What is Digg?135 Comments
- dshPls, on 10/12/2007, -7/+59Like when a Christian wanted to protest against gays, and the ACLU fought for him to do such a thing:
http://www.laaclu.org/News/2006/Crayton_102706.htm - zdislaw, on 10/12/2007, -3/+43Here are some examples of the ACLU defending religious freedoms.
http://aclu.org/religion/discrim/27661prs20061206.html
"The American Civil Liberties Union of Texas and the American Center for Law and Justice today filed a joint friend-of-the-court brief in support of Pastor Rick Barr and Philemon Homes, Inc. urging the state supreme court to reverse a lower court decision upholding an ordinance that forbids correctional or rehabilitation facilities within 1,000 feet of a church."
http://aclu.org/religion/discrim/26970prs20060929.html
"The American Civil Liberties Union today filed a lawsuit to protect the right of veterans and their families to choose religious symbols to engrave on headstones in federal cemeteries."
http://aclu.org/religion/discrim/26470prs20060809.html
The American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California today sued the city of Garden Grove for using an unconstitutional city code to prevent local Buddhists from expanding their congregation.
http://aclu.org/religion/gen/26361prs20060802.html
"The American Civil Liberties Union today urged a key Senate panel to reject a bill whose sponsors say it will enhance freedom of religion, but will actually have the opposite effect. S. 3696, the "Public Expression of Religion Act of 2005" (PERA), would bar the recovery of attorneys' fees to those who win lawsuits asserting their fundamental constitutional and civil rights in cases brought under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment."
If what you're actually referring to is their continued fight to stop the Government from sponsoring a particular religion, or squashing the rights of any, then you've hit right on the head the reason I continue to support the ACLU. - ihaveplans, on 10/12/2007, -13/+52Bush administration officials believe that they have no critics. Who are we to interfere with such a meticulously constructed fantasy land?
- lnf69, on 10/12/2007, -9/+43Do you have some examples of this?
Or is it just that ACLU is dedicated to keeping the separation of church and state, therefore not allowing Cristian fundamentalists from forcing their religious beliefs on everyone else in the USA? - lnf69, on 10/12/2007, -5/+29@foxhaze
I'm NOT satisfied:
Again, please show us a post that explains how the ACLU "prevents" anyone, right or left from expressing themselves.
The link that dshpls shows, is in fact proof of the opposite! The ACLU protecting the rights of a "devout Christian". That's pretty much to the right of the spectrum, no? - lnf69, on 10/12/2007, -5/+25@dshpls
Thanks. That's an even better response then anyone could have expected. - lnf69, on 10/12/2007, -4/+21@troika
What does that have to do with the price of apples in Denmark? Nothing.
What does the sexual tastes of one lawyer of the ACLU have to do with the great value of the ACLU in American society? Again, nothing.
If all large organizations are discredited because one member allegedly breaks the law, then we would have no reputable organizations anywhere. Stupid counter-point. - lnf69, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18Finally, what I was expecting.
All those are proof of the opposite:
The ACLU protecting OUR RIGHT NOT TO BE CHRISTIAN.
LOL, I know that would come up.
Please try to see the difference of protecting rights and imposing religious beliefs.
The ACLU is very adamant about enforcing the separation of church and state, but fundamentalist Christians, Jews, Muslims and any other FUNDAMENTALIST religion, are very much dedicated to FORCING their beliefs on everyone else.
The ACLU will always protect your right to CHOOSE WHATEVER RELIGION YOU WANT, but they will always fight against anyone trying to force their religion on others. - hipnerd, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15@troika: The reason that other Republicans paid such a heavy political price for Mark Foley's sins is because the leadership of the House was aware of Foley's pedophilic impulses, but chose to ignore them rather than risk losing a major fund-raiser and jeopardizing their slim majority in the Senate. They put their partisan politics above the safety of the children in the Congressional page program. If you can show the same was true of the leadership of the ACLU, I promise to be equally disgusted.
- imnojezus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14Bamont,
While I don't necessarily disagree with your position, I do disagree that blocking all dissident views is even REMOTELY an ok way to handle "functional incompetence". That would be like citing all teenagers because a high percentage have tried pot. If someone wants to voice their opinion in a public forum, nothing should stop them. If in the act of voicing their opinion they lose all sight of sanity and begin throwing chairs, THEN you kick them out. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12Be that as it may, they still fight for your right to be an ignorant slanderous prick.
