Okay, I have a question

[Bruzilla]

They are an organization of lawyers whose sole purpose is to litigate. That's it - that's all they do.

I think that the ACLU has sunk a bit lower than that. If I had seen them jump on one 2nd Ammendment case in all these years, I would feel differently, but they haven't. They focus solely on cases that support Liberal ideals, and that's all they do. They may have started out as a legitimate source of guardianship for all of our rights, but they have perverted themselves into something else.

 

[vraiblonde]

I think that the ACLU has sunk a bit lower than that.

Then I will amend my statement:

They are an organization of lawyers whose sole purpose is to litigate on behalf of liberal causes. That's it - that's all they do.

 

[Larry Gude]

That is not the public perception...

The liberal media has given them so much positive press

When Mike Dukakis stated vs. George the 41st in open debate that he was 'a card carrying member of the ACLU' it was one of a couple major happenings in the race that cost him dearly.

The ACLU has the same, I think, public conotation as the label 'Liberal'. It is, to a large extent a well earned bad name and it's a shame.

So, I don't care how the media 'plays it' it does not seem to be working if the goal is to get them some sort of free pass.

 

[Larry Gude]

And that is the ACLUs role...

This arrangement allowed Henry VIII and his cronies to change the laws

Again, if we agree that people WILL abuse power then the ACLU provides A, not THE, but A check against that. George W Bush has assumed rather awesome powers these days for several reasons; one, he's a strong leader and two, his loyal opposition have taken on the role of impotent cry babies in place of robust, inteligent, principled opposition. Volume over value.

I don't think anyone disagrees that the ACLU is biased in what interests them but they do, at minimum, serve as a check on one side of the ledger. In this case, they seem to watch Republicans extra close. Agaon though, they did support Limbaughs privacy position.

Judicial Watch and other groups provide that check on the other side of the ledger, keeping a close eye on Democrats and in fact I'd argue that Judicial Watch does a better over all job. They are a thorn in both sides...sides.

A good thorn.

 

[Bruzilla]

Again, if we agree that people WILL abuse power then the ACLU provides A, not THE, but A check against that. George W Bush has assumed rather awesome powers these days for several reasons; one, he's a strong leader and two, his loyal opposition have taken on the role of impotent cry babies in place of robust, inteligent, principled opposition. Volume over value.

I don't think anyone disagrees that the ACLU is biased in what interests them but they do, at minimum, serve as a check on one side of the ledger. In this case, they seem to watch Republicans extra close. Agaon though, they did support Limbaughs privacy position.

Judicial Watch and other groups provide that check on the other side of the ledger, keeping a close eye on Democrats and in fact I'd argue that Judicial Watch does a better over all job. They are a thorn in both sides...sides.

A good thorn.

While we all agree that we don't want the President to tell us to worship him as Pope of the Church of the United States, we also don't want the ACLU telling the government that it can't have anything to do with religion. I don't think it's any coincidence that the steady decline of our quality of life in the United States has followed right along with the ACLU's denial of our ability to do what's morally right.

Also, I've heard of the ACLU's support of Limbaugh over and over again as an example that they're looking out for everybody. The truth is that Limbaugh was ancillary to the case. What the ACLU was defending was the protection of medical records against release... something that Liberals with checkered histories of drug abuse (the Clinton White House for example) and AIDS activists (again... mostly Liberals) have been fighting against for years. If Limbaugh had been denied the opportunity to purchase a handgun, the ACLU wouldn't have lifted a finger to help him.

 

[Larry Gude]

I agree...

Limbaugh had been denied the opportunity to purchase a handgun, the ACLU wouldn't have lifted a finger to help him.

But the fact remains it was a privacy issue and they did get invloved on the correct side. This is only ONE good thing. I do not absolve them of their other sins BUT it is a good.

I disagree with you about the decline of religion and decline of quality of life.

I don't think it's any coincidence that the steady decline of our quality of life in the United States has followed right along with the ACLU's denial of our ability to do what's morally right.

If I make the analogy that yours and Vrais case is, in essence, the ACLU is standing on the street corner offering kids condoms, abortion and drugs and, God forbid, Boy Band CD's AND telling the kids 'You gotta fight for your right to party' would you agree that that is representative?

If so, I would argue that a free society WILL go through struggles of right and wrong BECAUSE we are free to think and to challenge and to be wrong.

As we all know, being raised 'properly' does not always begat happy, healthy adults whose raise, in turn, their kids 'properly'. We also know that being raised poorly does NOT preclude us from becoming happy healthy adults nor preclude us from becoming good parents.

Life is complicated because humans are complicated. Often we can't do right until we KNOW wrong. Human beings have always had very self destructive tendencys. THE single greatest human condition from the dawn of civilization can be summed up on one word; War. Pretty much all our energys are focused on preventing the next one...until we forget how bad the last one was.

