Gee I feel slighted by DHS

[Vicki]

Let's not mix up our apples and oranges. There is no reason the ACLU would take on individual gun owner's rights because, as a civil liberties organization, they don't believe that individual gun owhership is a civil right. The NRA does - they have really good lawyers too. In terms of religious freedoms, they defend those in the context of our civil liberties. You have the right to be atheist, religious, or anything in between, and they have taken on any number of cases, as noted, that defend those rights. But where religious freedoms, in their readings, conflict with civil liberties, the ACLU will go with civil liberties because, as I read their focus, religious freedoms are a subset of civil liberties. The doctrine of separation of church and state is a lot muddier reading than the second amendment, IMO.

 

The Second Amendment provides: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

 

ACLU POSITION

Given the reference to "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of a free State," the ACLU has long taken the position that the Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right. For seven decades, the Supreme Court's 1939 decision in United States v. Miller was widely understood to have endorsed that view.

 

In our view, neither the possession of guns nor the regulation of guns raises a civil liberties issue. (excerpted)

 

http://www.aclu.org/crimjustice/gen/35904res20020304.html

 

Vicki(This message has been edited by Vicki)

[evmori]

But where religious freedoms, in their readings, conflict with civil liberties, the ACLU will go with civil liberties because, as I read their focus, religious freedoms are a subset of civil liberties.

 

And therein lies part of the problem. Religious freedoms are equal to all other freedoms, not a subset.

 

The doctrine of separation of church and state is a lot muddier reading than the second amendment, IMO.

 

Nowhere in the Constitution does anything state the state & church should be separate.

 

[GernBlansten]

Ed, do you think its a good idea to intermingle church and state? I suppose, if its your church. What if its not? Or would it be best for the government to adopt a similar policy that BSA has. One so watered down as not to offend any individual or sect.

[Vicki]

"Nowhere in the Constitution does anything state the state & church should be separate. "

 

Didn't say it did, Ed - that's why it's called a doctrine. A doctrinal statement being an interpretation of somethng. But then everything else we're talking about in terms of civil liberties is interpretation, too, so let's not go there. I will say we've had a lot longer to work on civil liberties - that concept goes back to the Magna Carta in 1215. Freedom of religion is a much newer concept.

 

Vicki

 

(This message has been edited by Vicki)

[SR540Beaver]

vol_scouter: "They are a liberal rights organization not a civil rights organization. They only take the left's side of issues."

 

As a libertarian leaning conservative, I disagree with your statement. For it's time, the concept for our nation and the Constitution and Declaration of Independence our founding fathers created was a radical and "liberal" departure from the government norm. Ever since our founding, there have been those who desire to make society conform to their own personal beliefs or ideology. Organizations like the ACLU provide a patriotic service to US citizens to keep people honest and in compliance with the Constitution. They simply present a legal case in our nation's court systems and they either win or lose based on the merits of their argument. It is the American system of government working as designed. The constitution applies to all citizens regardless of their race, gender, creed, etc. A Christian wants to be free to carry a Bible. A Muslim woman wants to be free to wear a hijab to class. A Native American wants to be able to wear his hair long as an expression of his faith in a place with a dress code. A Jewish person is upset that the city council is spending tax dollars to put a cross up on the city hall lawn for Easter. The ACLU exists to make sure that you have the guaranteed freedom to express your religious faith as you choose and that your government does not endorse one religion over another. Tell me what is wrong with that?

 

(This message has been edited by sr540beaver)

[Stosh]

When the Constitution was written the State was just that, the individual states, i.e. original 13. A State cannot establish an official religion, but not where does it say it shouldn't tolerate ALL religions. Unfortunately this has been reinterpreted that the State should tolerate NO religions. Unfortunately not establishing a state church is in no means the same as intolerance of religious organizations. According to the Constitution, this amendment applies only to the State, not the Federal, County, Parish, City, Township or any other form of government. Maybe it's time to just go with what's written and then accept a modicum of tolerance along the way. If a city wants a minorah go for it, a cross? sure, why not, we used to be a tolerant society, but with all the zero-tolerance rules being taught our children today, that whole concept may indeed pass into history along with the original intent of what Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness meant. Intolerance produces conflict and what our Forefathers wanted for us doesn't allow for a zero-tolerance stand on any issue.

