private businesses.

Re:No... they...

[Anonymous Coward]

Threats of violence are not protected speech. Removing the 'right' to threaten people in no way limits the free flow of ideas or information.

Re:No... they...

[benjamindees]

Too bad the Supreme Court doesn't agree with you or these idiotic politically-inspired claims.

Re:No... they...

[tm2b]

We are in agreement. It is too bad.

Re:No... they...

[kalidasa]

CHICAGO -- A jury here has found that leading antiabortion groups violated federal racketeering laws, designed to prosecute mobsters, by directing protesters to use extortion and threats of violence in attempts to shut down two abortion clinics, the Washington Post reports.

Extortion and threats of violence are not protected speech, though. If your point is that they only support protected speech, you're right. If your point is that they only support the left, you're wrong.

Re:No... they...

[benjamindees]

God, it's like I'm arguing with a brick...

The speech in question in this case is not 'threats and extortion'. The NOW didn't sue the people who threatened the child-killers. They sued the political organization that motivated the protests to begin with.

I'm sure if someone committed a crime in the name of the ACLU, and the ACLU got sued under Federal racketeering laws, they would be screaming 'freedom of speech'. In this case, though, they're screaming 'right to abortion'.

They aren't protecting political speech; they're protecting their leftist political ideology. As I mentioned in another thread, though, their argument wasn't exactly successful.

Re:No... they...

[Anonymous Coward]

Threats of violence are not protected speech.

According to you, and according to the ACLU, but that's the whole point, now isn't it?

Re:No... they...

[anthony_dipierro]

Extortion and threats of violence are not protected speech, though.

Neither were many of the types of speech which the ACLU defended, before the ACLU defended them.

If your point is that they only support protected speech, you're right.

Actually, you'd be wrong. The ACLU has lost free speech cases in the past. That means they were supporting unprotected speech.

Re:No... they...

[Anonymous Coward]

they only support the left because they were founded by the American Communist Party, you dipshit!

Re:No... they...

[kalidasa]

They were encouraging others to use threats and extortion. On the face of it, that's criminal conspiracy. You obviously have an agenda wrt to abortion. You aren't arguing with a brick (indirect object), but perhaps the protesters were (agent).

Re:No... they...

[Anonymous Coward]

Your argument might carry more weight if you didn't use "child-killers" in your ramblings, you misguided little asshat.

And the Sierra Club?

[Otter]

As long as we're dropping napalm:

I've been a member of the Sierra Club for about 10 years, one of their few but not negligible Republican members. My membership is running out soon and I'm unlikely to renew.

As soon as George Bush was elected they started a relentless, hysterical campaign against him. (Or, realistically, to raise money by tossing around his name.) In fact, there are plenty of his environmental policies with which I disagree (ANWR drilling, for example) but the Sierra Club gleefully tossed around nonsense like the "Bush wants to add arsenic to drinking water!" story and has ignored or denigrated all the positive things he's done.

The same thing happenend with Newt Gingrich. He was an environmentalist, and a Sierra Club winner. But working with him was less lucrative than scaring the NPR crowd with his name.

The global warming stuff also is starting to grate on me. All the environmental groups have embraced the notion that any deviation from the party line must be denounced and ignored. I'm getting increasingly suspicious about the religious nature of their claims, which generate suspicion about the nature of all the rest of their scientific claims (e.g. how best to deal with forest fires).

The last straw for me was their opposing the war in Iraq. I give them money to reduce fuel consumption and to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. I do not give them money to promote a doctrinaire leftist national security policy.

Re:And the Sierra Club?

[rmohr02]

May I ask what their grounds were for opposing the war in Iraq?

Re:And the Sierra Club?

[The Iconoclast]

I'm not in the Sierra Club, but I am a scientist and a bit of an environmentalist.

Wars have all sort of environmental effects. Apart from Saddam's possible lighting of oil wells on fire, or the spilling of millions of gallons of oil into the Gulf, there is also much heavy metal contamination in the theatre of operations from depleted uranium and lead and lots of particulates greenhouse gasses and smog from all the planes and vehicles used.

Re:And the Sierra Club?

[bill_mcgonigle]

I used to think the Sierra Club cared about nature and trees and such.

When a local conglomorate wanted to deforest a significant area of wilderness near my house, I tried contacting the Sierra Club for advice on how to oppose such action. The national organization referred me to the local group, who wouldn't so much as return phone calls or e-mail.

Well, I wound up doing it myself, and it turned out OK, but I learned that the Sierra Club is only interesting in staging rallies and accumulating political power - the trees are a convienient excuse. It's all for the best, as I might have wound up donating money to them sooner or later, not knowing their true agenda.

Re:And the Sierra Club?

[rmohr02]

I figured it was something like that, but that doesn't really give Otter any reason to stop supporting the Sierra Club.

Just when I start to think Slashdot has grasped...

[Nice2Cats]

...that it is an international forum read by tens of thousands of people from all over the world, somebody comes along and posts something so utterly restricted to America that it probably has the rest of the world sitting there shaking their heads and going: So just what the fuck is an ACLU, and does it need USB 2.0?

Come on, this site is about "News for Nerds", not "Current Popular Views on American Politics". And no, this isn't YRO, either. If you want to discuss stuff like this, you might be more happy over at Kuro5hin with all of the other mature people. Heck, I might even answer a question like that there. Just leave us here on Slashdot to our kernel updates, SCO news, and gushings about how sexy Willow Rosenberg is as a vampire, the things that nerds all over the world value and understand.

The ACLU is about mechanism, not policy.

[mellon]

The government frequently passes laws to stop the bad guys from doing things, but these laws frequently can be used against regular joes as well. So when the ACLU sees a prosecution that's been done in a way that would work on a regular joe as well as a bad guy, it often goes to bat for the bad guy. The point isn't to defend what the bad guy is doing. It's to make the government use a method of stopping the bad guy that is discrimatory - that only works on bad guys, and not on regular joes.

Consider RICO. Its intent was to stop organized crime. Apparently it works pretty well at that. Unfortunately, it also works for corrupt police departments who just want to acquire stuff or fluff their budget. They go after someone who has something that they want, and looks dirty, but that they don't really know is dirty. They use a court order to confiscate things under the RICO statute. The person whose stuff has been confiscated has to sue to get it back, has to prove that they are not guilty. The cops don't have to prove anything.

Consider the Communications Decency Act and the Child Online Protection Act. CDA sounds like a great idea - protect kids from online porn. Unfortunately, it doesn't work - there's plenty of online porn that kids can access. Worse, it actually protects kids from information that they might need - if you're 15, and wondering if having sex with your boyfriend can get you pregnant the first time, now you can't get information about it. If you want to know what the risks are from AIDS and how to fight them, that information is not available to you. COPA has actually succeeded in bowdlerizing the internet as seen from public libraries (google "Thomas Bowdler" to find out where that word came from). Although this was supposedly intended to protect children, the result is that it's also "protecting" adults who access the Internet from public libraries.

So I'm a card-carrying member of the ACLU. Hm, actually, I think I let it lapse. Hm. :'} Point is, they're good folks. Their methods are a bit difficult to fathom if all you read about them is what CNN says, but there's truly a method to their madness, and they do good work.

Re:The ACLU is about mechanism, not policy.

[bmetzler]

Unfortunately, it doesn't work - there's plenty of online porn that kids can access. Worse, it actually protects kids from information that they might need - if you're 15, and wondering if having sex with your boyfriend can get you pregnant the first time, now you can't get information about it.

Why don't they just ask their parents? I'm sure their parents know whether a girl can get pregnant the first time she has sex. The information will probably be more credible then what one could turn up on the internet anyways.

-Brent

Re:The ACLU is about mechanism, not policy.

[mellon]

This is a joke, right? I don't know about you, but when I was 15, the last people to whom I wanted to talk about sex issues were my parents! Of course, because I was a classic geek, it didn't make any practical difference at the time... :'}

Re:The ACLU is about mechanism, not policy.

[anthony_dipierro]

CDA sounds like a great idea - protect kids from online porn. Unfortunately, it doesn't work - there's plenty of online porn that kids can access. Worse, it actually protects kids from information that they might need - if you're 15, and wondering if having sex with your boyfriend can get you pregnant the first time, now you can't get information about it.

Huh? In the time between when the CDA was passed and the time it was declared unconstitutional, 15 year olds were still able to get information about whether or not a female having sex with her boyfriend for the first time can get pregnant. Same thing with the risks from AIDS and how to fight them.

Re:The ACLU is about mechanism, not policy.

[bmetzler]

I don't know about you, but when I was 15, the last people to whom I wanted to talk about sex issues were my parents!

Tell me, why didn't you want to talk to your parents about sex?

-Brent

Re:The ACLU is about mechanism, not policy.

[Dunkirk]

Consider the Communications Decency Act and the Child Online Protection Act. ... if you're 15, and wondering if having sex with your boyfriend can get you pregnant the first time, now you can't get information about it.

This is the biggest red herring of the internet age. Every school has some form of "sex ed" these days, and they'll have presented it by the time someone is 15. Furthermore, if you want to go to the library to research information on how NOT to get pregnant, LOOK UP A BOOK IN THE CARD CATALOG AND CHECK IT OUT! There will be plenty of information about any number of important subjects at a library, without needing a computer.

Re:The ACLU is about mechanism, not policy.

[GreyyGuy]

Hardly a red herring. If the information is so easy to get to, then why put road blocks to get it online? Sure, you can say they don't need to get it online, but why have rules for one medium that do not apply to another?

And school sex ed is a joke. That was the only class I had in high school where the teacher talked about sex, suicide, and drugs, and repeatedly had to tell the entire front row of the class to wake up. Oh yeah. That is the way to get the safe sex message across.

Re:The ACLU is about mechanism, not policy.

[Dunkirk]

Because the stuff that you can find on the shelf in the library HAS ALREADY BEEN FILTERED. Librarians don't put hardcore porn on the shelf right next to legitimate sex eduacation. They've put the censoring in right there and then. So you need to reverse your question and ask why AREN'T the libraries supposed to be filtering?

ALL sex ed is a joke. The liberal educators of this country have had an agenda for the past 30 years to make deviant sexual practices the social norm. Even a cursory glance at the statistics shows that condoms are hardly the way to have "safe" sex. They fail the VAST majority of the time to stop both pregnancy AND STD's. Yet this is the repeated message by all major media and educational institutions: that using a condom cures all ills. Yes, absolutely, before you say it, it is also true that the VAST majority of condom use is improper, but doesn't that just underscore my point that ALL sex ed is a joke from the wild-and-free online sources all the way to the hallowed halls of academia.

The fundamental problem with this problem is NOT technical. It's not even about free speech and freedoms. It's about morals. There are things talked about freely in public and on TV that were unmentionable 50, 40, 30, even just 20 years ago. Is this progress? Look at the crime statistics. Look at the welfare statistics. Look at the mental health statistics. Can anyone honestly say that we, as a _society_ as a whole, are better off today than we were 50 years ago? Sure, we may be more _prosperous_, but at what cost?

