Think About This

I realize many people support the ACLU for some of the work they do and have done over the years protecting Civil Liberties - and someone should be protecting them. However, how do you define a civil liberty?

If the majority of the population votes a particular way, is it right for the minority to trump the majority based upon what I believe is a misguided notion of civil liberties? I mean, does it really infringe on someone's civil liberty if the historic town symbol contains a cross?

The way they work to get God out of the society you'd think he was on some sexual predator list. Oh wait, I forgot, those guys shouldn't be removed from society - they have rights. I mean, hell, it isn't like they're God, or something, yanno?

What do you think?

Comments

[frank]

Like so many organizations that started with good intentions they have become a political action group and really very fascist.

They've created a brand that plays on the past and yet today, they are not protecting anyone only socially engineering our legal system to fit their point of view.

[!]

There credibility as an organization has gone way down hill. They are now just a group that goes around stirring up bullcrap !

[Jay]

I love the way you wrote this. Thanks for the link.

[splashtc]

The aclu should pick and choose their cases more carefully. They don't belong in international affairs-the Abu-Ghraib prison pictures-but they will be needed to fight the rediculous Sandra Catena park sitting ticket. As for religion-they need to accept the fact that our laws are based on the judeo-christian 10 commandments and definately have a place in government.

[MaddyMappo]

A true democracy is not a place where the majority rules. That would make it okay to have lynchings. A democracy is where the rights of everyone are honored and protected. The separation of church and state is there to protect those who do not belong to the prevailing religious point of view. Otherwise there would really not be any reason to separate church and state. The state would just express the religiosu beliefs of the prevailing will of the majority. As far the pledge of allegiance: No child should have to stand apart during the pledge because of a religious
difference. Every child should be able to participate in a patriotic ceremony which honors the flag representing their country and making a committment to uphold the laws of our country.

[New Creature]

Dan-The ACLU is more like the Pharisee's of the New Testament--where the Law itself becomes God, at the expense of what is best for the people.

In Matthew 12:9-13. Jesus is targeted by the pharisees because he heals a man on the sabbath day. The Lawyers become angry and try to kill him because it is against the law to labor on that day.

Sound familiar?

Strain a gnat, swallow a camel.

The law was made to serve society, not so society could serve the law.

[Cindi in PA]

The first part of the problem is with the ACLU taking on cases that do not belong in our Courts.
The larger problem is with the Courts doing their own personal interpertation. For instance, separation of Church and State. Instead of applying the Constitution as written, these liberal judges are giving their "personal" interpertation, and at the same time, applying new laws.

[Cindi in PA]

The separation of church and state is there to protect those who do not belong to the prevailing religious point of view.

Bull, separation is there to stop the government from setting up a state run religion. Plain and simple.

[MaddyMappo]

New Creature: Such is most often the case, when religious law becomes the law of the land. The Sabbath law should not have been incumbent upon the merciful act of Jesus. Nor, should the laws of keeping the Sabbath be enforced by the civil government upon anyone in our country. And just so, all other religious beliefs and interpretations should not be forced upon others and trump the civil protections of our free society.

[Cindi in PA]

And just so, all other religious beliefs and interpretations should not be forced upon others and trump the civil protections of our free society.

Posted by: MaddyMappo | Sep 29, 2005 12:54:20 PM

Last time I looked, nobody was forcing religious belief on anyone. Unless your talking about spending money, In God We Trust. About as green as it gets :).

[TheAlamo]

A true democracy is not a place where the majority rules. That would make it okay to have lynchings. A democracy is where the rights of everyone are honored and protected. The separation of church and state is there to protect those who do not belong to the prevailing religious point of view. Otherwise there would really not be any reason to separate church and state. The state would just express the religiosu beliefs of the prevailing will of the majority. As far the pledge of allegiance: No child should have to stand apart during the pledge because of a religious
difference. Every child should be able to participate in a patriotic ceremony which honors the flag representing their country and making a committment to uphold the laws of our country.

