Is the ACLU anti-Christian?

[GarfieldJL]

Actually they are anti-Christian when they support Muslim symbols in schools but they move to bar Christian ones at the same school. That is a violation of the 1st amendment right there.

[Samuel Dravis]

Has the ACLU looked in the mirror lately?--admittedly conservative, but the six cases listed here are the kinds of things that disturb me in regards to free speech and freedom of religion.

Most of those I don't really see the point of the ACLU doing it. However, I don't think they were technically incorrect about the cases in general, save the one with the creche.

 

Kerrigan Brief--The Conn. Governer signed legislation allowing benefits to same-sex couples, but also defined _marriage_ (not civil unions) as being between one man and one woman. The state legislature passed it, and the governor signed it, and same-sex couples have the same benefits as married couples. Why are they now suing? Regardless of what you think of homosexuality (I'm fine with civil unions, btw, just so you know), if it's the decision of the majority of people, _and_ same-sex couples are afforded the same rights except for the one name, why is the ACLU not defending the will of the people?

Married, civil unions - why does it even matter? There's little difference between the two; the only difference being that one group thinks that God approved of their contract. Why can't the same-sex union people think the same? Being "married" is essentially what they are doing. Why can't they just say they're married? If the reason behind the law is solely religious, then that law should not exist, regardless of what the majority says.

 

ACLU sues Pentagon to keep Boy Scouts off bases--speaks for itself. Heaven forbid we allow places for wholesome groups like the Boy Scouts to meet.

I am in scouts, but it's pretty clear that their general policy is religious in basis - agreement with the oath and code is required to join. From what I can see, the ACLU is correct.

 

Gray vs. Kohl --Why did the ACLU decide not to defend what clearly is a violation of the First Amendment and was improper arrest by police? If this was any other religion besides Christianity, certainly any other non-religious group, they would have jumped all over it. I think it's hypocritical to say you defend religious rights, but only if you're not Christian.

Reading through that I agree that it was a violation of their right to hand out Bibles. They didn't go on school grounds. I'm okay with it. Whether it was intentional of the ACLU to forgo the case is unclear, but it's not evidence that they are against christians.

 

The ACLU defends NAMBLA and the wiki link I'm not sure how the ACLU can possibly defend an organization that explains in detail how to molest young boys. Even with their little 'disclaimer', it's astonishing that they'd defend a group that willingly violates laws and more importantly, children. What about the young boy who was molested and died? Did the ACLU care about _his_ rights? Apparently not. That says just about all that can be said about this group.

A couple of things: Just because they're the "bad guys" doesn't mean that don't have rights. Everyone has rights, and they don't give them up because we think they should. Supporting everyone's rights equally should be the goal of ANY system that wants to have the idea of justice remotely associated with it.

 

Second, the boy is dead. Nothing will change that. The people suspected responsible for his death were/are being prosecuted, and those convicted will be unlikely to harm society again. I suggest you grant the living what is theirs - the protections of a just society. Getting inflamed about it DOES NOT remove their right to that protection.

 

Overall, I am okay with the ACLU. I disagree with some of the stances they take, but for an organization I think they provide a useful service to our society.

 

 

Actually they are anti-Christian when they support Muslim symbols in schools but they move to bar Christian ones at the same school. That is a violation of the 1st amendment right there.

Source it, please.

 

Hm. Well, not with the civil right to disagree with another person.

Civil rights are PERSONAL. They do not extend to anyone else. Other people have their OWN rights, which are theirs to make use of as they wish.

[Achilles]

This is by no means anywhere near exhaustive. It would take me an entire book to list all the cases where the ACLU targeted religion (almost exclusively Christian), or did not defend the civil liberties of a religious organization that was clearly having its constitutional rights violated. I did get these cases from conservative sites, yes, but the briefs are public record and speak for themselves.

 

 

Has the ACLU looked in the mirror lately?--admittedly conservative, but the six cases listed here are the kinds of things that disturb me in regards to free speech and freedom of religion. I can look up and link all the cases at some point if you're dying for me to do that. Otherwise, you can certainly google the cases yourself.

If this is indicative of the rest of this post, then I'm probably going to end up doing a lot of your leg work for you.

 

Ok, the first case listed (at least I'm assuming this is the case referenced because the source you linked to is incredibly vague) refers to ACLU being called in after some parents complained about a local minister dressing up as santa and going to 3 county schools to prosteletize about jesus christ. The issue was settled by the school board without going to court. The sites' claim that the "ACLU tried to eliminate one school's long-standing Santa tradition" is preposterous. Link.

 

The second case listed (again, I think) refers to a case where the ACLU was once again called in by parents. According to this site (one of two I was able to find that specifically discuss this case), some of the actions of the school were out of line, however the case was dropped when the plantiffs moved out of state (as attested to by this site). Apparently, the ACLU is considered "pwned" by the right whenever trivial legal factors such as the plaintiffs leaving the state happens. Way to win the day, ADF.

 

*LOLs at "ACLU backs down..." headline*

 

Indeed, they were "conspir[ing] to crush a creche in a public school library".

 

The third case, once again at the request of several local residents, the ACLU sent a letter to an Iowa courthouse regarding a nativity scene put in a section of courthouse lawn. These ACLU people are real bastards. Link.

 

Unfortunately, I was unable to find any sources (other than the article itself) regarding the fourth case. Based on the pattern, I would tend to assume that the ACLU (again) became involved at the request of local citizens and (again) was acting within their mission. However I will concede that my assumption is not proof, but luckily the burden of proof regarding the claim of the ACLU's alleged inappropriateness lies with the author (and/or you).

