The ACLU finds some time

[GernBlansten 10]

I get your drift OGE. It is "UnAmerican" to not spin your agenda. The ACLU just presents its cases, lets the courts decide. Isn't there a news channel that touts "We report, you decide". And some commentator that uses the tag "No Spin Zone". Well, the ACLU actually follows that montra. Sure the ACLU could use a Madison Ave ad campaign to polish its image and package itself so that those who can't or won't do the critical thinking can appreciate their efforts. I think it would diminish its significance.

 

Still no cases eh? No cases where the ACLU restricted, removed, stepped on, defiled, abused, constrained, limited, or deminished anyone's civil rights?

 

As for the ACLU poking holes in the Constitution, which ammendment? The ACLU forces adherance to the US Constitution. If any group is punching holes in the consitution, the ACLU cannot be the one. If anything, they are the ones patching it back up.

 

As to whether God is religion. Belief in God requires faith. Faith is religion.

 

As to the 10 commandments in a court house. Only 3 or 4 of the commandments have been accepted into the criminal and civil code. The rest are religious rules that few religious people follow. But that's another thread.

[OldGreyEagle 5]

Well, as has been pointed out several times its not the ACLU that makes decisions, its the Courts

 

On the "we report you decide" angle, its hard to decide if its not reported

 

And while I would never want to allow facts to interfere with a good rant, on the subject of the Manger scene being removed and the Menorrah remaining, wasnt that the decision of a Judge? The ACLU wanted both removed and it was the Court that decided to remove only the manger? I am suer somebody will know

[Prairie_Scouter 10]

Aloha, Kahuna (and all),

 

Regards "spin", I just paid a visit to the ACLU website (actually only the 2nd time I've ever done so), and they do provide coverage of things that they are working on that affect a variety of points of view. So, the information is there, but I'd have to agree that they don't go out of their way to market themselves very effectively.

 

The ACLU, like lots of other lawyers, surely try to get court interpretations of law that support the point of view of their clients. The litiguous nature of our country today is largely the result of lawyers who floated test cases that created interpretations of law that allow suing for a variety of reasons (at least, that's what I've read). But in the case of BSA, I think that mostly they are just trying to get BSA to follow the rules of the world that they've created for themselves. Could this be an attempt by the ACLU to get BSA to change their rules regarding discrimination? Could be, I guess, and whether that's a good or bad thing depends on what side of the fence you're sitting on.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Ed writes:

Removing a manger scene from court house steps but leaving the Menorah.

 

The ACLU sued to have BOTH removed; the supreme court (which had no Jews on the court at that time) said the menorah wasn't a religious symbol.

 

Removing the Ten Commandments from government buildings.

 

Taking "under God" out of the Pledge.

 

That's removing references to God from the public.

 

Correct, Ed.

 

Unfortunately, here's what you claimed, and what you need to defend:

 

"The ACLU wants all reference to God removed from public display!"

 

ALL references. Not just unlawful government-endorsed religious references.

 

Your claim can be shown to be wrong by a single counter-example, because you claim that the ACLU wants to remove ALL such references.

 

Here's one:

http://www.aclufl.org/about/newsletters/2002/bocacemeterytorch1202.cfm

 

And that old line "I can't learn" is really nothing more than away for you to avoid addressing the real issue.

 

No Ed, you really can't learn things. I bet in a few months you'll still claim that the ACLU wants to remove "all" references to god from public view.

 

For example, I specifically told you long ago that the ACLU argued AGAINST allowing menorahs:

http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=94655&p=5

 

Yet you still continue to try to use that against the ACLU, as if they only sued to get the manger scene removed, and didn't sue to remove the menorah.

 

And that's because you can't learn.

[OldGreyEagle 5]

"The ACLU sued to have BOTH removed; the supreme court (which had no Jews on the court at that time) said the menorah wasn't a religious symbol."

 

Gee, I think I heard that before somewhere

[SR540Beaver 116]

Why can't I resist the urge to step into these frays? To a large degree, the American people are lazy and like to be spoon fed. I've always been something of a skeptic, I seldom take things at face value. People parrot what they hear on TV and the radio. What they hear is that the ACLU is an evil, perverse, un-American organization. What they don't do is go to the ACLU's website like Prairie Scouter did and look for themselves. I have. I found that they often take up cases that you never hear about. The same political pundits (O'Reilly, Hannity, Laura Ingraham, etc.) who complain that the liberal mainstream media never tell you about the good stuff happening in Iraq, are the same people who never tell you about the good the ACLU does. Just like talking about the good in Iraq.....it doesn't get ratings or sell advertising. The ACLU puts out information about the good they do, but those folks who are "looking out for you" seem to overlook it in favor of items they can whip into a frenzy. The ACLU is a non-profit organization who uses the money they have to pay expenses for lawyers and court cases. It is a waste of money for them to be putting out a multi-million dollar PR campaign to combat all of the pundits complaining about them. Look at the number of conservative radio talk show hosts. Hannity, Savage, Rush, O'Reilly, Ingraham, Tammy Bruce, Tony Snow, John Gibson, Bill Bennett, Medved, Boortz. etc. That is just a very very short list of radio personalities that spend 3 hours a day, five days a week putting out their "fair and balanced" agenda that partly targets the ACLU daily. Have you ever heard one of these hosts report a "good" case the ACLU has defended? No. Yet all they have to do is go to the various state ACLU websites to get the information.

 

When you are being spoon fed what these guys want you to hear, be careful what you swallow. Get off your hiney, be a little skeptical and do a little research of your own. You might be surprised what you discover. Quit letting those guys "look out for you" and start looking out for yourself. Be fair and balanced.