- Lurz, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13No, Your being assessed for your social value.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11The American Civil Liberties Union defends what this country is. Call it what you want, but you're calling America and it's founding fathers the same thing. America is just a name. It's flag is just a flag. Names and images aren't what made this country great. Freedom, liberty, and justice are what made this country great. You can claim that your team rules the empire now, and that the advocates of freedom, justice, and liberty hate America, but I'd rather hate a meaningless word than hate the spirit of this country and it's founders.
- reed311, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13I'm going to assume from your ignorant statement which contained absolutely no sources, but merely talking points, that you were being sarcastic. The ACLU has done more to defend free expression than any other organization in the history of the United States.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -19/+29There's nothing wrong with wanting to keep civility at any public event. It's been shown time and time again that many people who are passionate in their hatred for Bush are incapable of keeping their temper under control. It's understandable, the man has fueled a lot of controversy in the past 7 years. Now, I'm not here to argue whether or not he's right or whether or not he's wrong, because that choice is for people to make their own minds up about - but here's my thing. You can respect public opinion so long as that opinion is presented in an intelligent manner. If you hold one of the highest positions in our government, you don't have time to defend yourself against both idiots, and extremists, which the Denver Three ARE.
Now, I'm not defending Bush here, I'm defending the principle of this. Let me put it another way, I'll quote Boortz directly (I think this illustrates what I'm getting at).
"I've come to the conclusion that roughly 50 percent of the adults in this country are simply too ignorant and functionally incompetent to be living in a free society. You might think I'm off base, but every day around half the people in this country go out of their way to prove me right."
Allowing someone in a public forum who is only there to berate, bash, and scream - isn't what stimulates free thought or intelligence. It spawns more hatred and more bigotry. - AxeSwinger, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9@Troika
If you read the ACLU stance they do oppose child porn however the stance is it's only child porn if children are involved. See the way that bill was written: Lolita and The Bible could all have been considered works of child pornography since they depict underage people having sex. - AxeSwinger, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12@bar
So your premise is people who don't like Bush have no self control and should not be allowed to speak because they are unable to control themselves? That's pretty arrogant on your part is it not?
Bush and his administration are elected officials they have no rights in deciding who can speak in a public forums unless it would impact their safety. Dissent or even incoherent yelling does not create a safety issue, no matter how much Bush and company my want to argue it does.... On a side note it reminds me of how I used to get projects started while working a large manufacturing company, if we could put a safety spin on the project it would almost certainly be approved because no one wanted to be personally liable for not allowing a project that might affect safety.
By listening to critics and self examination we are able to improve our ideas, this administration has no idea how to handle or listen to critique and that just helps me understand the dangerous immaturity of this group. - lnf69, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11The only thing worse then stupidity is ignorance, as in ignoring the truth.
- floorman56, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11Again, please show us a post that explains how the ACLU "prevents" anyone, right or left from expressing themselves.
The ACLU went to court to prevent American citizens ( The Minute man project) from having a protest ( watching the boarder) in the name of people who AREN'T AMERICAN CITIZENS (illegal aliens) why didn't they look out for the Minute mans rights? - dtfinch, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10The part about crosses is an outright lie I've heard many times before:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/cemetery.asp - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Dugg down for usage of the word "left" without knowing the meaning of the term.
- lnf69, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10Since when does two wrongs make a right?
Plus the debate in this thread is about the ACLU supposedly banning the rights of the Right, not if all of the members are angels and without fault. - dtfinch, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8They don't have to like someone or like what they stand for to defend their basic freedom of expression.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10@troika
Woah, nice impartial source there... Not a hint of crusader agenda there or anything... - dishonest, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Dude, RTFA.
The link is an abstract of a recent Denver post article. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+12I've asked you once already this morning to cite your source when making wild accusations. This is strike 2, troll.
- eriksanerd, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8How about, you know, the article it was taken from?
http://test.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_5341085
Oh yeah, I forgot. Anything that posts information against the right is by default lies and propaganda. Even when it's from the Denver Post. - lnf69, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8@Troika,
again you do not answer the original question. I NEVER said that if you are a figurehead of the ACLU you are beyond fault.
