Originally Posted By Beaumandy The ACLU has been brought up in other threads. Some people seem determined to defend this organization. This thread is for anyone who might want to prove the ACLU is not the enemy to America I say it is. A few cases where the ACLU defends someones right to free speech can't overcome their core agenda of destroying America as we know it. I found a book a while back called "America vs the ACLU". It does a great job laying out how the ACLU is, and always been, set on destroying American culture. The facts are rock solid. Here is a review from a lawyer who is not a Christian. Reviewer: L. Young "palmtree2000" (West Orange, NJ USA) - See all my reviews Finally a book to unmask the true agenda of the ACLU to undermine not only the US Constitution, but the American way of life. The authors, attorneys for the Alliance Defense Fund, created to counteract the power of the ACLU in the legal arena, sets out how the ACLA seeks to turn the US Constitution on its head, robbing parents of parental authority, destroying the concept of marriage, wiping out Christmas, denying freedom of speech to Christians. 55Numerous Supreme Court cases are cited and explained in this excellent book. Two chapters I found of particular interest, one showing the philosophical underpinnings of the organization when it was first formed (no they are not a benign organization that somehow went wrong), and the second demonstrating the ACLU's push to make the international law of it's choosing supercede the US. Constitution in terms of legal precedent. While the ADF is a Christan organization and I am not a Christian, as an attorney I applaud it's efforts in the legal arena to adhere to the principles of our Founding Fathers. It is clear that God was uppermost in the minds of our Founding Fathers. (God is mentioned numerous times in the Declaration of Independence much to the chagrin of the ACLU). It is time that the politically correct thought police of the ACLU be stopped and it's radical agenda for America be revealed. We don't want a society where a postal worker need be fearful if he 'slips up' and says "Merry Christmas" when a customer arrives in December to mail her Christmas cards. In the world of the ACLU he would be summarily sent for thought re-training, that "Merry Christmas" a sure sign of his bigotted mind set. This should be on the required reading list in all college political science and law school Constitutional law courses
Originally Posted By cape cod joe NAMBLA was the last straw for me as I have little respect for the ACLU now.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<While the ADF is a Christan organization and I am not a Christian, as an attorney I applaud it's efforts in the legal arena to adhere to the principles of our Founding Fathers.>> The ADF is far more than a "Christian Organization". It is an extremely conservative (perhaps even right wing) organization formed primarily to challenge the ACLU in court. OF COURSE they are going to say the ACLU is bad. That proves nothing. That would be like some "Lib" quoting a document prepared by the Socialist Workers Party and saying that it PROVED that capitalism was bad. Take a look at the organization for yourself: <a href="http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/main/default.aspx" target="_blank">http://www.alliancedefensefund .org/main/default.aspx</a> <<NAMBLA was the last straw for me as I have little respect for the ACLU now.>> As I said before, I wish the ACLU had never become involved in that case. The whole thing was disgusting and gave the right wingers something to trot out in their battle against the ACLU. Do you know what the case was actually about though? Joe Smith maintains a website promoting the NAMBLA. Roger Anderson rapes and kills boy. Anderson admits visiting Smith's website. Lawsuit is filed against Smith in an attempt to hold him legally responsible for the death of the boy. ACLU defends Smith saying that Anderson committed the murder and he alone is responsible for it. Now as I said in another before; I think the whole thing stinks and I wish the ACLU had never taken the case. But let's look at it another way. Let's pretend that Beaumandy maintains a website that is extremely critical of Muslims (religion of peace). He says on the website that all Muslims should be locked up or in some way gotten rid of. Let's pretend that RoadTrip is a regular visitor to Beaumandy's site and at some point wacks out and kills a Muslim. A suit is filed against Beaumandy holding him responsible for the murder. Is that right? Is Beaumandy really responsible for the crime or is RoadTrip? As our good Beaumandy himself would say, people need to take responsibility for their own actions and not try to blame others. The ACLU agreed.
