Biggest threat to America?

I know that I'm going to get flames for this, but the ACLU protects all of us. Except for the Second Amendment rights, what they are doing is to protect us all.
Click to expand...

Sort of a contradiction isn't it to protect only some rights when they claim to stand for all rights?

And yes, the ACLU has an agenda. It's sued to bring down crosses on public property and failed to mention symbols of other religions displayed along with the crosses. It's ignored claims by Christians asking for help when they were discriminated against.

So yes, the principle of separation of church and state is found in the Constitution, namely in the First Amendment.
Click to expand...

Agreed. But it was only intended to preclude recognition of a particular religion (which, ironically enough, the Congress had already done in 1787 by advocating a particular bible as the bible for the people). It was never intended to be used as a bludgeon to eliminate religion from public life. For example, true separation of church and state does not preclude giving religious schools or faith-based organizations funds on the same terms as non-religious entities. Although many oppose such action as violations of the separation, the separation actually demands it.
 
I had put clarifiers in my post about the ACLU not protecting the 2nd ammenment so I am aware of the contradiction. But I did say that they are trying to protect us all. What that means is equal protection for everyone be it KKK or Louis Farraklan (and yes, I know how to spell his name).

The seperation of church and state isn't meant that religion should not be allowed in public life, it means just what it says. The government cannot endorse a religion and that means that it has to be seperate in order to do so. The same thoughts have lead to the protection of the right to practice religion as well. I have to research this, but I think I remember the ACLU protecting prayer in school. Yes I said protecting the right to pray in school. The same constitution that dissallows the government run school from endorsing religion, by having a prayer at the beginning of the day, also protects our children's right to pray by themselves or in a group. I am an atheist, but if I had a child who was a Christian and he was told not to pray in school and there was no disruption (the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" situation) then I would go to the ACLU to have the school sued for violating my childs rights. I would do the same thing if my child was an atheist and was "compelled" to say "I pledge allegiance, under god".

The arguments I always hear for the endorement of a religion by government, or the allowing of certain things religous by government, is that this country is mostly Christian and it was founded on Christian ideals. But the forefathers saw a problem where if the majority of the voting populatian that was a "particular" kind of Christian or an exotic religion, became the ruling party, and the seperation of church and state was "relaxed", then they could make their ideas and beliefs the states beliefs. This should also apply to state seperation of church and state.

If you can imagine that you made laws allowing the government to make school prayer in schools a mandate, then the different states and counties would start off a school day with a prayer that reflected the majority of their populations. This would mean that the county or state where you lived that was Christian when you were born there had become Hindu, Bhuddist, Moslem, or satan worshipping, then you would have your kid starting his day off with "HAIL SATAN" or "Praise Gigamesh" in the school prayer everyday because 60% of the voting population was a satan worshipper or a Hindu. Especially if there were no private schools around you and you were too poor to move for a few years. (this is how I felt when I was "compelled" to go against my beliefs and say "under god" everyday)

Too many Christians that argue for a Christian government are ignorant of the consequences. They can get hurt just as much by having a state religion as any other group can. One of the leaders of one of the organizations for the seperation of church and state is a Christian minister.
 
I wasn't arguing for or against Christianity; I was just citing examples that disprove "the ACLU is here to protect us all" BS. It's not. It's here to further its agenda. It only works to protect the rights it recognizes, and only those whom it chooses to protect. The other enumerated rights and harmed individuals get ignored.
 
Geez buzz_knox, you mean I wrote that whole page for more than half an hour because of a misunderstanding? :o oops.

Like I said before I do not agree with everything they do, but their intention is not as self interested as the right's common perception proclaims. The cases that are heard of are just the controversial ones. I am going to try to find a few examples for you on the web that show they protected Christians rights to worship. If you are right, then will find no examples and I will admit it.
 
I would say that the biggest threat to America is our own apathetic selfs. A major problem rears its ugly head and we all run around trying to fix it, we never spend any time seriously working to solve a problem.

I also agree that the southren border needs to be enforced. I am tired of my tax money going to help these people. If they truly wanted a better life for themselves then they could do it from thier own country or assimilate and become a part of ours legally.

jeff
 
"the ACLU is here to protect us all" BS. It's not.
Click to expand...
Absolutely correct. The American Civil Liberties (that we approve of) Union is doing us all a disfavor by standing up for only those liberties that they view as politically correct. I say stand up for all of them or none of them. You can't have it any other way and maintain any kind of credibility.
 
