ACLU at it again.

[minors]

ACLU protecting cowards who picket at military funerals

 

 

I am glad they find such great causes to defend. Defending cowards a new low for the ACLU

[StrangeSox]

ACLU wil defend anyone who they feel is having their civil rights violated. They have defended far-right nutjobs in the past.

 

That's how our legal system is supposed to work. The most vile, disgusting criminal must be assured a good defense. Otherwise, the government can be lazy and inept in convicting criminals.

[CrimsonWeltall]

hey ACLU, no defending of Christians allowed!

[santo=dorf]

QUOTE(minors @ Jul 23, 2006 -> 07:18 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

ACLU protecting cowards who picket at military funerals

I am glad they find such great causes to defend. Defending cowards a new low for the ACLU

Minors,

 

Get it through your head. The ACLU has to represent everyone that feel his or her rights are being violated. They can't pick and choose other it's discrimination.

 

Using your twisted logic, some lawyers are "cowards" for defending murders, rapists or child molestors.

Edited July 24, 2006 by santo=dorf

[EvilMonkey]

Minors,

 

Get it through your head. The ACLU has to represent everyone that feel his or her rights are being violated. They can't pick and choose other it's discrimination.

 

Using your twisted logic, some lawyers are "cowards" for defending murders, rapists or child molestors.

If that were the case, why do they never defend gun owners who feel their civil rights are violated? Because they have an agenda. That is why they interpret the second amendment with a much 'softer' stance than they do all the rest. If the applied the same standards to gun rights as they do to the supposed 'sepration of church and state', they would be advocating mandatory gun ownership for all. Also, I believe it was brought up earllier that the ACLU has to be asked first, otherwise they can file amicus curiae briefs (I think that's what they are called) in support of positions it favors, but was not asked to help.

[Heads22]

Sometimes I feel like the only gun-totin' superliberal out there.....well.....and my dad.

[EvilMonkey]

Sometimes I feel like the only gun-totin' superliberal out there.....well.....and my dad.

There are alot of you, most just don't want to admit to it. You are a brave soul. Whatcha got?

[Mplssoxfan]

If that were the case, why do they never defend gun owners who feel their civil rights are violated? Because they have an agenda. That is why they interpret the second amendment with a much 'softer' stance than they do all the rest. If the applied the same standards to gun rights as they do to the supposed 'sepration of church and state', they would be advocating mandatory gun ownership for all. Also, I believe it was brought up earllier that the ACLU has to be asked first, otherwise they can file amicus curiae briefs (I think that's what they are called) in support of positions it favors, but was not asked to help.

 

That's an excellent question, one to which I certainly don't know the answer.

 

I would suspect that it's because if someone has a case about 2nd Amendment rights, they go to the NRA for help. I would. If I were accused of murder, I wouldn't go to my friends who practice contract law or family law, I'd find the toughest defense attorney I could and say, "go get 'em, Tiger".

 

I don't particularly agree with the ACLU's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment either. I probably think they're better, on balance, than you do, though.

Edited July 24, 2006 by Mplssoxfan

[minors]

Minors,

 

Get it through your head. The ACLU has to represent everyone that feel his or her rights are being violated. They can't pick and choose other it's discrimination.

 

Using your twisted logic, some lawyers are "cowards" for defending murders, rapists or child molestors.

 

Yeah You keep believing that snato when is the last time they represented a christian who is being discriminated against or a gun owner who rights are being violated. It seems like all you can do is use personal attacks against someone. Lawyers and the ACLU aren't cowards just the people they defend. I am sure glad you stand for these cowards who protest at the funerals of our fallen soldiers.

[Balta1701]

That's an excellent question, one to which I certainly don't know the answer.

 

I would suspect that it's because if someone has a case about 2nd Amendment rights, they go to the NRA for help. I would. If I were accused of murder, I wouldn't go to my friends who practice contract law or family law, I'd find the toughest defense attorney I could and say, "go get 'em, Tiger".

 

I don't particularly agree with the ACLU's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment either. I probably think they're better, on balance, than you do, though.

From the ACLU's Mission Statement:

 

The mission of the ACLU is to preserve all of these protections and guarantees:

 

* Your First Amendment rights-freedom of speech, association and assembly. Freedom of the press, and freedom of religion supported by the strict separation of church and state.

* Your right to equal protection under the law - equal treatment regardless of race, sex, religion or national origin.

