The ACLU - pros and cons

[Lotesse]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

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

Every single human organised endeavor, from each and EVERY Church organisation, charity organisation, state or federal government branch, corporation, school board, police force, army, navy, PTA, the list is infinite - has SOME corruption. Either a little, or a lot, or somewhere in between, everything that has human beings involved, is corrupted. Does this make all htese organisations null & void, or bad, or useless, or counter-productive, or otherwisw unpleasant to the point of wanting to eradicate them entirely? I say no.

[Rían]

No, it doesn't, but people need to speak out against the wrongs that they see, including those in the ACLU, so hopefully they will get fixed. I don't want the ACLU eradicated entirely; but I DO think it's taken a wrong turn and I hope the publicity it's getting on some of these cases will make them reconsider.

[Lotesse]

The whole POINT of the ACLU is to speak up on OUR behalf, when one or a group of us citizens goes to this union and asks for them to intervene on our behalf to instigate change & protect our civil rights. (And this is hypothetically, and not mean, so don't get offended please, but - )If you think its so bad, then why not form your OWN union, to instigate change based upon what YOU think should be protected according to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights? Hypothetically, of course.

[Rían]

If I think it's bad, I'll exercise my right of free speech and say so I don't have time to make my own union. But talking about things is powerful and good, IMO.

The point of the ACLU may be as you say; but MY point is that I think they have strayed quite a bit from THEIR point and I'd like to make others aware of that, and discuss it, and learn more myself.

[Lotesse]

The American system of government is founded on two counterbalancing principles: that the majority of the people governs, through democratically elected representatives; and that the power even of a democratic majority must be limited, to ensure individual rights.

Majority power is limited by the Constitution's Bill of Rights, which consists of the original ten amendments ratified in 1791, plus the three post-Civil War amendments (the 13th, 14th and 15th) and the 19th Amendment (women's suffrage), adopted in 1920.


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

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

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

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

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

We work also to extend rights to segments of our population that have traditionally been denied their rights, including Native Americans and other people of color; lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transgendered people; women; mental-health patients; prisoners; people with disabilities; and the poor.

If the rights of society's most vulnerable members are denied, everybody's rights are imperiled.

The ACLU was founded by Roger Baldwin, Crystal Eastman, Albert DeSilver and others in 1920. We are nonprofit and nonpartisan and have grown from a roomful of civil liberties activists to an organization of more than 400,000 members and supporters. We handle nearly 6,000 court cases annually from our offices in almost every state.

The ACLU has maintained the position that civil liberties must be respected, even in times of national emergency. The ACLU is supported by annual dues and contributions from its members, plus grants from private foundations and individuals. We do not receive any government funding.

[The Gaffer]

Is the ACLU a trade union? I thought it was a non-profit pressure group which had nothing to do with unions like the Teamsters.

On the issue of trade unions, I posted this in the Canadian elections thread a while back:

On the unions, they exist to promote the rights of all workers. If you work, you have already benefitted from unions whether you are a member of one or not. Here in the UK we can thank unions for stuff like having a fixed working week, getting sick pay, paid holidays, equal pay for women, severance pay, not getting fired for no reason, not getting killed or maimed by our unsafe working environment etc etc etc.

Generally speaking, corporations and businesses have consistently opposed all of these benefits, claiming that they will harm jobs.

In what other ways has the ACLU overstepped its remit?

[Lief Erikson]

Lotesse, I think RÃ*an would agree with you and me that they have a very fine mission statement. It looks like the ACLU was founded with noble intentions, and I expect that just about everyone working there still has noble intentions. The trouble is that good intentions and a good mission statement are not enough to keep people from harming our society where they intend to help.

Sometimes people that do wrong have a good mission statement, and are claiming to do what's right. For example, there have been cases where well-intentioned people have sought to build houses for the poor, but then the poor cannot afford to maintain the houses they've built for them. Also, sometimes, to build those houses, the closely packed slums are bulldozed, so people are left without homes for the sake of a few with better homes. So the good intentions and good mission statement can turn out bad results.

My point is just that good intentions and a good mission statement do not prove anything. Actions speak louder than words. So the merits and faults in the actions must be examined, rather than the merits and faults in the words. The words you presented have a lot of merit .

