The ACLU - pros and cons

[GreyMouser]

Those crazy Christian-haters at the ACLU are at it again

ACLU backs student's singing of Christian song
The American Civil Liberties Union filed a legal brief today supporting a Frenchtown elementary school student’s right to express her religion by singing a pop Christian song at a school talent show.

Maryann and Robert Turton sued the district last year after the school struck the act from its performance list. School officials said the Turtons’ daughter, Olivia, then in second grade, could not sing the song “Awesome God� at the evening talent show because it was too religious for a school setting.

After the suit was filed in federal court in Trenton, the ACLU asked to intervene in the case.

School officials banned Olivia from singing the song, arguing its content was unsuitable for the school-run talent show held on a Friday night in May 2005. Concerned about crossing the line separating church from state, they said the performance might lead the audience to believe the school endorsed Olivia’s religion.

Olivia did perform, but sang a song from “Annie� along with a group of friends.

A hearing in the case has been tentatively set for July 3 before U.S. District Judge Stanley Chesler.
..........

The ACLU argued in its motion filed today that no reasonable person could conclude the school endorsed religion simply by allowing Olivia to sing her song.

http://www.nj.com/newslogs/starledger

[Insidious Rex]

However will the ACLU bashers explain this one?

Ive also heard that there was some talk about them representing Fred Phelps in their upcoming law suit for protesting at funerals. But I think Phelps sees them as gay loving godless communists worthy of death ironically...

[Rían]

It's very clever strategy on their part [/semi-sarcastic]

I think an examination of all of their cases related to Christianity would show what bias they have as a whole.

[Butterbeer]

Bring back Christmas say i!!!

goddamn right wing fascist lets burn christmas killjoy anti freedom klan style repressive gits!!

whats wrong with santa and the some carol singin huh?

huh?

and mince pies?

and goodwill and freedom?

[HOBBIT]

honestly Rian, don't be ridiculous. It is pretty safe to say that a good portion of the members of the ACLU are Christian - probably a vast majority of them. Unless you think there is some Jewish conspiracy going on there or that the Christian members aren't true Christians :P

There is certainly no agenda against Christianity or Christmas.

They believe in and support all civil rights for everyone all the time. When your civil rights have been violated, they will support you. I'm proud to be a member since January

[Butterbeer]

er?

i'm all for civil rights and their (generally) proactive advocacy

but how does banning christmas in any shape or form uphoild freedom and cival rights because some others (allegdy MIGHT ) may find it offensive?

logically that argument leads to banning everything period.

I say stand up and fight for freedom - not curtail it with good intentions.

I know sod all about the aclu so have no beef one way or t'other

but .. banning christmas? (effectively mark you, idealogically and against the spirit of freedom to a) worship, b) be, c) exist, d) have social, historical , familial or even just everyday mulit-denonominational AND poltically EXCLUSIVE shared experiences of Christmas expereinces suchas trees or lights or goodwill or common shared holidays etc ...

that is just sheer folly!

and IF the ACLU do DO a good job- then they should ditch such repressive fascist de-humaninising hatred-mongering stuff as attempting to decree dictatorially WHAT and HOW everyday honest people can do and can't at a time of a public holiday (whether religious or not)



Hobbit:

as i say i know **** all about the ACLU: but IF they are any good ... then from within, advise them to ensure they meet their remit and core beleifs - not turn into the mirror of themsleves!

best, BB


i.e: good intentions are not enough. A man or an organisation is defined ultimately on what it does and what battles it chooses to define itself by.

attempting to defend freedom as a concept and a reality BY curtailing it with the same breath is ludricous!

seems to me the ACLU needs to have a good long hard look at itself, otherwise it's the the dog being wagged by it's tail by its' detractors

seems like someone is doing a number on them- and they are running straight in there.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

However will the ACLU bashers explain this one?

Ive also heard that there was some talk about them representing Fred Phelps in their upcoming law suit for protesting at funerals. But I think Phelps sees them as gay loving godless communists worthy of death ironically...

Fred Phelps? Isn't he the "God hates fags" preacher?

[HOBBIT]

they do meet their core beliefs.

The ACLU has never tried to "ban" Christmas and never will. PERIOD. As I have stated before - a majority of its members are Christian - it would make no sense. The Executive Director of the ACLU is a devout Christian.

[GreyMouser]

Originally Posted by HOBBIT

they do meet their core beliefs.

The ACLU has never tried to "ban" Christmas and never will. PERIOD. As I have stated before - a majority of its members are Christian - it would make no sense. The Executive Director of the ACLU is a devout Christian.

C'mon Hobbit, don't try and use facts to confuse the issue.

It's like the old Lenny Bruce routine:

"So, you were going 29 in a 30MPH zone.

Yes officer, I was obeying the law.

No, you were only skirting the law to try and mislead us."

A very clever strategy

[GreyMouser]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Fred Phelps? Isn't he the "God hates fags" preacher?

Yep- a person that probably 99.9% of the members of ACLU despise.