Posted by: MaddyMappo | Sep 29, 2005 12:17:53 PM

Maddy...a little issue here.
Actually the United States is a republic, and..for just the reasons you stated above. In a republic 100% could vote to do this or that to you, but it would have no effect...i.e. your rights under the Bill of Rights.
This is why it is so important for our own government to obey the law.

100% of all previous democracies failed, and so will this one. When one group can vote themselves the earnings of another, it is just a question of time before that nation collapses. Why? Because the receiving group gains new members as others in that society see that they can vote themselves an income, so their group grows. Conversly, members of the producing group are priced out of business by the ever increasing amounts necessary to sustain the non working members, and they are forced to join the group. Soon chaos, and total government control result, and then we won't have to worry about our rights....there won't be any! (this is not an attack on you...merely pointing out what is going to happen to all of us---because of ...all of us!)

[annie]

The ACLU should be disbanded. I don't think they care less about this country and what they are doing to it through their corner case wins. They were originally started for good intents, but have become an absolute nightmare organization since. I think they do more harm to this country than any other organization. JMO!

[Mike]

I lost all respect for the ACLU when they decided to protect NAMBLA.

Any organization that protect pedophiles is beyond getting any support from me.

[callmeBetty]

LOL Got a timeline on that Alamo? I'm trying to plan for my retirement here!!!!! :)

[TheAlamo]

LOL Got a timeline on that Alamo? I'm trying to plan for my retirement here!!!!! :)

Posted by: callmeBetty | Sep 29, 2005 1:29:47 PM

Hi Betty,
Historically, if you could put an exact number on it, (which, I don't think anyone can...but close) it is when approximately 68% of the population is the recipient of "welfare" in one form or another. This includes corporate welfare, farm subsidies, etc. When you total up all of the "freebies" that are borne by the taxpayer here, it is around 61%. Unfortunately for us, the growth increases quite rapidly in the decline due to the larger sections of people being affected at one time. The gasoline situation could easily be the catalyst. Gas is a commodity, that even if you didn't drive would affect your cost of living. One example are retail products. All products that are marketed via stores, shopping malls etc., have to be delivered by...trucks, which use gas. The profit margin for most of these entities (the stores) is 3-5%. They cannot afford to absorb the increased cost of delivery, so that cost is passed on to you and I. And, delivery of goods and services is just one aspect of the fuel situation.

That is just one aspect, but worse is the fact that we are already broke as a nation. The dollar, unbacked by anything of value, continues to slide in purchasing power, just like all paper money. The Chinese hold the major portion of our national debt. If they call the debt, we cannot pay it. If they dump the dollar for the Euro, again, we are in deep economic do-doo. The Chinese are not our friends. They will do one or the other in the near future, possibly right after the next presidential election. It will get interesting.

The question you have to ask in regards to your retirement, is how much can you set aside in funds that are untoucheable by taxes and inflation? Both of those factors eat up future earnings from fixed products. If you go with variable products (like mutual funds) then you can possibly outproduce both those factors, but you also stand the risk of losing it as well.

[paul]

While US is a republic and a representative democracy it has been a government of the money.
If you pay taxes for government to "protect you" or build for you or have an army for you thats one thing.

But if you pay taxes so the government can decide what religion will be taught in schools is this what we want. What if the majority does not choose your religion. Are you required by law to support a particular religion with taxes.

The reimbursinng of faith based (code word for religion) groups who assisted in Katrina relief is a backdoor way of getting faith based initiative in the door.

What saint bush the devine invisions is taking my taxes and spending them on a religion I may not support. Dont be fooled this means the moslems get their share too.

So bush supporters are in favor of giving tax money to moslems. Sort of like giving billions to rebuild a moslem state. IS this the biblical feed your enemies until they destroy you.

ACLU rep commented on Oreilly this week. If the churches had been doing their job people would not behave like they do. A little high and mighty prehaps but is it really.
If the church had spent its time in the arena designated by their god maybe just maybe there would be less need for law enforcement and less need for ACLU and others to keep track of the saints in government that are abusing the law - albeit righteously so.