* Your right to due process - fair treatment by the government whenever the loss of your liberty or property is at stake.

* Your right to privacy - freedom from unwarranted government intrusion into your personal and private affairs.

Amendments 1, 3, 4, and 5 if I'm reading this right.

[FlaSoxxJim]

when is the last time they represented a christian who is being discriminated against

 

Well, let's go waaaaay far back in time to answer this stumper from the minors brain trust.

 

Umm, I got it. how about right now, in this current case that you started this thread topic on??

 

The hatemongers in question are from the Westboro Baptist Church, a nominally Christian group. Their claim is that their religious freedom (as well as free speech) is being violated. That is, they believe they are being discriminated against for their knuckledragging brand of Christianity.

[jackie hayes]

From the ACLU's Mission Statement:

 

Amendments 1, 3, 4, and 5 if I'm reading this right.

Prolly not 3. Not often, I bet.

 

Plus toss in a few. 6 and 14, for due process, anyway. Some more wiggle into those topics. 8 is "cruel and unusual punishment", which would probably fall under due process.

 

Wow, has this veered off topic.

[minors]

Well, let's go waaaaay far back in time to answer this stumper from the minors brain trust.

 

Umm, I got it. how about right now, in this current case that you started this thread topic on??

 

The hatemongers in question are from the Westboro Baptist Church, a nominally Christian group. Their claim is that their religious freedom (as well as free speech) is being violated. That is, they believe they are being discriminated against for their knuckledragging brand of Christianity.

 

 

Found 1 case good for you.

[StrangeSox]

Found 1 case good for you.

 

He found the very case you posted. It wasn't very hard. They've defended Christian's rights plenty of times before. Look through some of their case histories.

[santo=dorf]

QUOTE(minors @ Jul 24, 2006 -> 12:00 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah You keep believing that snato when is the last time they represented a christian who is being discriminated against or a gun owner who rights are being violated. It seems like all you can do is use personal attacks against someone. Lawyers and the ACLU aren't cowards just the people they defend. I am sure glad you stand for these cowards who protest at the funerals of our fallen soldiers.

Quit trying to use your twisted, narrow logic on me. Don't lump me in with those nut-job christians because I said the ACLU is defending their constitutional right. In America, you can protest whatever you want on public property. You can protest anti-war, non-union, poor service at a resturant, and unfortunately crap like this. Personally I think those crazy religious folks need to spend their time in better ways.

 

How is if I explain what the ACLU is doing with these nut jobs, I am supporting the "cowards" yet all of the sudden the ACLU who is doing all to work representing these cowards aren't?

 

Work your voodoo on me again Minors.

[NorthSideSox72]

The next reference to any group of people (Christians, liberals, biologists) or individual poster that is clearly insulting, and the thread gets closed. Please try to keep the insulting adjectives away from the categorical references. If someone's post bothers you, go after the material and the data - not the individual.

 

Thank you for your support.

[WCSox]

There should be laws against people who protest at funerals. Pissing on somebody's grave in front of their grieving family and friends is about as low as it gets.

[juddling]

If there is pain and suffering...the ACLU will be there.

If there is injustice...the ACLU will be there

If there is wrongs that need righting....the ACLU is there.

 

 

Wait.....nevermind...that's the Three Amigos i was thinking of

 

[minors]

He found the very case you posted. It wasn't very hard. They've defended Christian's rights plenty of times before. Look through some of their case histories.

 

 

I found a few but still slanted very left in the cases they represent. And if they are suppost to be defending the constitution why don't they take on all amendments? Like the 2nd because it conflicts with the leftist beliefs

 

There should be laws against people who protest at funerals. Pissing on somebody's grave in front of their grieving family and friends is about as low as it gets.

 

 

It is and that is the whole point of this thread. These people can't not consider themselves people of god when they are doing as something as low as they are doing.

[WCSox]

It is and that is the whole point of this thread. These people can't not consider themselves people of god when they are doing as something as low as they are doing.

 

The problem is that too many people believe that because the law gives them a legal right to do something, they have some sort of moral justification for exercising that right.

[Balta1701]

The problem is that too many people believe that because the law gives them a legal right to do something, they have some sort of moral justification for exercising that right.

But the contrary problem is that too many people believe that because they find something to be morally wrong, the law should make sure that no one has the right to do whatever action is being considered.

[NorthSideSox72]

The problem is that too many people believe that because the law gives them a legal right to do something, they have some sort of moral justification for exercising that right.