Originally Posted By cape cod joe Good point RT but like I just told my wife when she bought some junk food for the house (this is why I do the shopping) and the kids ate it. She ENABLED the kids like the ACLU enabled the freaks. You know how strongly I am for accountability RT and your point is excellent. All I'm saying is to equate the child predator's ACLU web site with the "yelling of fire in the movie theater," i.e. freedom of speech shouldn't go that far.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy RoadTrip... your a trip man. The ADF IS a right wing group who are fighting the ACLU when they sue people without the means to defend themselves. I donate now to the ADF myself. But simply saying they are " right wing " isn't a winning argument for the ACLU. The book I mentioned lays out so much evidence against the ACLU you will freak out!! It's not Michael Moore or AL Franken evidence either, it's actual court cases and comments from the ACLU themselves that make such a strong case here. As far as the ACLU defending NAMBLA, stop trying to spin out of this my friend. Lets take your examlpe of Beaumandys " anti Muslim " website. What if my website gave instructions on how to kill Muslims? What if my website gave support and advice on how to get away with killing Muslims? What if my website led people to actually kill Muslims when they would have never done such a thiong if it were not for what my website taught and told them? Am I responsible at all in the killing or am I just some idiot on the internet practicing my free speech? This is exactly the situation with NAMBLA and the murder of an inocent 10 year old boy who was gagged with a gasoline soaked rag, killed and raped. If not for the help of NAMBLA, this boy would be alive today living a life in America, visiting his parents. Lets say you have a point that the ACLU is simply defending NAMBLAS right to be the scumbags they are. Don't you find it sick that the ACLU has offered material support to those who openly preach pedophilia and arguably encourage kidnapping, rape, and murder. Yet this legal group is energetically hostile to an organization that tries to turn boys into men, with sex alien to the process. The Boy Scouts??? This is just one example of how the ACLU is set to destroy the fabric of America, starting with our most valuable asset.. our chiuldren.
Originally Posted By mrichmondj ^^ << This is just one example of how the ACLU is set to destroy the fabric of America, starting with our most valuable asset.. our chiuldren. >> And we all know how valuable our children are . . . We are treating them so well by setting them up with an enormous debt burden to shoulder when they grow old enough to be taxpayers. We're giving them a wonderful fossil fuels based economy that is ready to tank just in time for them to be earning their first paychecks. What a wonderful future laid out by those folks that care so much about our children . . . Give me a break!
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Am I responsible at all in the killing or am I just some idiot on the internet practicing my free speech?>> Under current law, you are just some idiot on the internet practicing your free speech. There is everything on the net from telling people how to make a nuclear bomb to how to use date rape drugs. At the present time all of that is legal. I don't think it SHOULD BE legal, but the proper thing to do is change the law, not blast the ACLU for defending a guy whose actions under current law were (unfortunately) legal. And yes, I know if someone tried to change the law the ACLU would fight it. The ACLU is completely committed to defending the freedoms provided by the constitution. That does not mean they are always right. But it also doesn’t mean they are always wrong. If necessary, the constitution can be changed. Obviously something like the internet had never been envisioned when the Bill of Rights was originally adopted. It is easy to support free speech when what you are saying is commonly accepted. It is much more difficult when what you are saying is disgusting. But that is when it needs to be defended the most. Now, does that mean the ACLU should always win? No, I don’t think so. But just as I think every person charged with a crime (even those who are guilty without question) is entitled to a defense, I think it is proper for the ACLU to challenge what it views as infringements on our constitution rights. Whether I think the ACLU should win or lose depends on the specifics of the issue. But I think it is important that they have the right to raise these questions. You must remember, when the ACLU “wins†it is because a judge has determined that the ACLU’s position is legally right. They do not have the power to change ANYTHING on their own.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder As mrichmondj and Road Trip have demonstrated here, it's easy to defend the ACLU. The better question to ask is why any purported "real American" would be so vehemently against an organization devoted to defending the Constitution.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh Because they don't defend the Constitution. They defend what they'd like the Constitution to be.
Originally Posted By idleHands <<If not for the help of NAMBLA, this boy would be alive today living a life in America, visiting his parents. Lets say you have a point that the ACLU is simply defending NAMBLAS right to be the scumbags they are.>> Just as I did for the comments regarding 'appropriate punishment' for the Homeland Security guy in another thread, I feel a very strong need to address the hate-filled falsehoods in this one. Once again, certain individuals blur the distinction between being gay, being attracted to minors, being a kidnapper, and being a murderer. It sickens me to read this continuing conservative propaganda about an organization which does NOT promote kidnapping nor abduction, nor forcing sexual acts upon anyone, adults and minors alike. When will the disinformation and outright lies about human states, behaviors, and conditions finally cease? Being gay does NOT automatically make you attracted to minors. Being attracted to minors does NOT automatically make you a kidnapper. Being a kidnapper does NOT automatically make you a rapist or molester. Being a rapist or molester does NOT automatically make you a murderer. These are statements of fact. I am so sick and tired of continually reading from the right wingnuts how these issues are supposed to be viewed as one gigantic continuing spectrum in which the 'moral slide' from one end to the other is predictable and expected. That all homosexuals are attracted to minors, who only need the encouragement and support of organizations such as NAMBLA to get in touch with their "inner pedophile" and make the "inevitable leap" from mild-mannered gay guy to knife-wielding child abductor/rapist/murderer. There are varying degrees from one condition or state to another. Period. And having certain proclivities does NOT automatically mean that the individual will necessarily act upon them. Ask alcoholics who attend A.A. meetings regularly, who've stayed dry for decades. They still consider themselves alcoholics, even though they've learned to live without drinking. But in the black-and-white, all-or-nothing world in which many conservative posters on these boards live, these distinctions are never made. No shades of grey. Everything is absolute. And I'm really fed up with it.