The ACLU finds some time

[Prairie_Scouter]

While there are some people here, and elsewhere, that think that the ACLU does nothing these days but attack the BSA, I thought I'd point out some other things that they are doing.

 

I've mentioned before that the ACLU in Chicago is doing some work to help homeless children in the city. This was in the news here a couple of weeks ago.

 

Today, the news covered a story about the Bush Administration being taken to court by a group, which includes the ACLU, protesting the Administration's use of wiretaps to monitor international conversations without court order. It's clear that the Administration is in violation of federal wiretapping law. The question is whether the act of Congress in the days following 9/11 granting the president additional powers to fight the war trumps the federal law.

 

I'll agree that the ACLU does some apparently wacky things at times, but this time, I think they're looking out for all of us.

[Greying Beaver]

The ACLU does a lot of good things that are in the public interest. The majority may rule but the rights of the minority must be protected. When a minority feels that it/they are being shoved around too much, they give the ACLU a call. They are a watchdog group, and watchdog groups are a necessity.

 

It's when they attack where a person "lives", such as those parts of BSA's Oath and Law that they go too far. BSA has been declared a private club with all of the privilages - and restrictions ( like no events on military facilities) - of a private club.

 

BSA has requirements about a belief in the Almighty. Just suppose for a minute that an athiest family sees a scouting event, picks up the Boy Scout Handbook, etc. The parents see the benefit and the boy, say 6 years old, wants to join a cub pack. It puts these parents on the horns the delima: Tell their son that he cannot join in on the fun because of their beliefs, or deny their beliefs and tell their son to lie?

 

Athiests are citizens, too. They recognize what is needed to raise their childern to be good, productive citizens. BSA has a reputation for being a big help in that regard. But the athiest family cannot join in on the fun and the benefit. The Y.M.C.A is out (Young Men's >Christian< Association). BSA is the best choice. And they canno join. Who do you call? And on what grounds? Why the ACLU, of course.

 

Anybody reading this who thinks ol'G.B. is in favor of changing the Oath and Law to let athiests into Scouting has another think coming.

 

When the ACLU sets their sites on a group, how anyone reacts is a matter of who's ox is being goured. And the ACLU has a pretty poor batting average against the BSA. And look where they do win cases.

[evmori]

The ACLU wants to change the Constitution and take God out of everyday life.

 

The BSA has membership requirements. Atheists aren't allowed to join. They can be member of Spiral Scouts or the 4H Club or an outdoor club at school.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Prairie_Scouter]

Sorry, Ed, I just don't see it that way.

 

Can you be a little more specific about how you think the ACLU wants to change the Constitution?

 

Regards religion in everyday life, I think it's pretty clear the ACLU couldn't care less about what somebody does about religion on their own time, on their own property. They start to get upset when religion is being expressed on government property. I think they do get carried with this at times. I honestly don't see the harm of allowing a nativity scene or some other religiously based holiday display, but others don't agree. I've got a problem with courthouses that display the 10 commandments as anything but a historical display, along with, say, the Magna Carta and the Code of Hammurabi, or something like that. The courts shouldn't be giving the impression that a person entering those doors is being judged based on the requirements of a particular religion.

 

BSA is a private club that can form its own rules; so says the Supreme Court. I think the current BSA leadership is taking the BSA down the path of marginalization. In a few years, I don't think it'll be an "American institution" anymore; it'll just be a religiously based special interest group, and that'll be too bad. But I'll bet the ACLU will leave them alone then.

 

 

[Kahuna]

Come on, Prairie_Scouter, you know the ACLU is trying to change the Constitution by the least desirable means: the courts. It is, in fact, the only way that really liberal ideas ever find their way into law, because they almost never get enacted legislatively.

 

Now, are they the only ones? No, not at all. The right wing groups want to do exactly the same thing, the only difference is the agenda.

 

I don't happen to like either side's agenda and wouldn't support any of them. However, I particularly don't like the ACLU agenda. I agree with Greying Beaver and you that the ACLU does some good things. I have said before that the Nazis did a lot of good things in Germany in the 1930's. One just has to weigh out if it's worth the evil they cause.

