# Funny email rec'd today



## Chuck Franke (Aug 8, 2003)

Gave me a chuckle... or a Chuckle chuckle as the case may be:

_Want to have some fun this CHRISTMAS? Send the ACLU a CHRISTMAS CARD!_
_As they are working so very hard to get rid of the CHRISTMAS part of this holiday, we should all send them a nice CHRISTIAN card to brighten up their dark, sad, little world._
_Make sure it says "Merry Christmas" on it._
_Here's the Address, just don't be rude or crude._
_ACLU_
_125 Broad Street_
_18th Floor_
_New York, NY 10004_
_Two tons of Christmas cards would freeze their operations because they wouldn't know if any were regular mail containing contributions.. So spend_
_39 cents and tell the ACLU to leave Christmas alone. Also tell them that there is no such thing as a Holiday Tree. . . It's a Christmas Tree even in the fields!!_
_And pass this on to your email lists. We really want to communicate with the ACLU! They really DESERVE US._


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

It would be a FESTIVUS MIRACLE!

Be rest assured I will send several


----------



## Chuck Franke (Aug 8, 2003)

LOL, if you get an angry response just say "I'll pray for you" and smile sweetly.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

A truely superb idea. Count me in!


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

cufflink44 said:


> I don't necessarily agree with every stand they take, but I applaud the ACLU's efforts to keep us from becoming the Christian Republic of America. I'd no more want to live in that country than I would in the Islamic Republic of Iran.


I like a good prank as much as the next guy, but overall, I'm with you on this one.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

cufflink44 said:


> Are you quite sure you want to "freeze the operations" of the ACLU?
> 
> I don't necessarily agree with every stand they take, but I applaud the ACLU's efforts to keep us from becoming the Christian Republic of America. I'd no more want to live in that country than I would in the Islamic Republic of Iran.


You mean you're going to let the facts get in the way of a good conservative idea? That's not going to go over well in some quarters.


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> You mean you're going to let the facts get in the way of a good conservative idea? That's not going to go over well in some quarters.


LOL - Hmmm, you're from VT, a blue state right?


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

If your question is, am I a proud resident of the only state whose entire congressional delegation voted against invading Iraq, the answer is yes.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Setting aside who is correct and incorrect, can no one else see that using an organization's own PR as evidence of how beneficial they are is somewhat lame? I mean, 15 years ago I bet one could have given a reference to Phillip-Morse on how good they were for society. So I am not disputing the facts put forth at this time, (I did notice for instance, they failed to say why the "street preacher" was in jail, might have had nothing to do with religion) but merely pointing out that a non-partisan independent endorsement of the track record of the ACLU might be more influential for one's argument.


----------



## medwards (Feb 6, 2005)

And the purpose of this prank would be....????


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

cufflink44 said:


> What they're against is the government's intervention in or endorsement of religion in general or specific religions in particular. I'm with them on that.


I'm no lawyer however reading the first ammendmant I'm struck by the qualification that "congress" shall make no law. I believe what this was intended to do was to keep the federal goverment out of decisions made on a community basis. If a small mid-western town wants to put a manger scene in a park during Christmas and the residents of the town don't have an objection to it then the ACLU needs to stay out of it. The establishment clause in the First was ideally designed to keep from happening in the states what happened in England with the establishment of a "national church." I don't think the framers had in mind that no one should feel slighted, left out or insulted because their particular religious belief did not fit in with the majority. Those in the minority are certainly able to petition to have a comparable scene in place. They are also free to worship in a church of their own choosing. If you want a glimpse of what state involvement in religion is look at China where people are persecuted if they worship in non state sanctioned churches or for that matter in the Saudi Arabia where church's aren't even allowed.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

It just seems un-American to try to swamp an organization that works within the law just because you happen to disagree with it. If you have no faith in the courts to rule fairly and legally in the issues the ACLU brings to them, and to weigh the spirit of the laws against the letter of the laws, then perhaps you ought to aim your protest higher. If the ACLU were to cease to exist, or become so incapacitated by this protest that it temporarily loses effectiveness, do you think that would quell dissent in the United States? I don't, and I think what replaces the ACLU wouldn't necessarily try to work within the system -- and wouldn't that be a far worse option? This tactic is akin to a bunch of ruffians shouting down a speaker at a public hearing. If you are so sure the ACLU's cases are meritless, why be afraid to let them be heard? Let the courts do their job.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

crs said:


> It just seems un-American to try to swamp an organization that works within the law just because you happen to disagree with it.