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder "Because they don't defend the Constitution. They defend what they'd like the Constitution to be." And when courts agree with them, then they were right. And vice versa. No harm, no foul, the system works.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Because they don't defend the Constitution. They defend what they'd like the Constitution to be.>> And when courts agree with them, then they were right. And vice versa. No harm, no foul, the system works. That is correct. Also, the ACLU is hardly the only group that "defends what they'd like the constitution to be." The NRA comes to mind quickly. They basically concern themselves with the 2nd ammendment only, and they have about as broad a reading of it as possible. Sometimes the courts have agreed with their position, sometimes they haven't. Sometimes (like the ACLU in some cases), they go too far. They support the sale of "cop-killer" bullets, for example, which are teflon-treated bullets whose only purpose is to pierce bulletproof vests, hence the nickname given to them by the police themselves. They really have no other legitimate purpose in hunting or anything else, but the NRA has a nearly absolutist view on the 2nd ammendment, and views anything that restricts firearms and ammo as the begninning of the dreaded slippery slope. It is their right as an organization to take this view, and argue it in court if they choose. Sometimes the courts side with them, sometimes against them. IMO, the ACLU has in a few cases taken a too absolutist view of the 1st and other ammendments - and have usually lost in the courts when they do. But I'm glad someone is out there fighting that fight. Because, as the founders knew, the government will naturally tend to want to claim powers for itself, rather than grant them to the people. That's why the Bill of Rights exists in the first place - as our guarantee against the government.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy idlehands, are you defending NAMBLA here? I don't see a single word on this thread about gays and NAMBLA, even though it's true, NAMBLA is backed by people in the gay community big time. Not all gays, but gays are who keep NAMBLA going. The point is that NAMBLA is something the ACLU DECIDED to defend, while at the same time, the ACLU attacked the boy scouts who actually help boys become good men who will be a benefit to society. You don't see the problem with this and the fact that the ACLU is active in tearing down ther family unit, marriage, national security and freedom to practice your religion where you want? YOu don't see this pattern as HURTING America not helping America? Do I want my son Beau to be a man of integrity, respect and high moral values..... or do I want him to be abducted by some NAMBLA pervert? Wow..... tough choice... if your a lib. Finally, anyone who thinks the ACLU defends our constitution is badly mistaken. The ACLU goes out of their way to use international law as the new rule of law here in America, even if that means making the constitution take a back seat to their agenda. Would the founding fathers have been down with this??? Only in the mind of the left could anyone actually think they would approve of internatioanl law being used here in America. Do we really want to use laws from say... France, here in America to make law vs. our own constitution? The ACLU does and the evidence this is the case is impossible to counter. I have tons of examples to debate this point.... do you STPH? Your a lwyer, this should be easy to defend for you. Defendeing the ACLU as a great protector of American rights is like defending John Gotti as an innocent plumbing supply salesman who is getting a bad rap. ( Hat tip to Dirk from the other thread ) Only the truly ignorant and misinformed would defend this person or organization. Show me where I am wrong. Time to mow the grass.....
Originally Posted By idleHands I am not defending NAMBLA's doctrine. I have no opinion one way or the other on the matter. What I am defending, however, is NAMBLA's right to exist. Just as I defend for the American Nazi party, the Ku Klux Klan, and Earth First! All of these organizations have the right to exist as much as NAMBLA, or the Boy Scouts, for that matter. And speaking of the Scouts... if you choose to the believe that the bigoted sexist para-militaristic organization known as the Boy Scouts actually helps "boys become good men who will be a benefit to society," then that is your choice to make. And I will gladly defend the Boy Scouts right to exist, along with the Nazis and the Klan. However, I strongly believe that as with the Nazis and the Klan, the bigoted hate-filled rhetoric of the Scouts ultimately does more harm than good. And just as I believe the ACLU was correct in taking the case for NAMBLA, I believe they were also correct in taking the case against the Scouts, for discriminating against gay scoutmasters. The Scouts want to take taxpayer dollars in helping to fund their activities, but also want to pick and choose who can and cannot participate in their organization, based on discriminatory practices. Why? Because the Scouting doctrine teaches that homosexuality is wrong. Ah, yes. Fundamentalist Christian values in their finest hour. Does this hateful discrimination truly serve young men well, at helping them become a "benefit to society"? Not in the democracy I want to see thriving in our country. No way. And btw, Beau... way to go with the "do I want him to be abducted by some NAMBLA pervert" stereotypical slander. Do you know any NAMBLA members? I do. In fact, I know several. And the overwhelming vast majority of NAMBLA members do NOT endorse, advocate, nor participate in kidnapping, abduction, or sexual molestation of any kind. This notion about NAMBLA and its members all being dangerous sexual predators is a malicious stereotype created and perpetuated by anti-gay conservatives in order to further the NeoCon agenda that homosexuality is "bad" for the country, and must not be permitted nor tolerated in any way, shape, or form. Let me re-state the obvious from a previous post of mine, for the learning impaired: "Being gay does NOT automatically make you attracted to minors. Being attracted to minors does NOT automatically make you a kidnapper. Being a kidnapper does NOT automatically make you a rapist or molester. Being a rapist or molester does NOT automatically make you a murderer." The ACLU takes on all kinds of cases to serve as the "litmus test" for the Constitutionality of our laws. This is how democracy actually works, by constantly being challenged. You may not like it, but without organizations like the ACLU, democracy in our country would end up looking like the democracy currently taking shape in Iraq. In other words, no real democracy at all.
