The ACLU - pros and cons

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Lotesse

Why are you so against the ACLU? And the maiden is Indian because the first people to live in California were the Native Americans. That's what she represents.

I don't mean to gang up on you, Lotesse. I know you're in the position of arguing with two to three people right now, without back-up, and that, occasionally, can be unfun. However, let me just ask that if the history of the Native American is reason enough for her to be on the seal, shouldn't the history of the California Missions be enough reason for the cross to be on the seal?

[Lotesse]

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

well, i say again, civil liberties i am totally for - luncay against.

why would the mohawks or the ..i don't know the ..er ... pittsburgh chiefs or whatever be a negative thing???

PC is insidious and can go too far - which for me is a real shame because i generally tend to side more with the principles of frredom, civil libertesm, libertarinaism and multicuturism etc - but PC is to me in its current form merely facsism.


..and stop jumping on me Rian !!! here there and everywhere esp since you missed the point of what i was saying .... both times

as i said above i mistakenly thought mid post this was specifically about christmas ..and to be fair it isn't just that particluar example is it - it's ACLU itself pros and cons?

best BB

Well, if you were a native american, would you appreciate being called a "Redskin?" That particular football team name really bugs me. That's like having a ballteam called the - oh, I don't know, say The Atlanta Niggers, or the Chicago Wops.

[Lotesse]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I don't mean to gang up on you, Lotesse. I know you're in the position of arguing with two to three people right now, without back-up, and that, occasionally, can be unfun. However, let me just ask that if the history of the Native American is reason enough for her to be on the seal, shouldn't the history of the California Missions be enough reason for the cross to be on the seal?

Absolutely NOT. The cross is a Christian SYMBOL, on a STATE SEAL. The Mission is there to acknowledge the role Missions had in settling the state, but does not condone or uphold Christianity like the symbol of its church does. If Jewish missionaries were the ones to have set up missions here, do you think it would be right to have the Star of David as part of the STATE SEAL? Or a little image showing what they had built, like a tiny synagoge-mission. That would be cool, because it would depict what they'd done, not espouse Judaism within the State seal. See what I mean?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Lotesse

Well, if you were a native american, would you appreciate being called a "Redskin?" That particular football team name really bugs me. That's like having a ballteam called the - oh, I don't know, say The Atlanta Niggers, or the Chicago Wops.

We should dress up one of our teams in red-coat attire and call them lobster backs . (Joking)

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

you know what Lief .. i had to read that again before i mistakenly for a second time took that the wrong way!

Well, as Mary Bennet said in "Pride and Prejudice," "It behooves us all to take very careful thought before pronouncing an adverse judgement on any of our fellow men."

[Butterbeer]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I don't mean to gang up on you, Lotesse. I know you're in the position of arguing with two to three people right now, without back-up, and that, occasionally, can be unfun. However, let me just ask that if the history of the Native American is reason enough for her to be on the seal, shouldn't the history of the California Missions be enough reason for the cross to be on the seal?

heh ..she has backup!

btw look at lotesse's opening post in this thread - i think lotsy is just defending the ACLU in general, not so much this christmas lunacy thing???

well ..yes i guess the 'redskins' is well dodgy - but these things can go too far - i HATE thought control - esp as i think the gaffer or BJ said before: when it is done on behalf of a minority that actually in general has no objection: ie muslims in ref to christians and non christians alike enjoying christmas - nor do we here in the uk have any problem with ede or ramadan or anything else

- although to be fair the welsh never used to open their pubs on sunday ... but that's another matter

[Lotesse]

You're right about that, BB, I AM definitely defending the ACLU in general. I am extremely grateful that such a Union exists in our fair country. The ACLU has done all KINDS of good for Americans, ALL KINDS!!!

And yes, every native american I know would love to eradicate calling ballteams after nicknames -perjorative or not- of their race. Redskins is pretty fricken' bad. It's basically the "N" word for native americans. So, good on the ACLU for helping to try & change that!!