I don't believe in some utopian American idea where nothing ever goes wrong and everyone is to be happy and comfortable from crib to grave because we all happily and instictively follow THE rules that worked before. That is because THE rules that worked before never worked for everyone in the first place. There is room for improvement and sometimes uncomfortable or misguided changes occur.

It may be sad that we lose people along the way who take the ACLU's challenge against the 10 Commandmants as card blanche to destroy their lives and those they should be caring for. Freedom is a dicey thing. One is free to follow the path and one is free to get hopelessly lost. Or some combination. That you can fail horribly, to me, makes success that much more golden.

One can use the example of parents who decided that they would do 'it' until they were satisified and lost their own children in the process as an object lesson for myself of what I COULD do and as a real life example for my kids how crappy things CAN be and just as importanly, why.

The knowledge that you CAN do X of your own free will and therefore be faced with the results of X is, to me, far more powferful and lasting than 'Don't do X because I said so and I say so because it says so right here."

That may be messy but it is a fact of humanity. We're not robots and Beavers parents parents might have been monsters.

Would I try to have the 10 Commandments removed from public view on public property? Not in a million years, but that's me. That someone else is so bothered by it SHOULD be their right to challenge it. That many of these battles are trivial and some even plain stupid removes some of the fat from the bone, sharpens the senses and helps bring into focus what really matters. Our Mayor came up large and kicked their dumb asses to the curb.

I think we're all better for having the fight. Sometimes when someone starts crying "You can't do that!" and they have no point someone with the stronger postions rises and says 'Yes we can and here's why!".

In the end, something more lasting and powerful will emerge and it always has in this untidy, beautiful mess the USA is.

At least I think so.

 

[vraiblonde]

If so, I would argue that a free society WILL go through struggles of right and wrong BECAUSE we are free to think and to challenge and to be wrong.

Of course. And that's a wonderful thing. BUT just because an organization has the "right" to be wrong, that doesn't mean the rest of us just have to sit idly by and accept it.

You're treading dangerously close to lib-think. "I have the RIGHT to say what I want, whenever I want, and bring a lawsuit against whomever I please for whatever reason strikes my fancy!" Yes, you do, but the rest of us have the right to disagree with you and reject your rantings.

Not to mention that the ACLU and activist judges waste a LOT of our federal and community resources trying to fight whatever silly "cause" the ACLU has decided to take up today.

And the biggest problem of all is that the ACLU is able to push their agenda through the judicial system and make it ALL of our problem because cities and towns don't have the resources to fight them. They literally can shape our whole society through the courts, and that's not right.

In the end, something more lasting and powerful will emerge and it always has in this untidy, beautiful mess the USA is.

That may be true, because dissent is the hallmark of a free society. As is dissent against the dissenters.

 

[Larry Gude]

Lib think?

You're treading dangerously close to lib-think. "I have the RIGHT to say what I want, whenever I want, and bring a lawsuit against whomever I please for whatever reason strikes my fancy!

If Howard Dean thinks the sitting President of the US is his 'enemy' I want that to be heard long and loud. If the ACLU wants to banish every last visible symbol of Christianty from the public square I want that to be heard and seen, long and loud. If they are wrong, if they are going to far, it is best that it be unmistakebly public knowledge.

If we agree that the ACLU served a greater purpose some time ago and we also agree that much or most of what they do now is trivial BS then are we not in effect talking about a sort of living pendulum that has swung to far one way?

If so, it can't be expected to stop RIGHT at the point where we all agree enough is enough and it's time to leave well enough alone. The ACLU has served in the past to, in effect, regulate things that can not nor should not be left to their own self regulation. Thus the ACLU.

You and those who see it your way, that the ACLU folks are now public enemies, are regulating the ACLU. They ARE going too far quite often and it IS being noticed. Your criticisms are valid and helpful.

And I am merely serving to regulate you. I think it's better that they correct their course than be banished from the public square.

After all, what you call Lib think, the desire to agitate, is at the root of change is it not?

 

[vraiblonde]

I fear I'm not making my point clear. <---which is a nice way of saying that you're missing my point.

If Howard Dean thinks the sitting President of the US is his 'enemy' I want that to be heard long and loud.

And I want my objection to be heard loud and long as well. Unfortunately, I don't have the power of the media behind me, as Howard Dean and the ACLU do.

If we agree that the ACLU served a greater purpose some time ago and we also agree that much or most of what they do now is trivial BS then are we not in effect talking about a sort of living pendulum that has swung to far one way?

Yes. And it is my right as a citizen to point it out.

You and those who see it your way, that the ACLU folks are now public enemies, are regulating the ACLU.

Wrong. I don't have the power to regulate the ACLU. All I can do is voice my objection to their waste of taxpayer dollars and the social structure that they are trying to impose on the rest of us. After that, it's up to judges that hear these cases to decide.