[Hasty Ent]

I've been following this thread with great interest. I've been a "card-carrying member" of the ACLU for nearly 20 years. *eyes potential McCarthys in the audience with concern*

From what I understand (and it's certainly possible I've misinterpreted things), the ACLU does NOT hold a position in favor of the prohibition of private holiday displays, only those that are erected and placed on public or government property. As far as I know, they have not sought injuctions against any privately run commercial enterprises using religious terminology in their advertising or marketing campaigns, nor against individuals erecting religious displays on private property.

here's a bit on the ACLU and religion from Wikipedia (bolding mine) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACLU#Notable_Cases

After the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack, the Rev. Jerry Falwell remarked that the ACLU, by trying to "secularize America," had provoked the wrath of God, and therefore caused those terrorist attacks. (Falwell later apologized for the remark.) Other critics of the ACLU do not make such strong accusations, but claim that the organization pushes the concept of separation of church and state beyond its original meaning. The ACLU and Jerry Falwell sometimes find themselves on the same side. Notably, the ACLU filed an amicus brief supporting a suit by Falwell against the state of Virginia. The suit, which was successful, overturned the Virginia constitution's ban on the incorporation of Churches. In addition, the ACLU has defended the rights of a Christian church to run anti-Santa ads on Boston subways, the rights to religious expression by jurors, and the rights of Christian students to distribute religious literature in school.

Many minority religious groups like Jehovah's Witnesses and Muslims have at times been defended by the ACLU and are ardent supporters of it. In the Mormon community, the ACLU is viewed positively by some, who cite Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe, a case litigated by the ACLU on behalf of a Mormon student concerning school prayer. However, a good number of Mormons, including some local leaders, are strongly against the activities of the ACLU.

Jehovah's Witnesses were involved in twenty-three Supreme Court rulings between 1938 and 1946 over religious objections to serving in the armed forces and over saluting the flag and reciting the pledge of allegiance, over local and state ordinances prohibiting the Witnesses from publishing critcisms of the Roman Catholic church, as well as over government reluctance to prosecute anti-Witness vigilantes; the ACLU was directly involved in these cases; the ACLU's involvement with Jehovah's Witnesses continues, and they joined the Witnesses in a 2002 case over doorbell-ringing.

It has long been my understanding that the ACLU's position reflects Thomas Jefferson's as shown in his letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802 (bolding mine) http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.

The point that is argued (and I don't see any agreement ever being reached here) is "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" and what exactly that entails. I feel that any religious display in a municipal, state or federal property constitutes establishment of religion. :shrug:

[Lotesse]

YAY!! Finally someone pro-ACLU steps up. And that's exactly it, if they're trying to keep Christian religiosity out of government, out of government property, then that is a very necessary and good thing. What Hasty Ent says here:

(quote, Hasty Ent) "From what I understand (and it's certainly possible I've misinterpreted things), the ACLU has NOT prohibited private holiday displays, only those that are erected and placed on public or government property. As far as I know, they have not sought injuctions against any privately run commercial enterprises using religious terminology in their advertising or marketing campaigns, nor against individuals erecting religious displays on private property. "

[Spock]

Booooooooo!

[Lotesse]

Whatever.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lotesse

YAY!! Finally someone pro-ACLU steps up.

finally?!?

good quote hasty

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Lotesse, I think RÃ*an would agree with you and me that they have a very fine mission statement. It looks like the ACLU was founded with noble intentions, and I expect that just about everyone working there still has noble intentions. The trouble is that good intentions and a good mission statement are not enough to keep people from harming our society where they intend to help.

Sometimes people that do wrong have a good mission statement, and are claiming to do what's right. For example, there have been cases where well-intentioned people have sought to build houses for the poor, but then the poor cannot afford to maintain the houses they've built for them. Also, sometimes, to build those houses, the closely packed slums are bulldozed, so people are left without homes for the sake of a few with better homes. So the good intentions and good mission statement can turn out bad results.

My point is just that good intentions and a good mission statement do not prove anything. Actions speak louder than words. So the merits and faults in the actions must be examined, rather than the merits and faults in the words. The words you presented have a lot of merit .

Exactly.

