Reason #gazillion why I loathe the ACLU/Sunday Sermon
July 23, 2006
The ACLUseless strikes again in a wonderful article (choke gag) in the WaPo. That whacko “church of the I hate gays & want to picket funerals,” finally got the ACLU to stand behind them. With freedom of speech comes responsibility. Picketing ANY funeral is classless & stooping to the lowest level of humanity. I said my 2 cents worth – what say you? Would you give them a donation now BH? Meg? Anyone…Buehler?
Posted in Greta, Hypocrisy, In The News, Stop the ACLUseless
![[Valid RSS]](valid-rss.png "Validate my RSS feed")
content rss
July 23rd, 2006 at 6:09 pm
Oh, my. The (spit) ACLU (spit) has sunk to new lows. Not even the lefties can approve of that?
July 23rd, 2006 at 6:17 pm
Its really pathetic.
July 23rd, 2006 at 8:31 pm
It’s disgusting.
I applaud many causes the ACLU undertakes but I am critical of many others.
I find this action by the ACLU cannot be defended under any situation. The family has a right to grieve and mourn their loss without it being a political event. This is about a right to privacy that should be endorsed by any activist court up to and including the Supreme Court.
Where does a Constitutional constructivist court sit on this issue? ( Is that the right term for those who believe that Courts should only rule within the framework of existing Constitutional law?)
July 23rd, 2006 at 9:03 pm
Dale’s right. There are both good and bad things about the ACLU. I think this case (from what I’ve read so far at least) falls in the bad category – as well as their defense of NAMBLA.
However, they have also done some good things. They defended school kids in Massachusetts when the school punished them for handing out candy canes with bible verses on them. They defended the right of street preachers to preach on public sidewalks in Iowa, Indiana, New Mexico, Nevada and Washington. They defended the valedictorian in Michigan who wanted to use a bible verse under her yearbook picture. They defended the right of a church to use a public park to perform baptisms in Virginia.
I wonder if Stop the ACLU has ever mentioned these cases?
July 23rd, 2006 at 9:40 pm
ACLU and Westboro Hate Cult Challenge Missouri Protest Ban
Once again we come to the debate over whether we should limit speech that infringes upon the rights of others. I have expressed how I feel about this determined hate cult before, so suffice it to say I think they are ignorant and filled with hate. T…
July 23rd, 2006 at 10:01 pm
That’s strange. Check out What We’re Reading. I just put that up today.
July 24th, 2006 at 5:27 am
When you support any group and give them your hard earned money, what do you consider? Yes Silke, I agree they have done some positive things, but don’t you think it is the responsibility of the group to choose what they “won’t” stand for. I am sure Hezbollah did some positive things too, but the negative outweighs the positive by so far that the group needs to be disbanded. I know that is an extreme example, but the ACLU as a whole is a deplorable organization, who chooses to stand behind hate-mongers & pedophiles – that I refuse to support & self-distruct!
July 24th, 2006 at 5:52 am
Here is a case that I am glad the ACLU was involved in:
http://pandagon.net/2006/07/22/ncs-anti-cohabitation-law-ruled-unconstitutional/
I agree that ACLU has supported some outlandish and irresponsible causes. But I am not yet ready to throw the whole organization away.
July 24th, 2006 at 5:58 am
Dale – that was a stupid law & I’m glad it got cleared up. But would you donate a portion of your paycheck to them & feel good about it – or have reservations?
July 24th, 2006 at 7:31 am
Come on Greta, you can’t compare the ACLU with Hezbolah. I support the ACLU’s stated mission of preserving individual rights and liberties guaranteed every U.S. citizen by the Constitution. Many times their cases are about challenging the wider implications of a certain law. This does not necessarily mean they agree with the particular views of their client. I don’t agree with all the cases they have litigated but I understand their purpose in the same way I understand that a healthy judicial system needs strong advocates on both sides of a case.
July 24th, 2006 at 8:27 am
I know comparing the ACLU to Hezbollah was extreme – but I think it helped me get my point across Silke. Soooo, you still aren’t answering the question all…could you financially back them without reservations? Should they split themselves into sub-groups & stay away from sexually charged issues like pedophiles & go to their grass-roots philosophy?
July 24th, 2006 at 9:01 am
>†Could you financially back them without reservations?â€
No, but that could apply to almost any organization – including the Republican Party. There are a lot of other institutions and charities who deserve my money more. Your comparison of the ACLU to terrorists is way off the mark and I think the only point it makes is to show how willing you are to overstate the issue and exaggerate their faults.
>â€Should they split themselves into sub-groups & stay away from sexually charged issues like pedophiles & go to their grass-roots philosophy?â€
Defending the private individual against government encroachment, regardless of the message, IS their grass-roots philosophy. Their defense of this principle does not imply endorsement of the message or the messenger.
