Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
ScoutNerd

ACLU Info?

Recommended Posts

Prairie_Scouter

 

You ask how the ACLU is against most things this country was founded on, the one most important is religion. This country was founded in large part of wanting freedom of religion yet we aren't free to display our religious beliefs unless we are in the minority. Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Assoc. in 1802 was in the content that government should establish no religion, not that it should aid in regulating it. If the ACLU stands behind all religions, I challenge you to name five things done in favor of Christians. They may stand behind hate speech, murderers, terrorist, and against personal accountability, but speak out in public about Christ or display any Christian symbol and you're labled as impossing your beliefs on others.

As for the attacks on the BSA, the Illinois chapter of the ACLU has forced through lawsuites the Defense Dept. to suspend it's decades long tradition of supporting scouts. They now intend to try and end all federal support of the BSA. The ACLU claims the pledge "To do my duty to God and my country" is religious discrimination, and I quote, "Direct government sponsership of BSA units violates the religious liberty of youth who wish to participate but do not want to express a belief in God." So don't join!

The Worldnet Daily reported an increasing number of California PUBLIC school students must attend an intensive 3 week course on Islam. The course mandates that 7th graders learn the tenets of Islam, study important figures of faith, wear a robe, adopt a muslim name, and stage their own jihad. They must also learn many verses of the Koran.

Finally, to teach a child in school that the big bang theory is the begining of what has become today is to teach atheism to our youth. There is no diffrence in teaching that there is or isn't a God, they would both be a form of religion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Worldnet Daily reported an increasing number of California PUBLIC school students must attend an intensive 3 week course on Islam. The course mandates that 7th graders learn the tenets of Islam, study important figures of faith, wear a robe, adopt a muslim name, and stage their own jihad. They must also learn many verses of the Koran.

 

Merlyn,

You guys on this? What is the ACLU & the atheists doing to put a stop to this?

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

J_P,

 

>yet we aren't free to display our religious beliefs unless we are in the minority

Where did you get that idea? Did somebody knock down all the churches, mosques, synogogues, etc, in the U.S. while I wasn't looking? The ACLU's position (not mine, their's) is that you're not supposed to have religious displays on public property. That's not the same as publicly announcing your religious beliefs; I haven't heard of any cases where they ACLU has tried to prevent that (although that doesn't mean it hasn't happened). And, I happen to agree with you that many of cases brought by the ACLU in regards to support for religious groups are somewhat "over the top". Of course, the BSA is not a religious organization, so that's not really germaine here, right?

 

Your comment on forcing education in regards to Islam in California sounds really wacky (not you, but California), but then, that's California for you, I guess :) That seems really inappropriate, unless they are teaching it as part of a comparative religious curriculum or some sort of tolerance training, as in "live in their shoes". Did the article say if it was in that context or not?

 

Sorry, but teaching the big bang isn't anywhere remotely like teaching atheism. The big bang doesn't necessarily preclude the possibility of some sort of intervention "at the top". That's a matter of debate and while there are many opinions, nobody really knows. Of course, we could save a lot of money on science textbooks if we could answer every question with "because God made it that way". :)

 

Tort,

 

So, are you saying that it's impossible to be brilliant and unbiased in their legal views at the same time?

 

I would love to be safe in the knowledge that those sitting in the courts are those with the best legal minds. But that's just not the way it is.

 

Let's face it. There's a certain amount of laziness in these selections. Rather than looking for the best mind, both parties just look for candidates that fit their ideology, which is exactly what you DON'T want in a judge, who is supposed to be completely impartial. Instead, a lot of judicial candidates, especially those in high ranking positions, are selected because they fit the ideology of the party in the majority, and nowadays, I think that they look for candidates that they can count on to NOT think independently, but just toe the party line. You're not getting the best minds by doing that, either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The Worldnet Daily reported an increasing number of California PUBLIC school students must attend an intensive 3 week course on Islam. The course mandates that 7th graders learn the tenets of Islam, study important figures of faith, wear a robe, adopt a muslim name, and stage their own jihad. They must also learn many verses of the Koran."

 

ACLU doesn't need to do anything about this, because it's baloney. For more info, go to:

 

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/b/byronislam.htm

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>The ACLU's position (not mine, their's) is that you're not supposed to have religious displays on public property.

 

Where does the Constution prohibit religious displays on public property?

 

Why has the ACLU not filed suit against the U.S. Supreme Court for having the image of Moses in its chambers?

 

Why has the ACLU not filed suit to prohibit Congress from opening its sessions with prayer?

 

>So, are you saying that it's impossible to be brilliant and unbiased in their legal views at the same time?

 

Bias brings in prejudice and "unreasoned judgment". I do not believe any judge should bring bias to the bench. That does not mean that judges cannot have opinions as to how to interpret constitutional law. Of course they should, and the President/Senate should be well informed of those views. If a nominee lacks an opinion on how to interpret constitutional law, I do not think such nominee is ready for the bench. In the twisted view you have in requiring an unconstitutional supermajority vote for judicial nominees, you have just that (people who can get through the gauntlet because they have not written their opinions down).