On the one hand, we have the ACLU, which attempts to protect all liberties, except for one.

Then we have the NRA, which attempts to protect one liberty, but that's all.


Where can I go for one stop shopping? :D
 
Spotted Owl - You are way off base with your comment. The ACLU stood up for the Nazis' right to march in Skokie, IL. That was a very courageous pro-rights stand to take. The Nazi philosophy is anathema to almost all ACLU people.
 
So too, apparently, is RKBA, but they don't stick up for that one. Anyone know why?
Click to expand...
Yes I do. When I was looking for their cases dealing with defending Chritstians rights to express their religion I also looked up the second ammendment. First let me say that ACLU believes that the right to express one's religion (even Christian's) in public is just as important as keeping church and state seperate.

Apparently the ACLU think's that it is a lost cause. They believe that the Supreme Court allowed government regulation of guns in a case back in the 1930's. They quoted one part of the decision where the S.C. judge claims that militia means government army. :confused: They also said that a case in the early eighties (they didn't elaborate on what exactly the case was) was refused by the S.C. to be heard which they claim was a landmark refusal. They also claimed that every second ammendment case that has gotten to the S.C.'s door, they refused to hear them every time. I may have a lot of the details wrong but I think that is the gist of it.

They also quoted someone that says that, once the govenment allowed regulation of any kind (NFA I think) that the government could decide what is reasonable regulation. If they can ban howitsers then then can ban whatever they want. They described it as a flood gate being opened. If the government allowed all guns and regulated none (ever) then the 2nd might not have been re-defined.

I totally dissagree with them on this and think that the 1930's decision has to be readdressed. But I am not a lawyer.
 
The Nazi philosophy is anathema to almost all ACLU people
Click to expand...

But then so are some physically handicapped people who can not drink or feed themselves. Bit of a contradiction there.
 
No contradiction. They just defend the RIGHT to die if the person wishes it. I'm sure the ACLU considered challenging Bush's law in Texas that lets the state kill babies that have no insurance. They never asked to die and they have a right to live if the parents (or guardians) want the baby to live.
 
I don't think there is any one "way of life" here in the United States and maybe that is in fact our way of life. We have been more or less free to live whatever way we would like--if we're willing and able to pay the price.

I would agree that uncontrolled immigration is a very real threat, but that alone doesn't threaten our chosen way of life. Like everything else, it has to get really bad before something will be done about it.

For me, liberal Democrats (socialists) represent the greatest threat to my way of life. Just for starters, they would relieve us of our guns, tax us to poverty, and remove any insentitive to succeed. I could go on, but I won't because I try not to dwell on unpleasant thoughts.
 
Novus Collectus
They just defend the RIGHT to die if the person wishes it.
Click to expand...
Contrary to how it was portrayed by the media - that was not the issue.

And regardless, there is no "right to die". Suicide has always been illegal - and for good reason. So-called "assisted suicide" is also a crime - that is why Mr. Kevorkian is in prison.

Rather the ACLU is engaged in an agenda to bend all this.

I'm sure the ACLU considered challenging Bush's law in Texas that lets the state kill babies that have no insurance. They never asked to die and they have a right to live if the parents (or guardians) want the baby to live
Click to expand...
Considered? Interesting position to take over the murder of a baby.

They have the right to live; or is the definition of what is a human being going to be perverted even further to being a certain period of time after being born now?
 
Considered?
Click to expand...

Despite what has been said by the conservative media elite, the ACLU does not (and cannot) take on every case that it "considers". They only have so many lawyers in their organization.

Quote "And regardless, there is no "right to die". Suicide has always been illegal - and for good reason. So-called "assisted suicide" is also a crime - that is why Mr. Kevorkian is in prison." End quote

IIRC euthinasia is legal in at least one state, Oregon. Suicide is not allowed if the reason is for depression and there is a quality of life. While all humans believe in life (at the very least, for themselves) the degree of when a life can end is different from religion to religion. Many religious people believe that their religion is THE religion and they get a holyier than thou attitude and think that everyone should do as they say because what they say is the HOLY way. (please do not assume I am directing this at you. I am poitning this out for the "seperation of church and state" argument). Some people believe that suicide is different than letting someone die a honorable or dignified death by their own hands. Before someone points out that the dictionary says that they ARE the same, you must remember that the word suicide doesnt even translate directly into some languages.

