Okay, I have a question

[Tonio]

To me, personally, I think it is absurd to say the local government is 'establishing' a religion by putting up a creche.

I certainly agree. I think you missed my point big time. In my example, the government was deliberately banning non-Christian religions from putting up their symbols because it wanted to favor Christianity. I'm suggesting that under the Constitution, the government can't deliberately allow one religion and not others from putting up displays in a park.

Now, if the park has only a creche simply because none of the other religions put up their own displays, well, that's not the government's problem.

 

[Bruzilla]

The point is, are we not stronger for having had the argument?

No. Because there usually is no argument, there is a lawsuit. The defendent of the suit can either challenge the ACLU and prove its case, or, they can settle the case and the ACLU wins. It is financially impossible for many municipalities to take on the ACLU, so they end up settling. That is not an argument of the facts, and this has made us a weaker country for it.

In the 1700s if a member of the ACLU tried to take on the local government claiming that they may not be involved with any relgion, he would have been hanged.

In the mid-1800s he would have been laughed off as a madman.

In the mid-1900s he would have been held up as a person to scorn, ridicule, and beat the crap of.

Now they get their settlement check and go on their way to the next fundraiser.

 

[Larry Gude]

Right and I'm saying....

It is financially impossible for many municipalities to take on the ACLU, so they end up settling

...that by us discussing this long and loud We, the people, lay the ground work for some judge to grow a spine and say 'nice try fellas but don't bring no weak ass #### in here'.

SOMD is on the forefront of judicial reform. We don't want the cowards Tom Delay is after, we're after stallions like judge Greer who stood before the hurricane and held fast!!!

 

[Larry Gude]

THAT is...

"If you put Tonio in a blender, you get tarder sauce." – AC/DC

...####ing hilarious!


So, what are we disagreeing on?

 

[Tonio]

...####ing hilarious!


So, what are we disagreeing on?

Thanks! Maybe we only disagree on football teams--my favorite is the same as Bruzilla's. Remember when Dan Snyder's minions asked Myron Cope not to refer to the Redskins as "Redfaces"? Cope's response was, "If that boy billionaire thinks he can shut me up, he can go stick his head in a can of paint."

 

[vraiblonde]

It is financially impossible for many municipalities to take on the ACLU, so they end up settling.

Exactly. Unless they get creative, like Frederick City Aldermen did when the ACLU came to town.

Baker Park is a large recreation area in downtown Frederick. In this park there is a monument honoring Frederick citizens who died in WWII, that is inscribed with the Ten Commandments. This had never been a problem until one - ONE - resident, a high school kid, no less, complained that it violated the separation of church and state. This ONE resident took their case to the ACLU, who sent a representative to Frederick to investigate. A lawsuit was filed by the ACLU to force the city to remove the offending monument.

The outcry here was enormous, with the vast majority of Frederick citizens on the side of leaving the monument alone.

So the Mayor and Aldermen sold the parcel of land that the monument sat on to a private citizen for, like, a buck and a half. Problem solved, the lawsuit was dropped, and a big eff ewe to the ACLU and the crybaby who sicced them on the city.

Here's the story:
http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=11417&c=38

Except the part about them suggesting the sale isn't true - the sale was suggested by one of the Aldermen as a way to give the ACLU the finger.

Now, Larry and Ken. Please tell me how the ACLU was fighting for the rights of the populace in this instance???

 

[Larry Gude]

So you can quit worshipping Jeenifer...

the ACLU suggested constitutionally acceptable alternatives that included turning ownership of either the monument or the park over to a private entity.

It wasn't her idea and she caved to the very freaks you so deplore.

No wonder she has hard benched booths in her restaurant.

 

[Larry Gude]

They weren't...

Now, Larry and Ken. Please tell me how the ACLU was fighting for the rights of the populace in this instance???

They were fighting for the rights of some punk kid who is probably a relative of Ira Glasser because they knew they had a patsy in J Dough.

