Help me understand the dislike for the ACLU

[ElvisL1ves]

@Airman_Doors_USAF

Said organization would not exist in the form it does today if the ACLU had not taken the position that it has and aligned itself with the policy statements of the Democratic Party.

Et cetera.

It’s also possible, ya know, for both the ACLU and the Democrats to have aligned themselves with the intent of the Second as stated in its own text, and for a group or party whose goals require ignoring half of it to be doing so for “apparent political reasons”.

[Skald_the_Rhymer]

@Der_Trihs

For that matter, #2 is also often a matter of defending religion - since it leads straight to #1 if your particular religion isn’t in power. I think a lot of people don’t realize that, for example, your typical lawsuit against prayer in school is brought not by atheists or agnostics; but by believers who don’t want their children forced to say someone else’s prayers someone else’s way.

While I agree that the statement I bolded is likely correct, I would appreciate a cite, as I have not been able to find one myself. I’m not arguing, just looking for verification.

[whorfin]

@Skald_the_Rhymer

While I agree that the statement I bolded is likely correct, I would appreciate a cite, as I have not been able to find one myself. I’m not arguing, just looking for verification.

One good example is this case (they haven’t filed yet, but presumably they will): ACLU And Americans United Demand Connecticut School District Stop Holding Graduation At Christian Church | American Civil Liberties Union

In a letter sent today to the attorney for the Enfield Public Schools, the ACLU and Americans United say that graduating students, their families and other guests are unconstitutionally and “coercively subjected to religious messages as the price of attending high school commencement,” and that “students and family members of minority religions, as well as those who do not subscribe to any religion at all, are immersed in a religious environment of a faith not their own.”

so there, the people opposing the school’s actions are both nonbelievers and believers who don’t share the religion endorsed by the school.

A better example (not in the school context–which means the plaintiff is an adult, and so we have more information about him) is the “mojave cross” case–where the plaintiff is a roman catholic, and is suing for the very reason cited–because he is opposed to government-sponsored religion.

Salazar v. Buono: The cross in the desert (Argument Preview) - SCOTUSblog

[theR]

@DigitalC

Even if they had they are still on the opposite side every other time. But yes, i do believe you are right.

So they are on the wrong side, except when they were on the right side? Who would have imagined?

[DanBlather]

@Airman_Doors_USAF

Said organization would not exist in the form it does today if the ACLU had not taken the position that it has and aligned itself with the policy statements of the Democratic Party.

Really? The party of white southern apologists that fought for segregation? Those democrats? They don’t reflect the tradition of liberal Republicans that made up a significant wing of the party until Nixon’s “Southern Strategy” pushed the bigots into the Republican party they loathed since Reconstruction?

[DanBlather]

I’ve mentioned this before, but I was glad of the school prayer ruling because I was subjected to the Roman Catholic version of prayer in my grammar school. Back then I was very religious and thought I would go to hell for saying the wrong prayer. It must have been worse for the Jews. I don’t think we had Muslims in the city back then.

The US is one of the most religious of the western, industrialized countries. Not *despite *separation of church and state, but because of it.

[gonzomax]

People who defend religion in schools assume their religion will win the day. In Dearborn there are schools with a majority of students who are Muslims. Because of their beliefs should school stop during the day for their prayers? Is that fair to the Christians? What about the nonbelievers. They get trapped into school arguments that are none of their concern. religion should have no place in schools.

[DanBlather]

@gonzomax

People who defend religion in schools assume their religion will win the day. In Dearborn there are schools with a majority of students who are Muslims. Because of their beliefs should school stop during the day for their prayers? Is that fair to the Christians? What about the nonbelievers. They get trapped into school arguments that are none of their concern. religion should have no place in schools.

Exactly. Can you imagine the disaster if religion was taught in schools? What version of the Bible do you use? Parochial Catholic schools were formed over this very issue. What version of the 10 commandments do you post? What day do you teach is the Sabbath? Do you get into heaven on faith or deeds? Is LDS a Christian sect or not? Is the doctrine of Immaculate Conception true? And that’s just for Christianity? What about Judaism, if the majority population of a school is Jewish do we teach Jewish beliefs? If so, which variety: Orthodox or Reformed? Do we close schools for all religious holidays or just those of the majority? What if no one religion makes up more than 50%, do we form alliances? Reformed Jews and Christians against Muslims and Orthodox Jews. It’d be a nightmare.

[Skald_the_Rhymer]

@whorfin

One good example is this case (they haven’t filed yet, but presumably they will): ACLU And Americans United Demand Connecticut School District Stop Holding Graduation At Christian Church | American Civil Liberties Union

so there, the people opposing the school’s actions are both nonbelievers and believers who don’t share the religion endorsed by the school.