 

>I would love to be safe in the knowledge that those sitting in the courts are those with the best legal minds. But that's just not the way it is.

 

Justice Scalia is widely regarded as being among the most brilliant legal minds in this nation. Had your rules been in place, he would not be on the bench today. We do get it right sometimes.

 

>Rather than looking for the best mind, both parties just look for candidates that fit their ideology, which is exactly what you DON'T want in a judge, who is supposed to be completely impartial.

 

I disagree.

 

>Instead, a lot of judicial candidates, especially those in high ranking positions, are selected because they fit the ideology of the party in the majority, and nowadays, I think that they look for candidates that they can count on to NOT think independently, but just toe the party line.

 

I disagree.

 

>You're not getting the best minds by doing that, either.

 

I disagree. Owens from Texas is brilliant. I have read her opinions and she is extremely sharp. Pryor also is a brilliant jurist. Brown from California is widely recognized for her intellectual capability. Pickering has shown his ability on the bench.

 

The nominees that I am familiar with and that have been filibustered are no cheap fools. They have proven their abilities, but are being blocked because a minority of senators disagree with their opinions. That is unconstitutional. The President should get his nominees if a majority of senators agree to it.

 

Period.

 

I don't care who the President is. If a person doesn't like that rule, then change the Constitution. Stop twisting the Constitution to something that pleases a person at that one moment (since the Democrats sure opposed filibusters before).

 

That's my beef. The Republicans have the high ground today, TODAY, because they are on the side of the Constitution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tort,

 

Well, I've actually got some work I've got to do today :), but quickly...

 

Regards the ACLU, that's their position. Like I said, not my position. Regards your other questions, I don't know. Maybe it's just further down their list... :)

 

Regards judges..

I should have said that you don't "always" get the best minds using the methods currently being used. You're absolutely correct that there are many good minds out there today, on both sides of the issues.

 

I would personally prefer that we not be selecting judges who have preconceived notions about particular legal issues. To take a "hot" example, abortion is currently legal. I'd rather not have a judge being appointed who is a known abortion foe who says that he/she would use his position to support that view, because I think it's unlikely that an abortion case coming before that judge would get a fair hearing. I'd rather just have a judge who will interpret current law, and turn it back to Congress to make legislative changes, where necessary.

 

My rules? I don't set any rules. I'm not trying to twist the Constitution. I think the current system works ok; I just wish there was a way to take some of the politics out of it. The filibuster should be rarely used; Committee chairs shouldn't be blocking candidates from getting a hearing.

 

You don't think the Republicans are selecting judicial candidates who support their ideology, and just looking for the best minds? Do you think that they'd support, say, a brilliant jurist who happened to be, say, pro-environment? or pro-choice?

 

The Dems picked these 10 nominees to go the wall against. I suspect it's politically motivated. Bush decided to re-nominate these 10, knowing what would happen. I suspect it's politically motivated as well.

 

So, we don't agree. That's ok. I'm enjoying the discussion.

 

Gotta run. Have a good day, Tort.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>I would personally prefer that we not be selecting judges who have preconceived notions about particular legal issues. To take a "hot" example, abortion is currently legal. I'd rather not have a judge being appointed who is a known abortion foe who says that he/she would use his position to support that view, because I think it's unlikely that an abortion case coming before that judge would get a fair hearing. I'd rather just have a judge who will interpret current law, and turn it back to Congress to make legislative changes, where necessary.

 

Why would you want a jurist on the Supreme Court who has not formed an intelligent opinion on a hot subject? Such a person only qualifies as an OJ jurist, but not the Supreme Court. If a person has an ounce of intellectual curiosity and knowledge of U.S. society, he will have an opinion on the matters.

 

The question is whether that man can set aside his views and listen to the law and make a choice based on that law. It is where a jurist is willing to rule on a position that he may disagree with, but that the law requires. I have no doubt that jurists on both sides of the aisle are capable of doing that.

 

>The filibuster should be rarely used; Committee chairs shouldn't be blocking candidates from getting a hearing.

 

I agree, mostly, but for any requirement that imposes a requirement more stringent than the Constitution requires an amendment.

 

>You don't think the Republicans are selecting judicial candidates who support their ideology, and just looking for the best minds?

 

Both.

 

>Do you think that they'd support, say, a brilliant jurist who happened to be, say, pro-environment? or pro-choice?

 

Absolutely not. That's where consent comes in. The Republicans, to their credit, let an ACLU lawyer get to the Supreme Court. They didn't filibuster her; They had a vote.

 

>The Dems picked these 10 nominees to go the wall against. I suspect it's politically motivated.

 

Ya think?

 

>Bush decided to re-nominate these 10, knowing what would happen. I suspect it's politically motivated as well.

 

Well, his nominations have been refused their constitutional right to an up and down vote.