 

As for the fifth case, once again the ACLU got involved at the request of a few Jewish families who's children didn't feel comfortable in Christian christmas pageant Link.

 

Finally, in the sixth case, you guess it - the ACLU was called in after local residents complained about nativity scene on the city counsel lawn. Apparently, the mayor exacerbated the situation by trying to implement a policy that made his action legal. Link.

 

Poor article, Jae.

 

Kerrigan Brief--The Conn. Governer signed legislation allowing benefits to same-sex couples, but also defined _marriage_ (not civil unions) as being between one man and one woman. The state legislature passed it, and the governor signed it, and same-sex couples have the same benefits as married couples. Why are they now suing? Regardless of what you think of homosexuality (I'm fine with civil unions, btw, just so you know), if it's the decision of the majority of people, _and_ same-sex couples are afforded the same rights except for the one name, why is the ACLU not defending the will of the people?

Defending the will of which people? Is such action inconsistent with the stated mission of the ACLU? Help me understand how a case regarding same-sex marriage supports your argument that the ACLU is anti-christian (in light of the fact there are many pro-homosexual christian groups). Is the concern anti-christian or anti-neoconservative?

 

PS: I'm not reading a 28 page legal briefing. Sorry.

 

ACLU sues Pentagon to keep Boy Scouts off bases--speaks for itself. Heaven forbid we allow places for wholesome groups like the Boy Scouts to meet.

Again, anti-christian how?

FYI, the link your article will take interested readers to this site which as more information about the case. Of particular note (emphasis mine):

 

Previously, Defense Department units held charters to lead hundreds of Boy Scout troops and Cub Scout packs, which exclude youths who do not believe in God. Additionally, the Boy Scouts of America requires troop and pack leaders, in this case government employees, to compel youth to swear an oath of duty to God. The ACLU of Illinois charged that the Boy Scouts' policy violates the religious liberty of youth who wish to participate but do not wish to swear a religious oath, and that direct government sponsorship of such a program is religious discrimination.

 

Gray vs. Kohl --Why did the ACLU decide not to defend what clearly is a violation of the First Amendment and was improper arrest by police? If this was any other religion besides Christianity, certainly any other non-religious group, they would have jumped all over it. I think it's hypocritical to say you defend religious rights, but only if you're not Christian.

Did Mr. Gray solicit help from the ACLU in this case? Perhaps the ACLU didn't volunteer to jump to the cause because they felt the plaintiff was trying to turn a wrongfull arrest case into a free speech case? In other words, maybe they weren't compelled because no one's free speech right were violated (yes, I read most of the 24-page brief after stating that I wouldn't read the 28-page one. Don't ask why ).

 

The ACLU defends NAMBLA and the wiki link I'm not sure how the ACLU can possibly defend an organization that explains in detail how to molest young boys. Even with their little 'disclaimer', it's astonishing that they'd defend a group that willingly violates laws and more importantly, children. What about the young boy who was molested and died? Did the ACLU care about _his_ rights? Apparently not. That says just about all that can be said about this group.

Right wing sources citing right wing sources in a nauseating circus of faux-journalism. Yikes.

 

Taken from your very own source:

According to ACLU Massachusetts Legal Director John Reinstein, the Constitution sides with the publication of any material, however heinous, unless said material is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action." Apparently, for the ACLU, "lawless action" doesn't cover the sodomy and murder of a little boy.

 

Taken from the ACLU:

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.

 

So, were they defending NAMBLA or were they defending free speech? Regardless of whether you agree with their actions or not, I think the distinction is an important one. And regardless of that, this point is still irrelevant to your argument that the ACLU is anti-christian.

 

In a completely off-topic aside, is there any way that we can enforce some sort of standard regarding the quality of the sources used here? I know that "Kavar's Corner is not the Senate" but it really is a lot of work to chase down legitimate sources when others use less-reputable sources to support their claim. I think we can have standards and not risk our "friendly" status. Thoughts?

 

Thanks for reading.

 

EDIT:

Actually they are anti-Christian when they support Muslim symbols in schools but they move to bar Christian ones at the same school. That is a violation of the 1st amendment right there.

Source/citation please. I can't possibly comment on the case you're referring to because I don't know which one it is

[Allronix]

The fact is the ACLU does target Christians, and only conservative sites will report on it because the ACLU promotes the left wing agenda of the Left wing liberals in the media.

 

Ah. Classic "the lack of evidence proves there's a coverup" argument. Seriously, Garfield. I know you can swing better than that.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Listen, I agree with ACLU, but they are declaring their beliefs to be "true", thereby making Jae mad.

Every time you make a decision, you risk offending those who disagree with you. If you defend gays, you're 'anti-Christian'. If you oppose gays, you're 'anti-gay'. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. It can't be avoided.

 

They are forcing their beliefs on all these other people, by claiming that they are the defenders of "civil liberties". You are basically telling them that gays could get married, and these people personally disagree. What the ACLU wants to do is metaphorically punch these people in the nose, by telling them that they are wrong and that they should not use their civil liberties to speak out against this suppression of a civil liberty.

No one in the ACLU, to my knowledge, is saying freedom of speech should be curbed concerned gay rights. Attack gays all you want.

 

It does not respect everyone's civil liberties to call them wrong.

