While I don't approve of the ACLUs war against public expressions of faith, I suggest the ACLU is also egged on by the religious right's constant push to inject their religious values IN TO public life.


I have to beg to differ with you here.  The ACLU has not opposed the public expression of faith BY PRIVATE GROUPS, which is why every church in my town fills the air with religious songs around Xmas time and every Sunday.  It opposes the state, and its representatives and/or facilities taking part in public displays of faith.  These are 2 different things, as I'm sure you will recognize.

I have to beg to differ with you here.  The ACLU has not opposed the public expression of faith BY PRIVATE GROUPS, which is why every church in my town fills the air with religious songs around Xmas time and every Sunday.  It opposes the state, and its representatives and/or facilities taking part in public displays of faith.  These are 2 different things, as I'm sure you will recognize.

So their beef with the Boy Scouts is they require an affirmation of faith while using public facilities?

So their beef with the Boy Scouts is they require an affirmation of faith while using public facilities?


While I don't like some of the Boy Scouts' policies, on this one I have to agree with you.  Let me gently suggest, though, that like the rest of us, the ACLU is made up of fallible humans.  Their goal, even if they go overboard now and then, is one I think we should all support.  That the Bill of Rights, fragile as it is, is all that seperates us from Fascism.  One of my favorite studies of the coming of the Civil War, Avery Craven's "The 1840...." in The Journal of Southern History, 1946 I think - an old piece to be sure - ends with something like this (paraphrase): The Conservative urge to hold fast to the established order might be as fatal as the fanatic's urge to constant change.  Those who would protect democracy must always recall that next to the Constitution lies that other "troublesome document" (his words) the Declaration of Independance, with its promise of greater freedom and equaliry.  Those who do not give it heed may learn to their sorrow that the "great document was written to justify revolt."

I would suggest that the ACLU and other "liberal" groups (quotes because the ACLU advocated for extreme right wing groups to have the right to demonstrate) are interested in saving not democracy, but capitalism from itself.

I would suggest that the ACLU and other "liberal" groups (quotes because the ACLU advocated for extreme right wing groups to have the right to demonstrate) are interested in saving not democracy, but capitalism from itself.

I add the Republican elites with whom the Christian Right allies itself sing the praises of "capitalism," but the they themselves avoid "competition" and "risk."  Those aspects of "capitalism" are for the little guy.  From the Rockefellers to the Bushes, the barons of Capital prefer a rigged deck !

The inclusion of Fundamentalist righteousness in the arsenal of the rich is a great stealth weapon.    They use it to pontificate and to scold, to convince the "lower classes"  their status is due to their sloth and sin.  The evangelical influence on economic thinking says Donald Trump got rich through hard work, and George W. Bush is a man of God.  I don't say "religion is the opiate of the masses," but its abuse by the ruling class encourages unwarranted docility among the ruled.

If the ACLU can prevent theocratic creep, they may help wrest capitalism from the few that hold capital hostage.

Funny that L.A. means city of the angels.  Isn't that religion in itself?  ACLU is a fascist group, I believe, they attack towns, not states or federal level laws, use their massive funds and threaten law suits they know a city cannot afford so that their opinions will win out.

Funny that L.A. means city of the angels.  Isn't that religion in itself?  ACLU is a fascist group, I believe, they attack towns, not states or federal level laws, use their massive funds and threaten law suits they know a city cannot afford so that their opinions will win out.

Nnnnooo, the ACLU is not "fascist."  Fascism is all about the marriage of private corporate power to a military police state.  That's Bush Administration territory.
IMHO, the ACLU is intolerant to some degree, but "fascist' is a misnomer.  The did want to La Cruces, NM, to change its name.  They're barking up the wrong tree, or cross, as it may be.

I think the ACLU is a broken organization, and needs to think what is really important.  After all, I do not call them the "Amoral Criminal Liberty Union" for nothing.

I agree that the ACLU started with great ideas.  But as it became more and more liberal, they have become almost psychotic in what they feel is a "Civil Liberty".  To them, a school Bible Club is objectionable, while a meeting of NAMBLA in a public library is acceptable.

