As for the ACLU, they are staunch defenders of the first amendment. How is that treasonous?
let's take a look at their history.
In 1943, the ACLU won a case that allowed Jehovah's Witness children to not have to salute the American flag. In more recent cases, the 1992 case, Lee vs. Weisman, headed by the ACLU of course, determined that it is unconstitutional for officially sanctioned prayers to be led at graduation ceremonies. Gosh, our founding fathers didn't have a problem with saying prayers before their sessions...In 1997 the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the ACLU, deciding that the 1996 Communications Act banning indecent speech violated First Amendment rights. If you can't control yourself enough not to cuss, or to simply think of a different phrase, then you are pathetic. What about children? Should they be exposed to such trashy language EVERYWHERE now?
Also, in a recent case filed in Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, the ACLU argues that the First Amendment supports a November 2001 decision in which a federal judge rejected an attempt by the French courts to force U.S.-based Internet portal Yahoo Inc. to block French users' access to web pages that contain speech related to Nazism. Why is that wrong?
Then, with the US child pornography legislation: The US Supreme Court ruled in favor of the ACLU and overthrew a congressional ban on virtual pedophilia. It ruled that the First Amendment PROTECTS pornography or other sexual images that only APPEAR to depict real children engaged in sex. The act had barrred sexually explicit material that "appears to be a minor" or that is advertised in a way that "conveys the impression" that a minor was involved in its creation.
Late in 1995, a German shepherd puppy was beaten to death in Fresno (Arax, 1995; Sacrifice of dog, 1995, p. A22). The puppy's death created a public furor. Neighbors complained to local authorities, and the man responsible for the dog's death was taken into custody on felony charges of animal cruelty. Later, these charges were reduced to misdemeanor cruelty, thanks to the ACLU, to which the defendant pled guilty. The man charged in the case was Chia Thai Moua, a Hmong immigrant from Laos who had come to the United States in the 1970's.
Moua was what the press termed a "shaman." Interestingly, his logic for using the puppy was precisely that of so many others employing dogs to serve people -- he was trying to rescue a human (in this case, his wife). He explained that he killed the dog in order to "appease an evil spirit" plaguing her in the form of diabetes. According to Hmong beliefs, "a dog's night vision and keen sense of smell can track down more elusive evil spirits and barter for a sick person's lost soul." Animals, such as chickens or pigs, are sacrificed first, but if this does not solve the problem, according to Moua, "I have no other choice" but to "resort" to using a dog. Moua said that, each year, he performs a ceremony to release the souls of the animals who have helped him so that they can be reborn. According to Moua, Hmong people from the highlands of Laos "are not cruel to animals . . . We love them . . . Everything I kill will be reborn again."
Moua's reliance on the Hmong conception of the human-animal border, and the appropriate uses for certain animals, put him at odds with mainstream American ideas. He killed a dog. His reasons had no legitimacy within the dominant U.S. culture, which sanctions only a limited number of contexts for dog-killing. Dogs can "give" their lives to science, or they can be killed when no longer "employable" (for example, there are a large number of surplus greyhound racing dogs killed each year). But canine laboratory and entertainment "workers" do not have pet status (see Drayer, 1997; Reitman, 1992). Because Moua killed a puppy in his home, the dog was viewed as a pet.
Anglos dote on pet puppies in their homes, lavishing them with toys, treats, and attention. In the U.S. culture, people are not supposed to kill their pets unless they are "properly" killed by veterinarians or euthanasia technicians. Moua was neither. Worse, instead of using a scalpel or a syringe wielded in the name of science or kindness, Moua used a method (bludgeoning), widely seen as inhuman -- a gross act of force and brutality.
An insightful head investigator for Fresno's Humane Society claimed that he could count on his hand the actual cases of Hmong dog sacrifices that he knew of: A "lot of the false complaining is racism, pure and simple." Nonetheless, the publicity around Moua's dog sacrifice escalated ethnic tensions between the Anglo population of Fresno and the sizable Hmong population.
In 1989, two Long Beach men were charged with cruelty to animals for killing a puppy and eating him for dinner (Haldane, 1989). The ACLU defended them, of course. A Los Angeles area judge ruled that there was no law against eating dogs, and that the animal had not been killed in an inhumane fashion. The charges were dropped (Haldane, 1989).
Yet, the case did not die -- it spurred the introduction of a law making "pet-eating" a criminal misdemeanor, punishable by a 6-month jail term and $1,000 fine (Evans, 1989; Jacobs, 1989; Lucas, 1989). Pets are defined in this statute as animals kept as pets. Killing and eating livestock (poultry, pigs, cattle) or wildlife (fish, shellfish, deer, rabbits) remains legal since these creatures fall beyond the definition of "pet."
All of this is beside the point though: Americans eat hot dogs, not dogs (Bishop, 1989, October 5). In the United States, the status of most pet dogs and cats as quasi-human family members makes eating one seem like cannibalism. And, the Long Beach puppy was killed in an apartment complex, at home -- it was all in the family. But the two Long Beach men were not American -- they were refugees from Cambodia.
Trying to minimize the backlash against his community, the head of the Cambodia Association of America claimed that "Cambodians don't eat dogs." However, it is widely known that many Asians do eat dogs (and sometimes cats too). In the Asian context, dogs and cats are specialty meats -- delicacy foods. And, while most in the U.S. mainstream society see nothing wrong with eating (sanctioned) animal flesh (including the flesh of baby animals and even taboo animals under conditions of duress), killing a cute helpless puppy for a luxury meal is another story.
The American Civil Liberties Union said that it will aid Michael Schiavo in his fight against Gov. Jeb Bush and the Florida Legislature, which earlier this week took the remarkable step of passing a law to prevent the Pinellas County man from disconnecting his brain-injured wife from a feeding tube. For months, the ACLU resisted meddling in the dispute that has pitted a husband against his in-laws, believing that the courts were following the long-held legal right of an individual to refuse extraordinary medical measures, even if it hastens [another person's] death.
You just make the federalis want to mess with you! Ha! That's what you get for being a badass!
