Poll: What do you think of the ACLU?

[Infohawk]

Overall I think they are a positive force, but I am not a card-carrying member because I believe they are so in favor of individual rights that sometimes law enforcement and security can suffer at times. Obviously, there is a fine balance between civil liberties and public safety, I am just a little more towards the safety end of the spectrum on the issue. That is what is stopping me from contributing, but I'm open to persuasion.

What do you guys think?

 

[K1052]

My major problem with them is that they refuse to defend the 2nd Amendment with the ferocity with which they defend the others.

 

[judasmachine]

somewhat good. maybe a little overzealous for my taste but they have championed those who could not stand up for themselves.

no i am not a member.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: K1052
My major problem with them is that they refuse to defend the 2nd Amendment with the ferocity with which they defend the others.

I'm actually curious, have there been a lot of cases dealing with 2nd Amendment issues where rights were maybe being violated? Sure, there are a lot of groups that want to do away with the 2nd Amendment, but that's not really what the ACLU does. Unless there are actual court cases, I don't think the ACLU gets involved. I could be wrong, I'm not a big gun guy so I pay less attention to that stuff.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: K1052
My major problem with them is that they refuse to defend the 2nd Amendment with the ferocity with which they defend the others.

I'm actually curious, have there been a lot of cases dealing with 2nd Amendment issues where rights were maybe being violated? Sure, there are a lot of groups that want to do away with the 2nd Amendment, but that's not really what the ACLU does. Unless there are actual court cases, I don't think the ACLU gets involved. I could be wrong, I'm not a big gun guy so I pay less attention to that stuff.

This is an interesting issue. Here is their position. Elsewhere, they also say they are neutral.

Though I am in favor of gun control, it does seem like the ACLU is a bit hypocritical on this issue. Sure, it's not like they are pro gun control, but it's odd for a civil liberties group to be neutral on any civil liberty. They seem to take Supreme Court decisions at face value and leave it at that. I would be very surprised if they took all Supreme Court decisions at face value.

 

[Tab]

There generally reguarded as a good group, I think they should do more to answer the typical questions that they are asked. They seem like a very hypocritical organization if you don't actually ask the people who do work in the organization.

Other than that I would like to join.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: K1052
My major problem with them is that they refuse to defend the 2nd Amendment with the ferocity with which they defend the others.

I'm actually curious, have there been a lot of cases dealing with 2nd Amendment issues where rights were maybe being violated? Sure, there are a lot of groups that want to do away with the 2nd Amendment, but that's not really what the ACLU does. Unless there are actual court cases, I don't think the ACLU gets involved. I could be wrong, I'm not a big gun guy so I pay less attention to that stuff.

This is an interesting issue. Here is their position. Elsewhere, they also say they are neutral.

Though I am in favor of gun control, it does seem like the ACLU is a bit hypocritical on this issue. Sure, it's not like they are pro gun control, but it's odd for a civil liberties group to be neutral on any civil liberty. They seem to take Supreme Court decisions at face value and leave it at that. I would be very surprised if they took all Supreme Court decisions at face value.

Hmm, that is pretty interesting. I think they want to avoid supporting the idea of unlimited weapon ownership, as a basic interpretation of the 2nd Amendment would not prohibit ownership of missle launchers or nuclear weapons.

But even given that, I don't see why they would support registration...

 

[ntdz]

ACLU isn't bad, sometimes they go a bit overboard though.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: K1052
My major problem with them is that they refuse to defend the 2nd Amendment with the ferocity with which they defend the others.

I'm actually curious, have there been a lot of cases dealing with 2nd Amendment issues where rights were maybe being violated? Sure, there are a lot of groups that want to do away with the 2nd Amendment, but that's not really what the ACLU does. Unless there are actual court cases, I don't think the ACLU gets involved. I could be wrong, I'm not a big gun guy so I pay less attention to that stuff.

This is an interesting issue. Here is their position. Elsewhere, they also say they are neutral.