Really crs, I would have thought the whole protest thing would be something you would whole heartedly back. It is merely exercising the right of free expression to make a point, in a 100% legal way. I would think that protests of all forms are uber-American, not un-American. I guess, as usual, it depends on whose ox is getting gored.

Question: why do so many people view the ACLU as being somewhat leftist or somewhat anti-American?

Someone mentioned above that the link will prove the ACLU is not anti-religious. Wrong conclusion as "religion" is not just Xtian. While I have said many times I am an agnostic that lives like an athiest, I do feel the ACLU is somewhat anti-Xtian, other religions it seems to embrace wholeheartedly. Just my opinion though.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> Really crs, I would have thought the whole protest thing would be something you would whole heartedly back. It is merely exercising the right of free expression to make a point, in a 100% legal way. I would think that protests of all forms are uber-American, not un-American. I guess, as usual, it depends on whose ox is getting gored.


The stated intent is not to protest but to "freeze their operations."


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

pt4u67 said:


> I'm no lawyer however reading the first ammendmant I'm struck by the qualification that "congress" shall make no law. I believe what this was intended to do was to keep the federal goverment out of decisions made on a community basis.


It's been a long time since I took Con Law, but my recollection is that the Supreme Court has held that the protections of the Bill of Rights, although written as limitations on the power of Congress, now extend to the states (and, of course, political subdivisions of the states, since they derive their authority from the state government). The mechanism is the Fourteenth Amendment, which prohibits states from abridging the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, and from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. As I say, I'm not sure, but I think that's where the principle comes from. Maybe someone who's closer to his Con Law class could refresh my memory on this.


----------



## Chuck Franke (Aug 8, 2003)

Don't the usual types of protests - picketing restaurants, stores etcetera... Don't those sort of protests essentially punish an organization financially for doing things a small group finds repugnant?

Not really saying that either or both is right or wrong but seems like a bit of a pot/kettle situation.

The ACLU is working hard to make sure that protestors can scream at the funerals of fallen soldiers right now... yeah, I think I'd be willing to spend a few bucks on stamps to slow them down. ...and those protesters are uber-conservative.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Chuck Franke said:


> Don't the usual types of protests - picketing restaurants, stores etcetera... Don't those sort of protests essentially punish an organization financially for doing things a small group finds repugnant?


Local laws apply, but often you'd need a permit. And you would generally not be allowed inside the place or to block access for people who want to patronize the place.



Chuck Franke said:


> The ACLU is working hard to make sure that protestors can scream at the funerals of fallen soldiers right now... yeah, I think I'd be willing to spend a few bucks on stamps to slow them down. ...and those protesters are uber-conservative.


They'll defend anyone in order to ensure the law is upheld. I don't think there is a political agenda except to ensure laws are upheld.

Personally, I like Christmas. But I don't think my town ought to spend public funds on celebrating a religious holiday because not all who are taxed are of those religions that recognize Christmas. And I can sympathize with why they want it stopped. And, really, my enjoyment of the holiday will not change one bit if the local park does not have a plastic baby Jesus on display in tiny fake barn.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

crs said:


> The stated intent is not to protest but to "freeze their operations."


So then the intent of a sit in is to......?
The effect of a strike is to.....?
The effect of a boycott is to....?

Note too, sit ins and strikes often are illegal.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> Note too, sit ins and strikes often are illegal.


Yes, they are. And as you'll notice, I don't advocate breaking the laws. But illegal sit-ins and worse are what we'd probably have in greater supply if there were not organizations like the ACLU doing their work within the confines of the legal system. We ought to respect that rather than trying to disrupt it.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Funny now this breaks down automatically between the left and those not of the left, isn't it? The left: don't hurt the ACLU, it's good for us. Those not of the left: Sort of suspicious of the ACLU.

No one has taken a stab at my questions above.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

crs said:


> Yes, they are. And as you'll notice, I don't advocate breaking the laws. But illegal sit-ins and worse are what we'd probably have in greater supply if there were not organizations like the ACLU doing their work within the confines of the legal system. We ought to respect that rather than trying to disrupt it.


Oh really?

https://www.aclu.org/studentsrights/expression/12817prs20020507.html

Don't facts suck?

Edit: Have to quote the article just abit:



> The University's reaction to the sit-in has a chilling effect on the students' right to free speech, especially at a time when freedom of expression is so critical to our democracy," said Alan Schlosser, Legal Director of the ACLU of Northern California.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> Oh really?
> 
> https://www.aclu.org/studentsrights/expression/12817prs20020507.html
> 
> Don't facts suck?


