ACLU

Posted By: °X°

ACLU - 02/22/06 08:06 PM

"I seek social ownership of property, the abolition of the properties class, and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal."

-- Roger Baldwin, leftist, anarchist, and Communist, was born in Wellesley MA and co-founded the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).



"The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."

-- Norman Thomas, Socialist Party Presidential Candidate in 1940, 1944 and 1948, co-founder of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).
____

The ACLU is the most dangerous group in America.
Posted By: Retired DQ

Re: ACLU - 02/22/06 08:07 PM

And here I was thinking that the ultra-cons were the most dangerous, go figure.
Posted By: Czargazer

Re: ACLU - 02/22/06 09:31 PM

I don't know if I'd agree that the ACLU is the most dangerous group, but they do rank up there. Though certainly not for the reasons posted. What's wrong with socialism? If implimented correctly, it's not too bad of a way to go. Of course, the main problem is that it takes people to make it happen... and that pretty much dooms it.
Posted By: straw

Re: ACLU - 02/22/06 09:54 PM

Great; we should get off the whole Dubai issue, since you aren't making any headway there.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: ACLU - 02/22/06 10:09 PM

The ACLU has nothing to do with civil liberties.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: ACLU - 02/23/06 05:23 AM

Quote:

The ACLU has nothing to do with civil liberties.




Actually their mission statement says:

"The mission of the ACLU is to preserve all of these protections and guarantees:

Your First Amendment rights-freedom of speech, association and assembly. Freedom of the press, and freedom of religion supported by the strict separation of church and state.

Your right to equal protection under the law - equal treatment regardless of race, sex, religion or national origin.

Your right to due process - fair treatment by the government whenever the loss of your liberty or property is at stake.

Your right to privacy - freedom from unwarranted government intrusion into your personal and private affairs."

They defend liberty for all of us - and, not surprisingly, X considers that to be dangerous.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: ACLU - 02/23/06 01:20 PM

Quote:

The ACLU has nothing to do with civil liberties.




enlighten us. what does it do?
Posted By: CompDat

Re: ACLU - 02/24/06 03:13 PM

gfh
Posted By: Retired DQ

Re: ACLU - 02/24/06 06:30 PM

Quote:

gfh




huh?
Posted By: Hrothgar Geiger

Re: ACLU - 02/24/06 06:39 PM

The funny thing is, that's the edited version of the post....
Posted By: Peepers

Re: ACLU - 02/24/06 06:40 PM

Ha! I was thinking the same thing. What was it before, gffh?
Posted By: °X°

Re: ACLU - 02/24/06 07:05 PM

Contributors should be ashamed for supporting an interest group (ACLU) that endorses the right of NAMBLA to actively promote and solicit man-boy sex and gives advice on how to avoid detection and prosecution for it (Curley case in Massachusetts), and which works actively to undermine and destroy organizations like the Boy Scouts.

The ACLU played a helpful role in the civil rights movement defending these people, and I can’t turn my back on that. I have to give credit where credit is due. But….that being said, what they have done in the past is completely eviscerated by what they do in the present. The ACLU has become a fanatical anti-faith Taliban of American religious secularism.

The ACLU is involved in the secular cleansing of our history. This is not just a fight about free exercise, but about the protection of our American history. The ACLU want to deny America the knowledge of their Christian heritage.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: ACLU - 02/24/06 07:09 PM

Which pill do you take to stop living in the Matrix?
Posted By: NotALawyer

Re: ACLU - 02/24/06 07:10 PM

Consider, they even defended Rush Limbaugh. That's got to count for something (and that could count either in their favor or against them depending on which soapbox a person is on).
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: ACLU - 02/24/06 07:12 PM

the heritage was religious freedom. and the aclu isn't denying heritage, they are trying to deny government endorsement of it.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: ACLU - 02/24/06 07:13 PM

do you realize that if the government tried to say that we cannot worship christianity, the aclu would be the first to oppose it?
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: ACLU - 02/24/06 07:24 PM

Quote:

do you realize that if the government tried to say that we cannot worship christianity, the aclu would be the first to oppose it?