[AkekoaHoAlethia]

Dan,

I agree with you.
" I believe is a misguided notion of civil liberties?"

I have seen the ACLU do some good, but in my opinion, it has just been a show, so they don't appear as detrimental to our society and it's morality as they actually are.

Thanks for bringing this forward.

[callmeBetty]

If ACLU = baby, NAMBLA = bathwater. Really scummy, toxic drain seepage, but bathwater.

I had to look up this case, I missed it in the MSM. It's interesting that the ACLU does not link to it on their site, but the info is out there. I found a pretty good argument which deliniates their motives rationally; it's prudent hear the legal side before passing judgement on an 85 year old organization whose services I may need some day. Anyone interested can read:

http://www.stcynic.com/blog/archives/2003/12/the_aclu_and_th.php

Now, their decision to take on the city of Las Cruces for having a cross in their city logo is beyond me. But I don't agree with every decision my government makes in my behalf, either. As the ACLU is a non-profit, non-govermental organization, I don't think it's going away any time soon. As long as laws are fluid and open to interpretation (as well as corruption) the ACLU will exist.

[Nogods]

"If the majority of the population votes a particular way, is it right for the minority to trump the majority based upon what I believe is a misguided notion of civil liberties? I mean, does it really infringe on someone's civil liberty if the historic town symbol contains a cross?"

If the majority got to rule, there would still be slaves.

A Christian might say that putting a cross in a town symbol is an insult and an embarrassment to Christ. It demeans him and distorts his mission here on earth.

My god, The Flying Spagetti Monster, says "I will eat your god for breakfast".

http://www.venganza.org/

NOgods

[VASteve]

I have no love for the ACLU, but I support their notion that we should be free from religious bias in schools, and public properties.

[Sgt. York]

=====================

Go to church and pray 'till your brains fall out, go stand on a street corner and pass out bibles, buy a full page advert in the local paper and print the Sermon on the Mount. Believe whatever the he11 you want to believe.

You want to live in a religious state - move to Iran. Keep government and religion separate.

======================

[TheAlamo]

Go to church and pray 'till your brains fall out, go stand on a street corner and pass out bibles, buy a full page advert in the local paper and print the Sermon on the Mount. Believe whatever the he11 you want to believe.

You want to live in a religious state - move to Iran. Keep government and religion separate.

======================

Posted by: Sgt. York | Sep 29, 2005 4:50:05 PM

There is no human being that does not live in a state of a religion. Since that is the case, you cannot "separate" religion and government. This is why the founders put in the "establishment" clause, to keep government from sponsoring or establishing any state religion. This is why it is NOT against the law to have prayer in schools. It is only against the law for the government to be the sponsor of, or the denier of...religion, or prayer.

Anyone, of any religion, can pray in any public place. The lie is that there is a law against it, and this lie has been propagated by the MSM, so well that most Americans believe the lie. But....that is just one lf the many lies we have swallowed.

[jolari]

Doesn't our money have "In God We Trust" printed on it? I've never seen anyone refuse to use/earn the almighty (pun intended) dollar. I wonder why?

[FloridaPatty]

This is a good thread Dan. Good topic to discuss.

I think of the overpolitically correctness of today as homoginized history. There is so much religion in our country's history to attempt to erase it from monuments is, to me, like book burning. What is over the fascade of the Supreme Court? What is in the Supreme Court? The Ten Commandments which are ...from..the Bible.

Seperation of church and state has gotten so bloated that it has now become like reverse discrimination, if you say God, you are in the wrong should you happen to be in a public facility.

What happened if you did not belong to the Church of England? You could not own property or have a vote. That is the fundamental reason why there is an edict for this specific issue. It did not mean to REMOVE God from our history or prohibit the utterance of his name. You cannot force a person to pledge or pray however and that is where I see protection. The problem is that no child is ever FORCED to bow their head during that moment of silence yet it is presented as such and the criers point at mangers and Star of Davids and menorahs and cry foul. I think those emblems are symbolic of that community's people and therefore should show equal representation.