I think the key element is this, because the ACLU concerns itself greatly with precedent:

"Other sit-ins have taken place on campus in recent years that have disrupted classes, and to the best of our knowledge no student group ever lost official recognition prior to a hearing and no students were threatened with year-long suspensions in those cases. We certainly welcome any clarification on this point if you believe we are mistaken. When the University does not treat the current situation the same way it has treated other similar situations in the past, students, faculty, and community members begin to legitimately question the impartiality and fairness of the University, and this threatens their right to participate in open dialogue on campus without fear of unfair reprisal."

Facts are wonderful!


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

crs said:


> I think the key element is this, because the ACLU concerns itself greatly with precedent:
> 
> "Other sit-ins have taken place on campus in recent years that have disrupted classes, and to the best of our knowledge no student group ever lost official recognition prior to a hearing and no students were threatened with year-long suspensions in those cases. We certainly welcome any clarification on this point if you believe we are mistaken. When the University does not treat the current situation the same way it has treated other similar situations in the past, students, faculty, and community members begin to legitimately question the impartiality and fairness of the University, and this threatens their right to participate in open dialogue on campus without fear of unfair reprisal."
> 
> Fact are wonderful!


I do believe, we call that what? Oh yeah, _ad hoc_ rescue there bud! You made a universal statement, now you are putting qualifiers on it. Not only do facts suck, so does logic!


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> I do believe, we call that what? Oh yeah, _ad hoc_ rescue there bud! You made a universal statement, now you are putting qualifiers on it. Not only do facts suck, so does logic!


Not at all. The ACLU wants to ensure equal treatment based on precedent. The ACLU is not fighting the arrests of the students by whichever law enforcement made the arrests, it is fighting the suspension of the students because it does not appear that's been the way other protesters have been treated _by the university._


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

crs, I get it. You're a lefty, I'm not. ACLU = good for you. ACLU = I am skeptical of them. I nailed you on the above, squirm as you will. It was just the first example in a list of many on a quick Google search. I am just going to leave it at that and not foster further ill will between us as somehow I feel if we went out for a beer, we'd probably have a good time.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> It's been a long time since I took Con Law, but my recollection is that the Supreme Court has held that the protections of the Bill of Rights, although written as limitations on the power of Congress, now extend to the states (and, of course, political subdivisions of the states, since they derive their authority from the state government).


I think I understand that. I'm not suggesting that states can pass laws that supercede the constitution. My point is simply the intent. I'm wondering about the intent the founders had when writing and wording the 1st. It seems to me from reading the Federalist that the intent was to keep congress/government from actively participating in matters concernig the church. Going back to my point about the manger scene, it seems a more passive action rather than "establishing a law" regarding this. I don't understand how such an action can be construed as established law. In fact the act of banning such an action would require enforcement in the manner the founders, I believe, wanted to prevent.


----------



## medwards (Feb 6, 2005)

A manger scene only runs afoul of the Establishment Clause when _government_ is sponsoring it.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

cufflink44 said:


> I share your disgust at these cretins (members of the infamous Fred Phelps family) who hold up signs like "Thank God for 9-11," "Thank God for IEDs," and "God Hates ****" at military funerals (and also at the funerals of gay men, although that hasn't generated as much publicity). That the ACLU took on this case fills me with mixed feelings. I had the same feelings back when they defended the rights of Nazis to march in Skokie.


This is why I can't understand why anyone would portray the ACLU as being liberal. The ACLU has defended people and groups that liberals would abhor -- and, like most lawyers, will defend anyone if the case is interesting enough. If anything, the ACLU is literally conservative because it's concerned with ensuring that existing laws are followed -- conserving them.


----------



## marcus_halberstam (Aug 8, 2006)

Firstly, preserving a fundamental right to free speech isn't a left vs. right issue. As bad as some of the groups ACLU defends (like Fred Phelps as mentioned earlier) are we are much better off with healthy political debate.

Secondly, it's not like this is even that effective. You spend a couple of bucks and ten minutes of your time to waste maybe thirty seconds of theirs? Yes, I know they'll have a limitless number of Christmas cards but it's not like they'll even all turn up at the same time. Worst comes to worst they simply put them aside until they have some spare time later, and send an apology to anyone who they discover sent in a pledge.

Finally, if you really want to go after an organisation you perceive as "left wing" why not go after someone like PeTA? They don't do much good for anyone...


----------



## Chuck Franke (Aug 8, 2003)

I think the thing that occasionally lodges itself in the collective craw of so many people is that the ACLU seems to be targeting Christmas, crosses and whatever else hints toward Christianity.

