People believe what they want to believe. (My mind is made up; don't bother me with facts!) Although the ACLU may, at times, engage in defense of American rights to maintain their illusion of legitimacy, there are too many times when it's acted on the behalf of the "right" of illegal aliens to the detriment of American citizens. For those who insist on irrefutable proof, if I had that, the organization would disappear for all time. Just as PETA did when their true fundraising purposes were exposed. To paraphrase Marc Antony, "I have come to bury the ACLU, not praise it."
Posted by
Jace; Baghdad, Iraq on February 17, 2009:
To Mike: I'm curious if you read what you wrote before hitting "Post". I only ask because by saying, "My mind is made up; don't bother me with facts!" (sic) you are freely admitting that your statement is based upon mere opinion and not the truth of the matter. How is this any way to have a logical argument on the merit of an organization? You then go on to admit that you have no proof that the ACLU is harmful, only a baseless comparison with PETA and a pointless quote. If one is to have a sound argument, one must "bother with the facts" to derive a sound conclusion that would sway others, not ad hominem.
Posted by
Gary; Gainesville, FL on February 17, 2009:
It is not "Communist Lawyers Union" or "center for Law and Justice" as stated by the persons confused by the ACLU's involvement in various cases.
It is the American Civil Liberties Union thus they are reasonably involved in cases where "Civil Liberties" are being debated - whoever's rights they may be acting to defend and whether or not the defendants are popular (or even American).
Posted by
Ryan, Manitoba on February 21, 2009:
TO Mike from Dallas:
I'm fairly certain that since you're from Texas and are complaining about illegal immigrants that you're white, so I'll make this short:
When you speak of how illegal immigrants are being favored, look into your own family tree to see a whole group of people who came over to North America without an invitation and I'll show you the definition of "illegal immigrant". Think about it.
Posted by
Martin, UK on February 21, 2009:
After reading these stories, and the response from the ACLU, I can only wish that this organization operated in the UK.
There have recently been a number of high profile cases of (normally) Christian people being discriminated against by employers or government agencies, normally being told that they cannot promote (ie mention) Christianity in case they offend members of another religion.
Frequent amongst these are school authorities who suspend or expel Christian pupils for wearing a cross or crucifix, citing 'no jewelery' rules, while allowing Muslim pupils to wear a veil, or Sikh pupils to wear bracelets.
In one recent high profile case a 5 year old girl was disciplined in school for saying to a fellow pupil that non-Christians would go to hell. The girl's mother, who worked in a non-teaching role at the school, sent a private e-mail to her friends from her church asking them to pray for the girl.
The husband of one of the recipients of this mail was a Governor at the school and passed this private communication to the head of the school who then suspended the mother from work for promoting religion and bringing the school into disrepute. Following public outcry she is now back at work.
Please understand, I do not agree with the promotion of religion by government or employers, and religious rights and beliefs should be protected, but in the UK it seems to be that this protection applies to all religions except Christianity, and that Christianity cannot be mentioned.
Posted by
Clemmie - North Carolina on February 25, 2009:
Interesting to learn about the real scope of the ACLU's operations. I may join!
On the subject of religion and prayer in schools, I think the late Ronald Reagan had a good grasp on reality: "Anyone who doesn't believe there's prayer in schools, never took an algebra test."
Posted by
Wayne, Michigan. on April 30, 2009:
There's a difference between teaching religion and practicing religion, Abby Moler was practicing her constitutional right to include her beliefs in her statement made in the school yearbook, as I understand it she was a student, not a paid school teacher, nor someone representing the schools board of directors, therefore she was not a government employee thus releasing her and the school from any responsibility in infringing the laws of separation of Church and State unless her statement itself (which wasn't revealed) endorsed the affiliation of her school with a religion. As a practicing atheist I find belief in a higher being silly and childish, but I do believe everyone has the right to believe what they want, as long as they're not breaking the rules as written in the constitution of these United States. For the hypocrites, save your hate for the dictators of religious dogma, not the believers, for they know not the True Origins of their beliefs.
Posted by
Chris Bedford, Cape Town South Africa on November 26, 2011:
Government in the 21st century West has become too big, too "Big Brother", and too involved in the lives of individuals.
Of course, the individuals are entirely to blame; they demand "someone" be held accountable for every little thing that goes wrong. Trip over your own feet in the road and sue the local authority for inadequately maintaining the sidewalks. Spill coffee on yourself and sue the restaurant for burning you. Get hurt jumping out of an aeroplane and sue the skydive centre for not warning you that you could get killed.