Originally Posted by HastyEnt

I feel that any religious display in a municipal, state or federal property constitutes establishment of religion. :shrug:

I don't. *shrug back * I feel that the government is by the PEOPLE, for the PEOPLE, and if a manger scene reflects the wishes of the community at large, that that community should be free to erect it on public property, if they aren't stopping other displays. That does NOT establish religion, IMHO - it is a reflection of the people in that community and what is important to them. Jefferson is ONE person in our wonderful United States, and he is NOT God, and his opinion on the "wall" and how it is played out is just that - an opinion, and subject to approval or disapproval like other people's opinions. I'm not aware of Jefferson disapproving of all the many references to God in the government - do you know of any? Such as chaplains, prayer in the government branches, references to God in the Constitution, etc. etc. etc. I think (and so do many others) that the whole "wall" thing has gone to a place that Jefferson NEVER intended it to go. How is it making a law establishing a religion for a community to put up a manger scene? To me, closing down manger scenes on public property goes AGAINST what Jefferson said - it's "prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

[HOBBIT]

Rian, that is exactly how slavery was defended you know.

[Rían]

elaboration, please

[HOBBIT]

populism - basically what you described in your post.

[Rían]

thinking murder is wrong is a popular opinion too, isn't it?

Sorry, no go.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I don't. *shrug back * I feel that the government is by the PEOPLE, for the PEOPLE, and if a manger scene reflects the wishes of the community at large, that that community should be free to erect it on public property, if they aren't stopping other displays.

a christian church in the center of town can put a manger scene on their front yard... is that not good enough?

and why should public money be spent on decorating anyway?

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I don't. *shrug back * I feel that the government is by the PEOPLE, for the PEOPLE, and if a manger scene reflects the wishes of the community at large, that that community should be free to erect it on public property

Define the "community at large". And are you saying the rights of the "community at large" should supercede all those of the individual? Sounds fairly communist.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

a christian church in the center of town can put a manger scene on their front yard... is that not good enough?

and why should public money be spent on decorating anyway?

Because celebration and decorating are a part of life, IMHO. If enough people disagree in a community, I suppose they could vote it down. Why make parks? Why plant flowers? Why put up flags on July 4th? What about offending those people who don't like our government? Should we not celebrate July 4th and not put up flags on public property because we might possibly offend someone who wants to change our government?

Originally Posted by IRex

Define the "community at large". And are you saying the rights of the "community at large" should supercede all those of the individual? Sounds fairly communist.

No, I'm saying that the minority, as well as the majority, can bully and tyranize. Being a minority doesn't automatically mean your actions are not those of a bully and a tyrant. I'm saying that I think the community's actions should reflect the community's wishes, in general, as long as they don't go against the rights that we have in our country (for example, if the community thinks Joe Blow is obnoxious and wants to kill him, then the government would have to say they refuse to do this.)

I think things have gone from the minority being protected from wrong actions of the majoritiy, to the minority taking wrongful advantage of the good will and tolerance of the majority. I mean, if an atheist is truly, truly traumatized by the display of a manger scene on public property, then I seriously think they need counseling. What, aren't they aware that Christmas is celebrated by over 90% of the people in this country? The government is BY the people, FOR the people. If 90% of the people think a manger scene is appropriate on public property, then put one up! And if 2% want a Hannukah display, then put one up, too. And if 1% want a Kwanzaa display, then put one up, too. But if 1% don't think ANY display should be up, then I don't think they should be able to trample on the other people's wishes, since it is NOT against any law or right. I think those people are selfish bullies, in general; hiding behind the good will of the vast majority of Americans and taking advantage of their tolerance. Why should one selfish, grumpy person cancel a whole party for everyone else? Ask for a display that YOU like to be put up along with the others, or have the good grace and tolerance to let other people enjoy theirs and be quiet.

And I"m not aware of a "right" to not have to look at decorations that your community puts up, so I don't see how my suggestion destroys an individual's "right". I'd tell those people - go get a real life. Go spend your time campaigning for people that are REALLY hurting. Having to look at a Christmas decoration in a country where over 90% of the people celebrate Christmas is NOT a real hurt, and it's NOT an establishment of religion. It IS, however, prohibiting the free exercise thereof, IMO.