Yeah, I know, I know. I live in a cave. I'm sheltering my family. I'm a neandrathal and I'm raising neanderthals. Fine. But, by God, I'm going to retire with an intact family that all love one another. I, for one, will stand up against the influx of garbage, because that's all it is. Attempts to dress it up as valid sources of information are red herrings. There is only one source to learn about sexuality, as a subset of morality as a whole: the Bible as taught by your family and church.

Call me anything you want, but the facts are PLAINLY in evidence. It's the only system of values that endures the test of time.

Re:The ACLU is about mechanism, not policy.

[robi2106]

Have you tried to publish a book about STDs and slipped in 20 glossy pictures of hard core sex and still get the book published as an educational reference book.

It is hard to do, and for good reason. But with the internet, it is dang easy.

robi

So send them less money!

[oolon]

If you like some of their work but not all of it just send them a cheque for less than you would otherwise have. Say you like 50% of the work and you think a good donation is 100 bucks, so send them 50 bucks. Someone else will not like the 50% you support and can do likewise. If their views slip with time, year on year adjust the percentage. Include a covering letter of why your doing it, up or down, people listen most when their is money in the envelope. Some organisations have ways your can earmark for causes, if they do use it, and support people who give you the option, that way more will offer it in future. For example savefarscape.com has 2 different funds, one for risky stuff one for day to day stuff....

James

Re:So send them less money!

[cpeterso]

and your donation can be tax-deductible if you donate to the "ACLU Foundation", instead of the ACLU:


"Gifts to the ACLU Foundation are fully tax-deductible to the donor; membership dues and gifts to the ACLU are not tax-deductible.

This is because the ACLU engages in substantial legislative lobbying, which cannot by law, be supported by tax-deductible funds. The ACLU Foundation, on the other hand, conducts our litigation and communications efforts, and contributions to it are tax-deductible.

Many donors choose to make their larger tax-deductible gifts to the ACLU Foundation and also make smaller gifts to the ACLU in order to maintain their 'card-carrying' membership status with the ACLU."

ACLU MOSTLY Wacked Out

[Militant Libertarian]

Though I don't think that their influence would be best described as "left" (though it fits the bill in a lot cases).

They do, in fact defend most of the constitution, get the word out about the U.S.A. Patriot Act and whatnot, but when it comes right down to it, they're all a bunch of lawyers.

Tort reform (putting caps on civil court awards) is something they argue tooth and nail against, even though civil claims are at fault for most of the rise in medical costs, and rates for various types of insurance (doctors give on average 1/3 of their income to mal practice insurance, though 83% of successful claims are frivelous, and rising yearly).

A real, non-discriminatory defender of the constitutional, social, and economic freedoms is the libertarian party. Though I'm a bit bias according to my handle. :)

Re:ACLU MOSTLY Wacked Out

[macdaddy357]

Tort is our only recourse in medical malpractice, dangerous products that injure people, and many other things. Tort reform is about giving corporations such as insurance companies even more wealth and power, at the expense of people. Succesful claims are NOT frivoulous. Where do you get these bogus statistics. Frivoulous suits get dismissed. Insurance rates are sky high because insurance companies lost their asses in the stock market when the dot com bubble burst, and are trying to recoup their losses. Insurance itself is a vapor product designed to take people's money without giving them anything for it. It was created so the rich could buy a feeling of security. We would all be better off without such scams. If you took the billions doctors spend on malpractice insurance, and the billions patients spend on health insurance, or paying their doctor cash if they are uninsured, we could have national health care easily. It would cost a pittence next to the money we throw into fire for "insurance."

Why I think the ACLU is a good thing.

[Klaruz]

It all has to do with balance. We all know no citizen's liberty is safe while congress is in session. (Franklin I think) When it comes down to it, the main job of congress is to take away liberty by passing laws. Sometimes they get too caried away and somebody needs to be there to defend liberty. There are somethings I don't agree with (I won't enumerate those things here), but when it comes down to it, I support the majority of what they support. Otherwise, who's to stop congress from going overboard and taking it all away piece by piece?

What I'd like to know is why every American doesn't support the ACLU. The general feeling by many people is that they're bad. I can't think of a good reason why you would hate an orginization who's sole purpose is to defend freedom from those who would take it away from us. I once had an NCO (while I was in the military) bash me for supporting the ACLU. I reminded him that he said "I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." Of course the conversation went crazy from there (we were on a boring detail), but still... It's interesting to watch 'right wing' people bash the ACLU while calling the people who support them 'traitors' and whatnot. To me, not supporting the ACLU is treason against what our country stands for.

Re:Why I think the ACLU is a good thing.

[rmohr02]

I understand the reasonings for hating the ACLU, but think the people that hold those beliefs aren't seeing the whole picture. Yes, the ACLU supported the rights of the NAMBLA to post information about how to rape young boys--the ACLU certainly doesn't support this action (I don't think anybody besides the NAMBLA does), but the ACLU believes everybody has the right to say anything. They said that posting a tutorial, if you will, of a crime is different than committing a crime.

Re:Why I think the ACLU is a good thing.

[anthony_dipierro]

When it comes down to it, the main job of congress is to take away liberty by passing laws.

No, the main job of congress is to protect liberty by passing laws. Taking away liberty is just what many of them happen to do.

What I'd like to know is why every American doesn't support the ACLU.

Some people disagree with the ACLU's interpretation of certain parts of the Constitution. Others just disagree with some parts of the Constitution itself which the ACLU is defending.

I can't think of a good reason why you would hate an orginization who's sole purpose is to defend freedom from those who would take it away from us.

A good reason is because you believe that organization is not following that purpose very well.

Re:Why I think the ACLU is a good thing.

[umoto]

What I'd like to know is why every American doesn't support the ACLU.

Simple. The ACLU's policy on prayer disagrees with all Americans who have even minimal religious beliefs. Their policy makes no sense: the Constitution guarantees the right to freely exercise religion in prison, but not on public school grounds?!

Re:Why I think the ACLU is a good thing.

[mildness]

The ACLU's policy on prayer [aclu.org] disagrees with all Americans who have even minimal religious beliefs. Their policy makes no sense: the Constitution guarantees the right to freely exercise religion in prison [aclu.org], but not on public school grounds?!

Exactly. School grounds that I help pay for should not be used to support religious beleifs that I do not support. Those kids can pray at home.

Prison is home for the poor bastards what live there. Those mopes got no other place to go.

Bill

Re:Why I think the ACLU is a good thing.

[Webere]

From the document linked, emphasis mine:

"We do not need a school prayer amendment. Every child in the United States already has the right to pray in school on a voluntary basis -- it's called the First Amendment. ... Children, who are required to attend school by law, should not be placed in the position of having to choose between pressures from their teachers and peers and their parents' instructions on religious practice. Where official school prayer has been permitted, the result has not been pretty: Documentation is abundant of non-conforming students being called "little athiests" by their teachers, being beaten up or subjected to taunts and classroom jokes. This amendment would breed religious intolerance."

Their position seems pretty reasonable.

Re:Why I think the ACLU is a good thing.

[umoto]

Think back to when you were in grade school. In my case, and I think almost everyone else's, the teacher was in control of every minute of my time. I had to pay attention or risk getting in trouble. Prayer was never an option, except at recess, when I felt I would have been ridiculed by other students for praying--even though the majority of other students were of the same religion.

Although I technically had the right to pray any time I wanted to, I did not know about that right, and I feared punishment even if I did. Therefore I could not exercise my right.

The ACLU is ignoring its moral responsibility. At the same time it works to prevent abuse of power by teachers, the ACLU should be actively educating students how to pray without offending others. Yet I would be surprised to see the ACLU do anything like this.

Re:Why I think the ACLU is a good thing.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why doesn't everyone support it? Perhaps it's because they only defend the aspects of the Constitution that support their leftist ideology. I will also not support an organization that was founded by the American Communist Party in order to corrupt the US via the legal system.

Re:Why I think the ACLU is a good thing.

[Quinn]

Can't you just pray silently to yourself? Are we supposed to accomodate everyone who wants to perform some bizarre bombastic religious ritual ON OUR TIME? I don't want my kids to have to pause while Lucifer sacrifices his goat and Ahmed bows Meccaward.

It's SCHOOL. They're supposed to be learning science and reason, not hokum and superstition-- those lessons should come from the crazy parents.

What about my being forced to pledge allegiance to one nation "under God?" What about Congress establishing that aspect of religion? Hell, it's one nation "ABOVE god." Freedom and liberty are more important to me than giving special privileges to deluded spiritualists.

Re:Why I think the ACLU is a good thing.

[umoto]

This debate will never end. :-)

Note that it's not actually possible to escape religion (unless you're dead. ;-) ) Empiricism is a form of religion: empiricists believe that only observable things are important. That is a very large, unprovable belief. It is an organized religion.

Therefore, the attempt to separate church and state is futile. If the state is responsible for educating kids, it must choose a religion to teach them. That's tricky, so schools try to teach only the things we agree on. But that is also futile, since diverse opinions increasingly prevent anyone from agreeing on anything important. So kids receive a watered-down education that includes nothing of morality.

I wonder if the answer to all of this is to replace public schools with private schools. I suspect that is also a naive solution.

What a tough problem.

Protect your Constitution!

[mildness]

The ACLU is the only* organization that I am aware of whose sole purpose is to protect our Constitution and Bill of Rights. This political grounding is the envy of the world.

The two instruments are under fierce attack by Government and mega-corporations.

What more do you need to know?

Write 'em a check Brother!

Thanks for allowing me use of the soapbox,

Bill

* If not the only one they are certainly doing the most.

What's With the ACLU

[fm6]

People have a hard time understanding the ACLU, because they keep trying to put it into some kind of political pigeon hole. It just doesn't work. The ACLU isn't a political movement. It's a bunch of lawyers who litigate in defense of their interpretation of the Bill of Rights.

There was a case back in 88 that demonstrates the role of the ACLU in all its irony. If you remember that year, you probably remember Bush the First packing as many Hot Button Keywords into his presidential campaign speeches as possible. One really nasty example is that he repeatedly referred to his opponent as a "card-carrying member of the ACLU", terminology obviously meant to evoke left wing associations.

Now somewhere in the midwest (I think it was Ohio) a woman tried to put "Elect Bush" signs on her front lawn, only to be told she was violating local zoning ordinances. She placed a call to the local ACLU chapter -- and got a callback from the state chairman, who informed her that she had raised a vital free speech issue, and the state ACLU would back her and her Bush signs with everything it had!