So now having invited the government to become entirely involved in your private life, I guess it's time to abdicate *all* responsibility for the things that our fathers and grandfathers took in their stride: thinking for ourselves and pursuing life, liberty, and happiness; in short, being adults.
Thus it is that Americans will accept -- nay, demand -- that a school suspend a kid for bringing a butter knife or one-inch plastic toy firearm to school, or strip-search a girl accused (by a known troublemaker!) of drug-dealing, or censor someone for expressing an opinion that contains religious conviction.
To some it may seem bizarre. To others it is merely another symptom of a steady decline in intellectual values: politicians are vilified because they belong to the wrong party, not because of the views they hold or programmes they advocate, and rumours are propagated because of their shock value, not their factual content. When will the public ever learn to think for themselves? Just this evening I was told with total conviction that "they" are spiking drinks (sodas in sealed cans) for sale in "clubs" -- by puncturing the base of the tin and injecting Eye-Gene (a vasoconstrictor eyedrop) or brake fluid (!) then "welding it closed again" (yep) and this causes the kids to "pass out" and... (or something -- the details get real sketchy from here on). The lady who told me this, heard it from so-and-so who "has 15 year old kids" -- well it must be true then, right?
So will the public ever start thinking for themselves? Not in my lifetime, I'm pretty sure of that. When I read comments like those of Matt, Va, above I know this. Does he even have the vaguest clue of what a "commie" is and what communist values are? I'm sticking my neck out as far as he did when I say "guaranteed not", but I think I'm on safer ground, because when he refers to the ACLU as the "Communist Lawyers" union he displays such a hugely ignorant slant one is really left wondering where to begin. Obviously he subscribed to "True" thinking it was just a comedy newsletter, and got a rude shock when your views on common sense started coming out. Whoa! He said what? :-)
---
I just relay things I read in the papers. And, sometimes, challenge readers to think a little. Many are not used to thinking, and it hurts their heads. But they're the ones I most want to think. -rc
Civil Rights: Justice for All, or...? - Comments
Posted by Mike from Dallas on February 16, 2009:
People believe what they want to believe. (My mind is made up; don't bother me with facts!) Although the ACLU may, at times, engage in defense of American rights to maintain their illusion of legitimacy, there are too many times when it's acted on the behalf of the "right" of illegal aliens to the detriment of American citizens. For those who insist on irrefutable proof, if I had that, the organization would disappear for all time. Just as PETA did when their true fundraising purposes were exposed. To paraphrase Marc Antony, "I have come to bury the ACLU, not praise it."
Posted by Jace; Baghdad, Iraq on February 17, 2009:
To Mike: I'm curious if you read what you wrote before hitting "Post". I only ask because by saying, "My mind is made up; don't bother me with facts!" (sic) you are freely admitting that your statement is based upon mere opinion and not the truth of the matter. How is this any way to have a logical argument on the merit of an organization? You then go on to admit that you have no proof that the ACLU is harmful, only a baseless comparison with PETA and a pointless quote. If one is to have a sound argument, one must "bother with the facts" to derive a sound conclusion that would sway others, not ad hominem.
Posted by Gary; Gainesville, FL on February 17, 2009:
It is not "Communist Lawyers Union" or "center for Law and Justice" as stated by the persons confused by the ACLU's involvement in various cases.
It is the American Civil Liberties Union thus they are reasonably involved in cases where "Civil Liberties" are being debated - whoever's rights they may be acting to defend and whether or not the defendants are popular (or even American).
Posted by Ryan, Manitoba on February 21, 2009:
TO Mike from Dallas:
I'm fairly certain that since you're from Texas and are complaining about illegal immigrants that you're white, so I'll make this short:
When you speak of how illegal immigrants are being favored, look into your own family tree to see a whole group of people who came over to North America without an invitation and I'll show you the definition of "illegal immigrant". Think about it.
Posted by Martin, UK on February 21, 2009:
After reading these stories, and the response from the ACLU, I can only wish that this organization operated in the UK.
There have recently been a number of high profile cases of (normally) Christian people being discriminated against by employers or government agencies, normally being told that they cannot promote (ie mention) Christianity in case they offend members of another religion.