[katy]

If we are forced to take the crosses out of Las Cruces (The Crosses), won't the next step be to require a name change for the town and any city with Saint, Angel, etc in it's name.

[Sam]

Great Post, Alamo, Florida Patty and Katy. Your post show the real truth.
Sam

[oldtimer]

The agenda of the ACLU has not changed from day one. Read up on them,they have just been able to hide their dirty little secret with the help of the MSM.

[!]

America is not a true democracy. We are a "republic".

And to the republic for which it stands, one nation under GOD, indivisable with liberty and justice for all.

[DeeDee]

If the church had spent its time in the arena designated by their god maybe just maybe there would be less need for law enforcement and less need for ACLU and others to keep track of the saints in government that are abusing the law - albeit righteously so.

Posted by: paul

Paul, I hate to tell you pal, but that statement is laughable. Let me make it simple for you, "YOU can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink".

Good post Dan, excellent CindiPa, Alamo, and FlPatty. The ACLU can tollerate all "represenations" of religion except Christian and Jew. How they call themselves an unbiased organization is a joke.

[SmartyPants]

"Religion is all bunk." - Thomas A. Edison

"Except for that
Flying Spagetti Monster god" - Smarty Pants

SmartyPants

[MaddyMappo]

We can never separate church and state too much. That separation protects religous freedom and thought for everyone not just the dominant culture. The middle east is a prime example. The fusion of Islamic law and the government is specific to the doctrine of
Islam and is outlined in the Koran in great detail. The fusion with the Jewish faith and the state of Israel is very problematic to it being a democracy, even schzophrenic. Our country was founded on the principal that "all men are created equal". But that rather flew in the face of the same judeo-christian beliefgs and culture which with centuries embraced the birth rights of kings and nobles to be rulers over "commoners" because it was the will of God. There was much arugment and debate about the role of religion when the constitution was being drawn up. Finally it was agreed to mentioned "God" as generically and innocuously as possible. The only place "God" appears is in our country's motto "In God is Our Trust" and Hamilton agreed to use that motto on the currency. You can't find it much elsewhere. The "under God" in our pledge was added in the 1950s as a reaction to the dreaded Communist state enforced atheism. One nation "under God" does not appear anywhere else. I was in public school at the time and remember relearning the pledge at our weekly auditorium gathering. I hope religion becomes more and more a personal quest and not a national statement. A lot of people came to our country because they were persecuted from practicing their beliefs. But when they came here, they had no qualm about imposing their own religious ideas on others. That has been a constant dynamic which causes divisions among people more than anything else. Since there is no state run religion, why should we forced to keep a cross as part of a symbol of a state, if it in fact does not symbolize and is not representative of all the people in the state? A symbol of the state should more accurately encompass, protect and honor all the traditions and faiths of its multicultural people. Just like we change the pictures on stamps, and coins. There is nothing particulary sacred or so special about some old design, especially when it alienates a large part of the people it supposedly represents. As far as historic value, it can continue to be viewed in a museum or as part of collections.

[TheAlamo]

But when they came here, they had no qualm about imposing their own religious ideas on others. That has been a constant dynamic which causes divisions among people more than anything else. Since there is no state run religion, why should we forced to keep a cross as part of a symbol of a state, if it in fact does not symbolize and is not representative of all the people in the state? A symbol of the state should more accurately encompass, protect and honor all the traditions and faiths of its multicultural people. Just like we change the pictures on stamps, and coins. There is nothing particulary sacred or so special about some old design, especially when it alienates a large part of the people it supposedly represents. As far as historic value, it can continue to be viewed in a museum or as part of collections.

Posted by: MaddyMappo | Sep 30, 2005 11:44:37 AM

No one has ever been forced to participate in a "religion" in this country as far as I know. You speak of imposing their views, and yet you seek to overturn what has been, and impose your own upon others. Interesting.