Facts are wasted on the paranoid.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: ACLU - 02/24/06 10:12 PM

The ACLU has long not promoted civil liberties. They have a far left agenda and attack the administration whenever they get a chance. Lately they have started to attack the US.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: ACLU - 02/25/06 12:08 AM

Quote:

Quote:

do you realize that if the government tried to say that we cannot worship christianity, the aclu would be the first to oppose it?




Facts are wasted on the paranoid.



what a good way to describe conservative m.o.s!
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: ACLU - 02/25/06 02:24 AM

X tries to use guilt by association in connecting the ACLU with NAMBLA. Yes, they have represented quite a few infamous clients, the KKK and the Nazi party when they weren't allowed to protest and Oliver North when his rights were violated. Just because they stand up for constitutional rights doesn't mean they agree with the group. NAMBLA was being sued because someone said their publications "made" someone commit a crime. If writers and producers of books can be sued just because someone commits a crime, it will keep ideas from being published.
Quote:

The ACLU is involved in the secular cleansing of our history




What garbage! Here is a case in which Agape Press discusses the ACLU forcing a school to back down when they would let a student put a bible quote in a yearbook

http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/5/172004d.asp
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: ACLU - 02/25/06 05:12 AM

Quote:

I don't know if I'd agree that the ACLU is the most dangerous group, but they do rank up there. Though certainly not for the reasons posted. What's wrong with socialism? If implimented correctly, it's not too bad of a way to go. Of course, the main problem is that it takes people to make it happen... and that pretty much dooms it.




Voluntary socialism is a good thing. Forced socialism is a bad thing, a very, very bad thing.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: ACLU - 02/25/06 05:12 AM

Quote:

Great; we should get off the whole Dubai issue, since you aren't making any headway there.




Or maybe you should change the discussion here to Dubai because you have no defense of the ACLU.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: ACLU - 02/25/06 05:15 AM

Quote:

Quote:

The ACLU has nothing to do with civil liberties.




Actually their mission statement says:

"The mission of the ACLU is to preserve all of these protections and guarantees:

Your First Amendment rights-freedom of speech, association and assembly. Freedom of the press, and freedom of religion supported by the strict separation of church and state.

Your right to equal protection under the law - equal treatment regardless of race, sex, religion or national origin.

Your right to due process - fair treatment by the government whenever the loss of your liberty or property is at stake.

Your right to privacy - freedom from unwarranted government intrusion into your personal and private affairs."

They defend liberty for all of us - and, not surprisingly, X considers that to be dangerous.




And will you please print Enron's mission statement while you are at it? Enron's mission statement noted that the company prided itself on four key values: respect, integrity, communication and excellence. Among other things, all business dealings at Enron were supposed to be "open and fair."

My point is that your point is pointless!
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: ACLU - 02/25/06 05:17 AM

Quote:

Consider, they even defended Rush Limbaugh. That's got to count for something (and that could count either in their favor or against them depending on which soapbox a person is on).




Yes, if the case fits their narrow definition of civil rights, they'll take on either side regardless of how repulsed they are by it.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: ACLU - 02/25/06 05:18 AM

Quote:

the heritage was religious freedom. and the aclu isn't denying heritage, they are trying to deny government endorsement of it.




Or public school teaching of its place in our history.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: ACLU - 02/25/06 05:20 AM

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

do you realize that if the government tried to say that we cannot worship christianity, the aclu would be the first to oppose it?




Facts are wasted on the paranoid.



what a good way to describe conservative m.o.s!




Yeah, I always found hateful rhetoric the best approach for U.S. citizens to find common ground.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: ACLU - 02/25/06 05:28 AM

Quote:

Quote:

do you realize that if the government tried to say that we cannot worship christianity, the aclu would be the first to oppose it?




Facts are wasted on the paranoid.




They're forcing Christianity on us!!!