Crs makes the point of precedent. The framers, while discussing matters like what freedom of religion meant, prayed for guidance quite openly and collectively in a government meeting. I believe the intention was precisely the reverse of what the ACLU seems to pursue. The intent was to keep the government out of religion, not to prevent religion from influencing government. When the ACLU fights to keep a high school student from including a reference to God in their commencement speech that isn't protecting free speech at all. It is protecting free speech that offends 99% of us and attacking free speech that offends virtually nobody. Crosses that have been displayed for a century are suddenly problematic though symbols of other religions are not similarly attacked. Last I checked, unless you are a Transylvanian count with odd dietary requirements a cross was not all that harmful.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Chuck Franke said:


> I think the thing that occasionally lodges itself in the collective craw of so many people is that the ACLU seems to be targeting Christmas, crosses and whatever else hints toward Christianity.
> 
> Crs makes the point of precedent. The framers, while discussing matters like what freedom of religion meant, prayed for guidance quite openly and collectively in a government meeting. I believe the intention was precisely the reverse of what the ACLU seems to pursue. The intent was to keep the government out of religion, not to prevent religion from influencing government. When the ACLU fights to keep a high school student from including a reference to God in their commencement speech that isn't protecting free speech at all. It is protecting free speech that offends 99% of us and attacking free speech that offends virtually nobody. Crosses that have been displayed for a century are suddenly problematic though symbols of other religions are not similarly attacked. Last I checked, unless you are a Transylvanian count with odd dietary requirements a cross was not all that harmful.


Well, the framers had an entirely different demographic then, largely, probably almost exclusively Christian. There were fewer, if any, Moslems, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus and whatever who would be offended if some little town decided to blur the separation of church and state and put an manger in the park.

I certainly think you are off-base on the framers' intent, anyway. The fact that the framers prayed is irrelevant. I pray twice daily yet strongly believe structured, institutionalized prayer in public schools would be a very bad thing. I can pray quietly wherever I am without imposing my concept of God on others and drawing attention to the fact that I am communicating with my creator. I can enjoy Christmas just fine without the government being involved in it.

Again, have you no faith in the courts to decide these issues properly? If not, you are picking an easier scapegoat in the ACLU instead of having the courage to take on the real source of your discontent.


----------



## crazyquik (Jun 8, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Question: why do so many people view the ACLU as being somewhat leftist or somewhat anti-American?


Because they pick and choose which Civil Liberties to voice support for; usually the expression of civil liberties that aren't "traditional" or "conservative". About the only thing I agree with them on is thier position on illegal searches and seizures.


----------



## Chuck Franke (Aug 8, 2003)

crs said:


> Well, the framers had an entirely different demographic then, largely, probably almost exclusively Christian. There were fewer, if any, Moslems, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus and whatever who would be offended if some little town decided to blur the separation of church and state and put an manger in the park.
> 
> I certainly think you are off-base on the framers' intent, anyway. The fact that the framers prayed is irrelevant. I pray twice daily yet strongly believe structured, institutionalized prayer in public schools would be a very bad thing. I can pray quietly wherever I am without imposing my concept of God on others and drawing attention to the fact that I am communicating with my creator. I can enjoy Christmas just fine without the government being involved in it.
> 
> Again, have you no faith in the courts to decide these issues properly? If not, you are picking an easier scapegoat in the ACLU instead of having the courage to take on the real source of your discontent.


I'm quite opposed to structured prayer in schools. My objection is to things like the valedictorian who is chosen to give a speech and is told that they may not reference the important impact that (insert name of deity you like here ) has had on thier lives.
No, I do not have great faith in the courts because they've become as partisan as the political bodies and I am not a fan of creative juris prudence. That there are judges who will look to foreign laws and their own personal feelings when precedent and our Constitution won't justify what they feel like doing in no way has anything to do with my feelings toward many things the ACLU supports. I am quite capable of expressing my disdain for both parties on their own merits.
Where my disdain for both coincides is when the preferences of the lowest common denominator are given greater weight to the overwhelming majority in an attempt to ensure that nobody is offended... which generally does the opposite.

But the point we began with is something else entirely. The ACLU loudly and correctly proclaims that you have a right to protest as a form of expression so long as you do not break the law. Some examples they promote our offensive to many - burning flags (Disgusts me, would not make it illegal), heckling funerals (disgusts me, would support legislation to strictly limit it) ....th e list is long and unsavory.

