For me, it always seems the ACLU has been a bleeding heart liberal organization, however, the name indicates 'civil liberties'. As a RP Republican, how am I supposed to feel about the ACLU?
Edit: Wouldn't the ACLU would be at odds with RP's philosophy of bringing politics to state/local levels? When/if a community legislates on, say, religion or abortion - the ACLU would be all over it.
  |
|
★
The Daily Paul is a community website with no official affiliation with Ron Paul or his Presidential Committee. The content of posts and comments on the Daily Paul represent the opinions of the original poster, and are not endorsed, approved, or otherwise representative of the opinions of the Daily Paul, its owner, site moderators or Ron Paul. This site may contain adult language and adult concepts. If you are offended by such content, or feel you may be offended by such content, point your browser to a different site IMMEDIATELY. For more, read the Full Disclaimer
© 2007 - 2011 by The Daily Paul. Not paid for by, nor officially affiliated in any way with Ron Paul. | General Site Disclaimer | DMCA Disclaimer | Advertise here
Look up the Institute for Justice
MUCH BETTER ORGANIZATION
_________________________________
Freedom - Peace - Prosperity
All great examples of what I
All great examples of what I was talking about previously. I can know that the ACLU is a leftist organization and still applaud efforts like those, as we all should.
Some people would prefer to wait around their whole lives for some person or organization to come along who embodies everything they stand for, which will never happen.
----------
Liberty for Dummies
For the most part
they suck.
They have a real anti-Christian leaning of having anything Christian in public places.
Sometimes they do some good in other civil liberty areas.
Davy C Rockett
http://liberty-central.blogspot.com
http://screamfreedom.blogspot.com
http://cystic-fibrosis-symptom.com
http://medical-definitions.com
Do you believe religious
Do you believe religious organizations should be using the public space for their activities?
----------
Liberty for Dummies
Anyone should be able to use
Anyone should be able to use public space - it is PUBLIC space afterall.
Indeed, I offer you my
Indeed, I offer you my heartfelt agreement there. But can I get your agreement that it is reasonable to set certain even-handed restrictions on what that public space, which the entire public is compelled to maintain via taxation, may be used for?
As you've correctly stated, "anyone should be able to use public space," which is why most publicly maintained spaces (parks, the town square, etc.) do not allow displays that might be considered highly offensive (or even dangerous, in the case of children), to some portion of the public who must pay to maintain it.
Most people will agree that a restriction against pornography in the town square is reasonable. There are children in the town square, and devoutly religious people, and other strong social conservatives.
On the other hand, most people seem to endorse using the town square for religious displays -- as long as that display does not offend their preferred religion (most Christians, for example, would not be outraged to see a menorah next to a nativity scene).
But what about that segment of the public who finds both menorahs and nativity scenes offensive? What if they are as repulsed by these displays as those reasonable people who constructed them would be to find that Satanists had erected a monument to the glory of Lucifer right next to the water fountain in the town square?
If we continue playing this "what-if" game, eventually we can offend the entire taxpaying public, so that nobody is comfortable using the public space that all are compelled to maintain.
Is this divisiveness reasonable?
Wouldn't it be more reasonable to extend those perfectly acceptable restrictions that are in place in most public spaces against obscenity to include similar restrictions against permanent or semi-permanent religious displays, so that the entire public can happily and comfortably make use of their public spaces?
Or, perhaps, should we provide tax refunds to those members of the public whose fair use of the public space is curtailed by religious displays that they find offensive? If this were to happen, with the level of divisiveness that accompanies these issues, the town square would no doubt fall into disrepair.
----------
Liberty for Dummies
A lot of Paul supporters
A lot of Paul supporters seem to dislike the ACLU based on principle, because of their origins and political slant. I am not one of them. Oh, I hate the left all right. But just as I am grown up enough to take truth where I find it even if I disagree with the messenger on all but one or two points (in my case, Naomi Wolf and Christopher Hitchens would be two examples), I am also capable of appreciating the good deeds of those I might otherwise oppose. The ACLU is a case in point. They might be diametrically opposed to many of my beliefs, but they also fight to dismantle the PATRIOT Act, educate citizens on how to assert their rights in encounters with police, and many other worthy efforts.
So, will I be joining them any time soon? Not on your life. But will I speak out against an organization that fights for causes I believe in? Only if I am a fool.
----------
Liberty for Dummies
Take this for what Its Worth
The list goes on 'n on and I can't look for 'em all, duh.
This sites shows reports on 'em every-now-'n-then:
http://www.americanpatrol.com/
.................................................
Christianity Attacked By ACLU Terrorists
http://www.americandaily.com/article/6120
This terrorist has a name and it is The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). Rooted in hate and communist philosophy, it moves in the manner of other perverse and despicable bodies, cloaking itself in constitutional phraseology and the American Flag. In reality, it remains faithful to seeking the destruction of all American principals.
................................................
ACLU Child Porn Follow-Ups
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/216812.php
ACLU in 1985, Barry Lynn told the U.S. Attorney General’s Commission on Pornography (of which Focus on the Family President Dr. James C. Dobson was a member) that child pornography was protected by the First Amendment.
................................................
Radical Clinton Appointee ignores Federal Law
http://nationalwriterssyndicate.com/content/view/189/2/
This well-oiled, well-functioning machine is working hard to shred the Constitution to bits while attempting to institute a radical, left-wing agenda.
....................................................
ACLU Obeys NWO Instructions To Destroy American's God
August 20, 2005
http://stoptheaclumt.blogspot.com/2005/08/aclu-obeys-nwo-ins...
.................................................................................