Of course, that's not the biggest irony connected with the ACLU -- it doesn't come close to all those Nazi and White Supremicist bozos who turn to the ACLU for legal representation, which often comes in the form of Jewish or African-American lawyers! But it's all part of the same idea: that for the Constitution to work, its protections have to be extended to everybody: pedophiles, Nazis, and even people who attack the ACLU itself.

Which makes association with the ACLU pretty difficult: you have to accept that your dues are going to go to protect the legal rights of a lot of people you happen to despise.

I actually have no problem with this: I'm a Jewish American who happens to think that everybody should read The Turner Diaries. The more appalling an idea is, the more you need to bring it out in the open. Anyway, freedom of thought (including stupid thought) is the most fundamental of rights.

I do have a major issue with the ACLU. Not their rabid defense of the rights of despised minorities, but rather their assumption that litigation is the only way to do it. Lawyers do play an important role in protecting the rights of their clients. But the courts aren't always the best protector of personal liberties. As Dred Scott learned, they often give a high priority to maintaining the status quo. And even when they don't, having a social change mandated by a federal judge is no guarantee of the change actually happening. Any African American trying to find a place to live will tell you that!

Re:Just when I start to think Slashdot has grasped

[Doobian Coedifier]

If I had mod points, I'd give them all to you.

Re:Just when I start to think Slashdot has grasped

[Joff_NZ]

Some one please mod this up... I've got no points at the moment, or I'd do it myself...

Yes they do.

[MarkusQ]

I think you're missing a key distinction in their position: they supported both sides's right to voice their opinion; but they opposed ones side's use of extortion to try to silence the other. Specifically, when the leaders of one side "directed activists involved in that group...to use threats and acts of intimidation and extortion in their efforts to shut down" the other group, the ACLU said that this crossed the line from speach to action and thus was not protected.

Basically, someone is allowed to think my nose is too big, and even to say publically that they think it's too big, but they aren't allowed to wave a knife in my face to make their point.

-- MarkusQ

Re:Yes they do.

[benjamindees]

Sure, but they didn't sue the people who 'waved the knife'. They sued the people who encouraged them to 'wave the knife'. By that logic, Greenpeace would be the largest racketeer in the US.

They've tried it again and again since, accusing anti-abortion website operators of murder and suing them under RICO as well.

If you look into it deep enough, and actually understand the laws they are suing these people under, you'd quickly realize that this is nothing more than a politically-motivated campaign to silence those who oppose 'abortion rights'.

Re:Yes they do.

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't know much about RICO, do you? Look it up: RICO is used for a lot of things other than attacking the Mafia. The reason is because any legal definition of "racketeering" is likely to encompass other forms of criminal conspiracy that we normally don't connect with the word "racketeering."

Re:Just when I start to think Slashdot has grasped

[Dimwit]

The ACLU is quite in favor of maintaining privacy in our increasingly technological world, which I think would make it applicable to the Slashdot crowd.

As for the "ACLU is an American thing, Slashdot's international" thing - I watch the BBC, which broadcasts all over the world. I don't bitch when they show something particularly British - they're a British organization. Don't bitch when Slashdot does something particularly American - it's an American organization.

Re:Just when I start to think Slashdot has grasped

[rmohr02]

See http://ask.slashdot.org/faq/editorial.shtml#ed850. Stop your bitching.

Put your money where your heart is

[worm eater]

I won't tell you not to send money to the ACLU, or where to send your money instead, but it sounds like you have pretty mixed feelings about it. Why not find an organization that you really feel strongly about? There are so many people out there trying to help other people in different ways, you could not possibly support all the good causes. So find one that you passionately support.

The ACLU is a great organization, but...

[Dimwit]

...It's up to you if you agree with what they do enough to join them or give them money. Their website is particularly well-done in terms of the amount of information present, so I would recommend a bit of research there.

As for my personal opinion, I think you should make as large of a donation as possible, and join if you can. The ACLU is one of the few organizations out there which operates on the principles of freedom, not just the ones that they agree with. For example, the ACLU has defended Nazi's rights to march through mostly-Jewish areas, and the KKK's right to protest on MLK day.

Yes, they are extremely leftist. No, that's not a bad thing. They believe that the state exists to serve the people, and to ensure their freedom. It's not a Libertarian organization - they believe that the government has the right to enforce environmental laws, to make sure the people remain alive long enough to be free. It's not a Republican organization - they believe that religion has no place in government. They do, however, believe that people have the right to exercise their religion whenever and however they want, so long as they don't force it on others, and that people can do whatever they want environmentally on their property, so long as it's *only* their property that's affected.

So, yes, I'm a bleeding-heart liberal, and proud of it. And I'm proud to be part of an organization that defends my bleeding-heart liberal rights, as well as the rights of those I do not agree with. That's what makes the ACLU a great organization.

Re:The ACLU is a great organization, but...

[CentrX]

The ACLU is not a leftist organization, unless by leftist you simply mean classical liberal/libertarian, which some might even call rightist or conservative. They defend the Bill of Rights. That's simply being supportive of civil liberties. Where have they said anything about environmental issues that did not relate to civil liberties in the constitution? I can't even find "environment" under the issues at their website. It seems like it's completely out of their purview. That doesn't meant they're not libertarian. In a sense, they're libertarian or constitutionalist in all or most of the issues that they deal with. They don't believe that religion has no place in government simply because they're not Republican, it's got nothing to do with political parties. They do civil liberties, which are supported by a lot of conservatives, liberals and people from lots of other political persuasions.

So, yes, I'm a staunch conservative, and proud to be part of an organization that defends the rights I have under a conservative government.

So, yes, I'm a staunch libertarian, and proud to be part of an organization that defends my libertarian rights.

So, yes, I'm an anarchist, and proud to be part of an organization that prevents government from encroaching on my natural rights.

So, yes, I'm a socialist, and proud to be part of an organization that defends my personal rights under a socialist system.

Please remove head from sand

[fm6]

Come on, this site is about "News for Nerds", not "Current Popular Views on American Politics".

You're making two mistakes. You're treating the ACLU as a political organization, which it is not. It's about civil liberties. It used to be that you could sort of argue that the ACLU had a liberal-left agenda, since that was the background of most members. But even that argument no longer holds water.

Second, you're thinking that nerdworld has nothing to do with the "real" world. Tell that to somebody who's getting sued by SCO or DirectTV because of technology they happen to own. Or face going to jail for writing DVD software for Linux! Or have to deal with any number of civil liberty issues that affect nerds.

Exactly.

[Joe the Lesser]

Nail on the head.

ACLU apply their standards *very* unevenly

[leonbrooks]

They also take particular philosophical stances based on particular assumptions which are easy to prove wrong, and are clearly derived from a religious bias.

The classic example is the "right" to abort, which the ACLU promote. If you kill a baby after (s)he is born, it's murder. A week before (s)he is born, it's not. Why not? If (s)he were born 20 weeks premature, killing him/her a week later (ie, 18 weeks earlier than if (s)he'd been aborted a week before term) is also unquestionably murder. Ridiculous, isn't it?

So who will speak for those who have no voice? "We do," claim the ACLU: but here they do not speak for the baby, or the baby's rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" at all. Liars!

The only reasoning which could lead one to believe that a change of location (from inside a uterus to inside a nappy) includes a change of status from non-human "bunch of cells" to full humanity is a religious one. It calls itself Atheism but it isn't even that. The only liberty it defends is of those like themselves to believe and act as they do.

Re:ACLU apply their standards *very* unevenly

[Tom7]

The only reasoning which could lead one to believe that a change of location (from inside a uterus to inside a nappy) includes a change of status from non-human "bunch of cells" to full humanity

While the abortion issue is a tough one and one of the ones that I don't totally agree with the ACLU about, I don't follow your "proof" here at all. In fact, I see a clear distinction that could be used, and that is that before birth, the fetus is dependent on the mother to sustain its life, and after birth it is living on its own. (Of course, in practice, the mom usually takes care of the baby after birth, too!) Why can't this be the defining moment of humanity? Personally, since a premature child can usually survive, I prefer slightly earlier standard (perhaps, "capable of surviving outside the womb"). But we need to make that distinction somewhere. Pre-conception is hopeless, as we'd surely not condemn a woman's period or a man's wasted sperm (at most one makes it, even in good ol' fashion unprotected catholic sex!), and conception seems like a poor time as well since we understand that moment well biologically and know it to be really just cells dividing. Indeed, post-conception the division sometimes results in twins, which seems to be difficult for the "conception defines life" position to explain. In any case, you should not assume your choice (whatever that is) is obvious and incontrovertible, as you seem to in your post!

Re:ACLU apply their standards *very* unevenly

[tcopeland]

> after birth it is living on its own. (Of course
> , in practice, the mom usually takes care of
> the baby after birth, too!)

His point exactly. A 2 day old baby won't survive if left on its own either, but that doesn't mean we should kill it.

> we need to make that distinction
> somewhere [...] Pre-conception is hopeless

Of course.

> we understand that moment well biologically
> and know it to be really just cells dividing

Hm. Doesn't "just cells dividing" apply to every other moment of life as well?

> post-conception the division sometimes
> results in twins

Why does this present a problem for the "life as conception" argument? Just because we don't know exactly how many babies are there doesn't mean we should kill them.

Re:ACLU apply their standards *very* unevenly

[noblee]

The modern constitutional doctrine is really quite clear: once the child is "viable" it is protected as a person. Before that, it is part of the mother.

Strictly speaking, this is not very good biology, as well, different DNAs, etc, but it does provide the same level of protection that a dying man with tubes in every every body cavity has--both he and the child are on life support and are therefore not fully protected.

There are differences (the dying man is terminal, the child is not), but this has really been decided. The majority of Americans now support abortion and the Court has upheld this in numerous decisions.

As a further aside, you must remember that the ACLU sees this as a right which deserves protecting: the right to privacy. So saying that they are abridging rights is true, but they are protecting the rights of mothers at the cost of unviable fetus' rights.

Re:ACLU apply their standards *very* unevenly

[Rolgar]

Some of the controversy has to do with the ACLU's interaction with Christian organizitions on issues other than abortion.
A Christian organization's point of view on the ACLU.
Boy Scouts, gays, and the ACLU
The ACLU currently has an article on its homepage on how to go to Canada and get married if you are gay.
The First Admenment center has several articles over about the ACLU attemting to override local laws, and requiring the removal of the Ten Commandments from public places.

All of these lead many Christians to assume that the ACLU is for the protection and advancement of immorality, and well, you can immagine how all the televangelists and (even worse) the radio-evangelists consider this a bad thing, and make a big ruckus.

Re:ACLU apply their standards *very* unevenly

[tcopeland]

> The modern constitutional doctrine

The 1972 Roe vs Wade Supreme Court decision says that, yes. As you've pointed out, the "viability" distinction is neither good biology nor good logic. If we indeed have doubts as to when a baby becomes a person, wouldn't it be better to err on the side of safety?