[Butterbeer]

*BB off topic shock*

mmm.... nearing the 4,000 mark there lotesse!

and heh - haven't seen you in the lotr discussion project yet ... MUST be on topic there though!

and you lief!!

well, i better go read the rpg - and probably pm udu.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Lotesse

Absolutely NOT. The cross is a Christian SYMBOL, on a STATE SEAL. The Mission is there to acknowledge the role Missions had in settling the state, but does not condone or uphold Christianity like the symbol of its church does. If Jewish missionaries were the ones to have set up missions here, do you think it would be right to have the Star of David as part of the STATE SEAL? Or a little image showing what they had built, like a tiny synagoge-mission. That would be cool, because it would depict what they'd done, not espouse Judaism within the State seal. See what I mean?

If a particular religion has a huge impact upon the history or culture of a country or state, I do not have a problem with this being represented on the state seal. For example, I have no problem with Iraq calling itself, "The Islamic Republic of Iraq." Islam is central to their culture and history. It deserves recognition. I don't think that this is intolerant. I think that Islam is part of what defines the Iraqi people, and thus to try to extricate it from public places in Iraq, or to separate it entirely from the state, is to form a government that doesn't really represent its people.

Separation of Church & State is not completely possible. Many of people's fundamental values are based upon their religion, or lack of religion. These values influence voters who influence governments, and presto, religion is already entwined with politics. Neither should we want it to be completely possible to separate Church and State. Do we want a state without values? Many of people's values come from their different belief systems. Do we want a state without belief systems? A state without "self-evident" truths? There have to be values in a state, for the state to be worthwhile. Thus, religion by necessity must be connected to politics to some extent. I think it would be an abominable evil to completely separate Church and State, or rather, values and state. It amounts to the same thing.

I don't see a simple recognition of a religion's impact upon a society, such as a sign in the state seal, as a threat to a minority. Rather, it is simply an acknowledgement of a great historical and cultural influence.

This is my own view .

[Lotesse]

A. We do not live in Iraq; it is not our country. If you feel Iraq has such wonderful ideas about combining religion with government, then do you feel you might be more comfortable living iunder such a government? I certainly would NOT.

B. Separation of Church and State IS ABSOLUTELY POSSIBLE, and gets better and better as time goes by, especially thanks to efforts by such groups as the ACLU.

c. KEEP RELIGION OUT OF THE FREAKIN' GOVERNMENT!!! Religion has absolutely NO place in the Federal or State government.

D. How the HELL did we get so off topic?

E. I don't want to talk about this anymore.

[HOBBIT]

Jews don't have missionaries :P Jews don't actively convert like christians do.
--------------

Not really sure where you are going with that last post Lief, are you saying that you want more religion in our government?

Specifically Christian, endorsing christmas, then when we have Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, Atheists, Agnostics, etc ?????

Or you just don't want remains of religion in government - which shouldn't be there - to be removed?

[Lotesse]

I know that! I was just trying to find a hypothetically comparative analogy to make; it was the IDEA I was trying to get across.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by HOBBIT

Not really sure where you are going with that last post Lief

I don't know what the correct balance between church and state is. My main point was that since complete separation of church and state is neither possible nor desireable, we need a balance, and rather than fighting every battle to remove church from state (For example, trashing every US law that has been influenced by the Ten Commandments), we should choose to fight those battles which are worthwhile to fight.

Removal of a simple acknowledgement of a religion's impact upon a state's history and present-day culture, such as that mark on the seal, seems to fall into the category of battles not worth fighting (to me).

I know, Lotesse, I just flat-out disagree with you on these points. Oh well . What else is new? At least we agree on the point about the specific example of Christmas.



So how off-topic are we? We're sort of following an example of one of the ACLU's actions down to its roots, to see whether it was good or bad. That definitely can lead to falling off the precipice of on-topic . Are we already off it?