In my opinion, if you are offended by some "symbol" then possibly you have a lot of extra time on your hands.
If as you say, "there is nothing particularly sacred or special about some old design" then why are you wasting your time with it, and why is it an issue at all?

My statement to people who are "offended" by our culture is simple. Get a life. Get used to it. Or, there are plenty of other countries in which you can live.

"it alienates a large part of the people it supposedly represents. "
Right. The fact is it alienates you, and possibly two or three others...but, you of course, are not seeking to impose your views on anyone are you...? Uh-huh.

[paul]

Paul, I hate to tell you pal, but that statement is laughable. Let me make it simple for you, "YOU can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink".
Posted by: DeeDee | Sep 30, 2005 8:23:06 AM

Spoken like a true sunday christian. Just how many have you "lead to water" this week. I know none - too busy finding fault - a true sign of love in your book of religion isn't it.

Obviously not in tune with Billy Graham, J. Vernon McGee and other expositors who in fact coined the statement that "WE (the church) have not done our job." We have failed. See Http://BBTB.com - McGees web site. Even a dead man can see facts. Butt DD cant
How do these learned scholars claim the church has failed - why by foisting their jobs of charity off on the government.

You propose to lead a horse to water - you display a lack of knowledge of the cant you claim to support. How many times is forgiveness recommended by your god - take a wild guess.

There are currently 7 suits against moslems in US by ACLU. Im sure you think this is a ploy.

So you support federal government taking your taxes an giving them to moslems in US mosques.
How much have you donated to your mosque today.

ACLU Against the Jews. Why are there so many US jews involved in the ACLU since day one.

Ignorance breeds critique that is resistant to fact.
Satnd up proudly and be known for ignorance of ACLU history, Church history, and the common beliefs of your "purported" faith.
Laugh all the way.

As to no one ever being forced to participate in a religion. How about the court system that forces people into a "treatment" that is "faith based", AA or NA. Particularly when the success rate of that treatment by the analysis of one of the AA board of directors is 2 to 5%. ACLU won 27 times out of 27 to have a alternate treatment. One that works better than a step child religion.
The reason US fed gov supports this particular religion is that AA board members serve on board of all fed gov organs involved in treatment. And they acknowledge only a 5% success rate. Are you happy about paying for a religion that is not yours yet.

Paul

[TheAlamo]

The reason US fed gov supports this particular religion is that AA board members serve on board of all fed gov organs involved in treatment. And they acknowledge only a 5% success rate. Are you happy about paying for a religion that is not yours yet.

Paul

While I am not necessarily inclined to agree with the spirit of your writings, you DO have your facts right.

In my own case I think religion stinks. I believe in God. I believe in Jesus Christ. But...organized religion has a track record that rivals the mafia as far as corruption. The world starves, and "churches" here worry about how big their next building will be, and are the seats soft enough. I think people worship "churches" more than they do God. And while I support the right of anyone to have whatever "religion" they wish, when it becomes violent, or harms others, or their property, then it ceases being defined as a "protected" religion, i.e. radical Moslems. The christian religion itself was a fine example of this during the Crusades as well. But...if you do an in depth study of the leaders at that time, you will find that many were satan worshippers....just as are meny of the leaders of the world today, and many of them sitting right in the pulpit of christian churches today. They are "religious" but their religion thrives on hate, death and destruction, and most of all...deception.

I think that the founders sought to allow the individual to worship as they pleased, and the establishment clause is clear (except to those who WANT to see words mean things other than what they mean) in that it prevents government from either establishing any state religion, or denying (individuals) religious rights...again, as long as they did not harm the person or property of others.

What you state about AA can be stated about a myriad of non-religious affiliations by government officials as well.

So to me, we need to limit the examination to "corruption." If we, as a people would go about eliminating the massive corruption existing in our own government at all levels, then these type of disagreements would become moot, or trivial at best.

