The ACLU

[T-bone]

I think you all know the rules style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif

[Kommandant Felix]

What is the ACLU?

[Sargoth]

Yes, they have an agenda. And that agenda is making sure that the rights guaranteed (and government limitations imposed) by the Constitution and reinforced by Judicial Precedant are enforced and respected. The right will complain of their strict interpretation of the seperation of Church and State, but what they need to remember, is that the ACLU also *defends* the rights of *individuals* to practice their religion.

No, I don't agree with every cause they champion. But all in all, they are a necessary voice in getting the courts to ensure that legislation does, in fact, meet Constitutional muster.

[T-bone]

Which ones don't you agree with.

[The Bandit]

I'm not a fan of their stance on the 2nd Amendment, personally.

[Sargoth]

I don't agree with all of the abortion causes they support. While I do believe that abortion should be legal, I don't think it should be an absolute-on-demand-nonregulated right.

I also have problems with some of their stances on illegal immigration, as well as affirmative action.

[Sargoth]

Originally posted by 2 Butterflies Quarrleing@Dec 2 2005, 03:13 PM
I'm not a fan of their stance on the 2nd Amendment, personally.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>


I've always understood their stance to be "we don't need to defend it because there's another, better funded lobby to take care of that". style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif

[Javen]

Originally posted by Sargoth@Dec 2 2005, 05:05 PM
The right will complain of their strict interpretation of the seperation of Church and State, but what they need to remember, is that the ACLU also *defends* the rights of *individuals* to practice their religion.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>

Show me this since I am*supposed* of the right. Show where they are more defending than against the Christian religion. I want proof since Christianity to them is like a witch hunt.

[The Bandit]

Javen,

http://www.aclu.org/religion/tencomm/16254res20050302.html is a nice listing of ACLU cases that aren't going to make the nightly Fox News report.

This supposed "Christianity witchhunt" stems from a lot of slanted reporting in the media and (IMO) a large lack of understanding of public action vs. private action by those running our schools now -- they are implementing policies to try to avoid lawsuits without having any idea of what they are doing, often actually trampling on rights that ACLU lawyers have defended in the past.

-- 2bq

[Javen]

Wow...a few scattered here and there from 2002 through 2005. The ACLU has been around since 1917. It doesn't convince me, since I have seen more against than for.

[mirax terrik horn]

KF the American Civil Liberties Union is an organization that you can supposed to be able to go to with your problems concerning your rights being abused. I personally don't like their views about religion and prayer in school. And also their views concerning the separation of church and state. I actually wrote a research paper on prayer in school. Their website proved a good source of material to never use.

[RogueProductions]

My problem with the ACLU is that they seem to take an avid interest in trumpeting their anti-religious cases. Case in point, the fact that they are trying to force the city of Los Cruces (sp?) to change its name because it means "the crosses". Did they even ask the citizens of that city what they wanted???

[The Bandit]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Case in point, the fact that they are trying to force the city of Los Cruces (sp?) to change its name because it means "the crosses". Did they even ask the citizens of that city what they wanted???[/b][/quote]

A quick google on "Las Cruces" ACLU shows an Associated Press article that states the lawsuit was brought by two citizens of Las Cruces. As far as I can tel, the ACLU is not involved at all in that case.

Link here -- http://www.freenewmexican.com/news/32902.html -- only mention of the ACLU on the page are made by users commenting on the story.

-- 2bq

[Gavin]

Leftists with agendas. If they concentrated more on the rights of AMERICAN citizens, and not ones here illegally than maybe more people would support them. These immigrants rape, murder, steal, and smuggle drugs all along the border, and these ACLU types put water stations out in the desert for them. They follow around the border patrol to make sure their "rights" aren't violated. How can they have rights when they aren't citizens? I also do not agree with their stance on abortion.

[Tresk Im'nel]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>These immigrants rape, murder, steal, and smuggle drugs all along the border,[/b][/quote]

Some no doubt do, but presumably not all. I think it's best not to over-generalise...

EDIT: (I don't mean to suggest that you meant to say they all do, but it could be taken that way from that wording. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif)

[Gavin]

Yes, I am a little biased so I apologize. I live very close to the border and around here it does happen alot. Maybe not so in other areas. Anyway back on topic...My main problem with the ACLU and leftists stance on this is that they support them yet they are breaking the law and they are not citizens.

