The ACLU finds some time

[GernBlansten]

OGE writes:

Its pretty much all agreed by conservatives that liberals run the airwaves. That Broadcast and print mainstream media is the haven of liberals with only a few islands of conservatism. If that's true, why is it that the ACLU gets a bad rap in the Media as has been claimed? Why doesnt the broad left wing conspiracy of liberal media prop up the ACLU and show what good it does, the things that middle America would appreciate?

 

Perhaps the perceived liberal bias by the conservatives is just that, perceived. You make an excellent point. ACLU does some good things that conservatives would like but they go unreported. If there was a liberal media bias, wouldn't those things be thrown in the face on every news cycle?

[evmori]

Let's see! Merlyn wants equal right for atheists. At least that's what I think he wants. I really have no problem with that but it seems in order to get them Merlyn wants to remove God do he isn't offended.

Well the Constitution doesn't guarantee you the right to not be offended. If you wan equal rights for atheist fine. But when you trample all over my rights to get them, that is wrong. And that is exactly what you are trying to do. Remove all references to God from government buildings because in your opinion, that endorses religion. Well, it doesn't! The Ten Commandments are still on the courthouse in Pittsburgh and there are many reference to God on the SCOTUS building. And if I were a betting man, I would bet they would stay right where they are.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Hey Ed, I consider the supreme court reasoning in 10 commandments cases to be inconsistent (and so do many other people). Just keep in mind that anywhere "you shalt have no other gods before me" is erected by government officials, you'll have no legal recourse to complain if it's replace by "gods are myths".

 

By the way, there are a large number of gods on the supreme court building; it's polytheistic, not monotheistic.

[Kahuna]

Merlyn,

 

Now that I've apologized for my discourtesy in misspelling your screen name, let me respond to just one of your points and then lapse into silence.

 

When you say you want to have a discussion on a subject, you state the impossible. You do not discuss. You do not argue. You simply badger.

 

In a discussion, one does not:

 

Ridicule or dismiss the point of view of the other party.

 

SCREAM at them repeatedly in posts.

 

Retaliate in juvenile fashion to an obvious misspell by deliberately misspelling the other party's screen name.

 

One does:

 

Acknowledge the point of view of the other person.

 

Use polite language, even if you think he is an idiot.

 

No charge for the advice (it's usually $125 an hour), Merlyn and good luck in your efforts.

 

Kahoona

[theysawyoucomin']

For the ACLU to have any credibility at all, they must defend the second ammendment as strongly as the first.

 

the right of the people......... shall not be infringed.

 

They must have missed that one. It's on my copy.

 

 

Until that day they are just a bunch of liberal whining hippies looking for the next rally to attend.

 

They don't guarantee anybody's freedom, despot's tanks would crush them the same as anybody else.

 

[OldEagle4Life]

The crux of the argument with anything involving the ACLU, or any other 1st, 2nd or 35 millionth amendment is that it should provide for everyone to be equal under the law. How that is interpreted is of course the big debate. How far do we or should we take equality. Should it be in every little niche of our lives,

should we regulate how people are treated equally in schools, in the work place, in the bedroom???

 

I agree with the notion that the ACLU is proposing, that by allowing a organization, (any organization I will not single out the BSA, even though that is the group being highlited here), that has an open and active policy of discrimination to use a public or federal facilty that has anti discrimination rules IS a violation of constitutional rights.

 

Do I want to see the BSA forced out of schools, military bases, public builings...of course not, and infact any leader that wants to see that happen should be ashamed. I do not want to say that the boy scouts must reap that which they sow, but by having active policies of discrimination, even if it is their

right to do so, they have opened themselves up to such responses as the ACLU has done.

 

I am actually quite pleased that there is litigation of this type, and of this level being thrown back against the BSA. It keeps us honest, when trustworthy seems to be fleeing this world

on all levels. When the Dale case originally got to the SC, I had mixed feelings on what the outcome would be. On one hand, I hoped that the BSA would lose. The notion that we would say that because of what someone (a child or an adult, but a child specifically) believes, that they should not be allowed to join

this great institution horrified me. While I understand that the BSA wants and needs to be able to control their own membership, they were shooting themselves in the leg at a time when membership was already on the rocks and public opinion of the group was in decline. But of course on the other hand, I really wanted the BSA to win that decision. If they had lost, imagine the sort of lawsuits that would open up against the BSA (anyone who had any kind of grudge against them membership wise, or anything else for that reason would have more ground to attack them on)!

 

It was a win/lose situation all around. The organization becomes a discrimiatory, privatly owned group, or it becomes a public/holisitc group. I am glad they won, but I hope that sometime soon in the future the necessity for such rules in the BSA will go away, leaving them a private , yet all inclusive group.

 

So I have strayed a bit from the ACLU topic of this post, so to return to it...