> The majority of Americans now support abortion

I'll spare you the tedious references to Germany 1937. Might does not make right, nor does an erring majority.

> protecting the rights of mothers at the
> cost of unviable fetus' rights

Close. It's at the cost of babies' lives. And it puzzles me that the life of a baby can be seen as less valuable than the "right to privacy" of that baby's mother.

Re:ACLU apply their standards *very* unevenly

[jedidiah]

It is simply bad public policy to allow governments to interfere inside a citizen's body. That should remain a person's sovereign domain.

"privacy" is relevant.

However, privacy is a lynchpin of free expression in a democracy. It's no trivial thing to mess with and is a sacred cow for good reason. You belittle it with no real understanding.

Re:ACLU apply their standards *very* unevenly

[tcopeland]

> interfere inside a citizen's body

Generally, yes, of course. However, human reproduction being what it is, one citizen lives inside another for 9 months.

> That should remain a person's sovereign domain

Unless it affects another person - which is most certainly does, in this case.

> privacy is a lynchpin of free expression

Right, but privacy doesn't allow me to kill other people.

> It's no trivial thing to mess with

Nor is a baby's life.

> You belittle it with no real understanding

I seek not to belittle privacy - only to suggest that a child's life is more important.

Re:ACLU apply their standards *very* unevenly

[jedidiah]

I am more than willing to allow other less well suited individuals to elminate their own progeny from the gene pool and competition for resources to prevent my government from running amok.

Also, I simply don't have the same irresistable compulsion to meddle in the affairs of others that you seem to.

You belittle all liberty, not just "privacy".

Re:ACLU apply their standards *very* unevenly

[tcopeland]

> other less well suited individuals

There's no such thing. See the Declaration of Independence and, more importantly, the Bible.

> prevent my government from running amok

That would deny the nature of government.

> compulsion to meddle in the affairs of others

Preserving life != meddling.

> You belittle all liberty, not just "privacy"

This statement constitutes an ad hominem argument. Come now, you're better than that!

The US Constitution is about *individual* rights

[leonbrooks]

The ACLU says that the second amendment does not apply to individuals, but to state militia.

In this case, the ACLU is clearly spouting nonsense. The Constitution speaks only to individuals, not states, so why force this one Amendment to do otherwise? You might stop to ask why the ACLU wants to warp the interpretation like this.

Join and mold

[SuperguyA1]

If you agree with most of the policies, Join and Use your membership voice to mold the other policies you disagree with. You'll never change them as an outsider.

Exponential decay.

[fm6]

Except half of that $50 will go to stuff you don't approve of, so you'll have to withhold that. Then you have to withhold another $12.50...

It's actually a lot simpler than that. Either you approve of their ends (making sure the Bill of Rights covers everybody) and their means (litigating against abridgement of the Bill of Rights, no matter whose rights are being abridged), or you don't. If you do support their strategy, you're just going to have to live with the fact that Nazis, Pedophiles, and other uncool people are going to benefit from it.

Re:Exponential decay.

[oolon]

No, what I am saying is general people who are wanting to give to any charity will not like some of the things they do, but will like other parts, the parts people do not like are probably relatively evenly spread. So although on people part of my money WILL go to something I don't like but someonelse money will go to a part they don't like which I do. This will tend to counteract the not liking part, but because I do not like everything they do I choice to give them less.

Its still perference in charities, if someone women comes round for the local dog home, I might give less cos I don't like dogs but I will give something cos I don't like cruelty to animals, and strays need a home, whereas I would give more to the local cat home cos I love cats like any normal person ;-)

James

Re:Exponential decay.

[fm6]

If a charity is doing things you don't approve of, it doesn't make sense to give them money. It doesn't matter how much you give them -- some of the money will go to activities that you think are wrong.

True. But that's not the whole story.

[leonbrooks]

The Boy Scouts are a religious organization if they can expel members for being atheists.

Absolutely true. Either the Scouts have Deist overtones or Darrell Lambert can continue to be a member.

However, the ACLU will not defend the religious rights of Christians.

Case in point, a Christian woman (FOAF) put an advert in her local newspaper for a Christian housekeeper. The ACLU immediately took her to court over it. During the weeks between that and the hearing date, the woman ran an advert for a Buddhist housekeeper alongside the Christian one. When asked in court why the ACLU had not sued over the Buddhist ad, their lawyer refused to answer and the case was dropped - appropriately enough, it was dropped "with prejudice", meaning that the ACLU had to pay her costs as well.

Why that singular exception?

It seems to me that the honesty demands that the ACLU seeks religious status for itself as well.

Re:True. But that's not the whole story.

[macdaddy357]

Which newspaper, when, and what was the lady's name. Without these details, you are only repeating an urban legend. I will raise the bullshit flag here. The ACLU will defend christians if they are being opressed, but usually they are the opressors we need to be protected from.

Re:True. But that's not the whole story.

[tm2b]

The Scouts are definitely not a Deist organization. Perhaps you meant theist?

This, by the way, is what the "Founding Fathers" actually were (for the most part). A Deist is not somebody who believes in a god, a Deist is someone who believes in a specific type of God, which differs substantially from the Christian Jehovah / Jewish Yaweh / Muslim Allah.

Re:True. But that's not the whole story.

[leonbrooks]

Theist is indeed a better fit, thank you.

Dictionary.com says: "The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation." That sounds pretty much like Scouts, insisting on a Diety but not doing anything useful with the concept after that.

The Deist page you referred to consisted almost entirely of logical tilting at strawmen. I'm not sure what to make of it, but "sense" doesn't seem to be one of the viable options.

A Progressive Creationist is so close to Deist that most people wouldn't be able to pick the difference, an angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin question, yet Progressive Creationists call themselves and are widely acknowledged as Christians. Even the cruel-to-scarecrows Diests you referred to would satisfy the requirements of the Scouts.

Re:True. But that's not the whole story.

[tm2b]

Dictionary.com says: "The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation." That sounds pretty much like Scouts, insisting on a Diety but not doing anything useful with the concept after that.

No, not at all. A Deist belief system does not allow for any kind of divine revelation, such as through prophets, messiahs, or holy texts. If the Scouts were Deist, they would expel Christians and Jews, instead of just expelling Atheists.

Progressive Creationists are similarly not even remotely like Deists. Deists believe in a clockwork universe that was created and then abandoned, while Creationists generally believe in scriptural texts (the "supernatural revelation" referred to in the definition you quote) and other tinkering by the Creator.

I apologize for the low quality of the link I posted, googling will get you better info if you're interested. Deism is a fairly well articulated set of beliefs that grew out of the Enlightenment and doesn't resemble Christianity at all, except in the belief in a similar moral code (but the code of "natural rights" is derivable from the observed universe, instead of consisting of given commandments) and in a Creator.

Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and most of those referred to as the American "Founding Fathers" were Deists rather than Christians, and had some fairly nasty things to say about Christianity (Thomas Jefferson: "I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature." And Tom Paine, well, he specialized in denouncing Christianity).

Look ath the Libertarian Party also...

[fwc]

A little bit less controversial group you may want to look at is the Libertarian Party. While they stand for many of the same things as the ACLU, they try to get them through the normal political process instead of through the court system. I hear a LOT of Libertarian-like viewpoints here on slashdot.

On the LP's web page there is also the "World's Smallest Political Quiz" which is basically a 10 question quiz which will help you know what political "area" you fall into.

Re:Look ath the Libertarian Party also...

[coltrane679]

I'm a libertarian. The Libertarian Party is a joke. What has it ever accomplished?

There is very, very little room in the American political system for anything more than 2 parties, other than to play spoiler (like Nader in 2000, and--almost--George Wallace in 1968). Unless you plan on either (1) amending the Constitution to provide for a parlimentary system of government, or (2) supplanting the Republicans or Democrats, the Libertarian Party is going nowhere. For a while many Libertarians thought the Republican Party might offer them a home--but since then the indisputable influence of would-be Jesus Christer Ayatollahs and blatant statists has become overwhelming (can you say "John Ashcroft", to cover both bases?) Whether the Democrats can be made any more hospitable to libertarians is a dubious proposition.

Whatever you think of the ACLU, they are about ACTION that matters. No one would ever say that about the Libertarian Party.

the aclu..

[miruku]

.. is activly pro-pornography, but they have absolutly nothing on their web site or fourms about the non-profit activity of natralism/nudism. it seems to me they're more interested in protecting the rights of buisness than advancing and protecting the civil rights of individuals.

Re:the aclu..

[Anonymous Coward]

what the fuck??

Meh

[TheOnlyCoolTim]

Certain parts of the Constitution, yes. The First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment...

However, they are great about perverting the meanings of other parts, like the Second and Fourteenth Amendments.

Tim

Re:Meh

[mildness]

Can you elaborate on "perverting the meanings"?

Cheers,

Bill

Re:Meh

[TheOnlyCoolTim]

I will take the second amendment, as that is the big one.

The amendments in the constitution generally follow the form of protecting the individual's rights through denying power to the government.

For example, the first amendment protects the individual's right to free speech by denying the government the power to infringe upon that right.

The only part of the bill of rights that gives any powers to the states is the Tenth Amendment, which is the second of the two mostly-ignored "catch-all" amendments intended to limit federal power, and it says that any powers not given to the federal government or forbidden to the states belong to the states or the people.

The ACLU claims that the Second Amendment also is intended to give rights to the states rather than to the individuals:

"We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the central government."

This is very much out of character with the Constitution, which recognizes that only individuals have rights. The various governments of the country are given powers, but never seen as having rights, and only the one amendment of the bill of rights even gives the states any powers.

The amendment really doesn't make sense when you look at the fact that the running of the militia (in the "National Guard" sense) is described in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, and especially considering that "No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay."

There's also semantics arguments that I won't really get into as I don't know much about them, except to say that back then "militia" might have meant "able-bodied citizens" and "well-regulated" might have meant "familiar with guns."

I just don't like interpretations of the Constitution that view government as having rights or that have rights descending from the government.

Tim

Re:Meh

[shivianzealot]

missing000, in a previous post, answers the second ammendment issue here: http://ask.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=75151&cid= 6727549

Essentially, their idealogy is that the reason your neighbor can't possess depleted uranium magazines or homebrew napalm is that the second ammendment applies within the context of state militias, rather than private persons.

Regarding the fourteenth ammendment, I'm not entirely certian as to what you're getting at. XIV is a broad addition to the constitution, but most notably it is NOT part of the group of original ammendments we refer to as the "Bill of Rights," where a significant value of the ACLU's stances on issues are derived. Regardless, their mission is usually said to encompasses all rights of citizens (and sometimes non-citizens), and if there are any cracks in their actions or philosophy regarding the 14th, I'm ignorant regarding them. Please explain your position better.

Re:Meh

[TheOnlyCoolTim]

"The ACLU actively supports affirmative action as a remedy for discrimination in employment and education."

