Aclu

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by 5stringJeff, Dec 8, 2003.

  1. 5stringJeff
    Offline

    5stringJeff Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2003
    Messages:
    9,990
    Thanks Received:
    536
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Puyallup, WA
    Ratings:
    +540
    Ever notice that the ACLU is deafeningly silent on the right to bear arms?

    I asked an ACLU member about that at a political fair this summer. He said that my observation was "interesting," noting that it the right to bear arms is in the Bill of Rights that they are the self-styled proponents of.

    I wonder why this particular civil liberty is given little to no attention by the ACLU, while the right to privacy, read into the Constitution in 1973, is one of the ACLU's spearheads.
     
  2. Palestinian Jew
    Offline

    Palestinian Jew Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2003
    Messages:
    903
    Thanks Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Fayetteville
    Ratings:
    +18
    Ever notice that the ACLU is always silent? They never try to defend their actions in a public manner, such as is the case with that NAMBLA ruling in the North East or boy scouts being a religous organization.
     
  3. Moi
    Offline

    Moi Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2003
    Messages:
    1,859
    Thanks Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    The ONLY GOOD place
    Ratings:
    +11
    Unfortunately, in my opinion, the Constitution has been reinterpreted according to whatever the prevailing wind of the masses seems to dictate. Like you, I believe it a hypocrisy that certain "meanings" are attributed to the Constitution whether the words are clearly written or not.
     
  4. _dmp_
    Offline

    _dmp_ Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2003
    Messages:
    854
    Thanks Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +7
    Ironic that the Right to Bear Arms is in the Constitution, but NEVER is there mention of "Seperation of Church and State".
     
  5. acludem
    Offline

    acludem VIP Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,500
    Thanks Received:
    49
    Trophy Points:
    71
    Location:
    Missouri
    Ratings:
    +69
    You knew I'd get in on this one. The reason the ACLU is generally silent on questions about the 2nd amendment is because there is strong and significant disagreement within the organization about how it should be interpreted. As far as NAMBLA goes, the ACLU's primary client in that case was the web provider, ACLU defended the right of NAMBLA to argue against age of consent laws, not to encourage child molestation. There was, by the way, a lot of dissent regarding this case as well amongst the membership. ACLU has on numerous occassions defended the right of Christians to practice their faith, including assisting a student who was told he could not wear his crucifix because it could be a "gang symbol". The ACLU is an organization that everyone should thank for working to protect our liberties, especially with John Ashcroft's new secret police, John Poindexter's Total Information Awareness, and George W. Bush's attempts to funnel your tax dollars for prosthelization. Separation of church and state is in the Constitution "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or interfere with the free practice thereof" It's in the first amendment. Congress shall not establish religion, support religion, or interfere with your ability to practice your religion whatever it may be.
     
  6. _dmp_
    Offline

    _dmp_ Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2003
    Messages:
    854
    Thanks Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +7
    How does that mean removing God from every govermental piece of property? Everyone forgets that Judge in Mississippi? who's free practice of displaying the 10 commandments was interfered with. ;)


    But...now we're off topic.

    :D
     
  7. acludem
    Offline

    acludem VIP Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,500
    Thanks Received:
    49
    Trophy Points:
    71
    Location:
    Missouri
    Ratings:
    +69
    Using government property to prosthelize interferes with other people's free exercise of religion. Judge Moore blatantly disregarded a federal court order, he got exactly what he deserved. OK, now I'm venturing even further off topic:D

    acludem
     
  8. _dmp_
    Offline

    _dmp_ Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2003
    Messages:
    854
    Thanks Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +7

    wha??? Are you so weak minded that if you viewed a piece of religious text, it'd somehow cause you to stumble in your own faith?

    Rediculous. Did he make people SWEAR AN OATH to anything? did he make people read it?

    Seriously now...if you wanna be a Liberal, fine...just be a 'smart' liberal :D
     
  9. acludem
    Offline

    acludem VIP Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,500
    Thanks Received:
    49
    Trophy Points:
    71
    Location:
    Missouri
    Ratings:
    +69
    He put a 3,000 pound monument right in front of the courthouse doors where anyone who entered would have to look at it. This was, as Moore admitted, an attempt to convert people to his own personal form of Christianity. He was ordered by a federal court to remove the monument, he refused to so, a violation of the law, and his oath (which he probably swore on a bible) to uphold the law, and a violation of his duty as a judge. The monument did not belong directly in front of the courthouse, it belongs where it is now, in a historical display about legal codes along with the Code of Hammurabi, etc.
     
  10. 5stringJeff
    Offline

    5stringJeff Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2003
    Messages:
    9,990
    Thanks Received:
    536
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Puyallup, WA
    Ratings:
    +540
    I did know you'd get in on this one! :)

    Now, not being an ACLU member, I will ask honestly and without ulterior motives: what disagreement can there be on the 2nd Amendment: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." The right to keep and bear arms is clearly deliniated (sp?). And it won't be infringed upon. I just don't see how that can be misinterpreted.

    I have read of a few cases where I thought the ACLU was doing the right thing. Not a lot, though, just a few.

    Hold on. The 1st Amendment has two clauses. You put it into three clauses. The 1st Amendment says that Congress cannot make a law "respecting an establishment of religion" - in your words, "establish religion." It also says that Congress shall not "prohibit the free exercise thereof" - in your words, "interfere with your ability to practice your religion whatever it may be." Your "support religion" bit is not in the Constitution.
     

Share This Page