Back to the point:
WHEN HAS THE ACLU EVER BEEN GUILTY " ... of illegally preventing Christians and others on the Right from voicing opinions .... "?
And again, please show us a link. - dshPls, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9I was waiting for the punch-line, where is it?
- rhawk301, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10"Free Speech Zones" were actually started in force by Clinton. Bush simply took it to a new level. Now keep in mind this is the Secret Service under orders from the Executive Branch, but still the same thing. I have done a fair amount of research into this, and it seems that any level of dissent whether signage, t-shirts, or speech has been banned into free speech zones are altogether removed from appearances by any Executive Branch and for that matter current administration events. So you basically have tons of "Bush lovers" waving fake Chinese-made flags praising Bush all the time, as being reported by the media.
Is this Bush doing this? Probably not, it is the same NWO and fascist leaders who run this country. Keep in mind that the Bush family is so disconnected with the American people that I doubt they would understand dissent if someone presented it to their faces. The corporate lobby groups, and Neo-conservative leaders in power seem to do a great job of shielding our president and many parts of this government from looking upon reality. All you need is some very targeted prompting to the secret service from them to spring into action and remove "troublemakers" or "possibly security threats" from the crowd.
What we need is for tons of American citizens who feel strongly about the problems this country is facing to show up at rallies and any Bush cabinet member event. This includes Cheney, Bush, DOD, and congressional events. Show up with Bush supporting signs, and Bush supporting t-shirts. Then all you do is put your real sign and t-shirt underneath. Once Bush, Cheney or whomever show up and are in direct line of sight, everyone pull off the fake signs, and remove your fake t-shirts to expose the real message. By using perfectly legal subversion we should be able to show them what are message is.
Plus, it doesn't give time for the Secret Service or anyone, including the press to react fast enough. Each of these events will make the front page and nightly news. - lnf69, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9@cpuenvy
The ACLU does not hate Christians, they HATE ALL RELIGIONS THAT TRY TO FORCE THEIR BELIEFS ON OTHERS!!!
The way SOME (as in small minority) Christians do. - an0nymous, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Hiyer, Ms Coulter. Enjoyed your speech!
- GeneralFault, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5No, the ACLU does not support the "right" (which does not exist) to own child porn. The ACLU does however not support any law that violates the right to free speech even if that same law also restricts child porn. The point there being that the law itself was flawed and that the ACLU wanted the law rewriten to prevent it from trampling on the rights of people that did NOT own child porn.
- lnf69, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@Scrapy
In the United States of America, even NAMBLA has the right to exist and express it's member's point of view, whether you like it or not.
In fact, your statement just illustrates why the ACLU even exists. Your lack of tolerance is typical of what the ACLU will always fight against.
Even when the freedoms right-wing fanatics are threatened, the ACLU will stand up and protect those freedoms. - dshPls, on 10/12/2007, -9/+14"Well then, I hope you're satisfied. The ACLU can either promote the constitutional rights of EVERYBODY (including the Right), or they can sit down and stop whining."
hi i cant read articles if they r not from lgf - azbmr, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8As zdislaw demonstrated earlier, the ACLU is not "a[n] extremist organization that is committed to taking God out of our everyday lives." It is trying to keep the CONSTITUTIONALLY required separation of church and state. I'll repost zdislaw's links here for your consumption:
http://aclu.org/religion/discrim/27661prs20061206.html
"The American Civil Liberties Union of Texas and the American Center for Law and Justice today filed a joint friend-of-the-court brief in support of Pastor Rick Barr and Philemon Homes, Inc. urging the state supreme court to reverse a lower court decision upholding an ordinance that forbids correctional or rehabilitation facilities within 1,000 feet of a church."
http://aclu.org/religion/discrim/26970prs20060929.html
"The American Civil Liberties Union today filed a lawsuit to protect the right of veterans and their families to choose religious symbols to engrave on headstones in federal cemeteries."
http://aclu.org/religion/discrim/26470prs20060809.html
The American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California today sued the city of Garden Grove for using an unconstitutional city code to prevent local Buddhists from expanding their congregation.