And yet it certainly does not disrespect them either.

 

Teachings cannot be respected if you believe something that other people do not? Sounds like a person punching another person in the snout right there.

What I'm saying is that if your religion goes against civil liberties, then the ACLU's agenda will not coincide with it. No one's saying you can't preach it. Again, attack gays all you want, I can't keep you. We both live in free nations.

 

if it's the decision of the majority of people, _and_ same-sex couples are afforded the same rights except for the one name, why is the ACLU not defending the will of the people?

Because that is not their role. Their job is to defend civil liberties, not cater to the majority.

[Jae Onasi]

I'm zipping through this because I have a meeting to go to that will last all morning....

 

Poor article, Jae.

I gave fair warning on that, Achilles, and said it was more important for the cases themselves. My point was to show multiple cases where the ACLU has gone after Christians.

 

Defending the will of which people?

The people who elected the legislators or voted for the marriage amendments.

 

You may have a point on pro-Christian vs. just conservative, however.

 

BTW, 'conservative' is NOT a pejorative.

 

and that direct government sponsorship of such a program is religious discrimination.

How is allowing them to meet on bases 'government sponsorship'?

And why isn't the ACLU going after Muslim organizations that meet on bases, which routinely discriminate by excluding women or require non-Muslims to pray to Allah? It's very much a double standard.

 

Right wing sources citing right wing sources

Sheesh. Like a left-wing source is ever going to consider the possibility that the ACLU is not fair in the application of its own standards. What other sources am I supposed to use? Being a conservative source does not automatically make it a poor source, any more than being a liberal source makes it a poor source.

 

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.

 

The fact is that these men would have court-appointed representation and the ACLU did not have to go rushing in to defend molesters. I _used_ to be in favor of the ACLU's ideals in defending free speech. I cannot support an organization that condones the actions of child molesters. You're right--that's not an exclusively Christian issue. It should be a concern of anyone who finds child sexual abuse abhorrent.

 

 

In a completely off-topic aside, is there any way that we can enforce some sort of standard regarding the quality of the sources used here?

Jae's rule on forming policy: Never legislate what you can't enforce.

 

There's no way to enforce any kind of standard other than maybe snipping the source. To be honest, I just don't have the time to track down and evaluate every single source cited, read it, and make a determination on its quality, and my idea of quality of ultra-liberal sources is likely different from yours.

[Samuel Dravis]

The people who elected the legislators or voted for the marriage amendments.

If the people do something against the constitution, it's still against the constitution. If the will of the people constitutes religious law, then it should not be made law.

 

How is allowing them to meet on bases 'government sponsorship'?

 

And why isn't the ACLU going after Muslim organizations that meet on bases, which routinely discriminate by excluding women or require non-Muslims to pray to Allah? It's very much a double standard.

The use of government land is sponsorship.

 

Also, what the ACLU does or does not do to OTHER organizations does not mean its actions in this regard are incorrect. Selective enforcement, I don't know, but preventing groups from using public land who discriminate based on religion is perfectly fine.

 

 

The fact is that these men would have court-appointed representation and the ACLU did not have to go rushing in to defend molesters. I _used_ to be in favor of the ACLU's ideals in defending free speech. I cannot support an organization that condones the actions of child molesters. You're right--that's not an exclusively Christian issue. It should be a concern of anyone who finds child sexual abuse abhorrent.

It does concern me, Jae. However, I'm not the one who decides whether someone's guilty. That's the court's decision, and until they're proven guilty I will not treat them like they are. They are just as eligible for support by the ACLU as your people handing out Bibles. I will quote myself again: "I suggest you grant the living what is theirs - the protections of a just society. Getting inflamed about it DOES NOT remove their right to that protection."

[SilentScope001]

Civil rights are PERSONAL. They do not extend to anyone else. Other people have their OWN rights, which are theirs to make use of as they wish.

 

Civil Rights are personal, which means it is my right to say anything I so desire, as long as it conforms to laws.

 

But they are attacking my own expression of civil rights, by calling my use of it wrong, since I am going against other people's civil liberties. They call me intolerant. They will defend to the death my right to say it, and yet they will also defend to the death their right to have their view get government support, because their view is the "correct" one.

 

Every time you make a decision, you risk offending those who disagree with you. If you defend gays, you're 'anti-Christian'. If you oppose gays, you're 'anti-gay'. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. It can't be avoided.

 

What about having some more tolerance in the world? Saying, I defend Gays, but I respect your viewpoints about why you dislike Gays, let's agree to disagree, what you say may be vaild in certain respects, yadda, yadda, yadda? If we all had more tolerance, debates would be far less...harmful...than they are now.

 

No one in the ACLU, to my knowledge, is saying freedom of speech should be curbed concerned gay rights. Attack gays all you want.

 

I'm talking about "silencing". There is a big difference. The ACLU wants to change the laws so that gay marriage occurs, and want to do so despite the voices. What's the point of freedom of speech if the ACLU just going to snidely say, "We're going to defend your right to say it, but you're just wrong." What's the point of freedom of speech if you can't effect the government's descion, and the government does do gay marriage, overriding your concerns, overriding your voices, because you are "lunatical", not respecting of "civil liberties"? Do you know how alienating it is to have someone call you a "nut"? I'd call it the equivilant of punching someone in the nose.

 

It's de facto censorship, cursing the enemy, rather than de jure. The only civil liberty I care about is Freedom of Speech, and as long as the ACLU claims to be a defender of civil liberties and does what it does, it can help to silence certain "free speech".