Though I am in favor of gun control, it does seem like the ACLU is a bit hypocritical on this issue. Sure, it's not like they are pro gun control, but it's odd for a civil liberties group to be neutral on any civil liberty. They seem to take Supreme Court decisions at face value and leave it at that. I would be very surprised if they took all Supreme Court decisions at face value.

Hmm, that is pretty interesting. I think they want to avoid supporting the idea of unlimited weapon ownership, as a basic interpretation of the 2nd Amendment would not prohibit ownership of missle launchers or nuclear weapons.

But even given that, I don't see why they would support registration...

Those items do not meet the late 1700s definition of arms, they would be considered ordnance and thus not constitutionally protected.

 

[Trevelyan]

It is a shame that many of their lawsuits are so disgusting that I find myself weary to support anything they do.

Not everything they do is bad, but I am not a member because of the some of the outrageous things I've seen them do.

 

[EagleKeeper]

They are like unions. STarted out with good intentions and have suscumbed to thinking that they are all mightly and that just their name means that they can do no wrong.

Attitudes now are to hell with what is right and what the consequences are, just stir up trouble.

 

[Zebo]

Anybody that can defend the Clan and Nation of islam is bound to make a few enemies but I think they are nutral and good for protecting individual rights.

One thing I hate about them is thier interprtation of the second amenedment...but with famous conservatives like BOB BARR joining I hope this misguided viewpoint will change.

Member yeah I give $500 a year to them too. I'm also NRA lifer since 18.

 

[PrinceofWands]

I'm a lifetime member, have been for a decade. My only two issues with them are their utter failure to defend ALL of our civil liberties (ie gun rights) and a tendency to be too much against religious freedoms (of the individual mind you). I get around the first problem by being a lifetime member of the NRA too. The second one is harder to reconcile.

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~ Ben Franklin

I know it's quoted on here all the time, but it's the absolute total truth of the matter.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
They are like unions. STarted out with good intentions and have suscumbed to thinking that they are all mightly and that just their name means that they can do no wrong.

Attitudes now are to hell with what is right and what the consequences are, just stir up trouble.

So you are mad about their attitude? Can you find me something on their website that reflects this attitude? They are an orginzation with positions. What does it matter what their attitude is? It's not like they are a co-worker or an actual person you have to deal with.

 

[Zebo]

I find the attitude of scraping the consititution and all standards of human decentcy by the current powers that be to be offensive.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
a tendency to be too much against religious freedoms (of the individual mind you).

Can you point to a specific example? To me, it seems like they are giving individuals freedom from religion (which most people consider to be part of freedom of religion).

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
a tendency to be too much against religious freedoms (of the individual mind you).

Can you point to a specific example? To me, it seems like they are giving individuals freedom from religion (which most people consider to be part of freedom of religion).

It's a very fine line. I am 100% for freedom of religion, but only very limited freedom from religion. I don't expect religious people to change just to please me, any more than I am willing to change to please them.

For instance, cases where students are criminalized for bringing or reading religious material during school downtimes, student driven prayer that doesn't interfere with school time, moving to block judeo-christian religious groups on basis of religion but also backing the right to practice alternative religions (ie defending a wiccan exploration group at school while simultaneously moving to stop a christian group in the same district). These types of things are unacceptable to me. Either everyone has equal religious rights or no one does, the hypocrisy needs to stop.

 

[glenn1]

Generally good. Would be better if they used a bit more discretion in where they focused their energies. For example, it seems that if you have a church-state seperation case they'll bend over backwards and pull out all the stops to help you, to the detriment of other areas which they could be concentrating their energies. They should also do more to affirm that they do support the right of the people to enforce the rule of law, there is a line between aggressively defending the rights of the accused and being an outright antagonist to the rule of law and of the criminal justice system as a whole.

 

[Trevelyan]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
It's a very fine line. I am 100% for freedom of religion, but only very limited freedom from religion. I don't expect religious people to change just to please me, any more than I am willing to change to please them.