...so a protest that deeply offends them and causes them distress is probably a good thing. Perhaps everyone needs to have a mirror held in front of their face now and then and perhaps it will make them consider how strongly they hold their own beliefs. I find irony and humor in the outrage.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

I'll call home and check, but you know, the whole time I went to school in Ontario, from K-13 (not a typo, we had 13 grades, grade 13 was for those headed to university vs. community college or the farm), we said the Lord's Prayer every morning in home room. Sang God Save the Queen and Oh Canada!. Then again, we had *cough* "free" healthcare too. Somehow I grew up to be a godless free marketeer. Man, did they mess up on me!

Do not get started on Original Intent guys, please. It is so messed up, there is no going back IMO. For instance, go read The Federalist Papers numbers 30-32. You'll see several times that it is explicitly stated the complete soverienigty of the States shall not be usurped except for the Enumerated Powers. I think we can all admit that this is 100% not the case of today. Whether it should be the case or not is a side question, the point is in many cases we have repeated and explicit statements by the Framers as to what their original intent was but it is all botched up. Before we worry about nuances and grey areas such as the relationship of religion and government, why do we not fix up those areas where we have quite clear guidance first? Of course, that question is rhetorical, we all know too many politicians would lose power of some sort and Con Law attorneys will come in to tell us what black is white, one pill makes you smaller, and one pill makes you large. It will not happen.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Chuck Franke said:


> No, I do not have great faith in the courts because they've become as partisan as the political bodies and I am not a fan of creative juris prudence. That there are judges who will look to foreign laws and their own personal feelings when precedent and our Constitution won't justify what they feel like doing in no way has anything to do with my feelings toward many things the ACLU supports. I am quite capable of expressing my disdain for both parties on their own merits.
> Where my disdain for both coincides is when the preferences of the lowest common denominator are given greater weight to the overwhelming majority in an attempt to ensure that nobody is offended... which generally does the opposite.


The courts don't always thrill me, either. But this is our system. I don't think we ought to resort to virtual vigilante activities in order to intimidate or impede people from making use of the courts. The ACLU will win some, lose some, just as political parties will. What annoys the heck out of me is when conservatives or liberals expect it to be all their way all the time and scream when it isn't. The United States has NEVER worked that way, and I hope it never will. Each side needs the other to keep it honest.


----------



## Chuck Franke (Aug 8, 2003)

crs said:


> The courts don't always thrill me, either. But this is our system. I don't think we ought to resort to virtual vigilante activities in order to intimidate or impede people from making use of the courts. The ACLU will win some, lose some, just as political parties will. What annoys the heck out of me is when conservatives or liberals expect it to be all their way all the time and scream when it isn't. The United States has NEVER worked that way, and I hope it never will. Each side needs the other to keep it honest.


We generally agree on your last point. My objection isn't to courts doing things i don't like, it's when they do things I don't like and that the country does not want and find a justification outside precedent and tradition or that famous document they are supposed to check on.

My biggest objection to Bush's nomination of Meirs was when he winked and said not to worry, she'll vote in a way you like.

Well, JUDICIAL conservatism, which I favor, says that you don't appoint politically reliable justices, you appoint justices who look you in the eye and say "Tough luck, the law says you are wrong".

...back to the ACLU - when this sort of tactic is aimed at an institution other than the ACLU, especially conservative leaning ones, I'm sure you'd agree that the ACLU would take the case to defend the rights of the protestors. Vigilante? I think that's an appeal to emotion more than a rational evaluation of the situation. I've never been altogether sure what the hell a petard is but it seems like the ACLU would be hoisted from theirs if enough folks were to engage in this peaceful means of expressing themselves within the law. Hmm... wonder if petard hoisting was the impetus for the evolution of a good wedgie - sounds like it.

Come now CRS, back to the topic at hand sans bias. If NARAL launched a campaign to send cards to some pro-life group during a fundraising drive to slow them down would the ACLU not defend their right to do so?

IF implemented the ACLU gets a wedgie and is annoyed. Surely they will celebrate precisely what they tell everyone else to celebrate - that they must set the example by tolerating a form of expression they find contemptible. Option B is that they proclaim that only speech that everyone ELSE finds deplorable is to be protected at all costs.

Do you not see the hypocrisy here?


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Chuck Franke said:


> Come now CRS, back to the topic at hand sans bias. If NARAL launched a campaign to send cards to some pro-life group during a fundraising drive to slow them down would the ACLU not defend their right to do so?


I don't believe the ACLU would be involved in that scenario because it is not a legal matter.



Chuck Franke said:


> IF implemented the ACLU gets a wedgie and is annoyed. Surely they will celebrate precisely what they tell everyone else to celebrate - that they must set the example by tolerating a form of expression they find contemptible. Option B is that they proclaim that only speech that everyone ELSE finds deplorable is to be protected at all costs.
> 
> Do you not see the hypocrisy here?