They're forcing Christianity on us!!!

No, that doesn't make the left look paranoid at all.

(BTW: This country, founded by leaders and a population that was about 99% Christian, is and has always been the most tolerant nation in the world toward those of other religions and those of no religion, so your paranoia is just that: paranoia.)
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: ACLU - 02/25/06 04:32 PM

Quote:

My point is that your point is pointless!




Well, let's see you (presumably) posted "The ACLU has nothing to do with civil liberties." You give nothing to support this laughable statement about a group whose sole mission is the protection of civil liberties. When I post the Mission Statement of the ACLU which indicates what they do, once again you disagree but cite nothing to support what you say (not surprising since there is nothing to support what you say).

You seem to have the idea that your ideas are truth no matter how delusional they are. It just doesn't work that way.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: ACLU - 02/25/06 05:47 PM

Quote:

Quote:

My point is that your point is pointless!




Well, let's see you (presumably) posted "The ACLU has nothing to do with civil liberties." You give nothing to support this laughable statement about a group whose sole mission is the protection of civil liberties. When I post the Mission Statement of the ACLU which indicates what they do, once again you disagree but cite nothing to support what you say (not surprising since there is nothing to support what you say).

You seem to have the idea that your ideas are truth no matter how delusional they are. It just doesn't work that way.




I don't think your assertion is logical.

First, I never said I disagreed. I said posting the mission statement is meaningless. I am sure Saddam Hussein's Iraq had a constitution with lots of nice things in it, like elections, but that mission statement does not prove in any way shape or manner that the people of Iraq had any civil liberties. Only in practice is it proven. The ACLU mission statement indicates nothing. There is an anti-ACLU group that has basically the same "mission" but they are more often fighting the ACLU than agreeing with them. Certainly, there are occasions when they agree. This other group's mission statement proves nothing also. You've got to see this. If you don't, I don't know what else to say.

True, I am not a fan of the ACLU, but did not make the post: "The ACLU has nothing to do with civil liberties." And my post about their mission statement is logic, not a statement for or against them. I am sure Bush could give you a mission statement for attacking Iraq, but just as surely, I can tell you there are people who would say that is not what he is doing. And maybe he isn't. There are also those who would say that he is. And maybe he is. However, the mission statement is not proof either way.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: ACLU - 02/25/06 07:52 PM

Quote:


(BTW: This country, founded by leaders and a population that was about 99% Christian, is and has always been the most tolerant nation in the world toward those of other religions and those of no religion, so your paranoia is just that: paranoia.)



what is the argument that this country was 99% christian founded? so? more important is your "being tolerant" part. as we have heard many times before on this site there are christian sectarians who would force their way on everyone if they were allowed and who dispise other middle eastern religions. (and would, ironically, run the same style of government as those middle eastern religions.) nobody is telling you you can't worship your religion as you wish in our secular government.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: ACLU - 02/25/06 10:00 PM

Well, that does name a difference if you weren't the one that made the ridiculous statement that the ACLU has nothing to do with civil liberties. What am I supposed to say when confronted with such a bizarre unsupported statement?

What the mission statement shows is that the defense of civil liberties is the avowed purpose fo the group. I'm sure there may be other groups that believe they are defending civil liberties and they may disagree with the ACLU in how to do that. So what?

I agree completely with your statement that "Only in practice is it proven", and it is! The ACLU is constantly involved in litigation against the government on behalf of freedom of speech, religion, and the press as well as supporting constitutional rights of the accused. I have yet to hear any suggestion of how a group that is involved in civil liberties litigation can possibly have nothing to do with civil liberties. That is their purpose for being.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: ACLU - 02/25/06 11:53 PM

Quote:

Quote:


(BTW: This country, founded by leaders and a population that was about 99% Christian, is and has always been the most tolerant nation in the world toward those of other religions and those of no religion, so your paranoia is just that: paranoia.)



what is the argument that this country was 99% christian founded? so? more important is your "being tolerant" part. as we have heard many times before on this site there are christian sectarians who would force their way on everyone if they were allowed and who dispise other middle eastern religions. (and would, ironically, run the same style of government as those middle eastern religions.) nobody is telling you you can't worship your religion as you wish in our secular government.