 

 

But the contrary problem is that too many people believe that because they find something to be morally wrong, the law should make sure that no one has the right to do whatever action is being considered.

 

And right there, we have in essence the defining polarity on which the current political parties are being sent to the extremes. The religious conservatives trying to exert their moral high ground on the nation by way of law; and the liberal democrats trying to protect everyone from themselves.

 

The interesting turn here, to me, is that the Dems seem to me to not be moving much further left. But the conservative Christian movement is tearing the GOP in two, trying to drag it even further right (having already gone pretty far that way). And while on the surface, and in the short term, that duality (between traditional small government Republicans and religious extremists) would seem to favor the Dems... in the long run, that remaining NON-extremist element of the GOP seems to be the closest sub-group to the middle. And that may end up helping them, if either the Christian Coalition folks break off into a new party, or it goes the other way around.

[WCSox]

But the contrary problem is that too many people believe that because they find something to be morally wrong, the law should make sure that no one has the right to do whatever action is being considered.

 

Our society has certain standards of public decency that are (usually) protected by law. I believe that allowing family and friends peace when they bury their dead falls into that category.

 

And right there, we have in essence the defining polarity on which the current political parties are being sent to the extremes. The religious conservatives trying to exert their moral high ground on the nation by way of law; and the liberal democrats trying to protect everyone from themselves.

 

The interesting turn here, to me, is that the Dems seem to me to not be moving much further left. But the conservative Christian movement is tearing the GOP in two, trying to drag it even further right (having already gone pretty far that way). And while on the surface, and in the short term, that duality (between traditional small government Republicans and religious extremists) would seem to favor the Dems... in the long run, that remaining NON-extremist element of the GOP seems to be the closest sub-group to the middle. And that may end up helping them, if either the Christian Coalition folks break off into a new party, or it goes the other way around.

 

You make an interesting comparison, although I don't believe that the moral component of this particular issue has anything to do with religious conservatives vs. secular liberals. Leaving grieving family and friends in peace while they bury their dead is the choice that just about any decent human being would make. IMO, it's not very far-removed from other universally-accepted rules of society such as "thou shalt not kill" and "thou shalt not steal."

 

I agree that the Republicans have moved to the right, but disagree that the Dems are not moving towards the left. Howard Dean's representation of the party certainly suggests that it is. The financial backing of Ned Lamont by Soros and Streisand, in an attempt to overthrow a former Dem VP candidate because he supports the Iraq War, is further evidence.

[Heads22]

There are alot of you, most just don't want to admit to it. You are a brave soul. Whatcha got?

 

 

Remington 12 and 20 gauge that are the only guns I use regularly. I also have a .22 and a thirty-aught-six or however you type that out that I haven't gotten a chance to shoot yet.

 

----

 

Via LCR:

From http://www.stcynic.com/blog/archives/2005/...u_defending.php

Contrary to the hysterically overblown view so common on the religious right (a view intentionally planted there by frauds and hucksters like Pat Robertson), the ACLU regularly goes to court to defend Christian churches and organizations. I've mentioned in the past their work on behalf of Jerry Falwell (himself a fraud and a huckster, but the Constitution covers his right to be one as well) against the City of Lynchburg to overturn a city ordinance limiting the amount of property a church could own within the city limits. They also defended Falwell in a case that overturned the state of Virginia's constitutional provision banning churches from incorporating. They also filed briefs defending the Lamb's Chapel in support of their claim against a school district for not allowing them access to school facilities to show a series of anti-abortion films (all other community groups were allowed to rent school facilities and the Equal Access Act says they cannot discriminate against religious groups). Here are a few other cases going on right now where the ACLU is defending the free exercise of religion.

 

The ACLU of Nebraska is defending a Presbyterian church, the Church of the Awesome God, against the city of Lincoln. The city is trying to force the church to put in expensive industrial safety equipment because it's on the edge of an industrial area, a requirement that would result in the church having to shut down entirely. The ACLU office notes that the city is not requiring the same thing of businesses in the same area, only of the church, saying, "If there were a true danger requiring these changes, should it not apply to day care centers and health clinics also?" Indeed there would be. Says Tim Butz, the executive director of the ACLU of Nebraska:

 

"In addition to being the worship center for their members, this church also gives back to Lincoln in every way they can," Butz said. "They are a food bank collection point, they provide low-income families with holiday cheer and offer their church space for meetings of UNL Christian youth, they do outreach at the City Mission and hold rummage sales for charity. The Church of the Awesome God should be given a ‘thank you’ by the city, not letters threatening them with eviction."