I doubt the ACLU will complain at all, as they probably will not want to give the protesters the satisfaction that their silly little protest had any effect whatsoever. At least that's what I do even if I were up to my neck in winter holiday cards.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

crs said:


> At least that's what I do even if I were up to my neck in winter holiday cards.


Hold on there chief. We're not talking Festivus here. CHRISTMAS cards, not "winter holiday". I think we see the entire point laid bare.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> Hold on there chief. We're not talking Festivus here. CHRISTMAS cards, not "winter holiday". I think we see the entire point laid bare.


I just did that to get a rise out of some people. I send Christmas cards myself. Just not to the ACLU.


----------



## Chuck Franke (Aug 8, 2003)

crs said:


> I don't believe the ACLU would be involved in that scenario because it is not a legal matter.


They sure would if NARAL got a C&D order



> I doubt the ACLU will complain at all, as they probably will not want to give the protesters the satisfaction that their silly little protest had any effect whatsoever. At least that's what I do even if I were up to my neck in winter holiday cards.


So... when did we go from vigilantes to silly little protestors?

LOL... Here's a softball question for you... try not to veer off course and just focus on this one:
Were a group devoted to (insert cause here) to launch a similar 'attack' on a Christian organization and were that organization to find a judge willing to order the 'vigilante' organization to cease it's mail campaign would the ACLU not loudly protest and sue over such an aggregious limitation of the anti-Christian group's freedom of expression through legal and peaceful means?

The fact that the ACLU may be reaping what they sow is somewhat of a Biblical reference doesn't alter the truth of it.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

crs said:


> I just did that to get a rise out of some people. I send Christmas cards myself. Just not to the ACLU.


I send Xmas cards myself. And I'm a heathen. Go figure.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

cufflink44 said:


> This article,"Michigan ACLU Wins Fight for Christian Free Speech," which talks about how the ACLU successfully fought to have a student's religious message re-inserted into her yearbook after it had been removed by school authorities, is not from the ACLU web site. It's not from a liberal web site. It's from a Christian evangelical web site:
> 
> https://www.crosswalk.com/news/religiontoday/1263338.html
> 
> As for a high school valedictorian including a denominational religious message in a graduation speech, that's clearly a different matter. In the yearbook case, the student was speaking for herself. *Valedictorians, however, do not simply speak for themselves; they speak as representatives of their graduating class and of the institution awarding their degrees--in the case of a public high school, an institution of the government.* That's why such speeches are vetted by the school administration before they're given. If the ACLU has gotten involved in such cases with the goal of keeping _any_ kind of religious evangelism out of public school graduation speeches, I find that commendable.


I think you are confused. The article clearly states this girl *was the class Valedictorian* and the article states, "As valedictorian of her graduating class, Moler had submitted a biblical quote...." which clearly indicates this verse was submitted as part of her role of the valedictorian. Now if you want to hair split between the role of the valedictorian in Year Book contributions vs. the role of the valedictorian in regards to the graduation speech, please do. I will abstain from such nonsense however.

Also if, as you state above, the valedictorian is speaking for the graduating class, any graduating person should have editorial rights to the speech as he/she might well say something else that does not represent the beliefs of a member of the graduating class. If a vegan had been my valedictorian, I would have felt wronged if the speech included a Singer-esque appeal to the ethics of eating meet. This is merely an example, I am sure many will come to mind.

Or are you going to limit your thesis merely to a religious comment by a valedictorian in his/her speech? If that is the case, then no doubt you would be comfortable with say, an endorsement of NAMBLA in the speech? Or a rant on capital punishment or abortion?

While I commend you on the time to find this single data point, I think your argument needs, at the very least, some clarification. My suspicion though is that it flawed in many ways, as I have just pointed out.


----------



## Chuck Franke (Aug 8, 2003)

A friend of mine who litigates for the ACLU pointed out to me that different chapters of the organization fight different battles and we largely hear about the most provocative cases. It's the 'take down the 200 year old cross' and NAMBLA and be nice to terrorists cases that tend to rub fur in the wrong direction.

FWIW ...that friend tends to fight the cases that really get under my skin and freely admits to being a far left wingtip activist.... I like him anyway, he's smart and we have good arguments.

I've always felt that the big difference between conservative and liberal civil rights defenders is very simple. The liberal position generally tending to focus only on the importance of the right itself, defending it at any cost.

