To ACLU or not to ACLU?

[wevets]

Dang. That sucks (if true).

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say: if we have to investigate the Quakers for terrorism, we're in really bad shape... or at least, about to run out of oatmeal.

I've been wondering for some time whether or not I should donate regularly (or at all) to the ACLU.

When I see things like this, I really want to help provide a check on government abuses of power; but I still have reservations about the ACLU: is their method really the best way for an individual to do this?

So, what do you dopers think: to contribute to the ACLU or not? Why?


(PS: Mods, if this belongs in GD, my apologies... I'm hoping for a sharing of opinions on the ACLU without a lot of political sniping - but I don't know whether that can happen or not.)

[Otto]

Your link requires registration; care to summarize?

But to answer your question, it's never a bad idea to support the ACLU.

[Malodorous]

The ACLU is a little extreme for me occasionally (their attempt to get the cross off the LA seal a few months back for example), but any large organization is going to do stuff that I occasionally disagree with. In general though, I agree with their goals and think that they do very important work. They also stand for important ideals that I think need defending in the current politcal atmosphere, so I usually include them when I'm sending out the charity checks.

[Elysian]

My ACLU card is going to arrive in the mail in a few days. I am going to be a card-carrying member of the ACLU! Fear me!

I really like what their organization says they stand for. I would not be surprised if they weren't 100% true to that. However, is there any other organization that shares those beliefs that has as much political clout?

What's really neat is that their latest missive arrived with a bookmark, summarizing the Bill of Rights. I can never remember which amendment goes with which right, so that's going to be a big help for me

[Malodorous]

I wonder if they've seen an increase in donations and support since this last election?

[Tapioca Dextrin]

Here's the ACLU press release among other things

the ACLU points to many documented examples of JTTF involvement in the investigation of environmental activists, anti-war protesters, and others who are clearly not terrorists nor involved in terrorist activities, including:

tracking down parents of student peace activists
downloading anti-war action alerts from Catholic Peace Ministries · infiltrating student groups
sending undercover agents to National Lawyers Guild meetings
aggressively questioning Muslims and Arabs on the basis of religion or national origin rather than suspicion of wrongdoing

[rjung]

The ACLU is one of the few things remaining in America that we can be proud of.

[Electronic Chaos]

My membership is about to expire shortly, and I'm also contemplating renewing. On one hand, I really like what it stands for, but on the other hand, money's not exactly flowing freely right now. Also, I seem to be getting weekly emails from them essentially saying "The world is ending! Give us your money!" (or at least that's how it seems to me). Since joining, about 50% of the mail I recieve is from other orginizations asking me to free Tibet, save the trees, etc.. It's actually sort of amusing because I ordered a pair of military surplus boots a few months back, and ever since, the OTHER 50% of my mail has been other military surplus catalogs (Guns, ammo, and camo). I feel so conflicted!

Anyway, in the long run I'll probably end up giving them their $20. They're fighting some good fights, and I suppose I can deal with the occaisonal spam.

[mhendo]

Originally Posted by Malodorous

I wonder if they've seen an increase in donations and support since this last election?

I don't know, but i got a solicitation in the mail and i'm going to join.

[Genghis Bob]

I joined the day after the election. Still haven't received my card, though

[Debaser]

The ACLU is basically an anti-religion lobbying group. They seem to focus most of their energy on regularly attacking the boy scouts because they don't like the fact that they don't allow gay scout leaders or openly gay members and focus on religion.

Now that it's holiday season, your ACLU dontations will probably go towards their struggle to ban Christmas decorations from shopping malls and town commons across the country.

[Munch]

Originally Posted by Debaser

The ACLU is basically an anti-religion lobbying group.

Which certainly explains their defense of Jerry Falwell several years back.

[NinjaChick]

Originally Posted by Debaser

The ACLU is basically an anti-religion lobbying group. They seem to focus most of their energy on regularly attacking the boy scouts because they don't like the fact that they don't allow gay scout leaders or openly gay members and focus on religion.