And I am merely serving to regulate you.

Good for you, Special K. But I am not a government entity and I have no power to enforce anything other than that which I have control over. And I do not have control over the federal government, or state government or, frankly, anything outside my own home.

The only thing I can do is keep voicing my opinion. The opinion that YOU seem to want to stifle or "regulate".

And while you might think that indulging the whims of the more contentious members of our society is a fabulous thing to spend our money on, I do not. I will gladly give my end of the tax bucks to help someone who has truly been wronged by federal or local government. But I resent having to spend one single penny of my money so that some kid can "have his day in court" because of a Ten Commandments monument or because some little girl wants to say a blessing before she eats her lunch.

 

[Larry Gude]

Indulging the whims...

The only thing I can do is keep voicing my opinion. The opinion that YOU seem to want to stifle or "regulate".

Your opinion is what, that they should cease to exist from the earth, starting now? I see their mistakes as weakening their cause not strengthening it and, as cited in several recent examples, they sure aren't winning much, media or no.

As far as regulating goes, ONLY people voicing their opinion ever got anything done about slavery, minority rights, womens rights, Michael and Terri Schiavos rights, keeping 'under God' in the pledge, poll taxes, over throwing San Franciscos absurd attempt to re-write Californias and, by extention, the rest of the nations definition of marriage and so on.

So let's all follow Tom Delay and we'll quit 'wasting' tax payer money on 'indulging' the more contentious members of society. Then, we'll just get us some judges who will start doing what the majority in Congress tells them to do right after God gets done telling the majority in Congress what to do.

While we're at it, I'll just shut up seeings as I have no point to you, and just do what you say.

How'd that be?

 

[Bruzilla]

But the fact remains it was a privacy issue and they did get invloved on the correct side. This is only ONE good thing. I do not absolve them of their other sins BUT it is a good.

There's no problem with using the defense of privacy in your argument, but leave Limbaugh out of it. If that had been David Duke the ACLU still would have stepped in just as fast as if it had been Jane Fonda.

I disagree with you about the decline of religion and decline of quality of life.

Well... let's think back to when we (or at least I) were kids. Back then we had -

1. Prayer in the schools and before sporting events.
2. Christmas celebrations including public displays.
3. Strict standards for what could be seen or heard over the airwaves (based on Christian standards of decency.)
4. We had a liberal use of the death penalty to off the bad guys.
5. We had standards of conduct in the schools.
6. We had standards of conduct in society.
7. Bastard children were not to be condoned.
8. Divorice was frowned upon.

Now... where are we? There are no standards of conduct outside the law in our society or in the schools. Crime has gotten to such a point that we try to convince ourselves that a 20% drop in violent crime is a great thing, despite the fact that the number is still way too high. Do we even want to go into the behaviors of our children, which are based on TV, movies, and music instead of church, school, and parents? And what parents? More and more kids don't even know both of their parents.

Most all of the changes above, the ACLU has had a big hand in changing. Did the old rules make life worse for some people? Yes, but they also made life better for society as a whole. Did they deny rights to some people? Yes, but they secured the rights of many. Our quest for a "fair" society has led us to rampant crime, our society to becoming the new Rome before the fall, and I can't but machine guns dammit!

 

[vraiblonde]

While we're at it, I'll just shut up seeings as I have no point to you, and just do what you say.

How'd that be?

Fine with me, Huffy

 

[Tonio]

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.

The school prayer decision, the one prompted by that hateful troll Madelyn Murray O'Hair, was about teachers leading prayer in school, if I recall correctly. Yes, I too get infuriated with school districts who can't or won't make the distinction between teachers leading prayer and students praying on their own. The former is clearly unconstitutional, in my view. But with the latter, only a foaming, rabid ideologue would have a problem with it.

I think groups like the ACLU on one hand and Focus on the Family, Christian Coalition, etc. on the other make this harder than it needs to be. I see the First Amendment as being about government neutrality among religions, not about being hostile to all religion or favoring one religion over others. The bas-reliefs in the U.S. Supreme Court have it right--the Ten Commandments are shown only as a set of numbers and as part of other historic laws. No obvious attempt to try to put some official government stamp on one religion over others, as Roy Moore attempted. I've always wondered if Moore ruled in favor of Christians against non-Christians in his courtrooms.

 

[Larry Gude]

Ok...

Well... let's think back to when we (or at least I) were kids. Back then we had -

But you guys were burning witches and had bad teeth as well!

It would be a waste of time to debate you point by point if you are satisfied that, item by item, life was far superior, what, 40 years ago?

I am in complete agreement if you'd argue that urban black families in particular have been devestated by Great Society programs and societal engineering. I am also partial to the family doctor of our youth over todays endless stream of specialists whose primary function is to cover one anothers rear.