For instance, cases where students are criminalized for bringing or reading religious material during school downtimes, student driven prayer that doesn't interfere with school time, moving to block judeo-christian religious groups on basis of religion but also backing the right to practice alternative religions (ie defending a wiccan exploration group at school while simultaneously moving to stop a christian group in the same district). These types of things are unacceptable to me. Either everyone has equal religious rights or no one does, the hypocrisy needs to stop.

This is my main complaint. I haven't studied all of the ACLU lawsuits, but some of the more ridiculous onces I've seen seem to be motivated more by a hatred of Judaism & Christianity than a desire to defend people from religious discrimination. To me it seems like sometimes they are actively discriminating against these specific religious groups.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Trevelyan

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
It's a very fine line. I am 100% for freedom of religion, but only very limited freedom from religion. I don't expect religious people to change just to please me, any more than I am willing to change to please them.

For instance, cases where students are criminalized for bringing or reading religious material during school downtimes, student driven prayer that doesn't interfere with school time, moving to block judeo-christian religious groups on basis of religion but also backing the right to practice alternative religions (ie defending a wiccan exploration group at school while simultaneously moving to stop a christian group in the same district). These types of things are unacceptable to me. Either everyone has equal religious rights or no one does, the hypocrisy needs to stop.

This is my main complaint. I haven't studied all of the ACLU lawsuits, but some of the more ridiculous onces I've seen seem to be motivated more by a hatred of Judaism & Christianity than a desire to defend people from religious discrimination. To me it seems like sometimes they are actively discriminating against these specific religious groups.

You might be getting that impression based on the fact that most religious groups in America are going to be christian. So of course most of the cases defending people from religion are going to target christianity.

 

[Riprorin]

I'm automatically skeptical of any group founded by communists or communist sympathizers.

Link

 

[Trevelyan]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: Trevelyan

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
It's a very fine line. I am 100% for freedom of religion, but only very limited freedom from religion. I don't expect religious people to change just to please me, any more than I am willing to change to please them.

For instance, cases where students are criminalized for bringing or reading religious material during school downtimes, student driven prayer that doesn't interfere with school time, moving to block judeo-christian religious groups on basis of religion but also backing the right to practice alternative religions (ie defending a wiccan exploration group at school while simultaneously moving to stop a christian group in the same district). These types of things are unacceptable to me. Either everyone has equal religious rights or no one does, the hypocrisy needs to stop.

This is my main complaint. I haven't studied all of the ACLU lawsuits, but some of the more ridiculous onces I've seen seem to be motivated more by a hatred of Judaism & Christianity than a desire to defend people from religious discrimination. To me it seems like sometimes they are actively discriminating against these specific religious groups.

You might be getting that impression based on the fact that most religious groups in America are going to be christian. So of course most of the cases defending people from religion are going to target christianity.

Yes, that is true. I was merely referring to several specific cases where Christianity is unfairly singled out, regardless of how popular it is.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Trevelyan
I was merely referring to several specific cases where Christianity is unfairly singled out, regardless of how popular it is.

Do you have links to these cases?

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: Trevelyan
I was merely referring to several specific cases where Christianity is unfairly singled out, regardless of how popular it is.

Do you have links to these cases?

Here's one: Fighting to have the Spanish mission removed from the California state flag, even though it has historical and cultural significance.

The ACLU uses bully tactics (the threat of costly litigation) to push it's agenda.

 

[Gigantopithecus]

I am a member of the ACLU & NRA. The former does a good job of watching out for all of my Constitutional freedoms except the 2nd Amendment, the latter does a good job of watching out for that one.

Glad to read I'm not the only one who keeps their ACLU & NRA cards next to each other!

Originally posted by: Riprorin
I'm automatically skeptical of any group founded by communists or communist sympathizers.

Link

Are you also skeptical of any group founded by slave owners and violent anti-authoritarian rebels?

Link.