 

I recently received a second invitation to join ACLU and used their SASE to reply in somewhat the above vein.

[nldscout]

The ACLU is nothing but a blood sucking vampire of an organization.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

I notice a distinct lack of actual examples from the anti-ACLU crowd of anything the ACLU has done.

[GernBlansten]

Merlyn,

One thing I always ask someone who is complaining about the ACLU to give me one case, one instance where the ACLU has taken the case against civil liberties. Any case. Of course they can't. I for one put civil liberties as one of the highest values in our society. So any organization that protects those liberties, must be worthy.

[Kahuna]

Merlyn, no one will post examples for you because you would just argue that they don't constitute an anti-American agenda. I would probably argue the same if I were you, given your stance on scouting. The best examples I could possibly give of the ACLU's culture war would be the line of cases against the BSA, notoriously the Balboa Park (San Diego) Scout Base case. You, of course, will not agree that those cases constitute actions that are detrimental to our culture.

 

I happen to believe that the way to change the Constitution is through legislative, not judicial, action. ACLU keeps poking around until they find a liberal judge who will make law based on "feelings." That is not how laws are supposed to be made.

 

So, what would be the point of citing examples? As I said earlier, anyone who studies the ACLU's legal actions can see what their agenda is. You just happen to think it's a good agenda. Most Americans don't.

 

Having said that, I find I have nothing more to say on that subject.

 

[Kahuna]

Gern,

 

All of the ACLU cases are about civil liberties. Of course, they are pro-civil liberties, but according to their lights. While I agree that protecting the civil liberties of minority groups is important (since by and large majority groups can protect their own through elections), it is a fact (with which you will probably not agree) that the ACLU takes any kind of extreme civil liberty case they can find in hopes of poking another hole in the Constitution. They go from state to state, federal district to federal district, until they find a court that will give them what they want.

 

In some cases, the do the right thing for the right reason, but normally, it simply results in harm to the majority while not significantly improving any group. The Boy Scout cases pushed by the ACLU are a case in point. They have succeeded in imposing a point of view that most Americans do not agree with, that public institutions cannot support private institutions that discriminate for religious reasons, and to what advantage? Are atheists better off as a result? ACLU threats (not that organization alone) have resulted in some United Ways cutting BSA funding. Are gays better off as a result? Is anybody better off? The answer to the latter is yes, those who support the ACLU's agenda of destroying our culture through court actions are better off. Everyone else is either worse off or no better off.

 

So, no, I can't think of a case where the ACLU has opposed civil liberties per se, they just oppose the United States and what it stands for.

[evmori]

The ACLU wants all reference to God removed from public display! Take it out of the Pledge and off our currency. Why? Somehow this is the establishment of a religion. God isn't a religion. Presbyterian, Jewish, Muslim, Catholic - those are religions. God is a being and there are many religions that believe in God. So having God on our currency isn't endorsing any religion. It is endorsing God. And that is not unconstitutional.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Kahuna writes:

...The best examples I could possibly give of the ACLU's culture war would be the line of cases against the BSA, notoriously the Balboa Park (San Diego) Scout Base case. You, of course, will not agree that those cases constitute actions that are detrimental to our culture.

 

Correct. If the Balboa Park situation is upheld, it's legal for a city to lease public parkland for $1 to a discriminatory group that uses it exclusively for themselves in the summer. Any city could again have a whites-only section of the park if, for example, if they decided to lease that part of the park to the KKK, who would allow only KKK members to use it during the summer. The BSA said in the Balboa park case that they book it 100% with their members during the summer, which is the most popular time. At other times they only book it about 80% (but their members still get priority over the rest of the general public).

 

They have succeeded in imposing a point of view that most Americans do not agree with, that public institutions cannot support private institutions that discriminate for religious reasons, and to what advantage?

 

Do you think it would be legal to use public tax money to run youth groups that exclude Jews? Are you saying most Americans would say that's legal?

 

Remember, we're only talking about the legal issues, so whether Jews or atheists or Catholic or Muslims or Jehovah's Witnesses are excluded is irrelevant - the only issue is whether it's public support of a private group that excludes some segment of the population due to their religious views.