One of my guys remembers in the early 60's there was a sign on the roadside leading to a back way into Savage, Maryland that said "Don't let the sun set on you ######". It was there for years.

When my folks split up in the mid 70's, one of the first people to hit on my very attractive mom was one of my dads 'best' friends. This guy and my dad were both born in '42 and raised by what most would call very good, God fearing folks, went to a school were Mr. Skidmore grabbed n'er do wells by the shirt color and set them VERY straight.

Hank Williams was very popular and wholesome and did more drugs than Motley Crue.

During WWII, in order to get supplies out of US harbors, FDR made deals with the mafia who controlled the dock workers. The "Band of Brothers" froze their azz off at Bastogne because all the winter gear had been stolen by their fellow US service personel and sold on the French black market.

When you were a kid, the mob handed the Presidency to Jack Kennedy.

LBJ lied us into a war shortly thereafter.

People built bomb shelters and taught their kids to duck and cover.

I won't argue that today is, across the board, better than yester year nor will I accept the converse.

 

[Tonio]

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.

Thanks for the refresher on Henry VIII. I was also referring to the 1600s, when England went through a series of religious civil wars as different religious factions tried to control the government.

 

[Tonio]

I won't argue that today is, across the board, better than yester year nor will I accept the converse.

I won't, either, because I think it's pointless. My theory is that it's part of human nature to romanticize the eras in which we grew up, because as adults we know more about the bad and sad events in the world. The Judds have a song called "Grandpa" that peddles the notion that everything was better in the "good old days."

The '50s have been VERY romanticized because of the size and influence of the baby-boomer generation. Plus, the TV shows that have endured from that era, like "Ozzie and Harriett" and "Leave It to Beaver," present an idealized view of life created by scriptwriters, not historians. Ever see the movie "Pleasantville"? I thought it was an interesting rebuttal of the idea that life in the '50s was oh-so-peechy-keen. Can you imagine 20 years from now, young people watching "Friends" thinking that it accurately captured the '90s? Sure, it's easy to think, "Who could be so stupid to watch a TV comedy as a time capsule?" But TV has a very powerful influence on our cultural memory, whether we like it or not.

Plus, there's an urban myth among many religious fundamentalists that everything went to hell in America after teacher-led prayer was banned. I think that's an understandable but misguided attempt to find an easy, palatable explanation. It's sort of the same impulse that leads some people to come up with conspiracy theories.

 

[Larry Gude]

Yeah but...

The '50s have been VERY romanticized because

...I take Bruz at his word. He was there, not wathcing TV.

 

[Bruzilla]

Larry, you're absolutely right in every thing you listed about being bad with past societies, but most of what you mentioned was criminal activity, not societal behavior. Every generation has its thugs, thieves, perverts, cretins, morons, bullies, criminals, low lifes, etc., the real question is how did society in general act?

I don't know when you attended high school, but I would challenge you to spend a day at Chopticon, or worse, Great Mills, and compare the conduct of the teachers and the students to when you went to school. I guarantee you'll see huge differences, and I will also guarantee you that it's a bigger delta than the differences between when you started school and when you graduated. When I went to school, teachers had to wear shirt and tie for men, and dresses for women, and they carried an air of authority. Now it's jeans and casual wear for most of them, and they wonder why the kids don't respect them.

The other day I was driving in the car with my 19-year old daughter, and she was laughing at my singing along to some song on the Best of the 70s and 80s station down here, and I told her that I felt sorry for her because she's not even going to be able to listen to the music of her generation when she has her kids in the car, yet alone sing along with guys like Eminem and his ilk. At least I hope she won't be able to, but then again in a dozen more years who knows how much further society will have slipped.

My dad asked me when I was about ten years old that if I ever found definative evidence that Christ never existed, would I give it to the press or would I destroy it. I thought about it as a devout non-believing agnostic, and said I would destroy it. While I don't believe in a God, or Jesus, or heaven, I do look at the laws of most religions being written by men who wanted the people to behave in a way that would benefit society. I think our way-way-way back forefathers, those who first set up churches, knew something that I think we have forgotten; that no earthly power of man, no matter how powerful or expansive, can control a populace. You just can't be everywhere at once. But creating a set of laws based on an unseen power that is always watching you, that's a different story.

Thanks in large part to the ACLU, we've gone from having people thinking about something being wrong and they shouldn't do it, to thinking it there's no cop around, no problem... just do it because as long as you don't get caught there's no ramifications. Yes, in the Good 'Ole Days there people who thought the same way, but they were the very small minority. Now they are the majority.

 

[somdcrab]

Excellent post Larry.

 

[Larry Gude]

You got me there...

the real question is how did society in general act?

We are DEFINATELY much more coarse now.