The conservative view is that in any right is an equally critical inherent responsibility. Rights without responsibility creates a free for all and stick in the mud conservatives like me tend to prefer things to remain nice and orderly.

That's why I favor a benevolent dictatorship with me as Grand Imperial Poohbah. ...which is more than likely why Democracy is important. My Poohbate would probably not appeal to some.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

cufflink44 said:


> What you call hair-splitting is in fact the crux of the issue. Valedictorian or not, in the Yearbook she was engaging in private speech--her own personal message to her fellow graduates. That's what the ACLU argued, and that's apparently what the schoolboard accepted in the end. A speech at graduation is another matter. There the student is _representing_ her classmates and the school. The distinction seems pretty clear to me. If it's not to you, well . . . so be it.


It is a distinction without a difference, merely one manufactured by the ACLU. This is *PRECISELY* why the ACLU and many attorneys have such a bad reputation IMO. Whether one is putting a message in a Year Book *as the valedictorian* or giving a speech *as the valedictorian*, one is still communicating in said role, which either does or does not carry all the baggage you have attached to it above. As a reminder, the article specifically stated the quote was in the Year Book as her role of the valedictorian. To me, dislodging the baggage in a Year Book quote, in the role of the valedictorian, is an arbitrary move. Just my opinion and clear evidence why I am not fit to be an attorney as to me, a rose by any other name is still a rose. Names do not denote.



cufflink44 said:


> As for a graduation speech promoting veganism and excoriating meat eaters, yeah, I'd find that inappropriate as well. So would the school administrators.


Surprised we would not run into First Amendment issues there.



cufflink44 said:


> .... the ACLU that clearly showed they uphold the right to private religious expression, Christian or otherwise. (Hey, they've gone to bat for Jerry Falwell! What more do you want?).


And yet I cannot shake myself of the impression the ACLU is left leaning and anti-Xtian. Why would an objective godless heathen such as myself have such an opinion?


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

cufflink44 said:


> When your Poohbate comes to power, will we all get 7-fold ties to wear? I'd look forward to that! :icon_smile:


Seven-fold ties, opiate of the masses.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

crs said:


> Seven-fold ties, opiate of the masses.


LMAO, well played!


----------



## Chuck Franke (Aug 8, 2003)

Yeah but you know what would happen - this group would want 8 folds and that group would want 8.3 folds and it would wind up being a big pain in the butt.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

There's something I don't understand. Throughout this thread I've read about how the ACLU is protecting our civil rights by insuring that the government abides by the law.

I can understand the free speech issue of soldiers' funeral protests and even the 'dead **** are good' mantra, but can someone explain to me why defending NAMBLA, which advocates conduct which is *felonious* under a plethora of statutes, contributes to insuring government compliance with the law?


----------



## Chuck Franke (Aug 8, 2003)

....and thus Alex was suckered into the Interchange. Bout time after having previously goaded me into these discussions umpteen times.

The way I heard it...
The ACLU made the argument that NAMBLA had a right to LOBBY to make pedophilia legal. Hypothetically I can see that any group has the right to lobby for any law change they want.

What disgusted me and what I think exemplifies why the ACLU is so hated by the right is that it was irresponsible. While the TECHNICAL argument was to promote changing the law to make the desired behavior legal the clear and thinly veiled intent was to promote the evasion of the laws that say that if you are an adult you can't have sex with a child. Not rocket surgery. The ACLU said it was discrimination and homophobia. Actually I am sorry that it wasn't some group promoting heterosexual child abuse because that is the real issue and of the many homosexual men I know I have yet to encounter one who is an admitted pedophile.

The great philosopher Dennis Miller once summed this up neatly : Any adult who has a desire to ---- a child should put the gun to his/her head, lean in to the pitch and take one for the team.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

I was more interested in the rationale of those who seem to support the ACLU and less interested in those who seem to support its demise.

As far as your contention regarding _lobbying for law change_, that's fine. I did though go to the NAMBLA website a while back and they have (had?) quite detailed instructions on the best methods and techniques for pedophiles to gain the trust of young boys for the purpose of luring them into sexual acts. This would seem to me more of a conspiracy to violate existing felony statutes (and to violate young boys in the process) than it is to lobbying for a change in said statutes.

Nonetheless, it is interesting to see that you can adopt both sides of an issue with equal fervor. Best of luck with your Christmas card campaign.