 

Period. BTW, I would not put it past the Republicans to filibuster a judicial nominee in the future if the filibuster rule is left unchanged. However, to their credit the Republicans never tried.

 

Thanks for the discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought it was kind of odd that the Dems chose to threaten filibuster when I'm told that they had other parliamentary mechanisms that would have had the same effect and not have been so controversial. But, it is, what it is, I guess. It'll be interesting to see how it all plays out.

 

Thanks, Tort, been a pleasure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Holy moley! Let a day go by and you guys really pack it in! My compliments for a good discussion, though.

Whitewater, assuming you were addressing me, I merely stated two extremes from which BSA is free to choose. I also made a conditional statement in which, if the conditions were met, BSA could be considered dishonest.

The freedom of choice is there and you can't deny that.

And IF BSA expects to have the rights of a restrictive private club and simultaneously the rights of a public charity, THAT expectation, if BSA is aware of the difference, could be considered dishonest. If you disagree I would be interested in your reasoning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pack I know what you mean, I'm in the middle of finals, reports, projects and presentations here at school, and I've been trying to keep up, but it's flying by really quick. a few comments though...

 

>"The Worldnet Daily reported an increasing number of >California PUBLIC school students must attend an intensive 3 >week course on Islam. The course mandates that 7th graders >learn the tenets of Islam, study important figures of faith, >wear a robe, adopt a muslim name, and stage their own jihad. >They must also learn many verses of the Koran."

>

>ACLU doesn't need to do anything about this, because it's >baloney. For more info, go to:

>

>http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/b/byronislam.htm

 

Well, I checked that website out and here's something they wrote under the heading of "the truth"

 

"Peggy Green, the Superintendent of the Byron Union School district says that the school is merely reflecting the California guidelines for seventh grade and that the students are learning about Islam in the same way that they learn about Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, and other major religions. She says that individual teachers will augment the curriculum with various activities and games, including dressing-up and role playing, in order to stimulate class discussion. "

 

I'm not sure about you folks, but I was taught nearly nothing about any of those other religions in school, "so just as much" would actually mean "nothing". So the idea that kids are infact encouraged to do this (perhaps the "required" statement was media inflection, but still...) is quite scary. I really don't think I'd want any hypothetical kids of mine to be taught only one religion in school, especially in such a role playing way.

 

It certainly seems like an issue to me...

Then there's the thing someone said about "only minority religions can do things in public anymore" and then it was shot down by someone (I"m kinda pushed for time, so I didn't want to take the time to look it up). An interesting thought camp to mind, why is it referred to as seperation of "Church" and state... why not leave it at "religion" and state... does that signal flags in anyone else's mind?

 

Then about the ACLU (to be on topic and all) Another good thing they might want to go after is the "In God we Trust" on every single peice of currency. And then they could rewrite the Declaration of Independace to take out the part about the "[People] are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights"...

anyway... just more to ponder... nose back to the grindstone... see ya by the end of the week if I'm still alive :-D

-Curtis :-D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ScoutNerd, You'll live. Stick to the grindstone. It will be a much more productive labor. And good luck. Later

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Packsaddle- I guess I misinterpreted your comments. I thought that you were implying that the BSA WAS bigoted and hateful in their policies and SHOULD be more open, inclusive and tolerant. My point was that I have never seen bigotry or hatefulness practiced on the unit level.

 

I do disagree with you that the government has interacted with the BSA illegally and that the law is fairly clear here. I think the the law is somewhat muddy here. (Although I do admit to seeing both sides of the argument.) And if the BSA believes they are correct in their position that does not make them dishonest.

 

The core of the argument is in the interpretation of the constitution. Some people believe there must be total separation of church and state- that nothing of a religious nature has a place in government. I don't think you can (or should need to) totally sanitize government of anything that has a religious conotation.

 

This was asked earlier, but I don't think anyone responded: Where in the constitution does it say it isn't allowed to post the 10 commandments on public property? How is that etablishing a religion? How is sposoring a Scout Troop establishing a religion? It all boils down to how you interpret the constitution and I think they are interpreting it wrong.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whitewater,

 

Of course, the 10 commandments isn't mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, and I agree with you that much of these actions are based on an interpretation of the Constitution. Whether that interpretation is correct or not depends on a person's ideology, I think. Regards the ACLU's actions in such areas, I think you'd find that they are concerned about the "slippery slope", ie, if you relent on a small issue regarding the separation of church and state, bigger issues could follow. I can't say that I agree with that in this case, but it is what it is. If nothing else, maybe you need extreme views on both sides in order to be able to figure out where "the middle" is supposed to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Prairie-

 

Show me where in our Constitution has a seperation of Church and State..

Last time I checked it only said that the State would not establish a Religion.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

 

That does not SEPERATE God from our Nation, it allows us to KEEP God in our Nation as we see God and not how the KING OF ENGLAND Sees God.

 

Jerry

Not a fan of the ACLU.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

schleining,

I have argued the exact same thing many times! Ask NJ! I still have yet to receive a satisfactory answer.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×