The ACLU seems to be a hot topic of debate on this forum at this moment. To get this started, here is a post by Wow Civic in which he has cited a bunch of examples where he thinks the ACLU is, um, America-bashing, or something.


Wow Civic posted:





Odd/questionable ACLU moves/frivolous lawsuits:

ACLU Defends Woman who is guilty of doing cocaine while she is pregnant and having a baby boy who had high amounts of cocaine in his blood. (Not only will the baby be addicted but it is child endangerment)
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/loc...ocal-headlines

ACLU compares Christians who pray to terrorists. Wow.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=45807

ACLU puts children in danger again. ACLU challenges FLA Sex Predator Laws that require Sex Offenders to stay away from children.
http://www.news-journalonline.com/Ne...AG01080205.htm

ACLU wants to jail teachers who pray/mention God.
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=15287


Frivolous lawsuit: ACLU Sues lawmaker for saying Jesus.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=44628

ACLU Sues Ohio to block them from selling "Choose Life" (tags)plates. The money from the sales would go to pregnant women who can't take care of their children/to put them up for adoption.
http://www.nbc4i.com/news/4422228/detail.html

ACLU wants Child Nudists camps to be legal.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/metro...2512-6855r.htm

ACLU threatens wrestling coach with lawsuit because he prayed with his team.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=42477

ACLU Threatening Child Services because one of their concerts may contain "GOSPEL music"
http://www.10tv.com/Global/story.asp?S=2186170

ACLU wants "F-word" not to be bleeped out on TV.
http://cbsnewyork.com/entertainment/...079161335.html

ACLU Wants sexual consent age to be 13...(13+ year olds have the right to have sex with adults...)
http://www.cjonline.com/stories/0916..._consent.shtml

ACLU makes child pornography easier.. trying to get rid of the Child Pornography Protection Act because it "is against expression of ideas" WHAT?
http://www.reclaimamerica.org/PAGES/...asp?story=1147


ACLU Double Standards:
Anti-Christianity
"Case in point, with former Arizona Governor Jane Hull. In 1998, then-Governor Hull issued a proclamation, declaring a "Bible Week" for her state. The ACLU immediately threatened to sue, claiming a violation of the so-called "separation of church and state." Rather than face a drawn-out legal battle, Hull backed down.

Two years later, the same Governor Hull issued another proclamation—this time commemorating the birth of Buddha. While many anticipated another threat of a lawsuit from the ACLU, none came. This time, an ACLU spokesperson said, "Although we may think proclamations are inappropriate, they may not violate the Constitution. "

http://www.reclaimamerica.org/PAGES/...asp?story=1149
for more odd Anti-Christianity double standards from who else but the ACLU...

Or would you like me to shove 100 more links down your throat? Oh I do love a copy-and-paste session to prove my point...

>>>Second, I don't have a clue what you're talking about. When you make >>a claim like this, you need to either post a link to a news story about it or actually provide details like names and dates. Otherwise the story sounds like complete bullshit, which is what I'm guessing it is.

I did not make this story up either. I heard of it on FOX News and found information not on the threatening lawsuit but on the information on what exactly is on the walls of the Supreme Court building: "The Supreme Court building in Washington, DC features a frieze of Moses carrying two numbered tablets signifying the Commandments alongside depictions of Hammurabi, Solon and other historical figures." The ACLU wanted the all symbols and anything that signified the "Ten Commandments" out of public buildings. This included the two numbered tablets that signified the Commandments in the SUPREME COURT building. (Not the Capitol; I heard this story on Fox when the entire case was popular and a lawyer from the ACLU was complaining something along the lines of"How can we get the Supreme Court do agree with us if they themselves have the Ten Commandments in their building?")


>>>Again, post a link, provide details, or admit that you made this up. I >>mean, seriously, this doesn't even make any sense. Why would the ACLU sue the state if the county is the offending party? Did you even think about this before you posted it?


http://republican.assembly.ca.gov/me...nEditorials&Re fID=946
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,119035,00.html
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=13425
http://www.dailybruin.ucla.edu/news/...s.asp?id=29497


They sued LA County. Like it makes a monumental difference. Point remains. Bored Liberals = frivolous lawsuits. If you need any more "proof" or links to that story I'll send you about 2,000 webpages that my Google search turned up.

 

The link you posted goes nowhere, but I found the story I'm pretty sure you referring to. At issue is that the woman, Kelly Lynn Cruz, was prosecuted for reckless endangerment. By definition, the law only applies to people. The prosecutor, or whoever was pulling his strings, was trying to get a fetus to be defined as a person by using this section of the law. Its a sleazy, sneaky way to try to criminalize abortion by proxy of the other law.