Now that it's holiday season, your ACLU dontations will probably go towards their struggle to ban Christmas decorations from shopping malls and town commons across the country.

Uh....cite?

From the ACLU website:

The mission of the ACLU is to preserve all of these protections and guarantees:

* Your First Amendment rights-freedom of speech, association and assembly. Freedom of the press, and freedom of religion supported by the strict separation of church and state.
* Your right to equal protection under the law - equal treatment regardless of race, sex, religion or national origin.
* Your right to due process - fair treatment by the government whenever the loss of your liberty or property is at stake.
* Your right to privacy - freedom from unwarranted government intrusion into your personal and private affairs.

[mhendo]

Originally Posted by Debaser

The ACLU is basically an anti-religion lobbying group. They seem to focus most of their energy on regularly attacking the boy scouts because they don't like the fact that they don't allow gay scout leaders or openly gay members and focus on religion.

A cursory examination of their website demonstrates very clearly that this is not the case. Their interests extend well beyond the issue of the separation of church and state.

I guess it's a bit much to expect you to actually know anything about them before spouting off, though.

[Steve MB]

Originally Posted by Debaser

The ACLU is basically an anti-religion lobbying group. They seem to focus most of their energy on regularly attacking the boy scouts because they don't like the fact that they don't allow gay scout leaders or openly gay members and focus on religion.

Now that it's holiday season, your ACLU dontations will probably go towards their struggle to ban Christmas decorations from shopping malls and town commons across the country.

Really, Debaser, you'll have to do better than that to get this thread tossed into the Pit.

[iamthewalrus(:3=]

Obviously, your reasons for donating to the ACLU will have to be your own, but I wanted to chime in as another proud supporter of the ACLU.

To answer one of your questions: The ACLU is a very powerful group, and I believe it stands the best chance of stopping further government encroachment on our civil liberties.

[Malodorous]

Originally Posted by Debaser

The ACLU is basically an anti-religion lobbying group.

The ACLU has lobbied on behalf of religious minorities many times. It does support a strong seperation between church and state, so if you don't support this, then the ACLU may not be the place to send your $$.

They seem to focus most of their energy on regularly attacking the boy scouts because they don't like the fact that they don't allow gay scout leaders or openly gay members and focus on religion.

I'm a member of both organizations, if the ACLU spends most of its time attacking the Boy Scouts, it's odd I havn't heard of it. They were involved in the one lawsuit in NJ against the Boy Scouts(which I disagreed with, but like I said, its a big organization so I don't expect to agree with their every decision).

Now that it's holiday season, your ACLU dontations will probably go towards their struggle to ban Christmas decorations from shopping malls and town commons across the country.

indeed.

[rjung]

It's not that the ACLU is anti-religious groups; it's that religious groups are anti-civil rights.

[Rock-n-Rolga]

Genghis Bob, same here! It's like being 8 years old again, running up to the mailbox every day to see if the spiffy toy you ordered in exchange for box tops has arrived yet. Maybe they've had a record number of new memberships and their card-stamping machine caved in under the strain?

[Ferret Herder]

Originally Posted by Rock-n-Rolga

Genghis Bob, same here! It's like being 8 years old again, running up to the mailbox every day to see if the spiffy toy you ordered in exchange for box tops has arrived yet. Maybe they've had a record number of new memberships and their card-stamping machine caved in under the strain?

I wouldn't be surprised - a day or two after the election, I was trying to sign up online and the operation would time out each time I'd click the "I'd like to be a card-carrying member..." button.

[NicePete]

Originally Posted by Debaser

Now that it's holiday season, your ACLU dontations will probably go towards their struggle to ban Christmas decorations from shopping malls and town commons across the country.

I'm pretty sure the ACLU would defend the right of shopping malls to place Christmas decorations on their private property. It's the use of public property to endorse religion they have a problem with. Which you are obviously OK with. I just wonder how you'd feel if it wasn't your religion that your tax dollars were glorifying?

[AskNott]

Now that the Patriot Act is upon us, even Congressman Bob Barr has joined the ACLU. I have been with the ACLU for over 30 years. I don't agree with every case they pursue, but I'm proud to be a member.