My point is that this country, founded by Christians run by mainly Christians for over two centuries has been the most tolerant in the world to other religions. Yes, even while believing that those other religions were not the true religion.

I am not talking about a Christian government. I am talking about our government run primarily by Christians for decades and decades without government sponsored persecution of any particular religion. All these fear that Christians are moving toward a taliban government is paranoia plain and simple.

Can you direct me to a website of these Christian sects (that I do not believe exist in any number to concern yourself about) "who would force their way on everyone if they were allowed and who dispise other middle eastern religions"? They may believe their Christian God is the one true God, but they don't despise those who do not. And anecdotal evidence from BOL is no evidence whatsoever.

Also, there is no irony. I have not seen a single demonination that wants to run our government anything like the middle eastern government. Have you? If a Christian sect did want a "Christian government" it would hardly be following Christ if it were the same style of government as those in the middle east.

I have other issues with your post, but I will leave it there. Suffice it to say that there are groups out there fighting attempts to keep me and my elected officials from drawing on our religious faith in public, in the schools, and in our jobs, elected or otherwise.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: ACLU - 02/25/06 11:57 PM

Quote:

I agree completely with your statement that "Only in practice is it proven", and it is! The ACLU is constantly involved in litigation against the government on behalf of freedom of speech, religion, and the press as well as supporting constitutional rights of the accused. I have yet to hear any suggestion of how a group that is involved in civil liberties litigation can possibly have nothing to do with civil liberties. That is their purpose for being.




They are about civil liberties within their narrow definitions of what that means. I mostly despise the ACLU and wish the organization, not the people in it, a swift demise. They are pushing their agenda through the courts because their positions could never win at the ballot box.

So, that is where we disagree and that's what makes this country great.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: ACLU - 02/26/06 01:02 AM

There are constant articles like this all over the web:

Authors Reveal ACLU's 'Anti-American' Intentions
The ACLU Vs. America: Exposing the Agenda to Redefine Moral Values by Alan Sears and Craig Osten
Book Review by Gary Schneider
September 2, 2005

(AgapePress) - The ACLU, from its very inception, has embraced principles antithetical to the founding tenets and subsequent prosperity and decency of this nation. The ACLU and their cohorts continue to aggressively undermine marriage, the family, the protection of children, the value of life, religious liberty and even American sovereignty itself. To this end they have acquired vast swaths of wealth and have been successful in undermining the will of the people in furtherance of their leftist anti-American putsch via the exploitation of the court system and their consistently applied strategy of legal intimidation, misinformation and fear.

"That's just demagogic hyperbole -- prove it!" you say? OK -- but be warned: the facts that buttress these assertions are not only illuminating, but are often times quite disconcerting.

Alan Sears (president, CEO and general council of the Alliance Defense Fund) and Craig Osten (vice president of presidential communications and research of the same firm) have crafted an important new book entitled The ACLU vs. America: Exposing the Agenda to Redefine Moral Values (Broadman & Holman, 2005), which effectively exposes the extremist agenda of the American Civil Liberties Union, its tactics, and ultimately the ongoing threat this organization and their allies pose to our children, families and to the nation. It is perhaps the first work of its kind to challenge the ACLU's design for America in such direct, succinct, organized and empirically supported terms.

Indeed, this is not a ~215-page rant that engages in ad hominem attacks and emotional appeals to contrive a case against the ACLU; rather -- as good lawyers do -- the authors build their case using historical facts, documented statements, positions and court actions of the ACLU to, in effect, use the ACLU's history and actions against itself ... and the facts are quite incriminating.