----------



## Chuck Franke (Aug 8, 2003)

Alexander Kabbaz said:


> I was more interested in the rationale of those who seem to support the ACLU and less interested in those who seem to support its demise.
> 
> As far as your contention regarding _lobbying for law change_, that's fine. I did though go to the NAMBLA website a while back and they have (had?) quite detailed instructions on the best methods and techniques for pedophiles to gain the trust of young boys for the purpose of luring them into sexual acts. This would seem to me more of a conspiracy to violate existing felony statutes (and to violate young boys in the process) than it is to lobbying for a change in said statutes.
> 
> Nonetheless, it is interesting to see that you can adopt both sides of an issue with equal fervor. Best of luck with your Christmas card campaign.


Huh? ...WTF are you talking about now Alex? My point was that the ACLU was claiming to support the right to lobby for a law while in effect protecting NAMBLA's ability to promote breaking the law?

Equal fervor my ass. Was my meaning less than abundantly clear to anyone else? Hint: I generally don't advocate eating a gun and squeezing the trigger when discussing a position I fervently support... I shall endeavor to be more clear for those with reading comprehension issues and use smaller words next time.


----------



## marcus_halberstam (Aug 8, 2006)

Alexander Kabbaz said:


> I was more interested in the rationale of those who seem to support the ACLU and less interested in those who seem to support its demise.
> 
> As far as your contention regarding _lobbying for law change_, that's fine. I did though go to the NAMBLA website a while back and they have (had?) quite detailed instructions on the best methods and techniques for pedophiles to gain the trust of young boys for the purpose of luring them into sexual acts. This would seem to me more of a conspiracy to violate existing felony statutes (and to violate young boys in the process) than it is to lobbying for a change in said statutes.
> 
> Nonetheless, it is interesting to see that you can adopt both sides of an issue with equal fervor. Best of luck with your Christmas card campaign.


If they are truly violating these statutes (I'm not visiting their website to find out) then they should be prosecuted accordingly. To be honest, I'd imagine that joining NAMBLA simply announces to everyone that you're a pedo.

The ACLU is always going to suffer from being associated with the lunatic fringe because they are the groups most likely to face having their right to free speech limited. We defend their right to free speech because as soon as you let it be restricted, it becomes much harder to protect everyone elses.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

Chuck Franke said:


> Equal fervor my ass.


 It wasn't yours I was worried about. It was younger, smaller, more innocent ones.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Here's the ACLU statement on NAMBLA. It doesn't seem that hard to understand to me.

ACLU Statement on Defending Free Speech of Unpopular Organizations (8/31/2000)


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE


NEW YORK--In the United States Supreme Court over the past few years, the American Civil Liberties Union has taken the side of a fundamentalist Christian church, a Santerian church, and the International Society for Krishna Consciousness. In celebrated cases, the ACLU has stood up for everyone from Oliver North to the National Socialist Party. In spite of all that, the ACLU has never advocated Christianity, ritual animal sacrifice, trading arms for hostages or genocide. In representing NAMBLA today, our Massachusetts affiliate does not advocate sexual relationships between adults and children.

What the ACLU does advocate is robust freedom of speech for everyone. The lawsuit involved here, were it to succeed, would strike at the heart of freedom of speech. The case is based on a shocking murder. But the lawsuit says the crime is the responsibility not of those who committed the murder, but of someone who posted vile material on the Internet. The principle is as simple as it is central to true freedom of speech: those who do wrong are responsible for what they do; those who speak about it are not.

It is easy to defend freedom of speech when the message is something many people find at least reasonable. But the defense of freedom of speech is most critical when the message is one most people find repulsive. That was true when the Nazis marched in Skokie. It remains true today.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

First, I want to thank Chuck and Alex for doing their Wayfarer and gmac impersonations 

Second, if the ACLU would defend NAMBLA against the premise that they shared some sort of responsibility for posting to the web the techniques used to lure the young boy to his death, does anyone think the ACLU would also defend Smith&Wesson against a lawsuit holding them responsible for gun crimes? Somehow, I doubt it. True it is not a free speech issue, but it is an issue of responsibility for product use.


----------



## marcus_halberstam (Aug 8, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> First, I want to thank Chuck and Alex for doing their Wayfarer and gmac impersonations
> 
> Second, if the ACLU would defend NAMBLA against the premise that they shared some sort of responsibility for posting to the web the techniques used to lure the young boy to his death, does anyone think the ACLU would also defend Smith&Wesson against a lawsuit holding them responsible for gun crimes? Somehow, I doubt it. True it is not a free speech issue, but it is an issue of responsibility for product use.


As you say this is a completely different issue. The ACLU is concerned with freedom of speech, not responsibility for product use. I doubt the ACLU would leap into the fray to defend fast food manufacturers against fat people.


----------