 

What I'm saying is that if your religion goes against civil liberties, then the ACLU's agenda will not coincide with it. No one's saying you can't preach it. Again, attack gays all you want, I can't keep you. We both live in free nations.

 

But by ridiculing that religion's agenda about going against civil liberties, you are restricting that civil liberty of the right to speak. The reason being, if you succed in terming that religion intolerant, less people will listen to it, and therefore, you are de facto censoring it.

 

The ACLU claims to be the union that support civil liberties, and using that position, it can promote beliefs, claiming that they fall under the banner of civil liberties. This is fine. When they start saying that those who are against the ACLU are against civil liberties, and that speaking out against civil liberties make you anti-"civil liberties", well, that's the punch to the nose.

 

How is allowing them to meet on bases 'government sponsorship'?

 

And why isn't the ACLU going after Muslim organizations that meet on bases, which routinely discriminate by excluding women or require non-Muslims to pray to Allah? It's very much a double standard.

 

Uh. To be ACLU's advocate...and maybe trying to explain their actions...

 

You see, the same reason the ACLU is not going after Muslim organizations that meet on bases is the same reason the ACLU is not going around after (many) non-Muslim organizations. Because if a religious organization meets on that base, suppressing that religion would be against the 1st Amendmnet. Everyone can go where they please, if they have proper government clearance.

 

However, if said organization however have some oath that advocates worship of God, like the Boy Scouts, then it must not be premissable, due to the fact that it is an endorsement of the Boy Scouts and therefore is not premissable.

 

However, all the Muslim organizations I went to (and therefore, hopefully, all Muslim organizations in general) do not have such an oath. Due to the fact that Muslim organizations, are, by definition, Muslim, and that Muslims have to actually make a declaration (NOT an Oath) that they believe in Islam to join up with Islam, this means that it does not advocate the worship of God at all. I believe the ACLU was only concerned with that Boy Scout's Oath, and had the Boy Scouts took away that Oath, then they would be allowed to go in.

 

The 1st Amendment allows for the freedom of people to join together in groups. For example, a Men's Club is allowed to say: "Only Men". Otherwise, the group would disenigrate. The freedom to assembly allows for the freedom to exclude, but they are limits. Those limits are in the courts, but I think it is fair to say that Muslim organizations are allowed to exclude non-Muslims.

 

As for the talking about the discrimnation charge, well, I'm not so sure. For the most part, the seperation of man and woman is merely part of the culture (which is quite similar around the world), and that Non-Muslims don't have to pray along with Muslims. I think the Non-Muslims do that just to be friendly.

 

If the people do something against the constitution, it's still against the constitution. If the will of the people constitutes religious law, then it should not be made law.

 

It leads to a question...why does the Consitution needs to continue to operate if the actual founders and backers of the Consitution (the people) do not want it anymore? What's make the Consitution have any power to begin with?

 

Inherent human rights? Well, it was because the human mob who disliked the British Consitution decided to rebel and create the USA, so even in that case, it was because the majority of the people were upset at society, and therefore, rebelled. It's not some mystical power that grants us rights, it's the screams, protest marches, and gunfire of the human race that provides rights.

 

If nobody likes the Consitution anymore, then should the Consitution be trashed? Granted, nobody here is saying or calling that, least of all Jae, but...I just wonder.

[GarfieldJL]

Okay I decided to use google to find stuff yes all of the sources are Conservative, why cause the left wing media will not report on the ACLU because they are staunch supporters of the ACLU. This is just web sites, I've loaned a few books out to people that have more incidents.

 

http://www.dianedew.com/aclu.htm

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/1/13/172143.shtml

http://www.traditionalvalues.org/pdf_files/ACLU.pdf

 

 

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1831933/posts

http://www.legion.org/?content=aclu_magarticle

 

 

------------------

going to try to find the case referred here http://jacklewis.net/weblog/archives/2005/09/aclu_ignores_sc.php

 

 

Removing a Cross from a War Memorial?

http://www.alainsnewsletter.com/s/spip.php?breve214

 

http://www.baltimorereporter.com/?p=3836

[Samuel Dravis]

Civil Rights are personal, which means it is my right to say anything I so desire, as long as it conforms to laws.

 

But they are attacking my own expression of civil rights, by calling my use of it wrong, since I am going against other people's civil liberties. They call me intolerant. They will defend to the death my right to say it, and yet they will also defend to the death their right to have their view get government support, because their view is the "correct" one.

Their view is the one that does not infringe on other's rights. It's pretty clear why this is important in a country like the US, where not everyone is concerned about who marries whom. The view that should get government support is the one that protects the rights of EVERYONE under the aegis of the government, and not only those groups favored by the majority.

 

I'm talking about "silencing". There is a big difference. The ACLU wants to change the laws so that gay marriage occurs, and want to do so despite the voices. What's the point of freedom of speech if the ACLU just going to snidely say, "We're going to defend your right to say it, but you're just wrong." What's the point of freedom of speech if you can't effect the government's descion, and the government does do gay marriage, overriding your concerns, overriding your voices, because you are "lunatical", not respecting of "civil liberties"? Do you know how alienating it is to have someone call you a "nut"? I'd call it the equivilant of punching someone in the nose.

The reason your opinion would be overridden is because you're infringing on other's rights. While you may enjoy the thought of all marriages being M-F, never divorcing, etc etc, you're only free to choose that for yourself. You can argue against their decisions all you like - that's the free speech part - but it's important to realize that it's their decision to make.