http://aclu.org/religion/gen/26361prs20060802.html
"The American Civil Liberties Union today urged a key Senate panel to reject a bill whose sponsors say it will enhance freedom of religion, but will actually have the opposite effect. S. 3696, the "Public Expression of Religion Act of 2005" (PERA), would bar the recovery of attorneys' fees to those who win lawsuits asserting their fundamental constitutional and civil rights in cases brought under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment." - GeneralFault, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5The ACLU did indeed defend NAMBLA on one issue. NAMBLA is sick and should be shunned by any good decent human being. However, the ACLU cannot pick and choose what civil rights to defend or who to defend them for. If they started doing that, they would loose all credibility as protectors of our rights. The ACLU is then cursed to defend every violation of civil rights that comes to it. The ACLU FAQ discusses the NAMBLA case briefly.
Why did the ACLU defend NAMBLA?
In representing NAMBLA, the ACLU does not advocate sexual relationships between adults and children. What we do advocate is robust freedom of speech. This lawsuit strikes at the heart of freedom of speech. The defense of freedom of speech is most critical when the message is one most people find repulsive. For more information, please read the ACLU's press release. - lnf69, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@siszam
Hi there,
Who are you addressing in that comment?
I'm afraid I don't see the connection of what you say to anything in the thread. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+10I think the key point is public event. Is it an event paid for by the taxpayers or an event paid for by a private group. If it is the latter, than they can censor all they want; it's their event.
- lnf69, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@troika,
Hi again.
As GeneralF tried to point out up above, the ACLU will also fight laws that are poorly written. In this case the law would have gone far beyond it's scope of protecting children from pornography. Many classic and legitimate pieces of literature and cinema would have been banned if that law wasn't fought against. - GeneralFault, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Oh. So nothing should be done about it. I see your point. I'll just go back to being a good little consumer. Thanks for setting me straight.
- lnf69, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Whether you like it or not, even NAMBLA has the right to exist, and it's members have the right to believe what they want.
Just like Religious Fundamentalist have the right to believe in what they do.
That's what the ACLU stands for. Making sure that everyones rights are respected.
The ACLU, has on many occasions taken on the causes of people and organizations throughout the whole spectrum of political stands.
They even went to court on several occasions representing American Neo-Nazi groups, fighting those who wanted to block these groups from organizing manifestations. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4There are a ton of google hits for "The Denver Three."
But I guess you couldn't be bothered. - GeneralFault, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4No, the ACLU DOES NOT support the non-existant "right" to child porn. The issue they had was that the way that the bill was constructed would inhibit the expression of non-pornographic child imagry. That would be a violation of 1st ammendment rights. .
From your linked source
"R. 4623 seeks to ban "virtual child pornography," and prohibit "pandering" of images as child pornography even if the images are not obscene or child pornography." - lnf69, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5@Troika
Sorry but I really can't resist, you said:
"... - the ACLU defends the rights of adults to own child porn. You should be disgusted. ...."
which is a prime example of someone trying to force their beliefs on some one else. - GeneralFault, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Can't say I know of that happening. Do you know of any liberals that say that? I know of some conservatives calling for the assasination of other people, just not of the U.S. president (that I can think of). That 700 club guy (cant even bring myself to type his name) called for the assination of a few people now. I'll just go ahead and assume that he speaks for you and that you want to see Chavez killed and New Orleans re-flooded and New York swept away.
- GeneralFault, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Who is defending nambla? I am defending the constitution and the bill of rights. What are you defending?
- GeneralFault, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Wow, I could not have said it any better Inf69. I'll give a weak try though.
The ACLU is not a for-profit group of money loving lawyers. Would a homeless shelter say to someone, no, you are against the war on drugs so we can't give you a bed. They CANNOT pick and choose those battles. They are there to defend ALL cases of civil right violations, no matter who commits them or who they are commited against. A normal law firm CAN make those choices, the ACLU cannot or would or they not last very long if they did. - buckrogers1965, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Amazing, I haven't blocked so many ignorant hateful posters in a thread on Digg in a while. Funny how many people hate an organization whose only purpose is to protect our constitutional rights. Almost like they want the country ran in their own "special" way and the constitution is blocking that.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 136 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is