By the Fourteenth Amendment they were getting into more legal bullshitting than the earlier Amendments but that's the one that's supposed to make the races equal. "Equal protection under law" and all that. I don't see how you can look at the 14th amendment as part of a Constitution of principles and pull "active support" for AA from it. Neutrality, maybe, but not active support.

Tim

Re:Meh

[shivianzealot]

"The ACLU actively supports affirmative action as a remedy for discrimination in employment and education."

[...]

"Equal protection under law" and all that. I don't see how you can look at the 14th amendment as part of a Constitution of principles and pull "active support" for AA from it. Neutrality, maybe, but not active support.

I will agree support for affirmitive action strikes me as a departure from the constitutional literalism usually trademarked by the ACLU. Though, my take on the matter -and my advice to the Ask Slashdot submitter- is to look at the ACLU's stance on issues which matter to you, and donate accordingly. Then donate to groups favoring your positions differing from the ACLU as you see fit. If you're significantly incompatable, don't give anything, obviously. Then perhaps see if John Ashcroft needs another paper pusher :)

Re:Meh

[mildness]

Well written Tim. Thanks.

I would only point out that back then "arms" meant single shot muzzle loading rifles.

This leads me to the interpretation that I enjoy, that is the National Guard can have all the weapons they want.

Cheers,

Bill

Re:Meh

[TheOnlyCoolTim]

I would say that even with that viewpoint it at least means that the people have the right to musketry and cannon.

Tim

Re:Meh

[mildness]

HAHAHA

Agreed!

Good chatting with you,

Bill

Wrong on two counts.

[leonbrooks]

Firstly, they don't support Christian groups whose freedom of speech is being impinged up. Interesting exception, that.

Secondly, they litigate against (as here) groups that are using their freedom of speech to incite criminal acts. I don't mind the ACLU doing that at all, but it's the pinnacle of hypocrisy for them to also defend other groups who use their own freedom of speech to incite criminal acts.

Re:Wrong on two counts.

[mad.frog]

Firstly, they don't support Christian groups whose freedom of speech is being impinged up. Interesting exception, that.

Specific example, please. I'm not aware of any such cases. (At least, that don't involve church-state issues.)

Re:Wrong on two counts.

[leonbrooks]

One example from me: public primary school are students forced to study Islam, ACLU absent from scene, yet the ACLU intervenes when books with Christian overtones are donated to a school. Either intervene in both cases, or neither, if you are to be unbiassed.

Second example: ACLU sues when gay groups are excluded from Christian-sponsored Family Day parade - like, d'oh? Would ACLU sue to include NAMBLA in such a parade? Evidently they would. What about the Christians' right to make their point? Sorry, stick to making it in church, presumably behind locked, soundproof doors lest some poor unwary Atheist be accidentally converted.

Third example: ACLU causes pulling of an AIDS brochure addressed to Christians as being inappropriate for a government department to publish. In point of fact they actively oppose many Christianity-focussed (ie the opposite way around) AIDS defenses as well, despite the measurable fact that this is the only effective defense against AIDS so far discovered. They'd rather that people died than that they becomes Christian. But I digress: is this government department unable to address the Christians in their constituency in their own language, when bringing them to an understanding of AIDS and a compassionate response toward AIDS sufferers? ACLU seems to think so. I mentions the Bible in other than a condemnatory light, so it has to go.

Over to Leader U for a bigger dose.

They aren't efficient with money

[GuyMannDude]

One tool that I've come to value in helping me decide what non-profit organizations to donate to and how much, has been the information put out by The American Institute of Philanthropy. They publish a Charity Rating Guide that lists pretty much every non-profit org that you can think of along with information on such things such as how much cash they have in reserve and what percentage of donor's contributions actually goes towards programs and what percentage goes towards paying the costs of fund raising. Let me tell you: the ACLU does not get high marks. Read the Guide for yourself to decide whether the marks are "high enough" for you to decide whether to give them money or save your contribution for a similar, but more efficient, organization.

Obviously many factors must go into your decisions but knowing some of their finances can really help you out. I have stopped giving to some non-profit orgs whose missions are strongly aligned with my own values based on the data I gleened from AIPs Guide. In fact, I actually gave some of that money previously reserved for other charities to AIP so they can continue doing their good work. I encourage all slashdotters to get a copy of the Guide.

GMD

Re:They aren't efficient with money

[robi2106]

Excelent idea. It never hurts to ask a few hard questions about what the org does. Especially the balance between compensation of org employees / CEOs, & presidents vs pay outs for capital assets (equipment), perishables (food), or other items.

robi

why i joined

[jfruhlinger]

I was listening to a radio report on the longstanding tradition in Texas of a prayer being read over the loudspeaker before a public high school football game. I was really trying hard to maintain some objectivity. There was a girl being interviewed who often read the prayer before the game, who was speaking very passionately about this being her religion, and that ACLU-spearheaded attempts to stop the prayer were interfering with her free exercize of it. Then the interviewer asked her: What if there was a Mormon or Buddhist student in her high school who wanted to read a prayer before a game?

"Oh, I wouldn't like that," she said. "I mean, we pray to God. I wouldn't want a prayer to a false god."

That's when I signed up for the ACLU. The thing that most pissed me off was the unthinkingness of it. I grew up in Buffalo, NY, which is overwhelmingly Catholic. If there were prayers in the public schools there, they would probably be Our Fathers and Hail Marys and calls for intercessions with saints -- all things that a good Southern Baptist like the girl being interviewed would find to be horrifying popery. The reason that governments (including school districts and their appointed representatives) shouldn't lead prayers is that by selecting certain prayers, they are declaring some gods to be false, just like our interviewee. And that is completely against the "no established religion" clause.

jf

Re:why i joined

[cpeterso]

good point. Would school prayer in Salt Lake City, UT be from the Book of Mormon? Or would it have to be from a government-approved Bible?

Re:why i joined

[robi2106]

Wow . . . now there is a scary thought . . . a Government bible. What chould be different about it?

Sodom and Gomorrah couldn't be mentioned, due to their destruction based on their status as "wicked" by someone one elses standard.

The prophets of Baal wouldn't be burned to crispy lumps by fire from heaven (they "worshipped a different god" and that is clearly discrimination).

No killing of Goliath by David (violence isn't the answer to problems).

Man . . . all the fun stuff would be left out!

robi

They are big on freedom of speech...

[Anonymous Coward]

...unless you're a Christian. Or right-wing.

Those guys shouldn't have free speech. The ACLU likes to sue people who pray. To Christ. You can pray to anyone else. Like Elvis. That's cool.

And you'd better not try to stop a kid from having an abortion. Double if you're the kids parents. Parents can shut up too.

And the ACLU wants to made sure everyone in Florida had their votes counted, except for 650 military people who had thier ballots arive late in the mail even if they were postmarked on time. Every vote counts. Except theirs.

Kinda like Slashdot. I can say anything, as long as it leans to the left. Otherwise, I'm just a troll.

Vote Dean!!!

Re:They are big on freedom of speech...

[valkraider]

Vote Dean!!!

Obviously this person is trying to get people to "misplace" their votes on Howard Dean . Please ignore ACs who tell YOU who to vote for. You do the research and vote for the cantidate YOU agree with.

And as an aside - can the AC who posted this show me *1* case where the ACLU fought something *simply* because it was Christian? In other words - Christians are not always right, especially not simply because they are Christians. The ACLU has never sued anyone for praying. They *have* worked to stop governmentally funded or endorsed prayer.

Why is it so wrong to donate money to the ACLU when just about every Christian church asks for 10% of your income? Do Christian organizations and churches not lobby and influence politics?

I Am A Member.

[Tom7]

The ACLU is one of the few organizations that you see, repeatedly in the news, and repeatedly winning cases. They really do make a difference, and that is why I am a member.

I suppose there are some issues where I don't totally agree with them -- but that's ok, because I don't expect them to succeed on every front. In that sense I think they are appropriate for even fairly moderate leftists like are found in great numbers on slashdot. Like RMS, they represent an important (and rational) extreme position that answers to the current climate.

Basically, it's like this: Whenever I go to "Am I Hot Or Not?", I only give "1" or "10" ratings based on whether I think the person is going to be over- or under-rated. Why would I want my vote to count for less in the final result? Similarly, I don't donate to the organization that shares my views most exactly; rather, I estimate where we live in relation to that position and then choose the most extreme view that gets us there. (Of course, sometimes there is an issue of whether that organization can be taken seriously and make real impact, but for sure the ACLU passes that test!)

Devil's advocate

[hlee]

I don't see the ACLU taking on cases necessarily to win them - not that they try to lose, but to argue each case through to the end.. and when everyone sees why they win or lose a case, it will also tell us the strengths and weaknesses of the existing laws.

Re:Devil's advocate

[deanj]

The ACLU is a bully. In many cases, they go after the small guy, bullying them in court cases which the small guy can't pay for, and settle out of court.

Fortunately, there are instances where that doesn't always work.

Hmmm.

[MarkusQ]

Sure, but they didn't sue the people who 'waved the knife'. They sued the people who encouraged them to 'wave the knife'. By that logic, Greenpeace would be the largest racketeer in the US.

Hmmm. I'll admit right off that I'm not familliar with the details of this case, but seems to me if someone was sending attackers of any form against their opponent they aren't just "speaking" anymore, and ought to be held accountable. There are quite a few parallels (hiring a hit man is illegal, as is inciting to riot, barrity (using laywers as a bludgeon), etc.).

As for your second point, I'd like to see Greenpeace held accountable for their actions (which often do more to damage their case than anything else). At the very least they should be forced to change their name to something more honest.

-- MarkusQ

Re:Hmmm.

[ConsumedByTV]

As for your second point, I'd like to see Greenpeace held accountable for their actions (which often do more to damage their case than anything else). At the very least they should be forced to change their name to something more honest.

Care to back that up?
What actions are those that you speak of? Non-violence of people counting animals in the forest?
And what would you suggest as a name for them?

Re:Hmmm.

[MarkusQ]

Gosh, I only have a few minutes so:

• Messing up food safety trials
• vadalism
• Conducting sieges

...for starters.

-- MarkusQ

Re:Hmmm.

[ConsumedByTV]

Yea those fucking terrorists!

Planting non GMO WHEAT in someone elses field to arouse awareness!

And the fire that killed who?
Who started that fire? I haven't even heard the persn reporting state that fact.
Hanging banners is a dangerous job but death by fire? What?

And blocking access to the oil with non violent means.

So you think we should beat up ghandi (forget for a moment that he is dead) next time he steps into town with a non violent protest?

Or is the past ok with non violent protest because it's the past? What is the difference with MLK and other non violent protests?

Re:Hmmm.

[MarkusQ]

Planting non GMO WHEAT in someone elses field to arouse awareness!