[Northern Piper]

Originally Posted by Malodorous

I'm a member of both organizations, if the ACLU spends most of its time attacking the Boy Scouts, it's odd I havn't heard of it. They were involved in the one lawsuit in NJ against the Boy Scouts(which I disagreed with, but like I said, its a big organization so I don't expect to agree with their every decision).

I read an article about this a few weeks ago but it wasn't on-line - it was printed on paper, for God's sake! Maybe someone's scanned it in by now.

The gist of the article was that the ACLU is taking the Boy Scouts at their word. In the case that went to the Supreme Court, the Boy Scouts argued successfully that they were a private group that excersised their freedom of religion and freedom to associate in much the same manner as a church. Even if not formally organized as a church, their ban on gay members was an exercise of their religious beliefs.

The ACLU now says, "Okay, if you're a religious body, governments can't subsidise you without breaching the First Amendment and the separation of church and state." So they've brought suit against things like Army bases providing facilities free to the Boy Scouts. The article said that about 400 troops that the Army had supported for years had been forced to cut their ties with the Army. As well, there's a big annual jamboree that occurs on a military base, for free, each year, with all maintenance costs, clean-up costs, etc. being picked up by the Army. Estimated cost: about $2 million per year. The ACLU is arguing that the free use of the base is a breach of the First Amendment - don't think it's gone to court yet.

[InternetLegend]

I've also been a member for a long time, although I don't actually carry my card. The ACLU has gone to bat for a number of organizations to which I'm bitterly opposed, but I respect the fact that they support free speech, no matter whose toes are being stepped on. Given the number of times this year that I've heard people tell me it doesn't matter what the Patriot Act gives the government the right to do, since our government wouldn't dream of repressing True Americans, I'm inclined to increase my support of the ACLU this year.

[Derleth]

I agree with the ACLU pretty much 100% on issues of principle, especially when it defends the most odious of organizations. Remember when it defended the rights of Nazis to march through Skokie, a Jewish-majority neighborhood on the north side of Chicago? I supported that position, even though I dearly wanted to kick some Nazi skull for polluting such a fine neighborhood.

I like how they take (and don't take) cases based on principle and merit, not PR and marketing. I think the case against the Boy Scouts is an example of this: The ACLU knows it's going against God, Country, and Mom's Apple Pie in the eyes of a lot of people whenever it brings suit against the Scouts, but it also knows that it is in the business of pointing out and helping to fix the flaws in our system. And yes, the way the BSA has been able to game the government and the people is a sign of a flaw in how we classify organizations.

I think the ACLU is a good group for you if you hate double-standards and realize the sun (and the rain) falls on the good as well as the bad, if you think that some principles are of value regardless who happens to benefit from them or be harmed by them.

[Otto]

So is the OP just a drive-by then, and those of us who din't want to give it up to the NYT are just not going to know what set him/her off?

[Ferret Herder]

Originally Posted by Otto

So is the OP just a drive-by then, and those of us who din't want to give it up to the NYT are just not going to know what set him/her off?

Hmm, it loaded up fine for me. Here's a link to the ACLU's press release on the article's topic.

Selected quotes from it:

Citing evidence that the FBI and local police are illegally spying on political, environmental and faith-based groups, the American Civil Liberties Union and its affiliates today filed multiple Freedom of Information Act requests around the country to uncover who is being investigated and why.

"The FBI is wasting its time and our tax dollars spying on groups that criticize the government, like the Quakers in Colorado or Catholic Peace Ministries in Iowa," said ACLU Associate Legal Director Ann Beeson. "Do Americans really want to return to the days when peaceful critics become the subject of government investigations?"

[snip]

JTTFs are legal partnerships between the FBI and local police, in which local officers are "deputized" as federal agents and work in coordination with the FBI to identify and monitor individuals and groups. While their purpose is to investigate terrorism, they have targeted peaceful political and religious groups with no connection to terrorism.