But it doesn't matter- they believe in freedom, even for people they hate.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Hmm. I've never thought too highly of the ACLU, and this has not helped them.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Hobbit

The ACLU has never tried to "ban" Christmas and never will.

Well, of course they can't "ban Christmas"! Don't be silly. I can observe Christmas in my MIND, fer cryin' out loud!

(who used that phrase, anyway? --> "ban Christmas")

What they DO often try to ban is public expressions of Christmas type things, if they are at ALL related to public property, even if the public wants them there.

Originally Posted by GreyM

But it doesn't matter- they believe in freedom, even for people they hate.

They believe in their own particular version of what freedom is.

[Butterbeer]

what's next?

ban pork???

- cus it's the only thing Muslims and jews can agree on???

any bleeper wanna bleep with me bacon butty had better watch out!

[HOBBIT]

Plenty of people have been using the term "Ban Christmas." Specifically in this topic, Butterbeer used that langauge with absolutely no knowledge of the ACLU several posts up.

" remove Christmas from the public square" was the language used in the first post in this topic. Replace remove with ban. same difference Rian. The ACLU does not want to remove or ban Christmas from the public square at all. don't be ridiculous.

They believe in their own particular version of what freedom is.

Only ACLU members believe in the Bill of Rights? What a shame.

Is the ACLU against civil liberties for all then Rian? :P Are they a communist group as accused by McCarthy?

[inked]

A.C.L.U. May Block Criticism by Its Board
by Jay on 05-24-06 @ 9:05 am Filed under ACLU, 1st Amendment, News
This is the kind of hypocrisy that Conservatives and most reasonable liberals can agree that the ACLU needs to some house cleaning on. Via NY Times….

The American Civil Liberties Union is weighing new standards that would discourage its board members from publicly criticizing the organization’s policies and internal administration.

“Where an individual director disagrees with a board position on matters of civil liberties policy, the director should refrain from publicly highlighting the fact of such disagreement,� the committee that compiled the standards wrote in its proposals.

“Directors should remember that there is always a material prospect that public airing of the disagreement will affect the A.C.L.U. adversely in terms of public support and fund-raising,� the proposals state.

Given the organization’s longtime commitment to defending free speech, some former board members were shocked by the proposals.

I would take a guess that there is some reason that those that are shocked are “former� board members for a reason. How many times have we heard the ACLU ask the government for transparency? Most people that believe in true free speech and the right to dissent expect the ACLU to hold itself to the same ideological standards that it asks of others.

Nat Hentoff, a writer and former A.C.L.U. board member, was incredulous. “You sure that didn’t come out of Dick Cheney’s office?� he asked.

“For the national board to consider promulgating a gag order on its members — I can’t think of anything more contrary to the reason the A.C.L.U. exists,� Mr. Hentoff added.

The proposals say that “a director may publicly disagree with an A.C.L.U. policy position, but may not criticize the A.C.L.U. board or staff.� But Wendy Kaminer, a board member and a public critic of some decisions made by the organization’s leadership, said that was a distinction without a difference.

“If you disagree with a policy position,� she said, “you are implicitly criticizing the judgment of whoever adopted the position, board or staff.�

Anthony D. Romero, the A.C.L.U.’s executive director, said that he had not yet read the proposals and that it would be premature to discuss them before the board reviews them at its June meeting.

Mr. Romero said it was not unusual for the A.C.L.U. to grapple with conflicting issues involving civil liberties. “Take hate speech,� he said. “While believing in free speech, we do not believe in or condone speech that attacks minorities.�

However, they have no problem if the hate speech is toward American military members at their funerals. It is hypocritical stances like this that brings about such infighting from the pure ideologues to free speech, and those that have their own agenda of only defending speech that they agree with. It sounds a lot like damage control to me, and while I think most conflicts within any organization should be given every effort to be resolved internally, to create a policy that essentially puts a gag order on any dissent within only casts more doubt that the ACLU stands by the principles in which it preaches. The “do as we say, not as we do� attitude would keep many of the ACLU’s members and the general public unaware of important issues in which they I would argue they have a right to know. When the light has been shined on the hypocritical stances within the ACLU, many members may not want the money they have been donating to support projects in which may be in conflict with their own ideological stances. I thought the ACLU supported watchdogs and whistle blowers. Obviously that philosphy only applies to leaking classified national security information, and not their own organization.

Many ACLU supporters are seeing through the hypocrisy.

But some former board members and A.C.L.U. supporters said the proposals were an effort to stifle dissent.

“It sets up a framework for punitive action,� said Muriel Morisey, a law professor at Temple University who served on the board for four years until 2004.

Susan Herman, a Brooklyn Law School professor who serves on the board, said board members and others were jumping to conclusions.

“No one is arguing that board members have no right to disagree or express their own point of view,� Ms. Herman said. “Many of us simply think that in exercising that right, board members should also consider their fiduciary duty to the A.C.L.U. and its process ideals.�

When the committee was formed last year, its mission was to set standards on when board members could be suspended or ousted.