 

Stosh

 

 

[evmori]

Gern,

 

Nothing wrong with the church & state commingling as long as the state doesn't try to force a state religion & the church doesn't try to force a state religion.

[erickelly65]

SR540Beaver...There is nothing wrong with that but I might ask why isnt this Jewish person more tolerant. As long as the city is open to all religious symbols.

 

A more real world example. MD Anderson Cancer Center, part of the University of Texas is a public hospital here in Houston. They, like most hospitals have a chapel in their facility. One could say this is a nondenominational, prehaps even non religious room and therefore ok. But MD Anderson also has a Muslim Chapel (Their name for it) in the hospital. This is an explicitly religious room in a state hospital. I see no problem with that but doesnt this the seperation of church and state line?(This message has been edited by erickelly65)

[SR540Beaver]

Eric,

 

Those were hypothetical situations. I could have just as easily said that a Christian is upset that the city council spent tax dollars putting up an Eid display on the city hall lawn. the point is, the city government has no business recognizing one religion over another as it implies support of the religion and is offensive to people of other faiths. Kind of like the BSA, there is nothing wrong with the government realizing or recognizing the value of religion in the life of the citizens, but it is best left to the person and their church to express. As to your comment about the city being open to all religious symbols, I understand the sentiment and agree that it is a tolerant approach. However, as an evangelical Christian, I can tell you that some of my brethern consider the USA as a Christian nation and their faith superior to all other faiths and they would be angry that their tax dollars were spent making Judiasm and Islam appear to be on an equal footing with Christianity. The best approach is for the church to allow the government to govern and for the government to allow the church to express faith freely. Organizations like the ACLU exist to make sure that both are done within the boundaries of the Constitution.

[HICO_Eagle]

Vicki, the point about the ACLU and the Second Amendment is that it proves the point that the ACLU is NOT about protecting civil liberties in general but rather about picking and choosing which civil liberties they agree with. The ACLU is also rather lax about defending the Tenth Amendment or Congressional abuses of the Commerce Clause as the root of federal regulation because they generally agree with the idea of increasing federal powers except when they interfere with using recreational drugs, open sexual conduct, etc.

 

The Second Amendment was so well understood as an individual right that it didn't need "clarification" until the National Firearms Act was passed. US v. Miller was NOT "widely understood" to endorse a group right interpretation -- it has in fact been argued vigorously which belies a "wide understanding". In fact, taking the group rights interpretation would cause you to throw away historic precedent and contemporary accounts to accept the idea that the Second Amendment was the ONLY amendment in the Bill of Rights to be framed that way. This is a perfect example of the wild contortions various parties take with the English language in order to say something is "unclear" so they can come up with an interpretation they like.

[vol_scouter]

jblake47,

 

Eleven of the original thirteen colonies had state sponsored religions when the constitution was ratified. The religious freedom clauses in the First Amendment was written to assure the states that the states could choose which state sponsored religion that they wished. The federal government was prohibited from establishing a federal government sponsored religion. The states had state sponsored religions for many years following the ratification of the constitution. Following the civil war, many laws were essentially federalized by the 14th (I believe) amendment. The bill of rights was written to ensure our freedoms, among those are the free exercise of religion - which the ACLU is against in public. They do not defend Christians wishing to freely express their religion in public venues though they may do that for other religions.

 

Freedom of speech, religion, and the press was lumped into one amendment but the second amendment only discusses the right to keep and bear arms. It was clearly written as an individual right by the writings of the founding fathers and early cases and laws as discussed in the Heller case. The individual right to keep and bear arms is the most important of our rights. The ACLU knows these things as well and chooses to ignore the truth in favor of a left wing agenda.

 

It is one thing for someone on this list to make an analogy between a catering business and the BSA. It is another for attorneys sworn to uphold state or federal laws to say that the BSA in a public accommodation (not an analogy but that it IS a public accommodation).

 

The ACLU has a left wing agenda and does NOT defend all civil rights.