[snip]

In its FOIA requests, the ACLU points to many documented examples of JTTF involvement in the investigation of environmental activists, anti-war protesters, and others who are clearly not terrorists nor involved in terrorist activities, including:

* infiltrating student peace activists and tracking down their parents
* gathering files on Americans Friends Service Committee anti-war events
* interrogating animal rights activists in their homes
* sending undercover agents to National Lawyers Guild meetings
* aggressively questioning Muslims and Arabs on the basis of religion or national origin rather than suspicion of wrongdoing

[wevets]

Originally Posted by Otto

So is the OP just a drive-by then, and those of us who din't want to give it up to the NYT are just not going to know what set him/her off?

Please accept my apologies. I haven't been on the internet since I posted originally, so I wasn't able to respond more quickly.

The linked NY Times article is about the ACLU looking for government documentation about allegations that the FBI has used its counterterrorism task forces to investigate peace/anti-war, environmental, and anti-globalization groups. A non-registration site can be found here:
http://www.aclu-or.org/issues/terror...R_12_02_04.htm

I'm not trying to do a drive-by, I just wanted to find out what has made other folks decide to support or not support the ACLU so I can use the information to help me make my own decision.

[OtakuLoki]

I have supported the ACLU and will again when money isn't so tight.

However, I'll admit about 90% of the cases they take on are those that I really don't see much merit for. It's the other 10% of the cases that keep me supporting them. Eternal vigilance, and all that, after all.

[Hostile Dialect]

I would support the ACLU (but don't because I don't have any money), as I agree strongly with their principles of fighting for the Og-given rights of even the most disagreeable of people and organizations. I also agree with a lot of their stances on things. Sometimes they go a little farther than I'd like, but the Bill of Rights is losing some of its hold and I personally think we need to keep it strong.

[panache45]

I've been an ACLU member for several decades. I've even named them in my will, and also as beficiaries to many of my IRAs.

[Debaser]

Originally Posted by Steve MB

Really, Debaser, you'll have to do better than that to get this thread tossed into the Pit.

I really resent this. Having an opinion that is different than the majority does not make it accurate to label me a troublemaker who is simply trying to derail a thread. The forum is "In My Humble Opinion". The thread subject is the ACLU. I have given my opinion, as requested by the OP.

wevets here is some information regarding the ACLU and it's war against the scouts:

cite

A young eagle scouts take on the matter.

Donald Rumsfeld's opinion is here.

[Munch]

Originally Posted by Debaser

I have given my opinion, as requested by the OP.

Does it bother you that your opinion (as given in your first post to this thread) has been proven entirely baseless (or "debased" if you will)?

[mhendo]

Originally Posted by Debaser

I really resent this. Having an opinion that is different than the majority does not make it accurate to label me a troublemaker who is simply trying to derail a thread. The forum is "In My Humble Opinion". The thread subject is the ACLU. I have given my opinion, as requested by the OP.

While your opinion is yours to do with as you see fit, the fact remains that it is clearly the result of misinformation. No-one denies that the ACLU has spent time trying to keep the Scouts, and organization requiring a religious oath, out of public schools. But it is simply untrue that the ACLU "focus most of their energy on regularly attacking the boy scouts because they don't like the fact that they don't allow gay scout leaders or openly gay members and focus on religion." The ACLU focuses its energy on many different areas, and to suggest, as you do, that they are mainly an anti-Scout organization is simply ignorant.

Originally Posted by Debaser

wevets here is some information regarding the ACLU and it's war against the scouts:

cite

A young eagle scouts take on the matter.

Donald Rumsfeld's opinion is here.