(for those that do not know, NAMBLA is "North American Man-Boy Love Association", a gay pedophile group)

Just recently, they were successful in forcing Redlands (a city just outside of LA) in removing a cross from their offical seal.  The cross on both there and the LA County seal are both rather small, barely visible.  The LA cross is very small, appearing as one of 7 images in the seal.  It is above the image of the Hollywood Bowl, and symbolizes both the Mission Heritage, and the famous Easter Services in the Hollywood Bowl, a bridge between the Mission and the Entertainment phases of the city.

For those that want to see the seal, here is an image:
http://eec.co.la.ca.us/NewCntySeal.gif

I just wish they would realize that atheism is a religion, and by trying to force me and my culture to be athiestic, they are forcing their religion down my throat, which is unconstitutional as well.

If it was a new seal, that is one thing.  But leave pre-established symbols and monuments alone.

But as it became more and more liberal

I heard an American on the radio this morning talking about how the right wing has affected broadcasting... this is in a way exactly what he's saying: your use of the word "liberal" is completely the wrong way round.  The ACLU has (from what I can make out from this thread) become anything but "liberal".. but especially amongst the right wing, the word "liberal" is almost an expletive, implying a diametric opposite of what the word actually means.

I am a long-term Liberal (both with a small and a capital 'L'), and it pains me that this long-standing libertarian tradition is being abused by people who don't seem to understand that their vocabulary is fundamentally flawed.

I heard an American on the radio this morning talking about how the right wing has affected broadcasting... this is in a way exactly what he's saying: your use of the word "liberal" is completely the wrong way round.  The ACLU has (from what I can make out from this thread) become anything but "liberal".. but especially amongst the right wing, the word "liberal" is almost an expletive, implying a diametric opposite of what the word actually means.

I am a long-term Liberal (both with a small and a capital 'L'), and it pains me that this long-standing libertarian tradition is being abused by people who don't seem to understand that their vocabulary is fundamentally flawed.


Actually, it is not you that has changed, but the current definition of "Liberal".  If you look pre-1968, the Liberal viewpoint and Democratic party were very different.  The social changes were much more obvious in that group and party then on the Conservative side.

Social agendas became much more important then almost anything else, and almost every fringe group fought to make themselves "mainstream" by attaching itself to the party.

In addition, the "left" side has resorted much more to name calling.  I am a kind generous man.  I believe that everybody is equal, and we can all work to be better.  But because I may oppose something (Affirmitive Action, Gay Rights, Abortion, Clean Air laws, more welfare, etc), many point to me and call me a raceist, a homophobe, or some other such word.  (I am not saying which of those points I believe in or not, it is the point that if I oppose any of them I am evil that bothers me)

I do not do the opposite.  I do not call somebody with socialist ideas a Communist, but a lot of "Enlightened People" have no problem calling me a Fascist because I have some conservative notions.

I think that if you look back 30+ years ago, most "Liberals" would actually be considered "Moderate Conservatives" in the current age.  It is not the people that has changed however, but the words being used to describe them.

FDR often lead the nation in prayer on radio.  Could you imagine John Kerry doing that?  FDR encouraged everybody to try and work through the Depression, and to Truman "The Buck Stops Here".  Sadly, the "Liberal Party" has become the "We will take care of you" and the "pass the buck" party.

I wish that was not so.  I believe that that hurts the true liberals who are NOT radicals.  But as long as that group pulls the party, that is the direction they will go. 

I heard an American on the radio this morning talking about how the right wing has affected broadcasting... this is in a way exactly what he's saying: your use of the word "liberal" is completely the wrong way round.  The ACLU has (from what I can make out from this thread) become anything but "liberal".. but especially amongst the right wing, the word "liberal" is almost an expletive, implying a diametric opposite of what the word actually means.

I am a long-term Liberal (both with a small and a capital 'L'), and it pains me that this long-standing libertarian tradition is being abused by people who don't seem to understand that their vocabulary is fundamentally flawed.

I believe the ACLU has become illiberal in its campaign against Christian symbols. 

Remember, the Stalinists-type of politics pushed by campus radicals is anything but "liberal."  I'm talking about PC ("Politically Correct" was a term originally used by Stalin), racial identity politics, militant feminism, and the radical gay agenda.  These movements seek to force their agenda on others via authoritarian methods.  They want "free speech" for them and "prior restraint" for their opponents.  Liberals made a big mistake letting themselves get affiliated with all these Stalinists!