 

Are atheists better off as a result?

 

Well, let's see. Police departments and fire departments used to run Explorer Posts that excluded atheists - now atheists can join, and not be excluded. Is that better off?

 

Public schools will no longer own & operate youth groups that exclude them - is that better off? Or if a public school ran a "no Catholics" youth group, would you consider it harmless for 2nd graders who were Catholic to be subjected to such discrimination by their own schools?

 

Sorry, you're COMPLETELY blind to discrimination against atheists. Completely.

You can't even see it when it's pointed out to you.

 

ACLU threats (not that organization alone) have resulted in some United Ways cutting BSA funding.

 

I highly doubt that. Where has ANY ACLU threatened a United Way?

 

Some UWs have cut BSA funding because the BSA doesn't meet their standards (doesn't that sound familiar), but it has nothing to do with the ACLU.

 

Ed writes:

The ACLU wants all reference to God removed from public display!

 

No they don't, Ed. I can give you plenty of examples where the ACLU has defended public displays of gods from all kinds of religions. But you can't learn things.

[Venividi]

In the news:

 

ACLU of Rhode Island Files Appeal on Behalf of Christian Prisoner Barred from Preaching at Religious Services (1/12/2006)

PROVIDENCE, RI -- The American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island announced today that it has filed an appeal in federal court on behalf of a Christian prisoner who was barred from preaching during religious services at the state prison.

 

Wesley Spratt had been preaching during Christian services for seven years at the Adult Correctional Institutions (ACI) until 2003, when a new warden unilaterally stopped him from doing so based on vague and generalized "security" concerns. In its appeal, the ACLU argues that the preaching ban violates a federal law known as RLUIPA, which was designed to protect the religious freedom of institutionalized persons.

"RLUIPA is an important federal law that was designed to protect the religious freedom of people like Wesley Spratt," said ACLU cooperating attorney Carly Beauvais Iafrate. "That law is undermined if courts give uncritical deference to prison officials in denying inmates the right to practice their religion."

[evmori]

Let's see .........................

 

Removing a manger scene from court house steps but leaving the Menorah.

 

Removing the Ten Commandments from government buildings.

 

Taking "under God" out of the Pledge.

 

That's removing references to God from the public.

 

And that old line "I can't learn" is really nothing more than away for you to avoid addressing the real issue. God isn't a religion. So by having "under God" in the Pledge or "In God We Trust" on our currency or displaying the Ten Commandments on government buildings all that is being endorsed is God. Now if you associate God with a specific religion, fine! But that's your belief! Not the belief of most Americans.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[OldGreyEagle]

PS, Merlyn, and GB, maybe you can help me.

 

First, I agree there is a reason to have the ACLU and they do good things for people who would otherwise have no recourse. I understand that sometimes they take on unpopular causes because the ACLU is about Civil Liberty issues and not the group whose Civil Liberties are being infringed.

 

Given all that, I do think at times the ACLU is sometimes quite UnAmerican. OK, I said that as sorta kinda in a way flame bait. Why UnAmerican? Because they have very little spin doctoring going on. Almost every other huge corporation has some form of active public relations department beating their drums announcing all the good they do, why doesnt the ACLU? The press story that Venividi posted about the ACLU sticking up for the Christian prisioner to preach is an axample that the ACLU should be touting. The ACLU has to know how many people feel about them, and that much of the ill will towards the ACLU comes from a misunderstanding of the groups purpose, but I have seen very little from the ACLU rehabilitating its image.

 

PS, you talk about the ACLU (wish there wa a way to abbreviate that )helping homeless children in Chicago, another issue that should be made public.

 

The supporters of the ACLU shouldnt have to be the ones who educate others about the good the ACLU does, that should be the ACLU's job. And I know, such a media campaign would cost money, lots of it, but a 3 month media campaign about all the issues that the ACLU has been invovled in could change a lot of peoples perception of them.

 

OK, I take the crack about the ACLU being UnAmerican, I just think there is a lot they could do to improve their image