Has the ACLU ever protected the rights of some Christians?

[Schuyler]

@ITR champion

Yup. If anyone ever passes a law making it illegal for gun owners to speak their minds, print a newspaper, worship as they choose, petition the government or get a speedy trial by jury, the ACLU will fight to knock it down. I guarantee it.

Great - now I’m cleaning cheese pizza out of my keyboard. Very good.

[Polycarp]

@Ponder Stibbons

This is the only thing about the ACLU that has ever bothered me. They stand up for all the civil rights in the constitution … except for the right to bear arms.

But in all fairness, the NRA does such an outstanding job in that arena, they don’t really need the ACLU’s help.

I can’t ever recall them intervening in a case where someone was obliged to quarter a soldier in time of peace, either. Actually, I believe they focus on the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments (and their extension via the Fourteenth) in particular. It might be interesting to know whether they’ve ever defended the individual’s right to bear arms, but hardly a major criticism. Habitat for Humanity doesn’t do much about feeding the hungry, but that’s not really a criticism; their focus is elsewhere. With strong lobbies and advocacy groups supporting the Second Amendment, it’s good to know that somebody is focusing on some of the other rights.

[Crandolph]

@Polycarp

I can’t ever recall them intervening in a case where someone was obliged to quarter a soldier in time of peace, either.

Funny you mention that, I had a job in which I was writing content for a series of school videos on the Bill of Rights, one video per amendment. Very hard to stretch the 3rd Amendment into a 20-odd minute program! Apparently there’s never been a 3rd Amendment case before the Sumpreme Court, although there was a federal circuit court case involving striking prison guards & the (IIRC) Ohio National Guard in the late 1970s.
Originally I just wanted to post the comment that the KKK do consider themselves to be Christians, whether the other Christians like it or not, and therefore protecting their right to march is another example of protecting Christians on its own.

[Scupper]

@Crandolph

Originally I just wanted to post the comment that the KKK do consider themselves to be Christians, whether the other Christians like it or not, and therefore protecting their right to march is another example of protecting Christians on its own.

Oh, that is brilliant. I never even thought of that!

[Guinastasia]

@Kalhoun

I don’t see this as a problem at all. They defend groups like the KKK and other obnoxious fucks, and as long as they’re following constitutional law, I applaud it. Would it be better if some of these groups were taken out by a bout of the plague? Sure! But the groups the ACLU defends deserve to be defended.

I think he’s saying that that is why some people don’t like the ACLU-they seem to think that the organization is supporting the Klan, for example.

Or they just don’t like the idea that everyone has rights, even some really repugnant individuals.

[AskNott]

Okay, this has been handled very nicely, but here’s a column from Fran Quigley of the Indiana Civil Liberties Union (soon to be known as the ACLU Indiana.)
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051204/OPINION01/512040380&SearchID=73228467015217

[Bookkeeper]

@Kalhoun

I don’t see this as a problem at all. They defend groups like the KKK and other obnoxious fucks, and as long as they’re following constitutional law, I applaud it. Would it be better if some of these groups were taken out by a bout of the plague? Sure! But the groups the ACLU defends deserve to be defended.

I think it’s more accurate to say that the rights the UF group wants to exercise deserve to be defended.

[Barbarian]

@Ponder Stibbons

This is the only thing about the ACLU that has ever bothered me. They stand up for all the civil rights in the constitution … except for the right to bear arms.

That’s because the second amendment is poorly written.

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.

Compare that to the first amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

There’s no way the same people wrote those two sentences. The first amendment is clear subject-verb-object, while the second is a mishmash of passive sentence structure that’s just begging to be rewritten for clarity.

Written at a time when police forces didn’t exist, a legitimate argument can be made that this amendment is simply providing for a citizen’s police force.