Awareness of what? That neo-ludites can temporarily use FUD to block the development of crops that might help feed people who are starving? I think we were all aware of that.

Comparing them to Ghandi is just silly. He was, after all, on the side of the oppressed, not on the side of a bunch of spoiled over-priviledged whiners that want to preserve the status quo. If Ghandi were alive he'd be no friend of theirs.

Do you want to get greenpeace mad at you? All you have to do is come up with something that might level the playing field between the rich and the poor, bring food to the hungry or provide energy to help make people's lives better, and they'll be all over you. Their idea of a perfect world seems to be going back to the days where you could get thrown in jail (or even worse) for poaching or trespassing on the king's wilderness park, even if you were only trying to feed your starving children. Progress? Who needs it! They've already got their SUVs and their coffee lattes, and that's enough for them. They'd even be willing to let millions (of foriegn poor of course) die to to stop it from going any further.

-- MarkusQ

I'm an ex-member. Here's why.

[PapaZit]

I like the work that the ACLU does. I can even appreciate their stance on some issues where I disagree with them. After Sept. 11, I knew that Bad Shit (tm) would soon be coming from Washington, and they looked like the group that was most likely to do something.

I gave them $50 or so. In return, I started receiving weekly "Oh no! Those wacky republicans are at it again! Give us more money!" letters.

The info wouldn't have been bad: it's good to be informed. What bothered me was the hysterical "Be afraid!" tone, the constant pleading for money (with that sleazy "but wait, there's more!" tone that comes with offers for time-shares), and the regular deulge of thick envelopes (with a pre-paid business reply envelope in each). I suspect that the entirety of my donation was spent on the weekly pleas for more money. I felt like I was supporting the post office and the envelope industry, not civil liberties.

Now, I drop more money to the EFF, and I make a point of writing my congressmen when I think I can argue the issue intelligently. It's not the broad-based defense of liberty that I'd prefer, but it's less annoying that donating to the ACLU.

ACLU fought against WWII Japanese internment

[asmithmd1]

What other group has that kind of history of being on the right side of an issue when it was very unpopular?
check it out here

Re:ACLU fought against WWII Japanese internment

[Red Warrior]

J. Edgar Hoover?

Re:ACLU fought against WWII Japanese internment

[Anonymous Coward]

try the republican party ..throughout history more often than naught are on the right side of unpopular ideas. History will show the ACLU as a bunch of well intentioned lawyers that had real bad execution.

are they?

[Anonymous Coward]

Like, they're getting legal shit beacuse they're writing HOWTOs on how to nail young boys.

Are they really? Funny, no evidence has ever been brought forth to show that.

Maybe you have some reading material you'd like to show us?

Re:The US Constitution is about *individual* right

[mildness]

Go reread the dang thing. The second amendment was designed to be interpreted differently by everyone that read it IMHO.

I could just as easily debate either interpretation.

Cheers,

Bill

Bullshit Squared

[Fished]

The word "militia" in 18th century english referred to all the able-bodied men of the state who could be called upon to defend her in the event of attack. The debate of the first ammendment and the Virginia bill of rights (upon which the 1st ammendment is based) make this clear.

The intent of this ammendment was not to place power in the hands of state governments, but to ensure that congress could not do what had been done in e.g. Ireland, and forbid ordinary citizens from bearing arms, thereby eliminating the "right" of the people to rebel against the government in the event it became oppressive. When you think "Militia", you need to think "minute-men", not "national guard."

do they?

[Anonymous Coward]

The ACLU believes that the first amendment protects the rights of child pornographers

Name a single child pornography case they've defended.

I'm calling bullshit.

Re:do they?

[TamMan2000]

I don't recall the case name, but they defended someone who made very realistic simulations of pornographic acts invovling children, however no children were filmed in pornographic situations...

Basically they said the 1st garauntees the right to doctor photos, they do not believe that people should be able to make child porn with real children, only digital ones. And I agree, their strong stance on the 1st is the primary reason I joined.

Give more $$$ to the EFF instead

[mlinksva]

of joining the ACLU. I like them both, but the EFF is far more strapped.

the last quesion to becoming an Eagle Scout was

[arcadum]

Do YOU belive in god?
that was a difficult moment for me when I was 15. I thought about it and decided yes, there has to be something beyond us.

Understand the clause in the 1st ammendment.

[pi_rules]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;...

I'm going to take the orignal poster's sentiment (or what I would presume is their take on this issue) and run with it.

Read the above quote a few times and let it sink in if you have the notion of "seperation of church and state" burried into your head.

Word #1: Congress

Congress is the legislative body of the United States of America. This is not your school board. This is written to prvent the federal legislative branch from:

Words #2 - #10:

Making a law respecting an establishment of religion. Period. Hey this is pretty plain and simple -- there's no legal jargon here. So far we have a statement that says that Congress cannot make a law which states an offical religion of the land. Congress has never (to the best of my knowledge) even tried doing this nor have they ever succeeded. We piss on the Constitution frequently but this is one bullet point that's never been trampled on.

Words #11 - 16: ... And they cannot make a law prohibiting your right to exercise your religion. Well, I don't think they've ever tried this either, and certainly not successfully. Some immature young lad out there probably wants to shoot back, "But I want to sacrifice virgins to the fire god!". Well, fine, but that's infriging on somebody else's right to live which flies directly in the face of any number of laws of the land and basically any law created by human civlization that I'm aware of.

Last I knew Congress never ordered prayers before football games, nor did they prohibit them. The judicial branch has taken the above statement though and turned it into "seperation of church and state" which is a horrible farce. The parent poster has stated, and this is true, that the founding fathers were openly religious. There is nothing wrong (morally or legally) with a representative in Congress, a senator, or a president from having and acting upon their religious beleifs unless they make it a law through the legislative branch. Period, end of story.

The 1st ammendment in no way, shape, or form can possibly be contrued from it's original writing to mean that there shall never be an intersection of religion and any "state" funded activity. The term "seperation of church and state" has always bugged me because the 1st ammendment specifically mentions a federal branch of the government and nowhere in the bill of rights are things actually prohibited to be done at the state level unless it trumps federal law.

As long as there is no law stating that there must be prayer at graudations, football games, or by a group of students before school: let them pray. Let them do it openly. Let them use community funds to it if that's what the community wants. The federal government shall make no law ever stating that it must be done or that it cannot be done.

If a Hindu, Muslim, Jewish, or other community wishes to celebrate their religion on government owned property or during goverment sponsored events, FINE! Let them, I'll rejoice as an American that they have that right. Once you stomp on my communities freedom for a speaker at high school graduation to express his religious beleifs to the student body you've stomped on their rights though, and that just isn't kosher.

I don't know why I keep bringing up high school stuff -- it just seems the most prevalent in the news. It's municipal goverments of small communities were talking about here -- not federal laws. They can do what they want. The Bill of Rights is just that -- rights to citizens. Citizens make up communities. In their own little microcosims let them do what they want. Anything less is unconsitutional.

The judicial branch (and I forget when they did this) seems to have made great inroads with destroying clause #1 of the 1st ammendment. I'll never understand why Surpreme Cou

ACLU does not live up to its principles.

[rjh]

My beef with the ACLU centers around the Second Amendment. Not because I'm a gun-toting psychopath, but because our civil liberties are protected only to the degree that all of them are protected--including the ones we might disagree with. Regardless of whether you're pro-gun or anti-gun, the Second Amendment is still part of the Bill of Rights and is thus a civil right under American law.

The only problem is, the ACLU doesn't see it that way. Ask the ACLU why they have not once, not ever, taken a pro-Second Amendment case and you'll get the same answer every time: "because we believe the Second Amendment is a guarantee of the state's right to equip a militia, not the individual's right to possess firearms."

It would be an admirable sentiment, were it not for one fact... not one reputable legal scholar in America takes that position. Alan Dershowitz, a very far-left liberal Democrat lawyer and legal professor, has given the best analysis of why no reputable law professor has embraced this position.

According to Dershowitz, the Second Amendment reads "the right of the people..." The very instant you say "the right of the people" actually means "the right of the state", then you've thrown the entire Bill of Rights out the window. If "the right of the people" actually means "the right of the state", then what does that mean for any of the rights we cherish? Suddenly, we no longer have any individual rights; they're all held collectively by the state, which becomes our guardian, able to exercise our liberties in our name while not permitting us those liberties for our own use.

It's really a very 1984 example of doublespeak.

There is not one Supreme Court case which supports the collectivist interpretation of the Bill of Rights, either as a whole or for one specific amendment. In the most recent Supreme Court Second Amendment case, Miller v US, the Supreme Court explicitly recognized the Second Amendment as an individual--not a collective--right.

For the ACLU to claim that the Second Amendment is correctly read as a collective right is... I can't figure it out.

What I suspect is this: the ACLU has a lot of support from a lot of people who, while adamantly in favor of free speech and privacy and all manner of other things, are also staunchly in favor of the notion that nobody should have guns except the cops. And as a result of this, the ACLU has decided to cut the Second Amendment loose to fend for itself, on the theory that "it's better to lose one-tenth of the Bill of Rights than it is to piss off 95% of our contributors, and thus kill any good we can do for the nine-tenths that still remains."

Re:ACLU does not live up to its principles.

[CentrX]

Where has the ACLU taken this position on the Second Amendment, rather than just ignoring the issue?

Re:ACLU does not live up to its principles.

[rjh]

From the Google cache of the ACLU Webpage (here):

"The ACLU has often been criticized for `ignoring the Second Amendment' and refusing to fight for the individual's right to own a gun or other weapons. This issue, however, has not been ignored by the ACLU. The national board has in fact debated and discussed the civil liberties aspects of the Second Amendment many times.

We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one... The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control. We believe that the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of gun ownership. If we can license and register cars, we can license and register guns."

Strange, isn't it? The ACLU, which claims to be fanatically in favor of the Bill of Rights, supports mandatory licensure and registration for someone to exercise their rights under the Second Amendment.

Not only that, the ACLU's position is trivially refuted. I would be dancing in the streets if weapons were regulated the same as cars. My driver's license is valid in all 50 states--but a permit to carry a concealed weapon may not be valid outside of your county, depending on the local laws. I'm allowed to own any kind of car I wish, subject to a restriction that cars unable to pass safety regulations, etc., must not be driven on public roadways and that I must obey traffic law when on public roadways; but I'm not allowed to own an AK-47, even if I use it in only lawful and peaceful ways. You don't need governmental permission to buy a car; you only need registration and regulation if your car is used on public roadways. I'd love to not need governmental permission to buy a shotgun, and only need to pay a $5 ATF processing fee if I was going to hunt on public land.

As I said, the ACLU are cowards who lack the conviction of their oft-waved principles.

Other options

[phutureboy]

I personally can't stomach the ACLU.

I suggest that you consider either the Institute for Justice (http://www.ij.org/) or Libertarian Party (http://www.lp.org/).

