The ACLU

[k9gold-scout]

Would the Americian people be better served if there either no ACLU or no Boy Scout of America.

[Dedicated Dad]

Nope, just no ACLU would be fine by me. Its not a big stretch of the imagination to see the Klaus VonBullow's and the NAMBLAs of the world go without representation as any great loss to society, surly the traditional values civil libertarian JDs would pick up the slack.

[NJCubScouter]

k9gold-scout writes:

 

Would the Americian people be better served if there either no ACLU or no Boy Scout of America.

 

I know it's a cop-out, but fortunately we do not have to make a choice. Society is better for the existence of both. Neither are perfect, because they are run by human beings.

[Weekender]

NJCubScouter,

 

I'm afraid I have to disagree with you here. As Paul Harvey says, "Self-government doesn't work without self discipline." The ALCU has a history of promoting not self-discpline but self-indulgence. I fully realize that this great country was founded on the principle of inalienable individual rights to freedom but there are times when people of good concience must give up their personal freedoms for the good of society (sort of the way we do in the military). I think the ACLU has lost sight of the general good and concentrates only on individual rights with out regard to the possible harm their actions may do to the country. If everyone is free to do anything and objection to any action is considered "intolerance," as the ACLU believes, then where do we draw the lines.

Our country is like a river, powerful yet under some control but a river without banks is little more than a swamp. The ACLU constantly erodes the bounderies that hold us together int he name of personal freedom.

 

Just my opinion.

[Rooster7]

Weekender,

 

Great post. Love the analogy.

[NJCubScouter]

Weekender says:

 

I'm afraid I have to disagree with you here.

 

And you have the right to disagree, and to express your disagreement, as you see fit - thanks in part to the work of the ACLU and others who are constantly defending that right.

 

As Paul Harvey says, "Self-government doesn't work without self discipline."

 

Interesting statement, but I'm not sure why self-discipline is the responsibility of the ACLU. Self-discipline is just that, SELF-discipline, or put another way, knowing when it is best to refrain from doing something you have the RIGHT to do. (Like the BSA choosing to allow female Scoutmasters on a local-option basis AFTER it won the legal right NOT to allow female Scoutmasters -- a measure that can and should be extended to those who are avowedly gay if they are otherwise qualified to be leaders.)

 

The ALCU has a history of promoting not self-discpline but self-indulgence.

 

This is somewhat redundant, but: Promoting self-discipline is not part of their chosen mission. Promoting the ability to express yourself is their chosen mission. Who are you to decide what their mission should be? A number of other organizations promote self-discipline, like the Moral Majority or whatever they are calling themselves these days. Every organization chooses its own mission. That's freedom.

 

I fully realize that this great country was founded on the principle of inalienable individual rights to freedom but there are times when people of good concience must give up their personal freedoms for the good of society (sort of the way we do in the military).

 

Give them up voluntarily or involuntarily? The ACLU fights for your ability not to have your freedoms taken away involuntarily. If you choose to join the military, you give up some of your freedoms so that the military can function the way it is supposed to. (In rare cases, the safety of the country may require that people be drafted, and thereby deprived of their freedoms involuntarily. But that is when the country is really threatened. If the draft has fallen into some disrepute, it is because the last time it was used to fight a war, this country was NOT really threatened.)

 

I think the ACLU has lost sight of the general good and concentrates only on individual rights with out regard to the possible harm their actions may do to the country. If everyone is free to do anything and objection to any action is considered "intolerance," as the ACLU believes, then where do we draw the lines.

 

As I said, there are plenty of others to take the opposite side from the ACLU, and they often do. Often they are better financed than the ACLU, and often they are the government itself. I believe OldGreyEagle has pointed this out but apparently it bears repeating: The ACLU itself does not change the law or interpret a statute or provision of the constitution -- a JUDGE does that. And if a party disagrees with the judge there is a right of appeal. The daily work of the ACLU boils down to a lawyer standing in a courtroom in front of a judge, arguing a case. There is ALWAYS a lawyer standing at the other table, arguing the opposite position. (And quite often, that lawyer who is arguing a position that may restrict my freedoms, is a government lawyer paid by MY tax money. On the other hand, the ACLU is paid for entirely by private contributions.) Our court system is an ADVERSARY system -- the "truth" is produced by the clash of rival advocates. Or at least that's the theory. But the reality can even approach the theory ONLY if there is a lawyer standing on each side. Without the ACLU, quite often the side of "freedom" would not be represented at all. If sometimes they go too far -- and even if sometimes they win when they should not, which believe me does NOT happen very often -- I think it is a small price to pay.

[Weekender]

Small is subjective. There are many who feel the ACLU has does more harm than good. But, as you say, that is the adversarial system. As for me and my house...

 

This should, however, be a lesson to those of us who grow weary of trying to help the country stay on the high road. The side that says we have no right to expect people to act responsibly and to accept personal responsibility instead of only demanding personal freedom will also have and advocate at their table. Wide is the gate and broad is the path...

And there will always be someone at the gate telling people they should take the easy road. After all...it's your right!

[Weekender]

BTW, the ACLU has finally taken one position that I agree with. An ACLU representative appeared on the O'Rielly factor and said that it was wrong for firemen to be forced to march in a homosexual pride parade. I agree, Just like I wouldn't expect homosexuals to be forced to march in a "Marraige is a Biblical Covenent" parade...oh wait...I don't think anyone would tolorate a parade like that...would they?

[NJCubScouter]

The side that says we have no right to expect people to act responsibly and to accept personal responsibility instead of only demanding personal freedom will also have and advocate at their table.

 

What "side" says that? I don't know of any group that says we have no right to expect people to act responsibly. The ACLU does not say that. I don't say that. Who says that?

 

People are convicted and sentenced for crimes every day in this country, and are thus required to "accept" responsibility for their actions. I don't know of anybody who is opposed to that. The ACLU only takes part when it appears that someone's constitutional rights have been violated.

 

Here's a case that the ACLU handled that I hope we could all agree with (though I'm sure some of us don't). You may recall that in the mid-90s Congress attempted to outlaw vaguely-defined "indecent" (rather than just "obscene") expression on the Internet. This would have been a disaster because the word "indecent" can mean too many things to different people. I shudder at the thought that some of the people who post to this board, or people who think like them, could have ended up in positions to decide what is "indecent" for the rest of us. Without trying to sound too conspiratorial, it was reasonable to fear that the thought police would have been out on the rampage. Thank God the ACLU (and other groups) successfully fought to have this statute declared unconstitutional.