The ACLU is not trying to have the Scouts shut down, and i'll bet that if someone tried to prevent the Scouts from holding their meetings the ACLU would jump to the Scouts' defense. All the ACLU is doing is arguing that a group requiring an oath to God, and disallowing membership by those who refuse to take such an oath, should not be supported by the government. You might disagree with their position, but don't pretend that it has no rational basis.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by mhendo

While your opinion is yours to do with as you see fit, the fact remains that it is clearly the result of misinformation. No-one denies that the ACLU has spent time trying to keep the Scouts, and organization requiring a religious oath, out of public schools. But it is simply untrue that the ACLU "focus most of their energy on regularly attacking the boy scouts because they don't like the fact that they don't allow gay scout leaders or openly gay members and focus on religion." The ACLU focuses its energy on many different areas, and to suggest, as you do, that they are mainly an anti-Scout organization is simply ignorant.The ACLU is not trying to have the Scouts shut down, and i'll bet that if someone tried to prevent the Scouts from holding their meetings the ACLU would jump to the Scouts' defense. All the ACLU is doing is arguing that a group requiring an oath to God, and disallowing membership by those who refuse to take such an oath, should not be supported by the government. You might disagree with their position, but don't pretend that it has no rational basis.

Actually, it seems to me the ACLU took the position that the Scouts were not allowed, even as a private group, to reject gay scout leaders or openly gay members. That position was ultimately shown untenable by Supreme Court decision, but the ACLU did not argue that the Scouts, as a private group, were free to reject gay scout leaders or openly gay members.

[Munch]

Originally Posted by Bricker

Actually, it seems to me the ACLU took the position that the Scouts were not allowed, even as a private group, to reject gay scout leaders or openly gay members. That position was ultimately shown untenable by Supreme Court decision, but the ACLU did not argue that the Scouts, as a private group, were free to reject gay scout leaders or openly gay members.

How do you come to that conclusion? When did the ACLU attack the Scouts as a private institution? Everything I've seen from that action was that the ACLU was taking issue with the Scouts' position as a gov't-favored organization that received public funds and access not given to other private organizations, that violated a number of state/federal discrimination statutes, as well as various SOCAS issues. It is only recently (as mentioned by Northern Piper) that the Scouts have adopted a private organization stance - a stance which still makes them vulnerable since they are receiving several millions dollars of access to government/military resources.

[AmericanMaid]

Another proud ACLU member here. I joined during Dubya's first term and renewed this year, post election. I support their mission and their history of supporting civil rights. If you think certain Americans should be treated as second class citizens, the ACLU isn't for you. If you think International Human rights are quaint or impractical, laugh at the ACLU. If you think every American has a right to practice their own religion or no religion at all, come on down!

[Bridget Burke]

Thanks for the reminder. I've been needing to renew my membership in the ACLU.

Wonder what they're worth? Check out the quality of their enemies.

[Debaser]

Originally Posted by Munch

Does it bother you that your opinion (as given in your first post to this thread) has been proven entirely baseless (or "debased" if you will)?

This attitude is disturbing. A handful of posters on the SDMB disagree with me. Therefore my opinion has been proven entirely baseless. The closemindedness is staggering.

[mhendo]

Originally Posted by Debaser

This attitude is disturbing. A handful of posters on the SDMB disagree with me. Therefore my opinion has been proven entirely baseless. The closemindedness is staggering.

Spare us the self-righteousness.

You made the following asertion:

Originally Posted by Debaser

The ACLU is basically an anti-religion lobbying group. They seem to focus most of their energy on regularly attacking the boy scouts because they don't like the fact that they don't allow gay scout leaders or openly gay members and focus on religion.

In response, a bunch of us pointed out that your assertion about the ACLU being "basically an anti-religion lobbying group" is not only misguided but, based on an examination of the ACLU's broad range of activities, is factually incorrect.

If you wish to reassert your allegation, the least you can do is offer some evidence that the ACLU focuses on "anti-religious" lobbying, to the exclusion of other activities. Of course, you won't be able to do this, because even the most cursory examination of the ACLU's activities makes very clear that the organization focuses on a broad range of issues, many (in fact most) of which have absolutely nothing to do with religion.