July 24th, 2006 at 10:06 am
You all actually think the goal of the ACLU is to defend the individual from the government? From Roger Baldwin, founder of the ACLU:
“I am for Socialism, disarmament, and ultimately the abolishing of the state itself as an instrument of violence and compulsion. I seek social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and the sole control by those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal”
And as for the defense of certain positions, I think Baldwin said it best:
“If I aid the reactionaries to get free speech now and then, if I go outside the class struggle to fight censorship, it is only because those liberties help to create a more hospitable atmosphere for working class liberties.”
The next time you see the ACLU take their occasional stand for a Conservative, remember that quote.
July 24th, 2006 at 11:08 am
Chris,
The first quote comes from his thirtieth anniversary Harvard University classbook (1935). The second quote is from an article he wrote in 1934. To his credit, Baldwin changed his position on Communism in 1939 and even led the campaign to purge the ACLU of Communist Party members. I’m curious why you didn’t mention that?
July 24th, 2006 at 1:50 pm
Is it that far off the mark???
July 24th, 2006 at 5:00 pm
Silke, he changed his position on Soviet version of Communism because he didn’t like the Soviet-Nazi Nonagression Pact that was signed with the Nazis. But he held onto his sympathies for Socialism and Communism until the day he died. Now, I’m only on chapter one of the book so don’t go getting deep into his life because I still don’t know much about him yet.
The fact remains that the ACLU was formed by a man who’s goal it was to bring down the country and form a Socialist haven in it’s place. And that’s what they’re still trying to do today. Maybe not such a hardcore form of Socialism, but a more open society where just about everything goes.
July 24th, 2006 at 8:54 pm
Despicable but…….
The ACLU is just coming to support anyone’s first ammendment rights
Who is to say what speech and assembly is right. Phelps is not creating a danger in what he does. Its not a matter of yelling fire in a crowded building. So he has a right to do w…
July 24th, 2006 at 9:06 pm
[...] I don’t like Fred Phelps one bit. He is a former knucklehead winner. That said I have to take a contrarian opinion from some of my fellow bloggers. Captain’s Quarters, Greta at Hooah Wife, Adam, Stop the ACLU, have all blogged about how onerous they think the ACLU’s coming to Phelps’ defense is. [...]
July 25th, 2006 at 9:19 am
The Florida Masochist
There is a first ammendment in this country. It guarantees freedom of speech and assembly. I dislike Phelps, but he and his followers have a right to do their protests. My fellow bloggers are forgetting the first ammendment. It is a practice us bloggers fall too often into, I’ve done it too. Without the first ammendment, our own speech wouldn’t be protected from those who disagree with us.
Quoted for truth. I continue to support the ACLU (both verbally and financially).
If you dislike Phelps and the funeral protests and want to do something, join The Patriot Guard.
July 26th, 2006 at 9:20 am
Well as flowery as the statement “just coming to support anyone’s first ammendment rights” is, I can’t help but think you took that directly off the ACLU’s website. Yes, it may be that they have defended the rights of people in certain cases but what about when they sue kids of high school age for praying in school?? Doesn’t that seem a little hypocritical? My personal opinion is that they are 1. in it for the publicity and 2. in order to do that they find someone who is in the minority and make them the majority ruling. (ex. athiests being offended by someone exercising freedom of religion) so they take away the rights of the many and give back the right of the few. (notice i said right not rights) To me they are doing more harm than good and there are other organizations that are actually performing what the ACLU claims to do. Ok i’m done ranting.
P.S. the Patriot Guard is a wonderful organization.
July 26th, 2006 at 4:17 pm
>“What about when they sue kids of high school age for praying in school?â€
I’m not aware of any case where this has happened. Could you please site the case you’re referring to?
>â€in order to do that they find someone who is in the minority and make them the majority ruling. (ex. athiests being offended by someone exercising freedom of religion)
Again, could you please site the case you are referring to here?
July 26th, 2006 at 5:53 pm
Chris,
What book are you reading? Let me know when you get to the part where Roger Baldwin writes his book A New Slavery, Forced Labor: The Communist Betrayal of Human Rights (Oceana Publications, New York, 1953). That doesn’t exactly sound like a ringing endorsement of communism.
July 26th, 2006 at 10:43 pm
It’s called “The ACLU vs America: Exposing The Agenda To Redefine Moral Values”. And it’s not about Baldwin. That was just one part talking about the beginnings of the ACLU. But I did like the part where, in 1928, he wrote the book “Liberty Under The Soviets” where he praised the Soviet Union, despite the fact that at the time they had relocated 2+ million people, seized their property(eminent domain), and were killed. Now, I’m just wondering, had the Soviets not signed the nonaggression pact with Nazi Germany, would Baldwin have become so disenfranchised with Communism?
July 27th, 2006 at 11:51 am
despite the fact that at the time they had relocated 2+ million people, seized their property(eminent domain), and were killed.
Let’s take a wild guess that he simply did not know.
Hell, we didn’t know what Hitler was doing until long after.
July 27th, 2006 at 5:50 pm
No, he knew. I don’t know if he said or wrote this, the book doesn’t say, but:
Repressions in Western democracies are violations of professed constitutional liberties, and I condemn them as such. Repressions in Soviet Russia are weapons of struggle in a transition period of socialism.