[Tresk Im'nel]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Yes, I am a little biased so I apologize. I live very close to the border and around here it does happen alot. Maybe not so in other areas.[/b][/quote]

Not to worry, I understand there definitely are such issues. Just wanted to point out it's not always the case, apology accepted. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif

[Sargoth]

Originally posted by Gavin@Dec 2 2005, 10:33 PM
Yes, I am a little biased so I apologize. I live very close to the border and around here it does happen alot. Maybe not so in other areas. Anyway back on topic...My main problem with the ACLU and leftists stance on this is that they support them yet they are breaking the law and they are not citizens.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>



Fair enough. What about the hundreds of cases they bring before the court each year to ensure free speech? Free press? Free excercise of Religion? Due process for the accused? Prevent police abuse of power?

[T-bone]

Because someone does a bunch of good stuff, does that mean the questionable stuff should be ignored?

just thinking out loud.

[Master Cephus]

You know, (and I have a feeling I might get into dangerous territory here) that maybe at some point, the ACLU didn't have an agenda, and that they did a lot of great things. Not that they don't do great things now, but they are mired in contraversy and I bet some of their leadership led them to this.

I bet it's the same way with PETA. I bet they started out with a great idea, let's help the animals have a voice and stop people hurting animals. Then the wrong type of leadership gets in, and then you have what you have today.

I guess their comes a point in time when your organization has peeked, and you have to be careful about which direction it goes in. Once it becomes so bloated, it generally starts to sink.

[Sargoth]

Originally posted by T'bone@Dec 3 2005, 08:25 AM
Because someone does a bunch of good stuff, does that mean the questionable stuff should be ignored?
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>


Of course not. But otoh, does that mean that they should labeled "lefties w/ agendas" just because of the questionable stuff?


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>You know, (and I have a feeling I might get into dangerous territory here) that maybe at some point, the ACLU didn't have an agenda, and that they did a lot of great things. Not that they don't do great things now, but they are mired in contraversy and I bet some of their leadership led them to this.
[/b][/quote]

This is a possibility. And as I implied, I do think that sometimes they should be a little more discriminating in the cases they choose to back.

However, part of the burden of living in a free society (especially in one with an amazing Constitution, such as ours), is that those guarantees apply to *everyone*, especially those groups that you don't particularly like, or who are on the fringes of the social norms.

For example, we all enjoy the Freedom of Speech. You may use this to publically voice your criticism of the Government. But you must remember, that same freedom applies to the Neo-nazi group who wants to hold a peaceful rally in your town. Or, let's say you were falsely accused of a crime (which *does* happen - quite often). Our constitution guarantees you specific due process and a presumption of innocence. But those same guarantees must also be applied equally to the suspected child molester down the street - or more apropos: to the Arab-American suspected of being part of a "terrorist plot".

I do think that, for the most part, the ACLU serves as a good advocate and watchdog for our constitution. But as part of that role, they *have* to take on unpopular causes.

[T-bone]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Of course not. But otoh, does that mean that they should labeled "lefties w/ agendas" just because of the questionable stuff?[/b][/quote]

I'm not labeling - I raised a question.

However, if the shoe fits... and there is questionable stuff, who's to say?

[mirax terrik horn]

I think that what T said is very true if the shoe fits and it does when you talk about the ACLU that is exactly what they are. I mean look at some of the righties with agendas, they have a completely different look at the constitution and what our rights as american's are. And if you say that the ACLU are un-biased and that they take on all cases, what about the cases they have taken that talk about religious groups or "peaceful" protests about abortion. They are so ready to say that the mother has a "choice" but when someone decides to protest that they get all offensive and say that that is wrong. IMO the ACLU is a very left wing and biased group. They pick and choose what they want to defend, and throw everything else to the lions.

[Sargoth]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>They are so ready to say that the mother has a "choice" but when someone decides to protest that they get all offensive and say that that is wrong.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>
[/b][/quote]

Show me just one instance where they said that protesting against Abortion is wrong...

(you can't... it never happened)

They've taken the stand that legislating against abortion is wrong. But they would defend your right to protest it.