A.C.L.U. = Anti Christian!  This country was founded on Christian values and I'm sick of the A.C.L.U. and all the Christian Bashers. I'm sick of the people that come over here and refuse to abide by our rules. If you are a different religion I don't care, but don't come here and try to change our ways. A good start for turning this country around to the way it was is to get rid of the A.C.L.U. We all know they have an agenda. It's to rid this once great country of Christianity. They don't even want kids pledging allegance to the flag. Diversity is killing this country and so is the A.C.L.U. 

Actually, it is not you that has changed, but the current definition of "Liberal".  If you look pre-1968, the Liberal viewpoint and Democratic party were very different.  The social changes were much more obvious in that group and party then on the Conservative side.
Let us not confuse "liberal" and "libertarian."  The Libertarian ideal of limited government and individual freedom is noble.  The problem the American Libertarians have is their failure to acknowledge the tyranny of private corporate power.  Libertarianism has been hijacked by the selfish interests of the millionaire class that hates social programs, and believes it's their God-given right not to pay taxes.  "Liberal" to me means "reasonable and progressive."  The angry campus Left and the paranoid and niggardly Right are neither.

Social agendas became much more important then almost anything else, and almost every fringe group fought to make themselves "mainstream" by attaching itself to the party.
The exigencies of the Civil Rights Movement made it impossible to enforce the Civil Rights legislation AND maintain a small and inactive federal government.  I don't think it's the fault of the Left that the federal government became meddling on social issues.  It is fault of the reactionary states, more precisely the reactionary people controlling these states, who would fight to the death to maintain Jim Crow laws.  Bluntly, if the white male power structure was willing to give so-called minorities and women a fair shake, the feds would not need to interfere.  Talk of "states rights," and Constitutional "strict constructionalism" are merely a euphemisms for "white power."  Sorry.  That's what it all boils down to.

In addition, the "left" side has resorted much more to name calling.  I am a kind generous man.  I believe that everybody is equal, and we can all work to be better.  But because I may oppose something (Affirmitive Action, Gay Rights, Abortion, Clean Air laws, more welfare, etc), many point to me and call me a raceist, a homophobe, or some other such word.  (I am not saying which of those points I believe in or not, it is the point that if I oppose any of them I am evil that bothers me)
Please, sir, do not attribute "name calling" only to the Left.  Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Anne Coulter, Laura Ingraham and all that lot made their careers on the "name calling" of liberals and Democrats.  This name-calling phenomenon goes all the way back to William Safire's Agnew speeches ("nattering nabobs of negativism," "effete corps of elite snobs," etc.), and goes further back than that!

I do not do the opposite.  I do not call somebody with socialist ideas a Communist, but a lot of "Enlightened People" have no problem calling me a Fascist because I have some conservative notions.
I'm glad you don't.  Many pundits for the Right do.  Jay Severin, a so-called "Libertarian" radio host in my area calls everybody who is not a conservative a communist.  He says, literally, "If you're not a Conservative, you're a Communist."  I agree the term "fascist" is over-used.  However, I have no problem using it to describe people who support the marriage of Big Business with Big Government, or, Big Business with Small Government, as the Libertarians unwittingly advocate.  Mussolini said "Corporatism" was a better word for Fascism.

I think that if you look back 30+ years ago, most "Liberals" would actually be considered "Moderate Conservatives" in the current age.  It is not the people that has changed however, but the words being used to describe them.
Compared to today's Conservatives, Nixon was a liberal.  It is conservatives who have pushed conservatism so far to the right that many who considered themselves "conservatives" or "Republicans" have backed off.  Kevin Phillips, a hard right strategist in the Nixon Administration, declared himself Independent, and is horrified by the Bush family.  David Brock cut his teeth writing for the National Review but now thinks better of it, penning books against this deceptive far-right operating under the guise of "conservatism."  Today, the Republican Party is not the Republican Party of Eisenhower, Nixon, and Ford, but that of Barry Goldwater, George Wallace, and Ronald Reagan.