From its founding in 1920 by Roger Baldwin, a socialist with strong communist leanings, the ACLU was never a genuine force for American liberty as defined by America's founding fathers. Baldwin's family history and influences engendered a liberal elitist worldview that generally maintains contempt for the common man, religion and the popular will of the people -- a series of traits that permeate the ACLU today. Baldwin's family, friends and associates were replete with members of the Communist party, ties to the Soviet Union, anarchists and even eugenicists (e.g., Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood) who advocated the pursuit of a superior race through selective breeding and abortion.

You will discover that through decades of honing its skills of intimidation, misinformation and fear through threats of lawsuits, duplicitous public relations antics and manufactured legal confrontations, the ACLU has been successful in establishing an unholy record of legal precedents largely resulting from under-funded or ill-equipped opposition to their attacks, rather than solid legal argument or Constitutional relevance. These attacks have, in relative historical terms, only recently been effectively countered by organizations such as the Alliance Defense fund.

Despite more effective countermeasures, the ACLU goose steps on unabated and arrogantly assumes the dirty banner of protecting pornographers, violent pedophiles and an "anything goes" culture -- all the while telling us it's for our own good -- and synchronously progresses efforts to further erode religious liberty, traditional values, marriage, parental authority and the value of human life.

Why is this? To what end?

If you purge God and religion as a self-control mechanism and promote immorality, a need is created for innumerable new laws and dependence on the state for order. More laws translate to more government control of its people and the eventual transfer of power to an elitist oligarchy that is accountable to virtually no one. Unalienable rights, a higher power and morality to which people and governments are accountable, becomes a historic relic having been displaced by an all-powerful state. In other words, you "undo" the uniquely American tenet, as stated in our Declaration of Independence, that all men "... are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness .... That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed ..." and, in so "undoing," allow for the complete redefinition of the American governmental paradigm.

As you progress through the book you will quickly and reasonably come to the understanding that the ACLU considers the U.S. Constitution to be something that must be undone and their relevance to American law and culture progressively marginalized. If successful in this strategic endeavor, virtually nothing obstructs them from redefining America as an extremist secular-socialist state through the use of the courts and with activist judges as their accomplices. The ACLU's work toward this end is further evidenced by their recent advocacy for the use of international law and precedent within the American legal system. That is, they desire to engender the formal acceptance of erroneous foreign case law precedent and jurisprudence for use in American courts as a means to facilitate the erosion and relevance of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Without the Constitution as America's steadfast legal mooring, activist judges will be empowered to randomly select and apply foreign case law in American courts that suite their personally held worldviews.

Perhaps the most essential point, though, that Sears and Osten seek to impart to the reader is this: The time has arrived when challenges to our way of life must be defended vigorously in order to once again establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.

I agree.

There has perhaps been no time in American history when our successful model of American society and government has been threatened to the degree it is today; and the primary transgressors in this truth are nefariously embodied in the likes of the ACLU, a highly sympathetic cultural elite, and to a degree, the ambivalence of we -- the American people.

Nevertheless, after reading this most critical and timely book, I have a strong sense that much of this is about to change ... and you will, too.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: ACLU - 02/26/06 04:18 AM

I think I love you!
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: ACLU - 02/26/06 05:13 PM

Quote:

There are constant articles like this all over the web




Of course there are. There is a tremendous amount of opinion out there and these individuals are entitled to theirs, even if it is nonsense. The ACLU would be the first to defend their right to print these attacks. In the marketplace of ideas, all views should be represented.

There is a political movement to try to demonize the ACLU, particularly now when our civil liberties are being threatened.
Posted By: Hrothgar Geiger

Re: ACLU - 02/26/06 05:23 PM

Quote:


(BTW: This country, founded by leaders and a population that was about 99% Christian, is and has always been the most tolerant nation in the world toward those of other religions and those of no religion, so your paranoia is just that: paranoia.)




Umm, no, not really. If you look at the religious affiliations of the founding fathers, you'd find them to be Deists, but not Christian.
Posted By: Jokerman

Re: ACLU - 02/27/06 02:07 AM

Quote:

If you look at the religious affiliations of the founding fathers, you'd find them to be Deists, but not Christian.