The board had just rejected a proposal to remove Ms. Kaminer and Michael Meyers, another board member, because the two had publicly criticized Mr. Romero and the board for decisions that they contended violated A.C.L.U. principles and policies, including signing a grant agreement requiring the group to check its employees against government terrorist watch lists — a position it later reversed — and the use of sophisticated data-mining techniques to recruit members.

Mr. Meyers lost his bid for re-election to the board last year, but Ms. Kaminer has continued to speak out. Last month, she was quoted in The New York Sun as criticizing the group’s endorsement of legislation to regulate advertising done by counseling centers run by anti-abortion groups. The bill would prohibit such centers from running advertisements suggesting that they provide abortion services when they actually try to persuade women to continue their pregnancies.

Ms. Kaminer and another board member, John C. Brittain, charged that the proposal threatened free speech. “I find it quite appalling that the A.C.L.U. is actively supporting this,� Ms. Kaminer told The Sun.

There is much more internal fighting going on you can read about. Hopefully the ACLU can work this out in a way that upholds their professed principles that they demand from so many others. I’ve said before that if the ACLU can make some reforms that they have the potential to be an organization that is good for the country. Holding themselves to their own standards would be a great start.

Captain’s Quarters is on the same wavelength.

Even if no action is taken, the new instructions make a statement about the organization. The ACLU says by its consideration of this proposal that it cannot withstand dissent, an odd position for an organization that based its existence to protect dissent elsewhere. They seem to say that some dissent is tolerable and others are not, and that the highest authorities hold the privilege of deciding which is which. It’s interesting and terribly convenient that they would only apply that philosophy to themselves.

Bryan Preston:

If the ACLU were as transparent as it demands of everyone else, we could know with certainty whether CAIR funding is having an undue influence on the organization. Though the ACLU’s recent actions make such an investigation more of a confirmation than anything else.

Heh, maybe the ACLU can sue itself.

+++++++++++++++++++++

This is from the New York Times so IT MUST BE TRUE, right .

[Butterbeer]

Freedom and free speech is freedom and free sepeech.

Even hate speech.

easy.

You do not have to be for it or like it, but that is the premise of upholding freedoms: the freedom to think and speak and write - w h a t e v e r

if the ACLU start banning and gagging their own staff - imposing effective gagging orders in an attempt to cut unwanted b#views or debate - what the hell platform do they stand on?

What are they for?

My question though is this - NOT are they in theory a good thing, but are there groups and powers out there to discredit them?

it appears tio have all the hallmarks of a concerted media campaign .

Sadly, they seem to need little external help though.

But then .. i am only gettin spoon fed the looney left anti-freedom stuff ... *shrugs*

[GreyMouser]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Hmm. I've never thought too highly of the ACLU, and this has not helped them.

Because they support free speech for "not-nice" people?

Yeah, they lost a third of their membership when they upheld the right of neo-Nazis to march in a heavily-Jewish district of Skokie. Upholding the rights of anti-gay homophobes like Phelps -is it permissible to use that term for someone who runs the "Godhatesfags" website, or is that being intolerant?- will probably cost them more support, which mostly comes from liberals (with a few rightie libertarians).

[GreyMouser]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Well, of course they can't "ban Christmas"! Don't be silly. I can observe Christmas in my MIND, fer cryin' out loud!

(who used that phrase, anyway? --> "ban Christmas")

What they DO often try to ban is public expressions of Christmas type things, if they are at ALL related to public property, even if the public wants them there.

They believe in their own particular version of what freedom is.

They believe that the government should not support or privilege one religion above others. They believe that public money or property should not be used to promote any religion over others.

Do you believe that a Jew who thinks that it is blasphemy to assert that a mere human is equal to the Lord God should be forced to pay taxes to propagate a doctrine that attacks the very heart of their faith?

[Gwaimir Windgem]

My taxes go to support a heck of a lot I don't believe in, but nobody minds.

[Butterbeer]

I agree Gwai - the old tax thing is a pointless argument, and neither here nor there ...

Hobbit ... the "ban" christmas stuff is partly me mucking about of course! ...but partly the effective logic were this argument to runs it's ultimate course .... which is ban everything because something will offend someone somewhere sometime ... thus we end up with no freedom to do anything...

There are plenty of serious things for the ACLU to be doing in this world god knows - other than going out of their way to put people off free speech and freedom to cultural icons, traditions, etc and put them off the honourable defence of civil liberties by doing this looney tunes stuff !!

Maybe they (the ACLU) are being targeted (it seems that way to me).. but then if so, they need to be savvy back, and the old ban BB's glass of sherry and mince pies, ban BB's christmas dinner "because why should the Government be endorsing the cult of Santa Claus and his reindeer inducing Rudolphinism and it's semi-religious children's belief patterns therein bordering on religion " .... ??? isn't going to help anyone anywhere is it?

Best, BB