ACLU Founder, Communist Roger Baldwin said,
"I am for socialism, disarmament, and ultimately for abolishing the State itself as an instrument of violence and compulsion. I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal. Civil liberties, like democracy, are useful only as tools for social change.
the ACLU is the
enemy of the constitution.
as I see it
the ACLU was founded by communist .........to use the bill of rights and the constitution ............to destroy the constitution and the bill of rights. ..... I know members of the ACLU and they only partly agree with me and they say they are trying to minimize the communist influence. I do not know as much as there is to know. ..... but I have studied politics part time for 46 years (I am 66yrs) ....so I do know a few things. .......I support Ron Paul. ...........He is the best ! ! !
Liberty is our campaigns gift to the world it is our manifest destiny.
Freedom is a movement who's time has come. Our campaign will lead world wide freedom.
I don't care about the founder
He's long gone anyway.
And I was never a communist, and I support Dr. Paul, too!
OK, as an ACLU member, I'll answer this one.
There is no doubt that the ACLU tends to lean politically left. I have yet to see them take on a RKBA case, for example. They also tend to be big on illegal immigrant advocation (which I have voiced disagreements with them).
However, they do tend to stand up for some things that are important as well, such as SOCAS.
Like every organization, they are not perfect. But they serve a role in the ongoing dialogue and swinging or the political pendulum.
As to the state/local politics question:
First, the ACLU does a LOT of state and local work. Much more than national work, but not as high-profile. That's common in politics.
There is a common misunderstanding about personal civil and constitutional rights in this nation.
It's actually very simple to explain in concept, and it's based in the Founding Documents and Principles of this naton.
Since all power in this nation is (supposed to be) derived from the consent of the People, the People by definition also have the sole authority to revoke that consent and remove that power (see the Declaration of Independence).
That also means that government power is inferior to the rights of the People. The Founders understood this intimately, and it is reflected two ways: one, in the Bill of Rights, especially the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, and two, in the oft-overlooked buy extremely important careful distinction the Founders made in the Constitution between the powers of government and the rights and powers of the People.
To re-emphasize: the People have both powers and rights. Governments only have powers. (That's why the concept is "states' rights" is either a misnomer or a myth!)
Government's first (and some say only) duty, then, is to safeguard those rights from all threats, be they foreign powers, domestic powers, or even other people. (The latter gets warped into stealing freedoms!).
Those constitutional and civil rights apply against all levels of government, not just the federal level. That's why the courts interpret the incorporation clause of the 14th Amendment the way they do. States do not have the power to infringe on personal constitutional and civil rights. Most states, in fact, have a Bill of Rights that goes beyond the federal Bill of Rights.
To extend a classic analogy of a republic, the lamb is well-armed and doesn't care if the two wolves who just voted on dinner are federal or state wolves.
Bringing this back around to the ACLU, they do a lot of work on what they perceive--correctly or incorrectly--as violations of those rights. The perception of what is a correct or incorrect stance on these rights is where the controversy arises all the time. For example, the ACLU has been very pro-same-gender marriage, and others disagree with that view (Disclosure: I think it's gender discrimination to prohibit it, and I think marriage is about love and commitment, not personal anatomy!). This disagreement in stance is where the question of the ACLU lies. Most of these controversies lie in the "gray areas" of the limits of those rights.
Welcome to politics and law.
So I don't think RP and the ACLU are at odds on decentralizing these things so long as personal constitutional and civil rights are preserved. The ACLU, like its counterpart the ACLJ and every other rights advocacy or restriction group in politics, sees national-level resolutions as the blanket coverage, big hammer solutions for these perceived problems. That's just endemic of the decay of our system in general and how the game is played these days. I do think, however, that RP and the ACLU would be at odds over *how* the issues are decided, not necessarily where.
But that's just my opinion. :)
Just your opinion BUT
one hell of a good one. Read it twice!
h-daddy
The ACLU is like a squirrel.
The ACLU is like a squirrel. They find their way to an acorn every once in a while, but they typically represent communist interests rather than American interests with hard-line stances against religion, etc.
Look up the Institute for Justice
Much better organization.
_________________________________
Freedom - Peace - Prosperity
They tend to claim that the Bill of Rights...
...is supposed to apply to private interests, when it is only meant as a restraint to government. You have no right to free speech in a private building or on private grounds. As an organization with limited resources, I question some of the cases they take on, like when they went pro bono to help NAMBLA get their "Rape and Escape" literature out. Yeah, they had a right to publish it. No, the ACLU didn't need to help them. I'm sure they could have found a better way to spend their money and time than helping an instruction manual on violating children get into the world.
Ask Bob Barr...
He's worked for them. I think Abe Foxman is an abomination, but the ACLU gets it right once in a while. After all, even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Some of these
liberal extremist eventually branched off into Neo-Conservatism. Weird huh?
Founded by a communist
Every once in a while they make a good point.
In a word: Ambivalent
They are for some really good things. And have probably the best lines in debates about privacy, but they are, as has been said, bleeding-hearts. They aren't for what the American political tradition understands as our natural rights, as such. Its more as if they were some new, urban, European civil rights organization. They completely ignore the second amendment, and seem hostile to it. Or perhaps you might say that they actively ignore it.
Good question,
I've wondered this myself. Overall, I like them and think they have value, though I'm sure they favor big government in many cases. Hope to hear more opinions on this.
--------
We don't know how to mind our own business
'Cause the whole worlds got to be just like us
Now we are fighting a war over there
No matter who's the winner
We can't pay the cost
-Steppenwolf 1969
'Cause there's a monster on the loose
sometimes they pick silly fights
Fortune Favors the Bold
but in general, they do some pretty good work. Keep in mind, the things you here about on the news are just the really odd, stupid cases they take up.
Fortune Favors the Bold
But I think the ACLU would
But I think the ACLU would be at odds with RP's philosophy of bringing politics to state/local levels. In this way, when/if a community legislates on, say, religion - the ACLU would be all over it.