All of them?
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: ACLU - 02/27/06 02:15 AM

Quote:

Quote:


(BTW: This country, founded by leaders and a population that was about 99% Christian, is and has always been the most tolerant nation in the world toward those of other religions and those of no religion, so your paranoia is just that: paranoia.)




Umm, no, not really. If you look at the religious affiliations of the founding fathers, you'd find them to be Deists, but not Christian.




Ah, no you won't unless you only read current historians who want it to be that way. Most Americans, including their leaders, were Christians. Sorry to burst your public school bubble (I went to public schools when they weren't afraid of religious truths).
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: ACLU - 02/27/06 02:33 AM

What difference does it make whether they were Christians, Deists or whatever else? They provided for a government that was barred from establishing religion or prohibiting its free exercise. They clearly didn't want anyone to have to agree with their beliefs, whatever they were.
Posted By: Princess Romeo

Re: ACLU - 02/27/06 02:58 AM

http://www.geocities.com/peterroberts.geo/Relig-Politics/

Most interesting are:

Benjamin Franklin
George Washington
Thomas Jefferson
John Adams....
.....I must admit I did not realize the Unitarian Church has been around that long.

Among the other founders are Congregationalists, Espicopalians, Presbyterians, Dutch Reformed, Roman Catholic, Universalist, Anglican, and many for whom no religious affiliation was recorded.

Also noticed a lot of Masons.

Frankly, the ACLU is a necessary pain in the a$$, just like ultra-conservative Republicans. This whole country is all about checks and balances, and if you eliminate one fringe element, the balance will tip dangerously toward the other.

Personally, I thank G-d that I have the CHOICE to listen to either or both Rush Limbaugh and Michael Moore. Or not to listen to either one but mock both of them anyways.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: ACLU - 02/27/06 06:21 PM

What you guys are confused on is the ACLU has shifted its focus away from protecting Civil Liberties to getting involved in issues that have nothing to do with civil liberties.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: ACLU - 02/27/06 06:24 PM

Quote:

What you guys are confused on is the ACLU has shifted its focus away from protecting Civil Liberties to getting involved in issues that have nothing to do with civil liberties.



examples, mr limbaugh?
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: ACLU - 02/27/06 06:52 PM

Quote:

What difference does it make whether they were Christians, Deists or whatever else? They provided for a government that was barred from establishing religion or prohibiting its free exercise. They clearly didn't want anyone to have to agree with their beliefs, whatever they were.




That's not the point. The point is that Christians have dominated the population and elected offices in the U.S. and simulatneously made this the most religiously open nation in the world. Fear that Christians want to establish a religion are unfounded.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: ACLU - 02/27/06 06:54 PM

Quote:

Quote:

What difference does it make whether they were Christians, Deists or whatever else? They provided for a government that was barred from establishing religion or prohibiting its free exercise. They clearly didn't want anyone to have to agree with their beliefs, whatever they were.




That's not the point. The point is that Christians have dominated the population and elected offices in the U.S. and simulatneously made this the most religiously open nation in the world. Fear that Christians want to establish a religion are unfounded.



your view of "establish" and the constitutional view are different.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: ACLU - 02/27/06 07:00 PM

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

What difference does it make whether they were Christians, Deists or whatever else? They provided for a government that was barred from establishing religion or prohibiting its free exercise. They clearly didn't want anyone to have to agree with their beliefs, whatever they were.




That's not the point. The point is that Christians have dominated the population and elected offices in the U.S. and simulatneously made this the most religiously open nation in the world. Fear that Christians want to establish a religion are unfounded.



your view of "establish" and the constitutional view are different.




Where do you get that idea? You must be getting your anons mixed up. This is my first post today. Which constitutional view are you talking about? The one today or, as a living document, the one that comes from a Bush dominated court. If you live by the living document theory, you will surely die (figuratively) by it!