FDR often lead the nation in prayer on radio.  Could you imagine John Kerry doing that?  FDR encouraged everybody to try and work through the Depression, and to Truman "The Buck Stops Here".  Sadly, the "Liberal Party" has become the "We will take care of you" and the "pass the buck" party.
FDR pushed through the Social Security legislation without a single Republican vote.  He got us involved in WWII against Conservative wishes.  Today's Republican Party is the party of Big Business and you can go to h*ll, whereas the Dems are the party of Big Business and we might throw you a crumb.

I wish that was not so.  I believe that that hurts the true liberals who are NOT radicals.  But as long as that group pulls the party, that is the direction they will go. 

I beg to differ again.  The current Conservative movement calls anybody to the left of Joe Lieberman a "radical."  The call Kerry "far left" and "radical."
;D :o
I'm not saying you subscribe to everything they say, but that's the line they're pushing.  Look, when Bill O'Reilly calls Michael Kinsley a "left-wing bomb thrower," and no one calls him on it, we're in a lot of trouble!

A.C.L.U. = Anti Christian!  This country was founded on Christian values and I'm sick of the A.C.L.U. and all the Christian Bashers. I'm sick of the people that come over here and refuse to abide by our rules. If you are a different religion I don't care, but don't come here and try to change our ways. A good start for turning this country around to the way it was is to get rid of the A.C.L.U. We all know they have an agenda. It's to rid this once great country of Christianity. They don't even want kids pledging allegance to the flag. Diversity is killing this country and so is the A.C.L.U. 


This is an extreme version of a lot that was posted above it, which is why I quoted it.

Although I am a "Card Carrying" member of the ACLU, I agree that they sometimes go off the deep end, but I can't help recalling something that Barry Goldwater said when running for pres (I was to young to vote but wore his button, believe it or not).  It was something like "Extremism in the defense of freedom is no vice, moderation in the defense of liberty is no virtue", so I forgive the ACLU its occasional zealotry. 

IMO, the big problem is seperating the public and private spheres.  Laws and government policies are in the PUBLIC sphere, personal preferences and prejudices are in the private.  I'm really turned off short fat woman, for example, although several of my colleagues, who I like very much, could be so described.  I can't understand why they let themselves get that way (fat), and could never find them desireable (well, maybe never is too strong a word) but that is a personal preference or, if you prefer, a prejudice.  Clearly, I would not, nor I guess would any of you, advocate any kind of discrimination against them.  In fact, I voted to hire them because they were the best candidates for the job regardless of their physical attributes.

When we look around at laws and public policy objectively there are many preferences, perks and advantages given to those who are "normal" but denied to those the main stream defines as different.  Most notorious are, of course, the old Jim Crow laws that supported racial discrimination.  The ACLU has, as its objective, defending the Bill of Rights for ALL of us.  Some times, in doing so, it offends the preferences or prejudices of one group or another, and maybe mine.  When that happens I stop and think - what is the basis of my prejudice?  Is it legit?  Does empowering the affected group somehow disempower me?

Here's an example.  Some years ago Vt. went through a tortuous debate over "Civil Unions" like Mass is now going through over Gay Marriage.  At the time, opponents argued that such a law would lead to the downfall of marriage as we know it.  As you all know, it passed.  Meanwhile, lots of heterosexuals got married (Cat and I included), the divorce rate did not go up, but a bunch of committed people were included under the umbrella of rights and privileges of those whose unions have been recongized by the state.  One of the most common accusations against gays is that they are overly promiscuous.  I can't prove this, but I bet that when they have an opportunity to get state sanction for their relationships, promiscuity, if it is fact a problem, declines.  Some gained, but NO ONE lost, and public policy just might have led to a decline of sexually transmitted diseases.  Expanding the tent of liberties, rights, and thier accompanying responsibilities, and searching for ways to address past denials of those rights, can only profit us all.

Now to the "anti-Christian" issue.  Clearly, the Judeo-Christian philosophy has an important place in our history as part of the western world.  Some of that history is rather negative - do the Spanish Inquisition ring a bell?  If you take a close look at the "culture war" that is raging around so many issues - affirmative action, gay rights, abortion to name just 3, they all mostly come down to fundamentalist "Christians" trying to impose thier morality on the entire nation.  As far as I'm concerned, the ACLU is right to oppose that agenda.