Founding Fathers were Deists, not Christians

[tm2b]

The Founding Fathers were openly religious. The practice of praying to God, and not just any God, the Christian God embraced by the Christian religions, in government has continued even today

Uh... no.

The "Founding Fathers," were generally Deists, not Christians. Deist beliefs are incompatible with Christianity. Deism, and the entire philosophy of Natural Rights, is an outgrowth of the Age of Reason that embraced a Creator that did not reveal itself by revelation but through its creation itself.

Let's look at what some of the best-known "founding fathers" said about Christianity, society, and Law:

• Thomas Jefferson : Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.
• Ben Franklin: "I wish it (Christianity) were more productive of good works ... I mean real good works ... not holy-day keeping, sermon-hearing ... or making long prayers, filled with flatteries and compliments despised by wise men, and much less capable of pleasing the Deity."
• Thomas Paine : The fable of Christ and his twelve apostles, which is a parody on the sun and the twelve signs of the zodiac, copied from the ancient religions of the eastern world, is the least hurtful part."
• James Madison: "Experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.
• John Adams: As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?

Here are some other links on the whole "Founding Fathers were Christian" bogon:

• http://www.ecis.com/~alizard/founding-fathers-xtia nity.html
• http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/extra/foundin g-fathers.html
• http://www.barefootsworld.net/founding.html

Obvious if you're looking for it

[fm6]

So because they don't buy your interpretation of the second amendment, they have a "slant"? That's silly. The ACLU didn't invent the "it's about militia" interpretation. It's been federal judicial dogma for a long time. You may consider this doctrine to be stupid. but it's the standard doctrine, and the ACLU people are no more "slanted" than most of the legal profession.

It's convenient to believe that people who disagree with your opinions are just being hypocritical. But that's just a childish way of avoiding honest debate. This kind of issue is a simple difference of opinion, nothing more.

Re:Obvious if you're looking for it

[rjh]

It's been federal judicial dogma for a long time.

Technically correct, but not as right as you think you are. There's no doubt that it is centrally applicable to militias, but just because it's centrally applicable to militias does not mean that it's a collectively-held right. In all the reading on Second Amendment law that I've done, both pro- and con-, I have yet to find any respectable journal which has given the slightest shred of credibility to the collectivist interpretation.

Looking at Supreme Court jurisprudence in US v Miller, (1939, the most recent Second Amendment case) it's clear the Supreme Court considers the Second Amendment to be an individually-held right. Miller was convicted of possessing a sawn-off shotgun, not on the legal theory that the state has the exclusive right to control the possession of arms, but on the basis that a sawn-off shotgun possessed no military value the court could see. The Miller decision strongly indicates that if Miller had been carrying a Thompson submachinegun (a weapon with clear military value), he would've been acquitted on appeal.

For that matter, it's possible he would've won his case outright if he'd bothered to present a defense. The Miller appeal was done in absentia and ex parte, due to Miller not showing up for the appeal.

Anyway. The upshot of this is that neither the Supreme Court nor legal professors put a single shred of credit in the collectivist interpretation of the Second Amendment. The ACLU is ethically lacking in that it would rather hide behind a discredited interpretation of the Second Amendment rather than own up to the fact the Bill of Rights has things in it which are offensive to a large portion of the ACLU's supporters.

Read it again.

[leonbrooks]

The intermediate friend knew the lady directly. No newspaper. Wave the bullshit flag all you like, the bloke in between does not lie or amplify. If you can't take my word for it, that's just tough.

ACLU

[Anonymous Coward]

ACLU main goal is to strip anything Christian out of America.

Not for me

[The AtomicPunk]

I just couldn't bring myself to join the ACLU until they decide that the entire bill of rights was to protect the rights of individuals, instead of their idiotic position that every ammendment except the second.

School Choice?

[Anonymous Coward]

IJ looked ok until I read about that. I don't want my tax dollars supporting religious institutions, thank you. Is there any group which just fights for the Bill of Rights without any political baggage?

uh . . . popularity.

[WalterDGeranios]

They're really an admirable organization in being dedicated to principles of civil liberties.

It has been my perception that the ACLU puts its image before liberty or reason.

They will defend the rights of Nazis and pornographers to free speech, for example.

Consider what happens when the ACLU takes a case on the side of the KKK or the like:

1. They get a lot of media attention (leads to brand exposure, leads to donations!)

2. People assume that the ACLU is in the right--why else would they defend such groups?

And they will sue to exclude any possible mention of God, Ten Commandments

In my state they are spending their money searching for a Ten Commandments monument that they think might exist somewhere so they can sue. In other words, if it exists, it has been a monumental (ahem, so to speak) failure as a tool for the establishment of religion (putting aside the question of whether that would be its purpose), but the ACLU likes the pre-packaged Ten Commandments case because it draws media attention.

It's not popular or always expedient to be principled, but it's more enduring.

If the ACLU acted only on its principles, it probably wouldn't be so popular.

No more ACLU for me

[knobboy]

I was a member of the ACLU (just renewed a couple months ago), but will be letting my membership lapse. The ACLU is one of the myriad parties to the lawsuit against the Federal Election Committee. Another suit that was consolidated with the ACLU's (and others) is composed of the so-called Paul plaintiffs (Ron Paul, Libertarians Carla Howell and Michael Cloud, Gun Owners of America, and a couple others). I've been supporting the Paul plaintiffs through RealCampaignReform.com and was upset when I heard that some of the other plaintiffs, including the ACLU, told the Supreme Court that only some plaintiffs, not all plaintiffs in the case, should have the right to address the Court in the alloted two hours. The Libertarian Party got suckered into supporting the so-called McConnell Seven, but the next day issued its support for the Paul plaintiffs to get 20 minutes to address the Court with their own legal tack. Interestingly, they are the only plaintiffs attacking "campaign reform" legislation on a First Amendment basis, something you would think the ACLU would support. The Court denied this motion, so the First Amendment argument will only be made via briefs, not before the Justices.

I contacted the ACLU through their website, asking why they felt an argument that could possible get rid of half-baked legislation should not be heard by the Court. I also stated that my future support of the ACLU was dependent on their response. What did I get? An email saying to contact my state organization. Like that makes a lot of sense. See ya later, ACLU!

Re:I'm an ex-member. Here's why.

[lizrd]

Me Too!

Donating to the ACLU opened the floodgates for a very large number of left leaning organizations to flood my mailbox with dead tree spam. If I ever feel the need to donate to the ACLU again it's going to be done in cash or under a false name.

Just say NO to the ACLU

[deanj]

When I read things like this article it makes me realize how much of political organization the ACLU is. They can't get laws passed, so they argue to activist judges to interpret the law the way they want.

I mean seriously, this judge ruled that the Boy Scouts, who tended that property, spent MILLIONS of dollars doing so and let ANYONE use it, needed to be thrown out of there? Give me a break.

Sorry, but this is just an ACLU vendetta against the Boy Scouts, plain and simple.

This lawsuit NEVER would have happened if it were any other sort of organization with religious ties... It's just that their a Christian organization, and they're anti-Christian. Plain and simple.

To the original poster... if you can live with anti-religion bigots like that.... well, that's up to you.

Re:Just say NO to the ACLU

[Anonymous Coward]

Um... Wrong.

The Boy Scouts are a bigoted anti-atheist, anti-agnostic, anti-homo/bisexual group that should be treated as a private group since the US Supreme Court upheld their right to exclude people based on their religious beliefs and sexual orientation.

They should not continue to benefit from public monies as if they're a public institution. They're not, they're private.

The Girl Scouts don't discriminate like the Boy Scouts do. There's no need for it, and the ACLU is perfectly right to require that the Boy Scouts be treated like a private organization since that's what they want to be.

It's fundamentally wrong to tell gay kids they're "unclean" and amoral because of their natural sexual orientation (which is not a disorder according to the legitimate mental health community). Imagine being in school and having the Boy Scouts come in to recruit and being turned away because you're gay or don't believe in Christian mythology.

The Boy Scouts chose to be a discriminatory group. It's not the ACLU's fault that they must be treated as a private group because of that. Blame the bigots for bigotry, and no one else.

Re:Just say NO to the ACLU

[deanj]

The Boy Scouts didn't benefit from public monies. On the contrary, the community that they lived in did. The Boy Scouts put MILLIONS of dollars into that place, didn't dictate who could be there.

Despite what you say about the gay community, the Boy Scouts didn't stand in the way of them having activities there. If they had, then you would have a point, but they didn't, and you don't either.

You act like the people that the ACLU defends aren't bigotted... well, they are. They're anti-religion bigots.

Back to the point: The ACLU is bigoted against religion. Period.

If you don't like people forcing their moral views on you, don't expect other people to like it when you force YOUR moral views on THEM, which is exactly what you're saying.

Tap tap tap

[mattACK]

Hello, I'd like to legislate morality.

Even barring all of the perfectly legitimate arguments like "Our government shouldn't issue edicts" and "I like booze on Sunday", you still have the crime angle. Abortions weren't uncommon when they were illegal, just dangerous and of course illicit.

Show me an illegal yet viable market choked off from legitimacy by some nutball trying to legislate morality and I'll raise you 200 thugs profiting on the black market (and the violence and lack of accountability that goes with it).

Re:Tap tap tap

[jedidiah]

Those 200 thugs will also have an enhanced ability to undermine the government through various forms of corruption. Anything that creates new or expanded markets for the mafia ultimately undermines law in order in any society.

Tort reform is not a bad idea

[Militant Libertarian]

In about 80% of medical malpractice claims, no signs of negligent injury are shown, the study notes.

From this source (harvard university study).

Moreover:
In addition to not getting money to the right people, the current liability tort system also fails to deter negligent behavior, the report finds. Physicians or other health professionals who provide negligent treatment often aren't penalized, and physicians who have provided adequate care sometimes are punished, the study states.

Over the past five years, claims of medical malpractice have stayed relatively the same, however the amount of money paid per claim averages double what it has in the past.

Dot com bust? maybe a little, but we're talking about billions and billions of dollars, 1/3 of which goes to the lawyers..

Not like anyone's reading this anyway :)

Obligatory Onion link....

[MadAnthony02]

ACLU defends Nazi's right to burn down ACLU headquarters

Civil Liberties and the Libertarian Party

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm reading a lot of guff about Libertarianisim and the Libertarian party all of a sudden. While the ACLU might or might not be worth your money, the Libertarian Party is definitely not.

There are points where the ACLU and the Libs overlap. Allowing people the maximum amount of freedom is not a popular opinion on either the political left or the political right. Very broadly, the left would like to restrict the actions of individuals in their material rights (gun ownership, commercial activity, land use) while the right would prefer to restrict individuals' rights to privacy (in health care, law enforcement, sexual expression). The ACLU usally opposes the right leaning camp (not always to the benefit of the left), while the Libertarians reject both views. This tends to embroil them both in controversy.