 

But by ridiculing that religion's agenda about going against civil liberties, you are restricting that civil liberty of the right to speak. The reason being, if you succed in terming that religion intolerant, less people will listen to it, and therefore, you are de facto censoring it.

If it's intolerant, then it is. If free people don't like intolerance, then they don't like it. Seems to me that's religion's problem, not the ACLU's. Religion has a decision to make - cater to what people want, or do what they are going to regardless of popular support. If they choose the second, they lose support. Interesting how that happens, but hardly the fault of the ACLU.

 

The ACLU claims to be the union that support civil liberties, and using that position, it can promote beliefs, claiming that they fall under the banner of civil liberties. This is fine. When they start saying that those who are against the ACLU are against civil liberties, and that speaking out against civil liberties make you anti-"civil liberties", well, that's the punch to the nose.

When someone says something factual about a situation, it's still factual. If religion does not like being called "anti-civil liberties", then perhaps it should not be as discriminatory in its judgments. Any 'punch in the nose' that results is entirely the fault of those who are unwilling to face the consequences of their own actions.

[Achilles]

I'm zipping through this because I have a meeting to go to that will last all morning....

Those meetings are my favorite

 

I gave fair warning on that, Achilles, and said it was more important for the cases themselves. My point was to show multiple cases where the ACLU has gone after Christians.

But it didn't do that...at all. All that source did was muddy the water with falsehoods and try to spin the facts in a way to make the ACLU appear to do the things you were saying it was doing.

 

I suppose that no one forced me to do the fact-finding for that article, but I did feel it was necessary. And it did take about an hour. So an hour of my time went into (hopefully) setting the record straight because you made the choice to use a blantantly anti-ACLU source.

 

I cannot speak with any degree of certainty about your intentions, but I will point out that according to Kant and the categorical imperative, attempting to intentionally decieve another person (using spun sources rather than facts to support a position perhaps) is considered unethical. And since ethics is the system of morals, one could say that using poor quality sources isn't only unethical, but immoral as well.

 

The people who elected the legislators or voted for the marriage amendments.

Exactly. And who speaks for the little guy when the voting majority is in the wrong? That was my whole point.

 

You may have a point on pro-Christian vs. just conservative, however.

 

BTW, 'conservative' is NOT a pejorative.

Certainly it is not. In fact I consider myself conservative in many regards (in a classical, non "neo" way), so it would be hypocritical of me to use it in such a way. I will point out that the term is used was "neo-conservative" and that term I use interchangeably as a pejorative/non-pejorative, but I think you already knew that

 

How is allowing them to meet on bases 'government sponsorship'?

And why isn't the ACLU going after Muslim organizations that meet on bases, which routinely discriminate by excluding women or require non-Muslims to pray to Allah? It's very much a double standard.

Did you click (and read) the link or did you just look at the section I quoted? You still seems to be operating from the "only using the bases as a meeting place" sentiment from your source while ignoring all of this:

 

Under the terms of today's settlement, the Defense Department has 60 days to issue a statement to U.S. defense facilities and military bases across the world making clear that Defense officials may not sponsor Boy Scout organizations. The settlement, however, does not prohibit off-duty government employees from sponsoring Boy Scout troops on their own time. The Boy Scouts will still also have access to any military facilities that are currently made available to other non-governmental organizations.

 

"It is critical that the Pentagon send this very clear signal to its units across the globe to ensure that government officials are not engaged in religious discrimination in their official capacity," said Charles Peters of the Chicago law firm Schiff Hardin who assisted the ACLU of Illinois in the lawsuit.

 

The federal court in Chicago still must decide whether the Defense Department and the Department of Housing and Urban Development can spend millions of taxpayer dollars to support Boy Scout units that practice religious discrimination and require religious oaths. The ACLU of Illinois has raised concern, for example, about the Pentagon's handpicking the Boy Scouts of America - and no other organization - for the expenditure of an average of $2 million each year to support the national Boy Scout Jamboree. A decision on this and other issues is pending.

 

As for the Muslim part of your comment, I guess I would have to know more before I could speak intelligently on the matter. Perhaps it has something to do with "other military facilities made available to other non-governmental organizations" thing? Dunno.

 

Sheesh. Like a left-wing source is ever going to consider the possibility that the ACLU is not fair in the application of its own standards. What other sources am I supposed to use? Being a conservative source does not automatically make it a poor source, any more than being a liberal source makes it a poor source.

Indeed spin goes both ways. I think this goes back to my request for citation standards.

 

This diatribe is largely a red herring, Jae. You used a source that was blantantly conservative and had a blatantly conservative spin. It is an unfortanately reality that the "if not conservative than automatically liberal" doctrine appears to be so prevalent amongst conservatives.

 

Perhaps you could try a non-biased source that has facts and/or both sides of an issue. Yes, you have to dig a little for them and sometimes you can't find one (aforementioned case 4 for example). However I think you damage your credibility with the sources that you use and inadvertently weaken the cause you try to defend. It may be that there are legitimate arguments that support your point, but it's going to be difficult for your readers to see that if all they are pointed towards are sources that have to lie or cheat to make their point. Pretty soon no one listens because your cause is the one known as those "lying-cheating guys" (not you specifically, your sources).

