Actions speak louder than posts

[LovetoCamp]

http://www.stoptheaclu.org/

[SR540Beaver]

While I am not a huge fan of the ACLU, I do believe they deserve a fair shake like anyone else. While all of the constitutuional issues they take on that are not popular get a lot of media attention, you never here about cases such as these:

 

ACLU of Nebraska Defends Church Facing Eviction by the City of Lincoln

 

August 11, 2004

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

 

LINCOLN --The American Civil Liberties Union of Nebraska today announced that it would defend a Presbyterian church from a forced eviction by the city.

 

"There's no reason for the city to force the Church of the Awesome God from its home, and the city is violating both the First Amendment and federal law in doing so," said Tim Butz, Executive Director of the ACLU of Nebraska.

 

http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=16295&c=142

 

Following Threat of ACLU of Virginia Lawsuit, Officials to Agree Not to Ban Baptisms in Public Parks

 

June 3, 2004

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

 

RICHMOND, VA -- Under pressure from the American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia, Falmouth Waterside Park Manager Brian Robinson has agreed not to prohibit baptisms in Stafford County, the ACLU announced today.

 

Robinson also told the ACLU that the Fredericksburg-Stafford Park Authority, which controls access to the public park, expects to issue written policies making it clear that religious groups have the same right to use the park as all other groups.

 

This kind of confusion over religious expression in public places is not uncommon, said ACLU of Virginia Executive Director Kent Willis. Government officials often seem not to understand that private religious expression is protected in public forums. Afraid of violating separation of church and state by permitting religious activities, they end up obstructing freedom of religion.

 

http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=15897&c=141

 

After ACLU Intervention on Behalf of Christian Valedictorian, Michigan High School Agrees to Stop Censoring Religious Yearbook Entries

 

May 11, 2004

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

 

DETROIT The American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan today announced an out-of-court settlement between the Utica Community School District and a local student over the censorship of her 2001 yearbook entry. The students entry had been deleted from the yearbook because it contained a passage from the Bible.

 

While it is true that the Constitution forbids public schools to promote religion, schools must be careful not to suppress the private religious expression of students, said ACLU of Michigan Legal Director Michael J. Steinberg, who represented the student. In this case, a high school purported to create an open forum for student expression, yet censored a students speech because it was religious in nature.

 

http://www.aclu.org/StudentsRights/StudentsRights.cfm?ID=15680&c=159

 

In Win for Rev. Falwell (and the ACLU), Judge Rules VA Must Allow Churches to Incorporate

 

April 17, 2002

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

 

RICHMOND, VA--A federal judge has struck down a provision of the Virginia Constitution that bans religious organizations from incorporating, in a challenge filed by the Rev. Jerry Falwell and joined by the American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia, the group announced today.

 

"The judge applied well established constitutional principles to reach the conclusion that Virginia's archaic ban on church incorporation cannot pass constitutional muster," said Rebecca Glenberg, Legal Director of the ACLU of Virginia.

 

The ACLU joined the lawsuit as a "friend of the court" last fall, challenging the ban on the grounds that it violates the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of free exercise of religion.

 

http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=10147&c=142

[molscouter]

(This message has been edited by molscouter)

[NJCubScouter]

So, TP, how many of those letters are you personally going to write? And when are you going to your first million-person anti-ACLU march?

 

(And more to the point, does anybody think the ACLU would really care if they get a bunch of letters or some people march outside their offices?)

[LovetoCamp]

I'm going to write one saying that only one sick twisted organization would fight against porn filters in the libraries.

 

Why the concern, are you a living breathing card carrying member?

 

 

[acco40]

"I'm going to write one saying that only one sick twisted organization would fight against porn filters in the libraries."

 

Now wait a minute TrailPounder. First you deride the ACLU as being a communist organization. China, which has the biggest communist organization that I know of, has put the biggest, baddest world wide web filter on everything that flows in and out of the country. So if the ACLU does NOT want filters in libraries wouldn't they be anti-communist?

 

Having civil liberties is a concept for grown-ups. You either believe one should have them or not. You don't get to pick and choose who and what. Should public libraries restrict access to the www for adults? I say no. Others say yes. For those who say yes, that is a restriction on a civil liberty. Why would it surprise you that the ACLU would be against it? The ACLU does have an agenda - it is to protect civil liberties.

 

[NJCubScouter]

TP aks me:

 

Why the concern, are you a living breathing card carrying member?

 

No concern, just curious. As for being an ACLU member, I have said before that I was a member for a couple of years in college. I don't remember why I stopped paying the dues, maybe when I stopped being eligible for the student membership rate and was no longer eating at a student dining hall, I found that I needed to devote my resources to food and not to organization dues. I have thought about rejoining a couple times since, but have never gotten around to it.

 

Despite my long-lapsed membership status, I'd say I agree with the ACLU about 80 to 90 percent of the time. At the moment I can't pick out specific positions I disagree with, but if they believe porn filters in public libraries are unconstitutional, that would probably be one of them. As a matter of public policy (in other words assuming it is constitutional), if a local librarian wants to install such filtering, it's ok with me. Maybe the ACLU is concerned that it is more than just porn that is being filtered out, which is always an issue when government tries to limit access to things. Some of the "good" often being ends up banned along with the "bad."

 

I think a lot of people would be surprised at the number of cases the ACLU does NOT get involved in, because they conclude the governmental entity is probably correct under the law. There was just a story in my local paper a few days ago about the ACLU declining to take a case that a local resident wanted to bring against the city he lives in, with the state ACLU director quoted as saying that whatever action or practice was involved appeared to be legal.

 

I know that many people here have a picture of the ACLU as being a bunch of far-left Commie pinkos out to destroy the American way of life, but obviously I do not think that picture is correct.