Peaceful assembly and the right to protest is at the cornerstone of the rights that the ACLU defends. If you were an abortion protester, and you felt your rights were violated, they very well might take up your case.

If you're going to make an argument, please check your facts first, before you start misrepresenting an organization and blame them for something that they didn't do.

[Javen]

Sargoth since you are the defender of the Anti Christ Loser Unit;explain why they defend NAMBLA(North American Man/Boy Love Association) for those who don't know. But religion is bad to them. They claim that they defend them because of free speech, yet banned prayer at a football game which is also free speech. So without using the so-called Speration of Myth Church and State. Defend this.

Here is how I see see the ACLU. To them good is evil and evil is good.

[The Bandit]

Javen,

First off, if you're going to ask for a debate here, it's generally a good idea to provide some sort of semblance of an argument and some facts on the issue that you're bringing up.

I did a little research on the NAMBLA case you mentioned. An article detaling it here: http://www.operationlookout.org/lookoutmag...fend_nambla.htm (http://www.operationlookout.org/lookoutmag/aclu_to_defend_nambla.htm)

So the question here is, why did they come to the defense of a such a universally despised group as NAMBLA?

My answer: to protect others.

The first thing you have to understand is the role that precedents play in our legal system. If a court decision is rather unique for its time, and similar cases come up in the future, judges will look to those decisions to base theirs on. Since this was a case of the right of free speech on a WWW site -- and the issue took place in 1997 when the web was in in its relative infancy -- if a similar case came up in the future and the precedent had been set without any sort of defense the same logic could be applied to that.

It goes back to the famous quote by Voltaire -- "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it." The materials on the NAMBLA web site, while disgusting, did not encourage the murder that took place as the parents of the slain child contended.

Imagine living in a world where someone can read what you wrote on a web site and later claimed it was an influence in a horrible crime they committed -- and then you can be legally liable (in this case it was a civil suit, so financially liable) because of a precedent set in this case. You start heading towards an Orwellian situation where thoughtcrime -- that is, thought and speech that go against the state -- is an illegal act.

Also, it should be clearly noted that the ACLU played no part in the defense of the actual killers of the child -- who were jailed by a criminal court and also found liable for the child's death by a civil court (to the tune of $328 million according to the AP article).

As far as the other cases you brought up, they are much too general for me to narrow down with a google search -- it would help any discussion if you could provide some details and facts of the case rather than throwing around claims that "they banned" (when, in reality, only a court has the ability to make such a decision in the case of it being a publicly run event, or the owner of the field if it is a private one). I'd also love to hear your logic behind the "myth" of seperation of church and state as it is one of the tenents around which our government is structured.

Anyway, that's my $0.02 on the issue.

-- 2bq

[Justin]

Wow, I thought NAMBLA was a joke on South Park.

[Javen]

Originally posted by 2 Butterflies Quarrleing@Dec 4 2005, 01:31 AM
I'd also love to hear your logic behind the "myth" of seperation of church and state as it is one of the tenents around which our government is structured.
-- 2bq
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>

It was never structured around government. The founding fathers saw God's laws higher than man's and if anything was structured it was that one very thing. God's laws and Biblical priciples. It was never saying everyone has to be christian just a law of the way they saw in the Bible. You could never show anything different than a Thomas Jefferson letter with the words of Seperation Of Church and State. Everyone against what they intended in the first palce until the last even twenty years has been rewritten right out of history. Until now even some of the Christians are zombified into believe this actually existed when it is the exact opposite.

And to say Biblical principles should not be allowed in government and school is to either be ignorant of the historic intent of the founding fathers or blatantly bigoted against Christianity.

[Anguirus111]

Yeah but you have to realize that America is a lot more diverse than it was back in the late 1700s. Sometimes things have to change as some of the stuff written back then doesn't have much practical applications in today's world.

One of the strengths(and some would argue a weakness) of the American Constitution(I have no idea right now what document the seperation clause was written into sadly) is that it can be changed to adapt more to the lives of the people.

So did the founding fathers want a Christian Form of government? It's certainly a possibility.

Should the US adhere to that principle as a core unshaken belief in today's world? In my opinion, no not neccessarily. The US wants to be fair to all of its citizens and I see seperation of church and state as a way to ensure that.

But it's a free country so you can believe what you will.