 

The unfortanate thing about your sources is that the speak a great deal about how they interpret events, but very little about the facts of the events themselves. I don't know how one convinces themselves that this is journalism while not simultaneously conceding to let others do their thinking for them. This is general statement and is not necessarily directed at you specifically.

 

As for the general nature of liberal sources, all I can tell you is that I don't use them. I don't doubt for a second that you won't disagree, but before you do I'll draw your attention once more to the "not conservative = liberal" doctrine that I mentioned earlier. I do so to point out that it could be you view my sources as "liberal" because they don't agree with you viewpoints, not because they actually are.

 

The fact is that these men would have court-appointed representation and the ACLU did not have to go rushing in to defend molesters. I _used_ to be in favor of the ACLU's ideals in defending free speech. I cannot support an organization that condones the actions of child molesters. You're right--that's not an exclusively Christian issue. It should be a concern of anyone who finds child sexual abuse abhorrent.

Again, I think you missed my point.

You say, "rushing in to defend child molestors" while what I said was "rushing in to defend free speech". Important distinction Jae. Furthermore, I can only assume that you didn't take the time to click the link (or visit the ACLU site yourself at another time) to see that the ACLU does not condone the actions of the child molestors. However you continue to state that they do without having the facts.

 

Jae's rule on forming policy: Never legislate what you can't enforce.

 

There's no way to enforce any kind of standard other than maybe snipping the source. To be honest, I just don't have the time to track down and evaluate every single source cited, read it, and make a determination on its quality, and my idea of quality of ultra-liberal sources is likely different from yours.

I'm a member of several other forums where standards for sources exist (you can get banned for repeatedly posting without citing sources, etc). No one is asking the moderators to chase down every source. It doesn't take more than a few seconds to click on a link and recognize bias (if it is present). This is even easier if you set expectations ahead of time (you're less likely to have to chase something down if you can automatically see that it doesn't comply with the standards in the first place). So "Never legislate what you can't enforce" doesn't hold water for several reasons. If this is something that the moderating staff isn't interested in taking on that's one thing, and I'll have to live with that, but calling it impossible just isn't true.

[ET Warrior]

*list of websites*

So I couldn't find a single instance in any one of those websites that you linked to where the ACLU was being particularly anti-christian. Perhaps I am missing something?

[GarfieldJL]

“If the ACLU wins this one, they’re going to go after all these monuments (including Arlington and Gettysburg),” said Charles LiMandri, a San Diego attorney who has led efforts to bring the memorial under federal jurisdiction. “A lot of them have either religious symbols, text or some type of religious reference on them in every state in the union, and they’re all going to be at risk.

http://www.alainsnewsletter.com/s/spip.php?breve214

 

 

A federal judge judge has now upheld the constitutionality of an intensive three-week course in California government schools that requires children to choose a Muslim name, wear Islamic garb, memorize verses from the Koraan, pray to Allah, play “jihad games, and simulate worship activities related to the Five Pillars of Islam.”

 

But hasn't American Civil Liberties Union lectured us that religious instruction in school violates what it describes as “separation of church and state” (a phrase that appears nowhere in the U.S. Constitution)? Read on. That injunction seems to depend on which religion is involved.

 

 

The guidelines in ACLU's document is in effect a warning (some would say an implied threat) to schools as to how they can avoid legal challenges from the same ACLU on church/state issues in the classroom.

-- http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/1/13/172143.shtml

 

 

Seems to me like they're catering to radical Islam.

[SilentScope001]

Their view is the one that does not infringe on other's rights. It's pretty clear why this is important in a country like the US, where not everyone is concerned about who marries whom. The view that should get government support is the one that protects the rights of EVERYONE under the aegis of the government, and not only those groups favored by the majority.

 

But by passing the laws that someone disagrees with, calling them anti-civil liberty and evil, you are disrespecting their right to speak out against the calls, you are silencing them.

 

The reason your opinion would be overridden is because you're infringing on other's rights. While you may enjoy the thought of all marriages being M-F, never divorcing, etc etc, you're only free to choose that for yourself. You can argue against their decisions all you like - that's the free speech part - but it's important to realize that it's their decision to make.

 

How can I argue if the ACLU laugh at me and term intolerant?

 

In this case, I'm worried about protecting my own right, the right to criticize and the right to have my viewpoint expressed, and the right to have my viewpoint help to influence the desicions the government. Such a branding of intolerance is wrong.

 

(Also a clarification: I do support the ACLU's aims, somewhat. What I dislike is their attempt to claim that they are correct, and thereby making Chrisitans pretty mad.)

 

If it's intolerant, then it is. If free people don't like intolerance, then they don't like it. Seems to me that's religion's problem, not the ACLU's. Religion has a decision to make - cater to what people want, or do what they are going to regardless of popular support. If they choose the second, they lose support. Interesting how that happens, but hardly the fault of the ACLU.

 

1) People must be tolerant towards other people. If they are intolerant, then those people are not free, regardless of what ideology they claim to be, regardless of whatever civil liberties they are upholading. Without tolerance, society is dead. Tolerance is the only thing that stands between open war between the Right and the Left, and we need it now, more than ever. Without tolerance, free speech cannot happen. To me, Free Speech is the most important civil right ever...

 

If the ACLU is going to remain intolerant, then so be it. It just lost all support from me.

 

2)

If the people do something against the constitution, it's still against the constitution. If the will of the people constitutes religious law, then it should not be made law.

 

So, if you succed in making the minority for the view of Jae, then your view should be law and religion must change. If the majority is okay for Jae's view, then your view should be law anyway, and prehaps religion must change as well.