As far as the media portraying the Florida incident in a certain way, well, I can say exactly the same thing about the right wing, religious conservative media. WE don't really know all the details, but we do know that the courts decided the case something like 20 times with almost as many judges. Personally I believe, with the little information we have seen, she decided her own fate consciously and without being depressed at the time she made her declaration.

Even the Pope let himself die even when he could have been saved by medicine and lived for a few more years. Even among different main denominations of the Christian beliefs have different attitudes on where to draw the line when it comes to life. The ACLU has done things I dissagree with in the past, but they are trying to protect all of us from letting certain rights be violated. Now my impression (and I hope it is right) of what the ACLU's view on most of their controversial cases is not that they really do not like to defend abortion or child pornagraphy, but it is telling the government that if it wants to solve a problem, don't do it in a way that will cause reduction in all of our rights. (I hope) They believe that the government can reduce abortions in this country by making unwanted pregnancies a rarety and by being able to have the child cared for if there is an unwanted pregnancy, instead of making something illegal that only a few (or many, but not all) churches believe is a crime.
 
I think the biggest problem is yankees. Hundreds of years ago, Jefferson said that yankees want to consolidate the States into one sovereignty and turn that into a monarchy. And yankees haven't changed.
 
Apparently the ACLU think's that it is a lost cause. They believe that the Supreme Court allowed government regulation of guns in a case back in the 1930's. They quoted one part of the decision where the S.C. judge claims that militia means government army. They also said that a case in the early eighties (they didn't elaborate on what exactly the case was) was refused by the S.C. to be heard which they claim was a landmark refusal. They also claimed that every second ammendment case that has gotten to the S.C.'s door, they refused to hear them every time. I may have a lot of the details wrong but I think that is the gist of it.
Click to expand...
The American Criminal Liberties Union could just as easily believe that a publication by the North American Man/Boy Love Association - in which they describe techniques for luring, raping and killing children - is a lost cause, since the SCOTUS has ruled that some speech (think "shouting FIRE in a crowded theatre") is not protected, and yet, they vigorously defend those demonic animals. Hmmm....

Then again the A.C.L.U. only has to count on some people buying their crap in order to make a living. Which brings me to my pick for biggest threat: Ignorance.

The beauty part is that ignorance can be cured.
 
The American Criminal Liberties Union could just as easily believe that a publication by the North American Man/Boy Love Association - in which they describe techniques for luring, raping and killing children - is a lost cause, since the SCOTUS has ruled that some speech (think "shouting FIRE in a crowded theatre") is not protected, and yet, they vigorously defend those demonic animals. Hmmm....
Click to expand...
Like I said before, I disagree with some of their choice of cases. But MAYBE they weren't protecting the content of the material they were just worried that the government could say that certain other written materials are the same as "yelling fire in a crowded theater". Like gun magazines, because some of them incites people to kill in self defense and some states where they are sold do not allow that. Or the Bible because in the old testament it has sodomy and incest. Or the researcher of phsycairtry that is trying to figure how these sick pathetic minds think. The written word is not the same as vocalised speech when it comes to the "theatre" scenario. I applaud the ACLU for taking on the cases that were passed in all good intentions but can cause a loss of rights for the rest of us at a later date. BUT I find it very hard to defend someone that defended a child molestor be they a defense lawyer or a civil rights lawyer.I
I would like to keep my "Anarchist Cookbook" without going to jail for "inciteing criminal activity". If a child molestor possed the material AND committed his crime then the literature can be used against him just like my "Anarchist Cookbook" would be used against me if I made mustard gas. But the "Anarchist Cookbook" is in the Library of Congress, does that mean that Congress may be guilty of "inciteing a crime" for possesion of literature that caused a crime in someones mind (that they never carried out).
 
yankees want to consolidate the States into one sovereignty and turn that into a monarchy. And yankees haven't changed.
Click to expand...
they HAVE succeeded in consolidating the states into one sovereignity, almost have the monarchy, and are preparing to implement the next step: consolidation of the continent of North America. of course Europe has already been consolidated. then on to the global monarchy ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top