[evmori 11]

ALL references. Not just unlawful government-endorsed religious references.

 

When I posted all references I meant government references. Sorry for the confusion.

 

As to whether God is religion. Belief in God requires faith. Faith is religion.

 

Faith is more than religion. Faith is also a confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.

 

So sure one must have faith to believe in God. But faith isn't exclusively religion.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Kahuna 172]

Aloha Gentlemen,

 

I don't want to debate the legal issues. I stated my case earlier and on other threads. You either agree with me or not.

 

There is a philosophical and practical question at issue. Would the United States be better off without the BSA or not? The BSA is not a perfect organization. I don't agree with all of its policies and would change some of them if I could. The BSA is in a bind. By changing its moral code (which is what these issues come down to), it would lose a certain percentage of its membership. By admitting acknowledged gays, they lose the LDS church and some others as well. Hard decisions.

 

Merlin apparently believes that allowing communities to support the BSA will lead to the return to racism and religious discrimination in government. It won't. The reason is that public would not support it. The public overwhelmingly supports the BSA as far as I can tell. That's because for nearly 100 years the BSA has built character and turned boys into good citizens, using the present methods.

 

I do recognize discrimination against atheists without it being pointed out to me, thank you. But it is not unique to the BSA and the BSA has a cogent reason at least for it. I just don't think it will result in the breakdown of society. I do think that chipping away at the Constitution in the name of political correctness will result in an entirely different country than we have today. Driving the BSA out of business will speed up the process.

 

 

[OldGreyEagle 5]

I agree with you Beaver to a point. The ACLU does put out what it does on its websites, but I do not agree its enough. To me thats like Having either party, The Democrats or the Republicans saying we have a great plan for you and we do a lot for you, read about it on our website. Its the American way, if you have a great product, you either advertise or its not the publics fault if there is a misconception over the product.

 

Now, another conundrum.

 

Its pretty much all agreed by conservatives that liberals run the airwaves. That Broadcast and print mainstream media is the haven of liberals with only a few islands of conservatism.

 

If that's true, why is it that the ACLU gets a bad rap in the Media as has been claimed? Why doesnt the broad left wing conspiracy of liberal media prop up the ACLU and show what good it does, the things that middle America would appreciate?

 

Beaver, it may be true that most Americans want to be spoon fed their information and are lazy, you then can't expect them to do the reaearch for themselves.

You may have to prime the pump a little.

 

Its easy enough to say that the ACLU is misunderstood, but its not the publics job to correct the misconceptions. How many times does someone come up with an idea and you say I am not sure, convince me and then they do. The ACLU needs to convince more people of the good they do, unfortunately being right is not always enough

[Greying Beaver 10]

Aloha, Kahuna. Losing the LDS'ers would not be as big a hit as you imagine. True, they sponsor 30% of the units, but LDS membership is between 10 and 11% of the total membership in BSA. The Varsity program might disappear, though. LDS'ers make up the vast majority of Varsity teams across the country. Check with your District Executive. He can give you the nubers based on recharters.

 

That being said, I am happy with the BSA programs as they are now and would rather that they stay that way. Within weeks of my grandson joining Tigers, my son made Eagle. It's like I've signed up for another "hitch".

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Kahoona writes:

Merlin apparently believes that allowing communities to support the BSA will lead to the return to racism and religious discrimination in government. It won't. The reason is that public would not support it.

 

As I've said before, you're completely blind to discrimination against atheists.

 

Allowing communities to support the BSA (in the ways that have been discussed) won't LEAD to the return of religious discrimination in government, it IS religious discrimination in government. The government would already be practicing religious discrimination - you can't say it wouldn't "lead to" it, because it's already happening.

 

But since it's religious discrimination against atheists, you can't even SEE it.

[SR540Beaver 116]

OGE,

 

The political parties are always looking for new members to join....they have to make themselves appealing to the public. They do a pretty lousy job too! I don't think the ACLU cares one way or another how people feel about them. They have a job to do and they do it regardless of whether people approve or not. Apples and oranges. Here is a blurb from the ACLU's website:

 

"The ACLU is our nation's guardian of liberty. We work daily in courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States. Our job is to conserve America's original civic values: the Constitution and the Bill of Rights."

 

I believe that they are committed and believe in what they do to the point that they don't care about being popular or what the pundits say.

[Kahuna 172]

Merlyn,

 

I said at the outset of this ill-fated discussion that the reason no one cites examples to you is that you refuse to see them as what they are.

 

With all respect, I don't see any purpose in continuing this discussion. You have your viewpoint and I have mine.

 

BTW, it's Kahuna, not Kahoona. It has a religious connotation, though, so feel free to spell it anyway you want.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Kahuna writes:

I said at the outset of this ill-fated discussion that the reason no one cites examples to you is that you refuse to see them as what they are.

 

Well, when you refer to examples of religious discrimination against atheists, and then deny that it would lead to religious discrimination, I can only conclude that you don't consider religious discrimination against atheists to be religious discrimination.

 

With all respect, I don't see any purpose in continuing this discussion. You have your viewpoint and I have mine.

 

Just trying to show you why your viewpoint is wrong - you know, a discussion. This is a discussion group, so I thought it rather apt.

 

BTW, it's Kahuna, not Kahoona.

 

I spelled it Kahoona in reply to your post that spelled my nickname "Merlin"

[Kahuna 172]

I spelled it Kahoona in reply to your post that spelled my nickname "Merlin"

 

 

Merlyn,

 

My abject apology.