 

Your view should be law, regardless of whatever the people say. This is quite similar to fanatics of religious sects, who claim that their country should follow whatever some artibrary being or standard says, regardless of what the people want. In fact, it is some artibrary being or standard that you are using. Is that standard vaild? I don't know, but it's quite artibrary...and therefore, there needs to be some backing for that standard. That backing should be the people.

 

America is a democracy. The people choose. Not the ACLU. Not Falwell. And certainally not me. They must have the right to choose, to decide for themselves what is right, otherwise this turns into a tyranny. And if that tyranny is led by the ACLU or Falwell's followers, you can bet I'd be mad. It is the people who decide the law, not YOU.

 

When someone says something factual about a situation, it's still factual. If religion does not like being called "anti-civil liberties", then perhaps it should not be as discriminatory in its judgments. Any 'punch in the nose' that results is entirely the fault of those who are unwilling to face the consequences of their own actions.

 

It's not factual, it's opinonated. You presupposes that there are civil liberties, and that they should be protected, and that religion disagrees with your inteprertion of civil liberties, and so religion is steppping on civil liberties, and therefore, you can make that statement and therefore punch my nose.

 

It's a slur, and it's a slur that says, "Since these people are lunatics, don't listen to them. Listen to me." And it's a very cursing and evil slur, and it acts as a silencing agnet, to silence debate, and to make people agree with you. You are attacking the man, and you are attempting to stop my right to express my views.

[GarfieldJL]

I've noticed that usually the most intolerant people were those that spout off about how tolerant they are and how everyone should be more tolerant.

[SilentScope001]

I've noticed that usually the most intolerant people were those that spout off about how tolerant they are and how everyone should be more tolerant.

 

Everyone is (at least partially) intolerant. The main goal is to supress that intolerance, and to actually become tolerant, all of us. Otherwise, this will turn into a hostile warzone, and not Kavar's Corner.

[Totenkopf]

I'm a member of several other forums where standards for sources exist (you can get banned for repeatedly posting without citing sources, etc). No one is asking the moderators to chase down every source. It doesn't take more than a few seconds to click on a link and recognize bias (if it is present). This is even easier if you set expectations ahead of time (you're less likely to have to chase something down if you can automatically see that it doesn't comply with the standards in the first place).

 

Perhaps, as you belong to forums where said standards exist, you can provide a view examples of which sources are specifically cited as conservative, liberal and "fair" in those forums. If the staff here can't be bothered, you could do the legwork and let them decide from there. It is interesting, however, that while you don't want "journalists" to do your thinking for you, you seem to have no problem with a "committee" deciding the nature of bias inherent in someone else's work. So, who screens the screeners?

[GarfieldJL]

Most of the media actually has a Left-Wing Bias, sources include a Study done by UCLA.

 

Then there is Benard Goldberg's books Bias and Arrogance.

[SilentScope001]

Wouldn't be fair to say that all meida is biased? They're all humans after all.

 

All we have to do is have said committe classify everything to "Far-Right", "Center-Right", "Center-Left", "Far Left". Even then, there's no point. They're still biased, either to the lefrt or to the right, so let just read the source on its merits, not on its political alignment. If you dislike its political alignment, you'll know it right after you read it and you'll dislike it immensely.

 

Telling people what sort of bias the media have would in fact be a political statement and be biased in and of itself, because one could say, "Oh, he's Center-Right" to give the source meaning and another could say, "Oh, he's Far-Right", to make the source wrong. It's better to let the readers of the source decide...and NOT some committee.

[GarfieldJL]

True, but if well over 80% of the Media is slanted to one side, then there is a problem.

 

 

CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, are all left wing.

 

Fox News would be considered right wing.

 

That means just over 80% of the national media outlets are slanted to one side.

 

Then we have the situations like Rather-Gate (also know as memogate).

[Allronix]

A federal judge judge has now upheld the constitutionality of an intensive three-week course in California government schools that requires children to choose a Muslim name, wear Islamic garb, memorize verses from the Koraan, pray to Allah, play “jihad games, and simulate worship activities related to the Five Pillars of Islam.”

 

Um...not quite.

 

http://www.snopes.com/religion/islam.htm

 

(Snopes is an urban legend de-bunking site. think Mythbusters for e-mail forwards)

 

The World Net Daily article quoted above was drawn from information provided by Assist Ministries in its January 9, 2002 article "Public Schools Embrace Islam." What World Net Daily refers to as "ASSIST News Service" is the public relations arm of Assist Ministries — despite the use of the term "news service," ANS should not be mistaken for one of the legitimate wire services, such as Associated Press or Reuters. The contents of its article should thus be taken with a large grain of salt.

 

Even so, there is something to what it said. Granted, that "something" is distorted and overstated, but the core element is present.

 

As part of their social studies curriculum, Grade 7 pupils throughout California do study ancient Muslim cultures and the impact of Islam on world history, but only as one of eleven units that comprise that year's social studies course, not as a special indoctrination into a particular religion as the ASN article presents it. The intent is to teach the position of this belief system in history, not the religion itself — the dividing line is not always clearly drawn, however, not even in the "standards" handed down by the State of California to its districts and individual schools. ("Standards" are education jargon for what the state insists be taught in a particular grade year in a particular area of study.)