For heaven's sake, you don't even have to do much actual reading. Just go to the ACLU homepage. The main categories listed there include:

Criminal Justice
Death Penalty
Disability Rights
Drug Policy
Free Speech
HIV/AIDS
Immigrant Rights
International Civil Liberties
Lesbian and Gay Rights
National Security
Police Practices
Prisons
Privacy and Technology
Racial Equality
Religious Liberty
Reproductive Rights
Rights of the Poor
Student Rights
Voting Rights
Women's Rights
Safe and Free

And from the Religious Liberty page:

Americans enjoy a degree of religious freedom unknown in most of the rest of the world, and they take full advantage it: the United States is home to more than 1,500 different religious bodies and 360,000 churches, synagogues and mosques.

The right of each and every American to practice his or her own religion, or no religion at all, is among the most fundamental of the freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. The Constitution's framers understood very well that religious liberty can flourish only if the government leaves religion alone.

The free exercise clause of the First Amendment guarantees the right to practice one's religion free of government interference. The establishment clause requires the separation of church and state. Combined, they ensure religious liberty. Yet assaults on the freedom to believe continue, both in Washington and in state legislatures around the country.

The ACLU will continue working to ensure that religious liberty is protected by keeping the government out of the religion business.

Just out of interest, Debaser, so we can adequately assess your position on this issue: Do you actually support the notion of the separation of church and state? Or do you believe that part of the Constitution needs to be revised?

No-one's denying you the right to have whatever opinion you want about the ACLU. But when you blatantly misrepresent the organization's aims and actions, then don't expect people to ignore your inaccuracies.

[glee]

Originally Posted by Debaser

This attitude is disturbing. A handful of posters on the SDMB disagree with me. Therefore my opinion has been proven entirely baseless. The closemindedness is staggering.

Actually your summary is disturbing - you do know this a board dedicated to dispelling ignorance?

You made these allegations:

'The ACLU is basically an anti-religion lobbying group. They seem to focus most of their energy on regularly attacking the boy scouts because they don't like the fact that they don't allow gay scout leaders or openly gay members and focus on religion.
Now that it's holiday season, your ACLU dontations will probably go towards their struggle to ban Christmas decorations from shopping malls and town commons across the country.'

Other posters gave cites to prove you wrong.
Of course you are welcome to your opinion (and the ACLU will help defend your free speech rights!).
But you have not proven any of your original allegations.
Instead of doing so, you resort to insults.

[TVeblen]

This discussion is becoming heated--which is fine and good--but don't allow your passions to overtake your good sense. By all means thrash out the issues but don't attach personalties to any of it.
IOW, don't ruin a good thread by flaming. Won't be tolerated, y'know.
Just a reminder...

TVeblen
IMHO mod

[herownself]

I requested and received ACLU membership as a Christmas gift a few years ago - right after the patriot act. But I didn't renew because immediately after I joined I started getting MASSES of solicitation letters from organizations I had never heard of before. Since they were the only new folks who had my address (and interests), it seemed clear to me that they sold their mailing list.

If it was email it would be spam. I figured that they made enough off me to cover for a few more years, and I still get all their emails anyway. I might join again if they had a 'do not sell my name' option, but I'm still ticked off enough that I haven't looked.

That's just my experience, clearly others don't seem to mind as much. Or were already getting that much mail anyway. Or something.

[sleeping]

I'd definitely contribute to the ACLU, even though I don't always agree with them (they sometimes don't go far enough, IMO). But the way things are looking right now, we need at least one large, powerful, and well-known organization to stand up for individual rights.

[Zsofia]

I joined the day after the election - sent them and Amnesty International money I can ill afford. Haven't gotten my cards yet, though. While I don't always agree with everything both organizations do, that would be true of anything, and they both do a pretty good job of allowing you to just get updates on things you want to hear about. I think they do good work and that they're a good place to send your money if you're concerned about your personal freedoms and civil liberties.

[Polycarp]

Originally Posted by Debaser

The ACLU is basically an anti-religion lobbying group. They seem to focus most of their energy on regularly attacking the boy scouts because they don't like the fact that they don't allow gay scout leaders or openly gay members and focus on religion.

Now that it's holiday season, your ACLU dontations will probably go towards their struggle to ban Christmas decorations from shopping malls and town commons across the country.