I’m sorry if I was unclear. I was looking for support of the idea that persons suing to stop obligatory prayer in schools tend to be adherents of minority religions rather than atheists.

[whorfin]

@Skald_the_Rhymer

I’m sorry if I was unclear. I was looking for support of the idea that persons suing to stop obligatory prayer in schools tend to be adherents of minority religions rather than atheists.

Well, the first case I pointed to is such a case. So there’s one. More generally? I don’t even know if statistics are kept on the religious beliefs of litigants–I haven’t seen any.

That being said, the concept seems right to me–since, at least from a quick google, only about 2% of the US population describe themselves as atheists (a number that was, historically, smaller)—it would be weird if 2% of the population brought all of these cases.

Demographics of atheism

However, another rough measure also seems to support the fact that such cases are mostly brought by the religious. I had a quick look at the prominent supreme court cases on school prayer (on wiki). My count (ignoring the number of plaintiffs in each case) is two sets of religious plaintiffs, one case with a religious and an atheist plaintiff, and two can’t tell.

Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe

–catholic and mormon plaintiffs

Abington School District v. Schempp

-one unitarian, one atheist plaintiff

Engel v. Vitale

-at least some of the plaintiffs were jewish–but the claim is phrased as school prayer infringing on their “religious beliefs”–so I’ll count them as “religious”

Wallace v. Jaffree

-can’t tell

Lee v. Weisman

-can’t tell

[ITR_champion]

@DanBlather

Exactly. Can you imagine the disaster if religion was taught in schools?.. It’d be a nightmare.

Why do we need to imagine anything? Religion is taught in plenty of private schools, and no disaster or nightmare results. They may be familiar to you because the academic performance of their students is so vastly superior to that of the ACLU-ruled public schools. It’s the public schools that are the nightmare.

[whorfin]

@ITR_champion

Why do we need to imagine anything? Religion is taught in plenty of private schools, and no disaster or nightmare results. They may be familiar to you because the academic performance of their students is so vastly superior to that of the ACLU-ruled public schools. It’s the public schools that are the nightmare.

Of course, that comparison ignores the fact that people can choose which private school they want to go to. Private school students can choose not to go to private schools with religious instruction contrary to their faith. So you’re not likely to see a Catholic who’d be offended by jewish observances in class choosing to go to a yeshiva.

On the other hand, if you had a religious (say, catholic) public school, what are the Jewish students in the neighborhood supposed to do, exactly, to receive an education that doesn’t also teach them that Jesus is the messiah?

[Skald_the_Rhymer]

@whorfin

Of course, that comparison ignores the fact that people can choose which private school they want to go to. Private school students can choose not to go to private schools with religious instruction contrary to their faith. So you’re not likely to see a Catholic who’d be offended by jewish observances in class choosing to go to a yeshiva.

On the other hand, if you had a religious (say, catholic) public school, what are the Jewish students in the neighborhood supposed to do, exactly, to receive an education that doesn’t also teach them that Jesus is the messiah?

All of that is true, and I would like to add that private schools have an advantage over public schools in that they are not obliged to keep students in who vex them. Also, the fact that the students’ parents must pay tuition makes it more likely that the students will have support (and pressure) at home to do well so that the parents have a return on their investment.

[ExTank]

@ElvisL1ves

Et cetera.

It’s also possible, ya know, for both the ACLU and the Democrats to have aligned themselves with the intent of the Second as stated in its own text, and for a group or party whose goals require ignoring half of it to be doing so for “apparent political reasons”.

The Supreme Court disagrees with your interpretation of the prefatory clause of the 2nd. Amendment.

In fact, they agree with the interpretation you have consitently, in multiple threads over the years, told me is wrong, and not in keeping with yours and some lower court’s interpretations of same, subsequent to Miller.

So I’m going to tell you, with some relish, what you’ve essentially told me over and over again through some years:

I don’t care what you think the 2nd. Amendment means; the Law of the Land agrees with me.

Cite. Bolding mine.

@The Supreme Court of the United States

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2-53.

   **(a) The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2-22. 
   
     (b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court's interpretation of the operative clause. The "militia" comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens' militia would be preserved. Pp. 22-28.** 
   
       (c) The Court's interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28-30. 
   
      (d) The Second Amendment's drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30-32. 
   
      (e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court's conclusion. Pp. 32-47. 
   
      (f) None of the Court's precedents forecloses the Court's interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264-265, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47-54.
   

So do not assert as fact that the prefatory clause changes in any way the operative clause. It does not.