 

According to California's Grade 7 social studies standard for this particular unit: "Students analyze the geographic, political, economic, religious, and social structures of the civilizations of Islam in the Middle Ages." In and of itself that would be fine, but the breakdown of how that goal is to be achieved opens the door to potential blurring. One item from the 6-point list on how that standard is to be reached is especially troubling: "Trace the origins of Islam and the life and teachings of Muhammad, including Islamic teachings on the connection with Judaism and Christianity."

[GarfieldJL]

You left out the part as to who they tapped to help come up with the curriculum among other things.

 

Also it'd be more believable if David P. Mikkelson didn't have an agenda of his own. Seriously, what I can find on him and it isn't much is that he is involved in promoting Atheism.

[mimartin]

Do you think this is because they have an unfair bias against christians or do you think it's because christians sometimes push the envelope too far in the interest of their agenda and the ACLU has to step in? It's one thing to say that the ACLU is going after christians and quite another to say that christian groups need a lot of supervision. Just interested on your take on this.

 

I hate to admit it, but some Christian groups need a lot of supervision. I don’t have a problem when the ACLU gets involved in case to defend the rights of anyone against a Christian group or any other type of group.

 

I have a problem when Christian groups try to implant their agenda on public school boards and other government agency. While I agree with a large part of their agenda, I believe it is important and should to be taught at home and church, but not in the class room. What if I’m Church of Christ, then why do I want a Baptist teaching my child? Although we are both Christian we have very different beliefs. What if my family is Jewish or Muslim, do I want a Baptist teaching them about creation? Even as a Baptist my views are very different from other Baptist haven been raised by a single mother and attending different churches on any given Sunday, so I wouldn’t want my child told this is the only way your faith must work. I would give them the same opportunity I was given to make up their own mind. The school is not the only place to raise our children, parents have the responsibly to help prepare their own children for life. Even if we didn’t have the separation of church and state, I believe religious teaching are best done in the home and at church and not in the class room or on the court house steps.

 

When does the ACLU go too far? I was thinking about a statue removed from the Texas State Capital grounds that was presented to the state at a movie premier back in 1956. It had been there without any problems or hurting anyone for almost 50 years. Then one day the ACLU said it had to go. The movie was “The Ten Commandments,” and the statue had the Ten Commandments on it. This really upset me as I’ve passed this statue every weekend UT plays home games for over 15 years. Every time I jogged I would run right by it, but never once did I read a word on it till it was set to be removed. It is one thing to remove offensive material, but destroying our history is not the answer. I can see both sides of this argument and my brain does say the ACLU was right in this case, my heart however does not agree.

 

So I’ll go with an example listed within this thread. Why would they not allow a group of young men whose law demands them to be trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean and reverent to have access to government facilities? Is it because they take an oath to “help people at all times”? We don’t want that in Washington. Maybe it’s the part about keeping themselves “physically strong, mentally awake and morally straight”? Can’t have them showing up the politicians in Washington by being skinny and awake (I want go anywhere near the morally straight one in a PG-13 Forum). Maybe the part about doing their duty to their country? No, then the ACLU are after the Boy Scouts for the word GOD in their oath and no other reason. This isn’t really a Christian thing since it says God and not Jesus, so this is an attack on Religion and not just Christianity. I guess I shouldn’t be allowed in my local court house since I said the pledge of allegiance when I was 13 years old or because I spent a dollar that had “in god we trust” written on it.

 

I was a Boy Scout and I never received any religious teachings from them outside of the scout’s oath. We had our meeting in a Church, but did not read the bible or listen religious lessons.

 

Name one person whose rights were violated by the Boy Scouts using a room on a military base? As for their having to believe in God to be a member, that rule was not strictly enforced when I was a member. I guess you also have to believe in god to be in the military because you have to also take a oath with gods name in it. I’m calling the ACLU to get the soldiers off our bases now.

 

 

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962) [/Quote]

 

So yes, I believe some Christian groups push the envelope too far, but then again sometimes so does the ACLU. Overall after really thinking about it this country does need an organizations like the ACLU, but we also need organizations like the Boy Scouts.

 

Thanks for the question. It really made me think about it. Now I want to know what the SS had engraved on their belt buckles. It is driving me crazy.

 

Had another thought about this:

 

It could be that the ACLU seems to go after Christian organization more than other organizations because there are more Christian organization out there that are pushing the envelope. The Christian organizations want to push the envelope in order to energize their members to get them out to vote for the Christian agenda. Nothing does that better than getting their story on Fox News and their fair and balanced reporting. So it may be unfair to blame this totally on ACLU.

[GarfieldJL]

Like wanting Homosexual Men being scout masters, sorry but someone would blow a gasket if we had a heterosexual man supervising a girl scouts troop, I think it's appropriate to not allow Homosexual men to supervise a boy scout troop.

[mimartin]

Like wanting Homosexual Men being scout masters, sorry but someone would blow a gasket if we had a heterosexual man supervising a girl scouts troop, I think it's appropriate to not allow Homosexual men to supervise a boy scout troop.

 

Forgive me if this is a stupid southern boy question, but who wants homosexual men to be scout master? I don’t think my post has anything to do with that and neither does the article Jae linked about the ACLU and the Boy Scouts. The article, as far as I could figure, was about the ACLU settling a suit that will no longer allow Boy Scouts to have the meetings on military bases except in public locations. It mentioned military personal being Scout Masters, but I didn’t read anything about their sexual orientation. If something I wrote gave you the impression I was promoting the sex or sexual orientation of a Scout Master then I must apologize for that was not my intention.