 

 

Boy, that sure sounds anti-Christian to me. That sure sounds like an organization intent on stamping out Christianity from our society, doesn't it?

 

In Michigan, the ACLU is appealing a case to the Supreme Court involving a Catholic man who was forced by a lower court to take part in a Pentecostal drug rehab program:

 

Joseph Hanas of Genesee County, now 22 years old, pled guilty in the Genesee Circuit Court to a charge of marijuana possession in February 2001. He was placed in the county’s "drug court" for non-violent offenders, which allowed for a deferred sentence and possible dismissal of the charges if he successfully completed the Inner City Christian Outreach Residential Program.

 

Unbeknownst to Hanas when he entered the program, one of the goals of Christian Outreach was to convert him from Catholicism to the Pentecostal faith. According to ACLU legal papers, Hanas was forced to read the bible for seven hours a day and was tested on Pentecostal principles. The staff also told him that Catholicism was a form of witchcraft and they confiscated both his rosary and Holy Communion prayer book. At one point, the program director told his aunt that he "gave up his right of freedom of religion when he was placed into this program." Hanas was told that in order to complete the program successfully he would have to declare he was "saved" and was threatened that if he didn’t do what the pastor told him to do, he would be "washed of the program and go to prison."...

 

"This case underscores the danger of the state mandating participation in a religious institution," said Greg Gibbs, one of the ACLU cooperating attorneys working on this case. "Mr. Hanas’ free exercise of religion has been greatly jeopardized."

 

 

In Richmond, Virginia, the ACLU threatened legal action against the Falmouth Waterside Park, a government-run state park, because they had told a the minister of a local Baptist church that they could no longer baptise people in the park:

 

The controversy over baptisms in the park surfaced on Sunday, May 23, when Robinson told Rev. Todd Pyle of the Cornerstone Baptist Church that religious activities were not allowed in the park. Pyle was in the park at the time and had just performed a series of baptisms in the Rappahannock River, which borders the park.

 

The ACLU of Virginia immediately informed Pyle that he had a constitutional right to conduct baptisms in the park and threatened to challenge in federal court the Park Authority’s ban on religious activities. The ACLU also discovered that the Park Authority does not have written rules governing use of the park.

 

Pyle decided not to contest the ban, but earlier this week Rev. John H. Reid of the New Generation Evangelical Episcopal Church announced plans to defy park officials by performing a baptism in the park this Sunday. The ACLU again acted, offering assistance to Reid and informing park officials that they must allow the baptisms to proceed.

 

“The rules are really very simple,” Willis (Executive Director of the ACLU of Virginia) said. “Government officials merely need to make sure that religious activities have the same rights as any other activities in a public park. If swimming is allowed, then baptisms must be allowed. If groups can gather for sports or cultural activities, then groups can gather for religious ceremonies.”

 

 

The park manager, after receiving a letter from the ACLU office, changed his mind and allowed the baptisms to take place. Damn those heathens at the ACLU! And in New Jersey, the state Supreme Court, citing the arguments in an ACLU brief, ruled that potential jurors could not be kept off a jury because they professed religious views during pretrial questioning:

 

"In this country, people have a right to express their religious beliefs without fear of discrimination by the government," said ACLU of New Jersey Legal Director Ed Barocas. "Excluding people from jury pools based on their religious belief or expression violates the principles of freedom found in the Bill of Rights."

 

 

It should perhaps also be noted that the ACLU was a staunch supporter, along with groups like the Family Research Council and the Christian Legal Society, of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act that was passed in 2000, as well as the Equal Access Act, which guarantees that religious groups have the same access to public facilities that any other community groups do. And of course there was the situation in Massachusetts, where the ACLU defended the right of an elementary school student who wanted to hand out candy canes to his classmates with a card attached that had a Christian message on it. Are these the actions of an organization that hates Christianity and wants to forcibly remove it from our society, as so many folks on the religious right claim?

[StrangeSox]

Heads, get outta here with them facts. We all know the ACLU only supports extremely left-wing child molesters and violent criminal because they hate America and everything good in the world.

 

I don't think its been mentioned yet, but cheers to the Patriot Guard Riders for sheilding the families from the WBC clowns.