:nah:

She should have told them to pack sand. She CAVED.

 

[vraiblonde]

It wasn't her idea and she caved to the very freaks you so deplore.

She didn't cave - she saved the taxpayers the TON of money it would have taken to fight it out in court.

And the part in the story about the ACLU suggesting the sale is bullshit. The city Alderman were the ones that suggested it, not the ACLU. They're just trying to pretend they're not the bloodsucking Leftist dirtbags they are.

J-Do was not their patsy. And she might have hard benches in her restaurant but I seem to remember a little flower boy who was pretty happy sitting there by the fireplace with his Caffrey's Irish Ale.

 

[Ken King]

I would have to look at the case thoroughly before giving an informed opinion but off the cuff I see this as one area that the ACLU has no business in. I don't see how the aggrieved individual was harmed by having a monument dedicated to those that fought and gave of themselves during a war. Simple ownership of the property where the monument is erected should not result in the immediate bar that was sought and apparently conceded to. Congress didn't decry that this monument must have the alleged offensive content upon it, thus I can’t see the nexus as to it being an improper action for a local municipality.

One would think that if any and all religious content was in fact barred from every aspect of our government that we would not place our hand on the Bible when being sworn in at court, have “In God We Trust” as our motto and inscribed upon our currency, or have any reference whatsoever to religion at all, including the famed tablets with the Roman numerals that adorn the Supreme Court as they are surely of a religious nature whether they contain the text of the commandments or not.

As I have said before the ACLU has done and can do some good, but as to whether they are always right in what they champion is a completely different question. In this instance I absolutely believe that they are not right. I can see where they are perceived as a force to be reckoned and that they can overwhelm those that they do battle with generating significant financial burden along the way. But much of that power they possess has been generated by an unwillingness to take on these fights. I guess for many the complacency of giving in instead of standing one’s ground for what they believe in facilitates their drive to take on cases like this. This capitulation does not make the ACLU right or just, but it definitely does nothing to show that they were wrong.

 

[vraiblonde]

As I have said before the ACLU has done and can do some good, but as to whether they are always right in what they champion is a completely different question.

The fact remains that if you had a watch that was only right twice a day, it would be considered useless. You wouldn't continue to rely on it because it once worked.

 

[Larry Gude]

Attention please...

...I have an announcement:

We had dinner at the mayors restaurant last night and got the straight dope from Her Honor on this ACLU thing.

1. The punk kid was not even a city resident.

2. It was the cities idea to sell the piece of property that contained the offending monument and Her Honor specifically singled out one of her staff lawyers as doing a great job on this.

3. Therefore Vrai is correct, it was not the ACLU's idea and not to their liking. They got whooped by J Dough and her crew.

Vrai was RIGHT. I was wrong

I do now remember the ACLU howling in pain when they realized they were not gonna get the monument removed.

 

[vraiblonde]

Vrai was RIGHT. I was wrong

Yes

And to add insult to injury, J-Do is a...gasp...Democrat. Which just goes to show that you have to know the person, not just the R or D after their name.

 

[Bruzilla]

Let me throw this little speculation out for the forum sharks to set upon...

Here in 2005, what restauraunt owner can deny access to a black man and not get ripped by the Rainbow Coalition, the media, and other groups before the ACLU even gets wind of the story? Where in America can someone be improperly denied their right to vote without the DNC or RNC taking the case before the ACLU even knows there's a problem? Where in America can a woman be denied a fair promotion without the EEOC, NOW, and the media beating the ACLU to the punch? The answers are all pretty much the same, i.e., nowhere.

So, where is the ACLU of today, now that all of their historical base cases have been taken by others? They are focusing on government and religion. And nine times out of ten, when you hear about the ACLU taking legal action, what it is about? Expanding the seperation of church and state. One must ask why? My feeling is that the ACLU is predominantly made up of liberals (I mean, when was the last time the ACLU took up a gun ownership case?), and what are two of the biggest issues for liberals? Abortion and Gay rights. And what organizations pose the biggest hinderence to these issues? Religion. So, could all of this focus by the ACLU be a determined effort to restrict the influence of churches so that Gays and the pro-choice crowd can have their way?