We as a nation face a greater "threat" than some guy praying on the corner, or putting a nativity scene in his yard. Criminals want to protect themselves from exposure, and of course, punishment. Being in government is the best way to do so. When criminals get into government, then the obvious result is that they will pass laws which protect their "territory" and keep the people in submission. And..as a by product, if they can keep us fighting about stuff like nativity scenes, then that is time spent that could have been spent examining their dastardly deeds. When you think about it, it is a good plan. They are not dumb, because it works!

[MaddyMappo]

The Alamo: In my opinion, if you are offended by some "symbol" then possibly you have a lot of extra time on your hands.
If as you say, "there is nothing particularly sacred or special about some old design" then why are you wasting your time with it, and why is it an issue at all?

I think we all need to make time to discuss our civil rights. It is an important conversation. I do not believe there is anyting sacred or special about keeping one particular design in a state or local symbol, but I do believe symbols are important. And if they are representing my city, state or governement, then I should speak up about it and it is my belief that the symbols we currently use represent what we are now, and not merely our past unless the symbol places our past and present and possible hopes for the future in some context.
As far as people being forced to practice religion, I believe that was very much the case in early puritan settlements. The enforcement of Sabbath rules which included prohibitions on working as well as drinking were in effect well into the mid 20th century.

[TheAlamo]

I think we all need to make time to discuss our civil rights.

Posted by: MaddyMappo | Sep 30, 2005 4:18:17 PM

Now, we are getting somewhere. If you are concerned about your and my civil rights, then the time would better spent getting the abominable "patriot acts" declared null and void since they are unconstitutional and violate EVERYONE's civil rights. Talk about a threat to your life and property...read 'em.

A symbol is not a violation of anyone's rights. It is just what it is a symbol. The swastika is a symbol that most associate with Nazism, but the fact is, that it was around long before the Nazi's adopted it. They also used the eagle as one of their symbols, as did the Romans and others. So, should we eliminate the eagle as well?

A symbol cannot violate your rights. Your mind is what causes the "violation" in whatever you CHOOSE to associate with a symbol. The communist Russians use a bear...so should we outlaw the bear on any symbol?

As you can see, if we get into this as you would like, then maybe the symbol of a Chrysler offends somebody. So let's get rid of cars. Won't work.

Rights, are things that encompass what you can DO that will not physically harm the property or person of others. Their feelings are under THEIR control, and therefore the only person that can be responsible are those in control of their own feelings. How you feel is not my responsibility, nor is how I feel yours. If so, then we better pass millions more laws to cover everybody's feelings.

Being offended (or not offended)is NOT covered by the Constitution, and is NOT an inalienable right (not to be offended), or "civil right" and therefore, is not the province of government--at all. Those who would use government to force their views upon others align themselves with the criminal element.

You are much better off getting control of yourself, and not expecting government to force your views upon others. What is, is there because it is. Rocks are there because they are. How you feel about them is irrelevant...and they cannot violate your "rights," only YOU can do that by your own perception of them.

[Mike Schuler]

"We, the people of the State of Washington, grateful to the Supreme Ruler of the Universe for our liberties, do ordain this constitution."

While it seems to refer to "God," (or at least my definition of God) I see nothing in the preamble to my state's constitution that is a law establishing a religion. Personally, I believe that there is a "supreme ruler of the universe." I don't see how our preamble forces anybody else to comply or agree with this belief. Also, on a personal level, I really don't care for, or about crosses. They are just a symbol. If a legally incorporated municipality named "The Crosses" wants to use a cross in their symbol, the ACLU should be defending their right to do so, not trying to take it away.

What about that symbol on our one dollar bill with the pyramid and the floating eyeball above it? If I decided that this symbol offended me, would the ACLU take up the cause and file suit for its removal? I'll have to call them up and find out where my right to not be offended by anything is.

[AkekoaHoAlethia]

"Unless the LORD builds the house,
its builders labor in vain.
Unless the LORD watches over the city,
the watchmen stand guard in vain."

Psalm 127:1 (NIV)

Questions?
Click here..