What’s the deal? I guess they’re trying to argue about the private public land thing and what not with right of ways. But still…. It seems a bit over kill.
What I expect happened was that they made a mistake, then refused to back down because they're ninnies like that.
Posts: 170 | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:when contacted and informed that the memorial was to be built on private land with private funds, their response was that since local elected leaders were involved, it gave the appearance of the state sanctioning a particular religion.
posted
If it's private lands and private funds, I don't care who's involved, the ACLU needs to butt out. They should have no say in how private organizations or people spend their own money on privately owned land.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Belle: If it's private lands and private funds, I don't care who's involved, the ACLU needs to butt out. They should have no say in how private organizations or people spend their own money on privately owned land.
I typically side with the ACLU, but agree wholeheartedly with your response, Belle.
Posts: 246 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm very civil libertarian and I loves me some ACLU most of the time, but I'm totally against them on this one. Private land, private funds, butt out -- I'm in agreement with what's been said.
I looked for the story on google news, but it hasn't traveled into reliable media yet.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I'm very civil libertarian and I loves me some ACLU most of the time, but I'm totally against them on this one. Private land, private funds, butt out -- I'm in agreement with what's been said.
I looked for the story on google news, but it hasn't traveled into reliable media yet.
Thats because your so called reliable media are loath to report anything that makes the liberal left look bad! /sarcasm off
I have been known to agree with the ACLU on occasion, this is not one of those times. I think I agree with the assesment that the ACLU misunderstood the situation, and in order to save face refused to back down.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I learned in US history that the ACLU was formed to protect civil rights. The way I read it, they've done a lot of good work. But for the past half-year or so, the only news I've heard about them has been negative. First backing up a school that cut off a graduation student's mic because she mentioned her faith (Christianity) in her speech, and now this. I'm losing respect for this organization, fast. Does anyone else think they're jumping the gun too much, maybe teetering on the edge of extremism?
Posts: 2 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
"ACLU Wants Parish to Nix Katrina Memorial Cross Plan...What’s the deal?
Protecting the right of all citizens to travel freely. I mean how would you like to be a vampire making your nightly rounds and have your path blocked by a repelling object.
"Thoughts?"
No, gave 'em up for the summer. Thanks for asking anyway.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: First backing up a school that cut off a graduation student's mic because she mentioned her faith (Christianity) in her speech, and now this
We had quite a long thread on that graduation speech, including a link to the text of the actual speech. She went way beyond "mentioning" her faith. The edited version that the school administrators would have allowed still included several mentions of her faith and what it meant to her.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Christians are constitutionally protected too.. just like the KKK (cuz the ACLU defends them, and attacks christians?) and they're not nearly as bad.
Maybe the ACLU doesn't mind christians... so long as they don't flaunt it.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
David, check the student speech thing out a little more throughly. The ACLU was dead on in that one, as was the school.
She didn't just mention it.
There is a huge difference between mentioning how much your faith means to you and preaching to people who don't want to listen to it. The first is fine, the other is ignorant and possibly illegal. Even if it wasn't illegal it was against the allowed standards for all students.
Particularly since the girl was warned far in advance and chose to disregard their rules.
There was a whole thread about it here at Hatrack.
quote:First backing up a school that cut off a graduation student's mic because she mentioned her faith (Christianity) in her speech
That's a pretty inaccurate summation of what occured. Here's the thread we had about this. A few salient points 1) the explicit reason the student was cut off was not because she mentioned her faith, but because she deviated from the speech she had agreed to limit herself to, 2) the speech that was approved contained several mentions of Jesus and her faith, and 3) the speech she originally submitted pretty clearly crossed the line into prostylitizing. This was not so much a case of the ACLU going over the edge as it was your news source either doing a poor job of finding out the facts and/or deliberately deceiving you.
This case sounds to me like they thought they had a legitimate complaint and then when they found out that they didn't, the people in charge were too proud to say "Oops."
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Thats because your so called reliable media are loath to report anything that makes the liberal left look bad! /sarcasm off
I have been known to agree with the ACLU on occasion, this is not one of those times. I think I agree with the assesment that the ACLU misunderstood the situation, and in order to save face refused to back down.
This may be (and probably is) the case, but I can't be sure, yet. I'm just playing it safe. I'm looking at the sources of the story in newsmedia, and here's the sources that broke with the story:
Christian Broadcasting Network, VA Beliefnet.com, NY Stop the ACLU, PA GOPUSA, TX
Hmm. Um, .. I'm supposing that it might be prudent to let this story age a bit before I'm sure I've got the ACLU's position and intent straight.
But if it's as initially presented, then Boo On You, ACLU.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Shig's right; the opposite makes for really crappy copy: "And in our breaking story, the ACLU defends someone who's obviously in the right."
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Last year, I had two professors at law school who had worked for the ACLU. One, Burt Neuborne, was the ACLU's former National Legal Director (you may know him as the guy who defended Larry Flynt.) He was also the best of my professors, has a brilliant legal mind, and was hard for even a right-winger like me to disagree with.
The other was my Lawyering professor, a pompous ass who had worked the last 5-10 years at the Hawaii ACLU. The guy was obsessed with the figments of leftist imagination and at one point insinuated that I was sexist in a meeting of 4 students.
I guess the point is...the ACLU is a pretty varied organization. One state's director may be a jerk, while the national office can be perfectly reasonable. The big thing to watch for here is whether the national ACLU says anything.
Posts: 170 | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