IMHO or not, I demand a cite with proof on this accusation. The reason is that I have spent time in a number of threads on a number of boards dealing with this allegation, first educating myself (with the help of weirddave, mouthbreeder, yosemite (IIRC), and several others), and then attempting to help others' ignorance.

The ACLU is not anti-religion. They're anti-establishment-of-religion. You know, like using your tax money to put up religious artifacts, or conducting prayers at publicly-funded mandatory events like public school graduations, etc. They're quite pro-religion when some officious asswipe has decided that conformity or his misunderstanding of the First Amendment requires that persons in his custody (like schoolkids) are not permitted the free exercise of their religion.

As one might have gathered from the name, it's a Union of people who defend the Civil Liberties of Americans -- which includes freedom from the establishment of religious customs and paraphenalia using the public facilities and purse, and the freedom to express one's religion without let or hindrance from public officials.

[Debaser]

I'm bowing out of this discussion. We're in IMHO. It's clear that I'm not allowed to have an opinion that is different that the liberal norm here on the SDMB, at least on this subject.

The OP could request that this thread be moved to GD, but he/she has not. I'm certainly not going to open up a thread on the subject. I simply don't feel up to being attacked by two dozen posters this week.

For the record, I'm an athiest who is a supporter of the seperation of church and state clause of the first ammendment.

Gouge away!

[Steve MB]

Originally Posted by Debaser

I'm bowing out of this discussion. We're in IMHO. It's clear that I'm not allowed to have an opinion that is different that the liberal norm here on the SDMB, at least on this subject.

You're allowed to have your own opinion... but not your own facts.

[Ferret Herder]

Originally Posted by Debaser

I'm bowing out of this discussion. We're in IMHO. It's clear that I'm not allowed to have an opinion that is different that the liberal norm here on the SDMB, at least on this subject.

No, what's clear is that you don't know the difference between "having an opinion" ("I don't like the ACLU's attacks on the Boy Scouts") and "stating things as fact that are not supported by the evidence" (Debaser: "The ACLU is basically an anti-religion lobbying group."). In the Chicago Tribune this week, there was a front-page article about questions about a school's holiday program not containing any carols about Jesus, and the fact of the matter is that the ACLU is in favor of those being included in public schools' holiday programs as long as Christianity is not being promoted over other religions. The article mentioned a statement that the ACLU and various Christian organizations had signed off on regarding this kind of issue.

[Polycarp]

Originally Posted by Debaser

I'm bowing out of this discussion. We're in IMHO. It's clear that I'm not allowed to have an opinion that is different that the liberal norm here on the SDMB, at least on this subject.

The OP could request that this thread be moved to GD, but he/she has not. I'm certainly not going to open up a thread on the subject. I simply don't feel up to being attacked by two dozen posters this week.

For the record, I'm an athiest who is a supporter of the seperation of church and state clause of the first ammendment.

Gouge away!

Not a problem, Debaser; I'm a touch antsy on the subject because of how often your assertion is put forward as "fact" by people who haven't bothered to pay attention to the facts. I recommend going to the ACLU website and looking under religion to find out exactly where they do stand, if you're at all interested.

That said, "fighting ignorance" includes IMHO -- to be opposed to Harry Potter books because you think Rowling is an execrable writer is valid; to be opposed to them "because they promote Satanism through picturing magic as good" (I have actually seen this POV expressed elsewhere) is absurd.

I find some ACLU stances to be ones that I cannot in good conscience hold, but in general I support them morally and would do so financially if I had the means.

You have every right to an opinion that "doesn't conform to the liberal norm" -- so long as it's founded on the facts, which are not subject to personal opinion. And I would hope that many of the freethinking liberals here would back your right to do so. I certainly would. I challenged you, not because you don't have a right to form an opinion about the ACLU, but because the opinion you expressed was not borne out by their actions. Tell me that they've overly zealous in calling every personal expression of religious sentiment by a government official a violation of the Establishment Clause, and I'd be tempted to agree. Tell me that they're wilfully anti-religious, and I'll argue with you -- and win, because the facts are on my side.