• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

ACLU fights on behalf of street preachers

For all their wackiness I admire what the ACLU does. In a country which was built on the pillars of freedom and civil liberties, they are the one organization that is willing to go to ridiculous lengths to stand up for those freedoms even if they don't agree with the people they defend and end up looking like idiots themselves.

If only they had a better image.


 
cheers to the ACLU.

Street Preachers can be abrasive, but they generally aren't doing anything which is not protected by free speech rights.

As long as they remain on public property, they should be allowed to preach.
 
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
cheers to the ACLU.

Street Preachers can be abrasive, but they generally aren't doing anything which is not protected by free speech rights.

As long as they remain on public property, they should be allowed to preach.
Click to expand...

Amen to that.
 
I remember in the 88 Election, President Bush denegrating Michael Dukakis by calling him a "card-carrying member of the ACLU".

I was like "WTF? What's wrong with the ACLU?"
 
It's a no brainer. How could any organization that says it's for free speech not support street preachers?

I don't see any nobility here.
 
Originally posted by: Riprorin
It's a no brainer. How could any organization that says it's for free speech not support street preachers?

I don't see any nobility here.
Click to expand...

You're right - it should go without saying, but so few activist groups remain free to their principles when faced with behaviours they likely don't support ideologically. It's nice to see a group consistently stand for their principles; remember htis is the same group that is being accused of 'anti-religious' action in another thread; but when the shoe is on the other foot, they stand for the rights of the religious preachers, too.

I could envision disagreeing with the ACLU's principles, but this is good evidence that at least they are not hypocrites.
 
Originally posted by: Riprorin
If the ACLU is consistent, how do you explain this?

Jailed Terror Suspect Helped ACLU Draft Schools' Anti-Christian Rules
Click to expand...

So that makes him a criminal.

Surely there has never been anyone involved in religious advocacy groups later convicted of a crime?

The whole point of calling them consistent is that a person's personal convictions about religious matters need not predict their behaviour towards them when playing by a particular set of rules (e.g. the constitution). If you can't set aside what are obviously arbitrary beliefs in favour of principles, then you will be limited to being an ideologue.
 
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Originally posted by: Riprorin
If the ACLU is consistent, how do you explain this?

Jailed Terror Suspect Helped ACLU Draft Schools' Anti-Christian Rules
Click to expand...

So that makes him a criminal.

Surely there has never been anyone involved in religious advocacy groups later convicted of a crime?

The whole point of calling them consistent is that a person's personal convictions about religious matters need not predict their behaviour towards them when playing by a particular set of rules (e.g. the constitution). If you can't set aside what are obviously arbitrary beliefs in favour of principles, then you will be limited to being an ideologue.
Click to expand...

Why did the ACLU support a nintensive three-week course in California government schools that requires children to choose a Muslim name, wear Islamic garb, memorize verses from the Koraan, pray to Allah, play ?jihad games, and simulate worship activities related to the Five Pillars of Islam? given that the ACLU lectures us that religious instruction in school violates what it describes as ?separation of church and state? (a phrase that appears nowhere in the U.S. Constitution)?


 
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Why did the ACLU support a nintensive three-week course in California government schools that requires children to choose a Muslim name, wear Islamic garb, memorize verses from the Koraan, pray to Allah, play ?jihad games, and simulate worship activities related to the Five Pillars of Islam? given that the ACLU lectures us that religious instruction in school violates what it describes as ?separation of church and state? (a phrase that appears nowhere in the U.S. Constitution)?
Click to expand...
I don't know why they would support that - I don't think I would.

My high school in Canada ran a fantastic religions course that exposed students to Islam, Hinduism, judaism, mysticism, etc (including several sects of christianity) and included temple/church/mosque visits, speakers, etc; the goal being better understanding of the part religion plays in the world we live in. The course was not mandatory.

I don't know anything about this program other than what you've stated here; it doesn't sound like the sort of mandatory exposure I would support; though it would make an interesting immersion experience for students with serious tolerance issues (given parental consent, of course). I could see a parallel program being developed to expose students who display strong prejudice to almost any religion or culture, but the word 'mandatory' doesn't sit too well with me on this one 😉
 
Originally posted by: Riprorin
?separation of church and state? (a phrase that appears nowhere in the U.S. Constitution)
Click to expand...
from About.com
That is true, the phrase "separation of church and state" does not actually appear anywhere in the Constitution.
Click to expand...
There are any number of important legal concepts which do not appear in the Constitution with the exact phrasing people tend to use. For example, nowhere in the Constitution will you find words like "right to privacy" or even "right to a fair trial." Does this mean that no American citizen has a right to privacy or a fair trial? Does this mean that no judge should ever invoke these rights when reaching a decision?
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by: her209
Originally posted by: Riprorin
?separation of church and state? (a phrase that appears nowhere in the U.S. Constitution)
Click to expand...
from About.com
That is true, the phrase "separation of church and state" does not actually appear anywhere in the Constitution.
Click to expand...
There are any number of important legal concepts which do not appear in the Constitution with the exact phrasing people tend to use. For example, nowhere in the Constitution will you find words like "right to privacy" or even "right to a fair trial." Does this mean that no American citizen has a right to privacy or a fair trial? Does this mean that no judge should ever invoke these rights when reaching a decision?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

It's even clearer than that.

In Jeffersons Letter to the Danbury Baptists he explicitly states that the meaning is a wall of seperation.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.
Click to expand...

Throughout our history judges have been tasked to interpret the meaning of the Constitution and the intentions of its' authors. Here Jefferson explcitly states what is meant, and I'm amazed at the ignoramuses who cling can't accept it.
 
Jefferson certainly didn't mean it in the way the ACLU has interpreted it.

After all, "what he did is totally antithetical from everything the ACLU and others have told the American people. For example, what he did as President included, among other things, supporting government involvement in

* Legislative and Military Chaplains,

* Establishing a national seal using a religious symbol,

* Including the word "God" in our national motto,

* Official Days of Fasting and Prayer-at least on the state level,

* Punishing Sabbath breakers (is that real enough for you?),

* Punishing marriages contrary to biblical law,

* Punishing irreverent soldiers,

* Protecting the property of churches,

* Requiring oaths saying "So Help Me God," taken on the Bible

* Granting land to Christian churches to reach the Indians

* Granting land to Christian schools

* Allowing Government property and facilities to be used for worship

* Using the Bible and non-denominational religious instruction in the public schools. (He was involved in three different school districts and the plan in each one of these REQUIRED that the Bible be taught in our public schools).

* Allowing clergymen to hold public office, and encouraging them to do so,

* Purchasing and stocking religious books for public libraries,

* Funding of salaries of clergymen in Indian mission schools.

* Funding for construction of church buildings for Indians,

* Exempting churches from taxation,

* Establishing professional schools of theology. [He wanted to bring over from Geneva, Switzerland, the entire faculty of Calvin's theological seminary and establish it at the University of Virginia.]

* Treaties requiring other nations to guarantee religious freedom,

* Including religious speeches and prayers in official ceremonies."

The Real Thomas Jefferson
 
I just knew this would turn into a crusade by Rip ... but back on topic: I've always respected the ACLU ... one of the few orgs willing to fight aggressively for our civil liberties. Their only fault IMHO is that they don't fight as vociferously for the 2nd amendment as they do the rest. Not that I even own any guns, but I think people should be free to do so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top