Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
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.
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
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
watch this
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
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:"It is our blasphemy which has made us great, and will sustain us, and which the gods secretly admire in us." - Zelazny
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).
"It is our blasphemy which has made us great, and will sustain us, and which the gods secretly admire in us." - Zelazny