Originally Posted By cape cod joe Do you have children Idle? You can see why parents may be reluctant to have their children associate with NAMBLA types, can't you. I can see your points. There's bigotry and there's common sense parenting. I hope YOU can see the difference there?
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Finally, anyone who thinks the ACLU defends our constitution is badly mistaken. The ACLU goes out of their way to use international law as the new rule of law here in America, even if that means making the constitution take a back seat to their agenda.>> What on earth are you referring to? The last I heard, no U.S. court ever based their decision on international law in place of U.S. law. Sounds like another paranoid right wing fantasy to me.
Originally Posted By idleHands Before I answer your question, I need to make a clarification about one of my statements. I should have previously written, "I have known members of NAMBLA," instead of "I know several." The latter implies ongoing friendships and associations with members, which is not nor ever has been the case. The members I knew were friends of acquaintences I had, long ago, including a college professor. I've had various arguments and heated discussions about NAMBLA's doctrine, ad nauseum, with these individuals, which I enjoyed and found to be intellectually challenging, for the most part. Some points I even agreed with (many I did not). But meeting these individuals and talking with them allowed me greater insight into what the members are like, at least some of them. And because of that, I'm troubled by blanket statements such as Beau's regarding NAMBLA and "scum-bags" and "perverts." Overgeneralizations such as these do not further free and open discourse, which is vital to perserving democracy. Yes, cc joe... I can see why parents may be "reluctant" to have their children associate with "NAMBLA types," if you are indeed referring to actual advocates of NAMBLA and its *entire* doctrine. But if you're suggesting that all or most gay men are "NAMBLA types," then this is where I vehemently disagree with your statement. I do not wish to infer meaning that you're not wanting to imply. But... is that what you mean by the statement, "NAMBLA types"? Are you suggesting that parents would be exercising "common sense" by keeping their kids away from gay men, because those gay men might be practicing advocates of NAMBLA's doctrine? The vast overwhelming majority of adults -- gay and straight alike -- are not attracted to minors. Accept it. Deal with it. Move on. And bringing the discussion back on topic...the ACLU and organizations like it are vital and necessary to protect healthy and thriving democracies, whether or not you find their cases palatable.
Originally Posted By cape cod joe Okay idle--You haven't read my stuff obvuiously so lss long story short---my brother is gay; my roomate in college was gay so I hung out for 4 yrs in 100's of gay bars in Cincy, Dayton, the entire midwest, and back in Boston. I NEVER had an experience as I am OVERWHELMINGLY hetero to the point I can't go to a beach! Get it? So don't confuse NAMBLA type with your own prejudices toward straights like me. NAMBLA types are child predators. Gay men are people like my children's UNCLE, by brother who they love. So please check the luggage as in emotional, at the terminal. There is NO one quite like me but there are many straights who do NOT think all gay men are child predators. That's YOUR prejudice. Kapeesh?
Originally Posted By idleHands "There's bigotry and there's common sense parenting. I hope YOU can see the difference there?" Does the following capture it? What cc joe most likely would tell his young son: "Stay away from that gay man, son, or you might get molested." What cc joe most likely would NOT tell his young daughter: "Stay away from that straight man, daughter, or you might get molested." Statistically speaking... a straight man would be far more likely to sexually abuse a young girl than a gay man would be to sexually abuse a young boy. There are far more straight pedophiles as a percentage of the heterosexual population, than there are gay pedophiles as a percentage of the homosexual population. Fact. But the NeoCon fundamentalists work very hard at keeping this statistic under the radar. So... are you going to now advocate "common sense parenting" by keeping your young daughters away from straight men? I didn't think so.