Frequent amongst these are school authorities who suspend or expel Christian pupils for wearing a cross or crucifix, citing 'no jewelery' rules, while allowing Muslim pupils to wear a veil, or Sikh pupils to wear bracelets.
In one recent high profile case a 5 year old girl was disciplined in school for saying to a fellow pupil that non-Christians would go to hell. The girl's mother, who worked in a non-teaching role at the school, sent a private e-mail to her friends from her church asking them to pray for the girl.
The husband of one of the recipients of this mail was a Governor at the school and passed this private communication to the head of the school who then suspended the mother from work for promoting religion and bringing the school into disrepute. Following public outcry she is now back at work.
Please understand, I do not agree with the promotion of religion by government or employers, and religious rights and beliefs should be protected, but in the UK it seems to be that this protection applies to all religions except Christianity, and that Christianity cannot be mentioned.
Posted by Clemmie - North Carolina on February 25, 2009:
Interesting to learn about the real scope of the ACLU's operations. I may join!
On the subject of religion and prayer in schools, I think the late Ronald Reagan had a good grasp on reality: "Anyone who doesn't believe there's prayer in schools, never took an algebra test."
Posted by Wayne, Michigan. on April 30, 2009:
There's a difference between teaching religion and practicing religion, Abby Moler was practicing her constitutional right to include her beliefs in her statement made in the school yearbook, as I understand it she was a student, not a paid school teacher, nor someone representing the schools board of directors, therefore she was not a government employee thus releasing her and the school from any responsibility in infringing the laws of separation of Church and State unless her statement itself (which wasn't revealed) endorsed the affiliation of her school with a religion. As a practicing atheist I find belief in a higher being silly and childish, but I do believe everyone has the right to believe what they want, as long as they're not breaking the rules as written in the constitution of these United States. For the hypocrites, save your hate for the dictators of religious dogma, not the believers, for they know not the True Origins of their beliefs.
Posted by Chris Bedford, Cape Town South Africa on November 26, 2011:
Government in the 21st century West has become too big, too "Big Brother", and too involved in the lives of individuals.
Of course, the individuals are entirely to blame; they demand "someone" be held accountable for every little thing that goes wrong. Trip over your own feet in the road and sue the local authority for inadequately maintaining the sidewalks. Spill coffee on yourself and sue the restaurant for burning you. Get hurt jumping out of an aeroplane and sue the skydive centre for not warning you that you could get killed.
So now having invited the government to become entirely involved in your private life, I guess it's time to abdicate *all* responsibility for the things that our fathers and grandfathers took in their stride: thinking for ourselves and pursuing life, liberty, and happiness; in short, being adults.
Thus it is that Americans will accept -- nay, demand -- that a school suspend a kid for bringing a butter knife or one-inch plastic toy firearm to school, or strip-search a girl accused (by a known troublemaker!) of drug-dealing, or censor someone for expressing an opinion that contains religious conviction.
To some it may seem bizarre. To others it is merely another symptom of a steady decline in intellectual values: politicians are vilified because they belong to the wrong party, not because of the views they hold or programmes they advocate, and rumours are propagated because of their shock value, not their factual content. When will the public ever learn to think for themselves? Just this evening I was told with total conviction that "they" are spiking drinks (sodas in sealed cans) for sale in "clubs" -- by puncturing the base of the tin and injecting Eye-Gene (a vasoconstrictor eyedrop) or brake fluid (!) then "welding it closed again" (yep) and this causes the kids to "pass out" and... (or something -- the details get real sketchy from here on). The lady who told me this, heard it from so-and-so who "has 15 year old kids" -- well it must be true then, right?
So will the public ever start thinking for themselves? Not in my lifetime, I'm pretty sure of that. When I read comments like those of Matt, Va, above I know this. Does he even have the vaguest clue of what a "commie" is and what communist values are? I'm sticking my neck out as far as he did when I say "guaranteed not", but I think I'm on safer ground, because when he refers to the ACLU as the "Communist Lawyers" union he displays such a hugely ignorant slant one is really left wondering where to begin. Obviously he subscribed to "True" thinking it was just a comedy newsletter, and got a rude shock when your views on common sense started coming out. Whoa! He said what? :-)
---
I just relay things I read in the papers. And, sometimes, challenge readers to think a little. Many are not used to thinking, and it hurts their heads. But they're the ones I most want to think. -rc
Read the article that everyone's commenting on, or post a comment about it.