 

[Ken King]

The fact remains that if you had a watch that was only right twice a day, it would be considered useless. You wouldn't continue to rely on it because it once worked.

Your analogy blows, besides who needs a watch? Watches are like weather forecasters, they may or may not be right but you can rest assured that they are rarely if ever 100% accurate. Time is a trap that many fall victim to.

I do not deny that the ACLU at times takes up many an idiotic cause, but are you saying that they have no worth at all or that there will never be a need for their service?

“The mission of the ACLU is to preserve all of these protections and guarantees:
• Your First Amendment rights-freedom of speech, association and assembly. Freedom of the press, and freedom of religion supported by the strict separation of church and state.
• Your right to equal protection under the law - equal treatment regardless of race, sex, religion or national origin.
• Your right to due process - fair treatment by the government whenever the loss of your liberty or property is at stake.
• Your right to privacy - freedom from unwarranted government intrusion into your personal and private affairs.”

Drop the first bullet and I have little problem with them though I do not agree with every endeavor the take on, I decide if I agree on the issue at hand, their specific stance, and do not condemn or dismiss them on their occasional idiocy.

 

[Triggerfish]

I would like to see them spend more time investigating the abuses of criminals

I think that's someone else's job. :shrug:

 

[Tonio]

Drop the first bullet and I have little problem with them...

I don't understand why the clause "separation of church and state" gets people so worked up. I've always taken it to be shorthand for the First Amendment's phraseology about religion. Wouldn't the opposite be intermingling of governmental authority with church authority? That is in fact what happened in English history that was still recent for the Founding Fathers.

 

[vraiblonde]

I don't understand why the clause "separation of church and state" gets people so worked up.

Because they get too carried away with it and encourage nuts to troll the streets looking for something to be offended by. And when these nuts DO find something that offends them, they run to the ACLU to start flinging lawsuits around.

However, there is no such thing as "separation of church and state" in our Constitution. What it says is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," meaning that they cannot establish a national religion and force people to adhere to it, nor can they regulate religion in this country at all.

It doesn't say that there can be no Ten Commandments on public or government property. It doesn't say that school kids can't pray before they eat lunch.

 

[vraiblonde]

Time is a trap that many fall victim to.

As is the ACLU.

I do not deny that the ACLU at times takes up many an idiotic cause, but are you saying that they have no worth at all or that there will never be a need for their service?

Yes, I am saying that they do significantly more harm than good, therefore they have no worth at all. They are an organization of lawyers whose sole purpose is to litigate. That's it - that's all they do.

The liberal media has given them so much positive press that the uneducated public has this idea that the ACLU is some kind of legitimate watchdog group. That is not the case. They are simply extortionists who prey on communities.

Name one good thing the ACLU has done in the last 20 years. Because for every good thing, I can find you 10 bad things. And, Ken King, since the bad outweighs the good by a tremendous margin, I think even you will agree that the ACLU is a destructive organization.

 

[Bruzilla]

That is in fact what happened in English history that was still recent for the Founding Fathers.

Not quite. What happened in fact with English history was that King Henry VIII created the Church of England when he got into a pissing contest with the Pope over getting one of his marriages anuled. He created it as a means of bypassing the laws and rules of the Roman Catholic Church, which needless to say made life difficult for Britons who were members of that church. Under the laws of Henry VIII all Britons were forced to become members of the Church of England, and if you didn't, and chose to follow some other church, you did so at your own peril. This arrangement allowed Henry VIII and his cronies to change the laws of the church to meet their whims, and that's no way to run a religion.

The Founding Fathers did not want a Church of the United States that would place the President into the position of Pope, or that would interfere with the free practice of other religions, which is exactly what had happened in England. That's why they wanted to ban the establishment of a religion and pass no law interfering with the free practice of religion.