Civil Liberties -The ACLU Cashing In.

[packsaddle]

Firstpusk, I agree. I note in addition that it is the nature of any organization that champions the minority view, that somewhere in the majority there will likely exist a feeling of disagreement.

The ACLU, the Southern Poverty Law Center, the NAACP, and similar organizations all have detractors who are, as Mrs. Carter once characterized them, (I paraphrase here) "comfortable with their prejudices" - or merely comfortable with the status quo.

Fairness is something that should not be reserved only for the majority. And I am glad that the ACLU and others are there to try to extend fairness to everyone, including those in the majority.

[evmori]

Its Trail Day,

What I meant was that the cross wasn't exclusive to Christian religions.

 

ACLU = Another Cash Lovers Union.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[molscouter]

firstpusk,

 

So us layman are supposed to differentiate between the ACLU and the ACLU Foundation? If you type in either ACLU or ACLU Foundation into a search engine, you get one web site. Seems to me that it's one organization, even if it is set up as two different entities. Pretending otherwise is the type of legal nitpicking that makes people suspicious of attorneys in general.

 

I took the quote off of the main page. I'll nitpick here. 3.5% from attorneys' fees is not none, which is what that page implies.

 

The annual report is not obviously available off of that page (it might be there, I just don't see an easy link to it).

 

As far as an audit, name me any organization that willingly submits to one. Am I suspicious? Yes, but no more so than I am of many large organizations.

 

(This message has been edited by molscouter)

[firstpusk]

molscouter,

 

It is pretty obvious from just a little googling that the ACLU and the ACLU Foundation perform different functions. One is tax exempt as a 501©3 (the Foundation). They are the ones that receive the settlements/awards from the result of the litigation in which they engage. That is the organization that gets the roughly 3.5% of its income from such settlements. The ACLU is more of an educational/public policy organization. They are not tax exempt because of their political involvement. They do not get income from the settlements/awards that the Foundation does. It is clear that you did not understand this distinction from my earlier post.

 

Each would have some kind of legal document that would outline their roles. Such agreements in your mind might be, "the type of legal nitpicking that makes people suspicious of attorneys in general." However, these documents are the basis for the legal operation of each organization. Not keeping the roles separate and clearly defined has the potential for profound legal and tax consequences not only for both organizations but for their donors as well.

 

In terms of an audit, reputable organizations - charities included - generally will submit to a yearly audit of their financial statements. Such an audit would want to clarify these entities are indeed separate. I do not know who audits the statement of the ACLU or the ACLU Foundation. I am sure that if you were to contact them, they would be willing to tell you.

 

I have been employed over the years as an internal auditor for two different non-profits in my state. Each engaged an external auditor annually. As a matter of fact, our external auditor just left our office last Friday. I only know of one non-profit in my state that does not engage an outside auditor. Needless to say it would ever receive a contribution from me regardless of how wonderful the work they do might be. You may be suspicous, but are your suspicions well-informed? I think not.

[Proud Eagle]

Hold it.

 

The cross is not by definition a religious symbol. Neither is a crescent or a star of David. They are symbols that can (and often do) have religious meanings, but could just as easily have a secular meaning. The crescent is symbol used by many middle eastern nations and cultures. The star of David is frequently used by both those of Jewish descent and those of the Jewish faith, along with the state of Israel. The cross takes a similar place in many western societies. Also, the cross is in truth a symbol of torture, execution, death, and rule by fear. Execution using the cross was a creation of the Roman Empire, but it has continued until modern times. Just as an example there is now clear proof of executions being carried out by crucifixion in Iraq in the 1990s. So while many religions have chosen to use the cross as a religious symbol, it is not necessarily such a symbol. (On the other hand a crucifix would be a religious symbol.)

 

If the government can not have religious displays on its property then it MUST BE PROHIBITED from taking ownership of any property being used for a religious purpose. That would mean the govt could never own a church building (many govts have taken ownership of religious properties for community use but yet they have still remained religious properties). It could never own a piece of art with a religious purpose. It could never own a religious historical site. It could never take possession of any artifact of religious significance.

 

If a pre-existing monument on public land must be destroyed because the government broke the law by taking this land, then it is clear that government must destroy every religious item it has. We should start by sand-blasting the walls of the Supreme Court. Actually those carvings are pretty deep, we may need a jack-hammer or even some explosives.

 

Also, has anyone noticed all those government maintained religious displays in our national cemeteries? Obviously if we can't have a religious looking war memorial in a park we can't have one in a government cemetery either.

 

 

[evmori]

Excellent post, Proud Eagle! Excellent! And right on the money!

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10