The ACLU isn't defending cocaine use while pregnant here; they're defending a woman's right to choose.

You have posted a bunch of interesting links here that I would like to respond to, but tonight I'm working on a 20 page paper for marketing class. This will have to wait until the weekend.

 

just read the other post where wow civic brought up the aclu and i would like to say that no the ACLU is not anti-american....the aclu started out as a organization to protect the rights of those who couldnt voice themselves to our government or didnt have the abilitiy to from what i understand. in my opinion when they started out they were a great organization but time has warped what they view themselves as. granted today the aclu still does represent and protect those who honestly need it but i ask you why any organization in their right mind would represent groups such as NAMBLA(north american man boy love association). Your telling me that these people belong being protected. i dont agree with everything wow civic said, he obviously listens to all the hype and doesnt think clearly, but noone here can seriously tell me that the ACLU is honestly out there to protect all of america. just the fact that they are trying to help NAMBLA and trying to help the floridian sex offenders says to me that they are not here for the benefit of mainstream america...cause we all would love to have a sex offender next door and not know.

 

Here is my gripe with the ACLU. They put the concerns of the individual of the concerns for the collective masses. This country was founded and is governed by the masses. Those with the most votes win elected office. Laws with the most votes get enacted. Now it seems, and especially with the War on Terror, that the ACLU is hand stringing our law enforcement personell. People are not subject to searches or are allowed to be profiled because it may upset their civilliberties. But what happens when the person that you cannot search and cannot profile blows themselves up on a subway in Manhattan. Dozens would be dead, hundreds injured, and termoil would ensue...but hey, the suicide bomber's civil liberties were not offended before he blew up.

There are times that the good of the whole takes precedent of the good of the individual, and when it comes to securing this country I would much rather take my shoes off at an airport or have my bag checked when entering a subway then be on that plane or subway that blows up.

 

the ACLU is a terrorist organization and should be brought up on rico charges period

 

i coudnt agree more with 100 percent of what u just said...

 

Are you saying that you think the ACLU is like the mafia in the 1960s? If so, I don't understand the comparison. Why RICO?

 

For what its worth, here is the ACLU press release on that topic:


ACLU Statement on Defending Free Speech of Unpopular Organizations (8/31/2000)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

NEW YORK--In the United States Supreme Court over the past few years, the American Civil Liberties Union has taken the side of a fundamentalist Christian church, a Santerian church, and the International Society for Krishna Consciousness. In celebrated cases, the ACLU has stood up for everyone from Oliver North to the National Socialist Party. In spite of all that, the ACLU has never advocated Christianity, ritual animal sacrifice, trading arms for hostages or genocide. In representing NAMBLA today, our Massachusetts affiliate does not advocate sexual relationships between adults and children.

What the ACLU does advocate is robust freedom of speech for everyone. The lawsuit involved here, were it to succeed, would strike at the heart of freedom of speech. The case is based on a shocking murder. But the lawsuit says the crime is the responsibility not of those who committed the murder, but of someone who posted vile material on the Internet. The principle is as simple as it is central to true freedom of speech: those who do wrong are responsible for what they do; those who speak about it are not.

It is easy to defend freedom of speech when the message is something many people find at least reasonable. But the defense of freedom of speech is most critical when the message is one most people find repulsive. That was true when the Nazis marched in Skokie. It remains true today.

 

That's incorrect; this country has it's basis in the individual. Democracy as we know it comes from Enlightenment thinking, which emphasized the individual over the state: government exists through consent of the governed, and the sole purpose of government is to protect the rights of the individual. The Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence, all refer to how all men (ie each person) are endowed with inalienable rights. The ideas behind voting, free speech is that an individual can participate in government. The value of individual is the basis for our democracy.

It's a fine line we walk: our country would be much safer and crime free if it were a dictatorship like Singapore or Kuwait or UAE. Sure, you'd have no rights (including right to free speech, right to bear arms, etc.), but you can bet there would be next to no crime and terrorist would have a much more difficult time staging attacks. And our government, while not a dictatorship, has, since the days of the Revolutionary War, grown much larger and more powerful and encompassing than our forefathers ever imagined. And it only keeps getting bigger. And the ACLU is one of the groups that keeps it from growing the wrong way. Sure, sometimes they go a little overboard, but without them, the government would, whether on purpose or on accident, start having its way with the people.

 

Thank you for posting this so I didn't have to. The point of our Bill of Rights is to protect certain individual rights from the Tyranny of the majority.

People always quote to respecting the rights of the masses, etc. when the mass agrees with their point of view, but are quick to change their story when something goes against their viewpoint. For example, what would everyone think if 51% of the people decided guns were bad and we didn't need them anymore. Should we respect the right of the mass and tell everyone to turn in their guns?