 

Should every mention of god be stricken from public view...no, this is a democracy, and as my college history advisor made me research, democracy derived from the greek demoskratika, means

kratikia-rule by and demos-the masses. At this point most of the country believes in a god, whether it is a Jewish, Islamic, Christian or Buddhist god is irrelevat. But, those views should never be forced on the rest of the minorities that do not believe in this god, or any god for that matter.

 

At the same time, the minority cannot dictate how the masses are to run, or else our demoskratika will become a little more socialist instead (rule by a small elite group!). We need to find the happy medium, the compromise. The ACLU is forcing us to move towards that, but possibly not in the way or in the exact direction that everyone (espeically those annoying "masses")would like it to go in.

 

So, the god fearing majority of course have the right to believe in what they want, but those beliefs should not enter politics where they will be diffused over the entire country, including

those who do not believe in god, but are forced to have the same political leaders and rules as everyone else. Those who do not believe in a god should at the same time not be able to go and tell the god fearing ones they should not believe in god either, in the public realm. Keep it in your homes, keep it in your churches, keep it in your social groups and meetings, but

once you go out in public, everyone and everything is then fair game. So until people stop having the urges to tell others what they should/shouldn't do, can and can't believe we will have people putting issues like this into politics.

 

Like I just said, if its kept in a private setting, like the Boy Scouts are now (a private organization) then by all rights, yes they can keep gays, atheists, and everyone else out. But, once they start to use those public facilities, they cannot, CANNOT, complain about being yelled at and open to attack.

 

That's the problem with being a non for profit volunteer group. If they were a true enterprising organization that was self sufficent then all these problems would go away, but alas the BSA

is no where near that level of self sufficency.

 

Should matters like this be legislated on, yes. We need laws in place that everyone can understand and live by in the public domain. Should the courts be free to make rulings. Yes, it is the job of the Supreme Court to interpret the laws and how they impact our lives. Why, because look at us, a group of like minded individuals (in that we all believe in the Boy Scout program) and we can't even all agree on our own organizations actions. So yes, we need some group out there to tell us what the law means, and how it should apply to us.

 

I have been reading this post for a while and deciding if and when I would post a response, even though I am officialy new to the forum, I have been keeping an eye on it for quite some time. But these are public forums, so scrutiny on all sides of the fence should be expected. I think I have actually discussed this issue, from multiple sides and taking into account several

(but of course not all) points of view.

 

[evmori]

Inconsistent with what? You interpretation of the Constitution? There's a big surprise! Actually, the ruling was right on the money & in-line with the Constitution. And I would bet the "under God" ruling on the Pledge will be overturned.

 

And who would those gods be, Merlyn?

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[GernBlansten]

I often wondered why the ACLU hasn't come to the defense of the 2nd Ammendment. But then I realized that there is another well funded organization of lawyers who have taken that cause, the NRA. They do the the heavy lifting on #2 so the ACLU can focus on the rest of the constitution. Think of it as teamwork.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Kahuna writes:

Now that I've apologized for my discourtesy in misspelling your screen name, let me respond to just one of your points and then lapse into silence.

 

I see - you lecture me on how to conduct an argument by acknowledging the other person, while at the same time state that you will not be responding to me? "Do as I say, not as I do", eh?

 

If you don't like my style, that's your own problem.

 

I have responded to your assertions, such as why the Balboa park case was correctly decided - if the BSA wins, it's possible for cities to create whites-only sections of parks just as I outlined. Your reply that cities just wouldn't do that tacitly admits that cities *could* do that, they just *wouldn't* do that (to non-white citizens, but apparently it's OK to do that to atheist citizens).

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Ed writes:

Inconsistent with what? You interpretation of the Constitution? There's a big surprise!

 

I meant inconsistent with their other 10 commandments rulings (but my opinion too, of course, and probably lots of other people, maybe even including you).

 

Actually, the ruling was right on the money & in-line with the Constitution.

 

You mean you agree with the part of that same ruling that said the 10 commandments had to be removed from two Kentucky courthouses?

 

And who would those gods be, Merlyn?

 

Themis, the sometimes-blindfolded goddess also known as Justice/Justicia appears three times.

 

Zeus, Minerva, Juno, and Mercury are part of the frieze in the great hall.

[evmori]

And do you believe in those gods, Merlyn?

[OldGreyEagle]

Minerva? You mean Miss Minerva of Diver Dan fame?

[johndaigler]

Just to take this TOOOOOOO far down the Minerva path . . .

 

Since "You shall have no other gods before me." (RSV 1952), then placing the Commandments alongside these other statues either: disrespects Commandment#1 and all of its followers; or denies these personas their godhood, effectively discriminating against followers of these gods. . .

 

Assuming the "offical answer" is to deny Minerva - what's to stop the govt. from next denying . . .? ? ? ?

 

 

jd

 

 

[OldGreyEagle]

Or, you could take it that since the 10 Commandments and the Greek gods are featured that in the governments eyes they are all equal

[GernBlansten]

Or, you could take it that since the 10 Commandments and the Greek gods are featured that in the governments eyes they are all equal

 

Equally regarded, or equally disregarded?