Make no mistake, however. The two organizations are very different. The ACLU's position is fairly straightforeward in defending, in narrow terms, the specific civil liberties ennumerated in the constitution. They are very effective at what they do, on both a political and legal level.

The Libertarian party, on the other hand, while advocating for their own vision of how the government should be structured, have far less of an impact on the law and public life, for the simple reason that our form of government is radically different from the Libertarian ideal. The changes they would like to effect fall at least partially outside the realm of constitutional law. Libertarians have limited legal recourse.

If you disagree with the ACLU, don't give them money. But don't squander it on the Libertarian Party. Find an organization which will give you a return for your investment!

Nice straw man

[leonbrooks]

Abortions weren't uncommon when they were illegal, just dangerous and of course illicit.

They were a damn sight less common than they are now. And a better solution would have been to tell mothers what they were really doing, instead of pretending that your were "only killing a baby fish" or some such nonsense, often and pointedly. Then if they still want to commit murder for their own convenience, let them do it illicitly. If they don't want to raise the child, adopt it out: there's no shortage of foster families. Abortion was supposedly legalised mainly to cover rape victims and the like, but IRL it's generally not used that way.

The other point here is that abortion wasn't as common as you seem to believe. Along similar lines, the gay lobby tried to justify itself using the "everybody's doing it" non-sequitur and claiming 10% of the population (the real figure is closer to 1%), and I don't see any difference here. So what if "everyone's" doing it. If every tenth household in your neighbourhood scatters broken bottles across its front yard, does that mean you should too? Of course not. Yet scattering broken glass across your lawn may be protected by freedom of expression.

If it pleases some blokes to play pork-swordfighting or measure each other's sumps in private, that's their business, although I wouldn't recommend it and would be offended if they recommended thay my children tried it. But pregnancy is not such a choice. "Terminating a pregnancy" is not like getting a wart removed, it involves killing a baby - a little person who depends on but is not a part of his or her mother.

I don't want to legislate morality any more than is necessary, but I can and do want to legislate damage control.

Re:Nice straw man

[Brainboy]

Abortion was supposedly legalised mainly to cover rape victims and the like, but IRL it's generally not used that way.

If you make anything legal, people will use it not as one would like. With Free speech, people will say stuff one could either disagree with, or find offensive. If you have due process of law, lawyers will stall cases. It's what happens. It's human nature.

I agree that "Terminating a pregnancy" is not like removing a wart, I disagree that it involves killing a baby. It could easily have to do with which tri-mester we are talking. But to me, pro-life, people are going to have to figure out a way to deal with the unwanted babies, the increase in dead babies in dumbsters, the horde of illicit abortions which WILL take place.

Re:Nice straw man

[mattACK]

How many babies have you adopted? You seem quite vociferous; I should hope it isn't just blustering.

Lumping gays in with your argument just makes you look like one of those crazy conservatives on the far right. Pick a stance: homosexual people generally do NOT have abortions. Breathe, man.

Re:Nice straw man

[leonbrooks]

If you make anything legal, people will use it not as one would like.

In this case it did not offer a palatable solution to the original problem either.

I agree that "Terminating a pregnancy" is not like removing a wart, I disagree that it involves killing a baby.

King Edward Memorial Hospital, about 12km south of here, has rescued babies born more than 20 weeks premature, that's less than half-way, and had those babies grow up to lead approximately normal lives. If they are babies at 20 weeks, how about at 18 weeks? 17? 16? 15? 14? What citerion do you use to decide whether it is a baby or a lump of cells? Is he or she ever just a lump of cells? Please show your working out.

Most pregnancies are not even detected for the first four weeks and many not until 8 weeks. That leaves you only a four or five week window to the end of the trimester. If you say that a first-trimester abortion is not murder, that's not much of a window. And why a trimester boundary, why not a month or six weeks earlier?

An Indonesian friend of my wife's discovered that she was pregnant two weeks before she (2 weeks prem) delivered Adam (and two days before his father was due to board a plane for Zimbabwe - which he did, he a JW / she a Catholic, fun times all around). Adam is now a happy, healthy, nearly teenage boy living in Zimbabwe with his parents. At what point was Adam not Adam? At what point back in time, if ever, would you not have been murdering Adam but just excising a growth?

Yah, politics, hawk, spit...

[leonbrooks]

...but those factors still don't make the ACLU even-handed.

Still not the whole story, but you get that

[leonbrooks]

A Diest would make an acceptable Scout because they profess belief in a higher power. That's all you need.

The line between Deism and Christianity isn't anything like as sharp as you paint it. You also don't seem to understand Progressive Creationism, which is different from Young-Earth Creationism. Many PC followers believe that the development we read into the fossil record was part of the original programming, whereas a YEC follower almost inevitably regards his/her diety as vitally involved from then 'till now inclusive.

Yes, a lot of the Founding Fathers weren't Christians as we would understand the term today, yet behaved as if they were (which is not a consequence one would derive from specific Diesm), you might call them cultural Christians. Several of the statements used to make dyed-in-the-wool specific Diests out of them is taken out of context and otherwise hyped, but there's no doubt that the detail of their views were eccentirc even by the standards of the day.

*sigh* please do a google search

[Anonymous Coward]

Informative my ass.

Not all founding fathers were devout christians, but please don't spread such myths.

Do a google for "Founding fathers deism".
And have your myth rebuked on the first three results.
Especially the second result is a good read.
While the first result is more extensive.

And your quote's prove nothing.
I, as a devout christian, agree with all the quote's except Paine's.

May I recommend reading a book or two about christianity, as you obviously have no understanding of it.
Let me break it down for you:
-We are sinners and We make mistakes.
-That is why we need Jesus, to forgive us our mistakes
-That doesn't mean that we don't still make mistakes.
---And we still have the right to regret the grave mistakes we made (like the crusades) (This is what Adams and Madison are talking about)
---and to regret that we aren't more faithful and more productive in our good works (What Franklin is saying).
---Madison is saying that when humans take power in the church they, with their corrpution, do bad things. And that christians shouldn't let that happen, and thus we shouldn't let the church be an institution.
---Jefferson is saying Christianity isn't part of the common law, however that doesn't mean that they don't overlap. Murder is wrong by both accounts, so is stealing. But worshipping God although required by the Bible, isn't and shouldn't be by the law. And in the same sense building codes are part of the law, not of Christianity.
And that is actually a biblical idea "Give to God what belongs to God and to the king what belongs to him" and "we are in this world but not part of it".
So only your paine quote remains and read the first google result to see what the other founders thought of Paine.

Finally here we have a part of the second article:

The reason that such critics never mention any other Founders is evident. For example, consider what must be explained away if the following signers of the Constitution were to be mentioned: Charles Pinckney and John Langdon--founders of the American Bible Society; James McHenry--founder of the Baltimore Bible Society; Rufus King--helped found a Bible society for Anglicans; Abraham Baldwin--a chaplain in the Revolution and considered the youngest theologian in America; Roger Sherman, William Samuel Johnson, John Dickinson, and Jacob Broom--also theological writers; James Wilson and William Patterson--placed on the Supreme Court by President George Washington, they had prayer over juries in the U. S. Supreme Court room; and the list could go on. And this does not even include the huge number of thoroughly evangelical Christians who signed the Declaration or who helped frame the Bill of Rights.

Re:*sigh* please do a google search

[tm2b]

*Snort*

OK, does this more concise quote make you happier? Thomas Jefferson: "I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature."

Tanks, etc. not needed for a resistance movement

[Anonymous Coward]

Check your World War Two history, if you think people cannot resist just because an occupying force has tanks, aircraft, artillery, etc. you're wrong. The Russians, French, Poles, and Balkan peoples all put up an organized, stiff resistance to the Germans. Sometimes with homemade weapons.

Shoot just look at what's going on in Baghdad - we've got nukes but there is obviously still some resistance as we're losing a solider a day. The fact we have tanks only means the Iraqis don't waste their ammo on tanks, they just keep blowing up the Hummers.

The argument that you have to have nukes, tanks, etc. to resist is absurd.

The fear-mongering argument that you have to allow crazy bob next door own a tank because the second amendment guarantees the right to bear arms is also absurd. When written, the intent was to prevent government authorities from taking rifles and pistols away from the citizenry - something the Brits were doing. Joe average did not need a cannon then and does not need one now.

So much for ACLU and free speech

[deanj]

The ACLU is defending NAMBLA, an organization that has members that raped and killed a young boy. In that trial, the ACLU is trying to get a gag order in the case, so no one can talk about it. So much for free speech.

Check out this interview with the person that brought the suit.

Joining the ACLU

[Anonymous Coward]

Posting Anonymously in order to comply with the Hatch Act :-D

My ACLU card sits in my wallet right next to my DOD ID. I joined the ACLU the same year I joined the Army. I joined both organizations for the same reason. I love my country, and I'm willing to make some sacrifices to protect the constitution. A lot of folks are rather puzzled to hear me put those two organizations in the same sentance, but those who are familiar with both understand the sentiment exactly.

The military protects our country from attacks from without. Organizations like the ACLU that protect civil liberties protect us from attacks from within. Both are necessary.

To those who believe the ACLU only supports left-wing causes (I, along with a surprising number of ACLU members, am a registered Republican and an evangelical Christian) re: the cases in the past few years in which they represented

1. The KKK (not your typical hippie group)

and

2. A Washington University pro-life student group

Both cases were in Missouri.

Someone REALLY worth joining!!!!

[youngstorm]

Join the Libertarian Party!! go to www.lp.org for more info. If your sick of Democrats and can't quiet bring yourself to join Republicans, this may be the party for you.

Re:The US Constitution is about *individual* right

[zhar]

Clearly you haven't read the constitution. How about ammendment 10 - Specifically titled Powers Reserved to the States. It says that anything that the constitution doesn't say the federal government can do, the states can.

Adoptions, crazy conservatives

[leonbrooks]

How many babies have you adopted?

Fostered one, would have adopted two if two of our own had not arrived.

Lumping gays in with your argument

It's all part of the same picture, all the same brand of tangential so-called reasoning used to make a fundamentally inconsistent position (in one case, "abortion is not murder"; in the other "gay is just a different kind of normal") seem plausible or at least palatable. But did you examine the argument or just assume I was reflex gay-bashing? I have some gay friends, and worked for a rampantly gay bloke for many years. I've seen a fair bit of all sides of the issue, and am not just making hot air (or pixels).

Re:Adoptions, crazy conservatives

[mattACK]

I stand corrected; your adoption speaks for itself. For what it is worth you have my respect. We will continue to disagree, but je concede you really mean it.

Those "powers" still operate WRT individuals...

[leonbrooks]

...else the States can rape your cat, nail your money to the door and steal your wife (or something like that) with impunity.