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?
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.
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! :eek: 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.
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.
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.
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:
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/terrorism/FOIA/FOIA_PR_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.
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. 
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.
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.
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:
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)?
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.
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.
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!
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.
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:
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:
And from the Religious Liberty page:
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.