Do not assert as fact that 2nd. Amendment supporters ignore the first half of the amendment; we do not. It has been interpreted to mean what I have told you, over and over, in multiple threads for several years, what it means.

ETA: Sorry for the hijack, but I couldn’t let a load of unmitigated bullshit pass without curb-stomping it.

[sleestak]

I think the ACLU does do some good work.

However they also, at times, do some questionable things.

For example:

In 1982, the ACLU became involved in a case involving the distribution of child pornography (New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747 [35].) In a controversial amicus brief, the ACLU argued that the New York State law in question “has criminalized the dissemination, sale or display of constitutionally protected non-obscene materials which portray juveniles in sexually related roles”, while arguing that child pornography deemed obscene under the Miller test deserved no constitutional protection and could be banned [36]. The ACLU’s stance on this case has drawn great criticism from conservatives [37]. In a 2002 letter, the ACLU stated that it “opposes child pornography that uses real children in its depictions” [38].

Linky.

Basically the cops busted a porn store owner who sold the cops two movies of under age boys masturbating*.

Now, I don’t really give a damn what two consenting adults do (assuming that no one gets seriously hurt or killed of course), but underage porn is unacceptable. Heck, I am not sure if I care what two consenting 16 year old kids do (once again assuming no one gets hurt) in private. I do, however, have a big problem with distributing kiddie porn.

I sorta half remember a couple more cases that the ACLU took on which I found rather disturbing but can’t seem to locate them. I’ll do some more digging tonight.

Slee

*I have no idea why the ALCU would think movies of kids masturbating would not meet the obscenity test.

[Hellestal]

@ElvisL1ves

Et cetera.

It’s also possible, ya know, for both the ACLU and the Democrats to have aligned themselves with the intent of the Second as stated in its own text, and for a group or party whose goals require ignoring half of it to be doing so for “apparent political reasons”.

Come on.

I don’t care for guns at all. While they might not be a sufficient condition for the horrible murder rates in our society, they are certainly a necessary condition. But I care a great deal for the other parts of the Bill of Rights, and so I advocate for a broad reading of every one of those rights, including the poorly written one found in the Second Amendment. I’m not going to pick and choose which rights I’d like to read most narrowly, because I don’t want other people doing the same sort of narrow reading with the other nine amendments.

[Kimstu]

@sleestak

I think the ACLU does do some good work.

However they also, at times, do some questionable things. […]

I have no idea why the ALCU would think movies of kids masturbating would not meet the obscenity test.

I don’t think you have any reason to think that the ACLU does think so. There’s no evidence from anything you posted about New York v. Ferber that the ACLU was defending in any way the creation of pornography involving minors.

What they did, AFAICT, was to file a “friend of the court” brief objecting to the broadness and vagueness of the statute under which the case was originally prosecuted, pointing out that it might be interpreted to criminalize medical books about child sexuality and such things which certainly shouldn’t count as kiddie porn.

The transcript of the oral argument of the case is here.

I think the impression you have of this case may have been influenced by conservative ACLU opponents trying to portray the ACLU as pro-kiddie-porn. There seem to be a lot of them out there, and they don’t always seem to have any great respect for facts.

[BobLibDem]

Ex-Tank, I would concede the point if Heller had been a 9-0 vote. But it was a 5-4 partisan vote and the majority blew it. So I maintain my position on the fact that the first half limits the second half and that the NRA (who has the the Second Half of the Second Amendment carved into its building) is wrong. My fervent hope is that someday, with the continuation of Democratic presidents appointing leftist judges, Heller will be overturned. I even dream that someday the entire Second will be repealed.

[Shodan]

This a demonstration of why the ACLU is not in support of the Constitution. It is in support of a certain political view, and want this to be imposed on the Constitution.

The ACLU and various other political groups argue that the Constitution says whatever the Supreme Court says it does. Therefore, by definition, the Constitution says whatever the Supreme Court says. Anyone who says that the Constitution says anything else is wrong.

The Supreme Court has said that the Constitution does guarantee an individual right to bear arms. The ACLU says that it does not. Therefore, they are arguing against what the Constitution says, by their own definition.

In the case of the Second Amendment, therefore, the ACLU is against a right guaranteed by the Constitution.

Regards,
Shodan

[DanBlather]

@ITR_champion

Why do we need to imagine anything? Religion is taught in plenty of private schools, and no disaster or nightmare results. They may be familiar to you because the academic performance of their students is so vastly superior to that of the ACLU-ruled public schools. It’s the public schools that are the nightmare.

You present a compelling argument. I’m sure that the Dearborn schools will improve once they start teaching the Koran.