[brownjenkins]

i think the problem is that many here are confusing issues that are brought up and challenged with issues that are actually made into law

the ACLU is an organization that allows citizens to challenge issues that concern civil liberties... issues they could probably not bring up themselves... we live in a country where, thankfully, all these questions can be put on the table

some are valid issues and are put into law... some are not... in fact, i'd guess that many more of these cases fail then actually make it into law

are the ACLU detractors proposing that we outlaw the ability to ask these questions?

[Lief Erikson]

I am very glad the ACLU is allowed to do what it does. That doesn't mean I approve of what it does though, much of the time (though there have been some cases where they do very good things). RÃ*an made the thread about what we like and/or don't like about the ACLU, not about whether or not the ACLU should be legal.

[Rían]

I think we should be able to "ask these questions" - but I think the ACLU should evaluate the cases they take on more carefully, and ask the questions officially and legally only AFTER a lot more thought than they seem to currently be doing. Just the mere action of a powerful entity like the ACLU bringing a lawsuit against someone is sometimes enough to crush them - it's NOT a mere "asking a question". It sometimes destroys people - like how a little mom-and-pop restaurant can be shut down by someone in a wheelchair who doesn't like that there isn't good wheelchair access (and my son is in a wheelchair - I'm not saying this as someone who is not in that community). I think the ACLU has gone the way of the unions - a great idea to start, with good motives, but now in general, both are bullies whose morality has been twisted by power, IMO.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I think the ACLU has gone the way of the unions - a great idea to start, with good motives, but now in general, both are bullies whose morality has been twisted by power, IMO.

the same can be said for much of the US goverment, and certainly the major political parties, even the catholic church in many cases... but the best course of action is to take them on issue by issue, as opposed to the entire concept... or, even better, try to bring about change from within... this means not just constantly pointing out negatives, but strongly recognizing and encouraging the positives as well

[BeardofPants]

I work for a union, and I don't think we're bullies. In fact, union workers, are only there to coordinate the members ('organising' model as opposed to 'servicing' model), and it is the actual members, the workers, on the worksites, who organise pay and work conditions on the ground. We're only there to support them. No bullying from us. ::shrug::

[Rían]

I said "in general". At least here in the US, there are some very questionable actions by unions, to say the least. We had a grocery workers' strike here a few years back, and my mom's friend, who was a replacement cashier, had her tires slashed. They were striking for better wages and benefits, when they already were making more than the teachers at my kid's private school. I think the turning point was when the store was finally allowed to advertise the wages for the workers, and people saw how much they already made.

And there are many instances of unions like the teachers' unions supporting very liberal causes with a lot of money, and it's not easy for those that don't want their money to go to support those causes, because they have ethical issues with them, to opt out.

I think it was a good idea, and many are still good, but I think they've let power go to their heads, esp. groups like the Teamster's Union. Hopefully your unions are better - I'm just speaking of unions that I'm familiar with, the ones in the US.

[Lotesse]

If there are very questionable actions by the unions, rest assured that there are equally or even MANY, many MORE very questionable practices and actions by the big corporations and by the Federal government. It is to protect the working person's/citizen's rights that unions exist, the unions fight for the rights of us all. Without the protection & help of organised unions, it would be us against the big, enormously powerful Them - and of course, They would always prevail. SO, I am VERY grateful for ALL the unions.

Here is a non-biased assessment of what Labor Unions do, for those who would appreciate a definition here...

http://slac.rso.wisc.edu/what_do_they_do.html

http://www.bized.ac.uk/compfact/tuc/tuc16.htm

And here's a link to the ACLU website, which has their mission statement & everything...

http://www.aclu.com/about/index.html

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Lotesse

If there are very questionable actions by the unions, rest assured that there are equally or even MANY, many MORE very questionable practices and actions by the big corporations and by the Federal government.

good point Altho I might disagree about who has MORE wrong actions, certainly the big corps and the gov't have wrong actions, too.

It is to protect the working person's/citizen's rights that unions exist, ...

I believe that was the original purpose, but it's been somewhat (altho not totally) corrupted.

Here is a non-biased assessment of what Labor Unions do, for those who would appreciate a definition here... ...

Is anyone non-biased? Sadly, I don't think so. But I'll check out the link