[The Bandit]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>It was never structured around government. The founding fathers saw God's laws higher than man's and if anything was structured it was that one very thing. God's laws and Biblical priciples. It was never saying everyone has to be christian just a law of the way they saw in the Bible. You could never show anything different than a Thomas Jefferson letter with the words of Seperation Of Church and State. Everyone against what they intended in the first palce until the last even twenty years has been rewritten right out of history. Until now even some of the Christians are zombified into believe this actually existed when it is the exact opposite.

And to say Biblical principles should not be allowed in government and school is to either be ignorant of the historic intent of the founding fathers or blatantly bigoted against Christianity. [/b][/quote]

I will agree with you that many -- although not all (see http://earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html) (http://earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html) -- of the founding fathers were devout Christians. I would also remind you that many of them had very close knowledge of Oliver Cromwell's puritan-run government in England and saw what that could do to a country.

The thing about a state religion is that it leads to the exclusion of all other beliefs. The founding fathers realized that the United States even as a young nation was a diverse one -- you had many different sects settling into different areas, each with their own practices and beliefs. How do you protect each of these groups from the persecution they fled in the first place? The only option was to clearly state that Government had no place in religion and vice versa.

As far as Biblical principles in school -- I'm cool with thou shalt not kill or steal -- it's the whole don't have any other Gods before me thing that doesn't fit in with our system of government.

-- 2bq

[Javen]

I'm not saying every founding father was a christian. Nor that the Nation have one religion, only to keep the principles that was intended in the first place. Those principles have been taken away by the likes of the ACLU and now a school has become more like a jungle. There isn't a thing wrong with having prayer in school by achristian.

Supposedly a Muslim has to pray 5 times a day. You are going to tell me they don't ever pray in school?

On a another note I might just test the ACLU on something that has happened to me at work. We have 5 Muslims at work. I am friendly with all them and talk with them daily, but here where the problem lies. I have worked there 6 years and I work 12 hour shifts unable to go to Church like normal.

But they allow the Muslims to miss hours a days to go to a Mosque, but told me when I asked about going to Church that that is just the way it is and I can't miss to go to church.

Is this right? Not for me it isn't. So I will test the ACLU on this and find out what they have to say about it. Since they defend less christians than anyone else, I'm sure I'll get ignored.

[Master Cephus]

It's hard to tell about the subject of religion in government.

I understand that there are non-Christian in the debate. We have to be aware of thier rights. I guess some of the things that I don't get are:

1) If we do have a holiday called Christmas in the books, does that mean that government is forcing Christianity to the masses, or is it the government recognizes that the majority of the people are Christians and they would like a holiday?

2) If there is a holiday in the books that represents Christianity, does that mean that there can be no holiday for other religions?

I think the part that I don't get and maybe a lot of people don't get is that I don't see where if we acknowledge holidays or religions in government that it doesn't mean that government is forcing people to worship, it is just acknowledging the needs of the people. After all, isn't that what government does?

Another thing we have to establish with people who feel persecuted is are the people being persecuted on a governmental level, or is it from another citizen? That's 2 different things that I think get intertwined in a lot of situations.

Anyone have an idea on these things?

[The Bandit]

I think when you talk "prayer on school" you have to be very specific as to what you mean -- are you talking about 1950's-style compulsory morning prayer? Or are we talking about giving students an area of school where they can go during a free period or the like to voluntarily pray? To me those two situations are apples and oranges -- compulsory prayer is not only unfair to students who do not wish to participate for their own personal reasons, but to me undermines a lot of what prayer is about (ie, giving yourself freely unto God -- don't you think forcing children into it only serves to lessen its effect?).

I feel that it's very important that all groups be given equal access to public space and funding if applicable. If Muslim students are given time out of the day to pray, the same should go for Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, etc... students -- hell, agnositc/atheist students should be given some free time to hit up the library and read some philosophy or history if they feel like it.

I wish you the best of luck resolving your problems with work -- I don't know enough about the laws governing what religious access private corporations must give to their employees -- if you work for any sort of government agency you probably actually have a better chance of winning such a case.

-- 2bq

[Javen]

I'm talking about a specific area and voluntray.

Wow this thread has kind of turned into something different. I'll stop and go back on topic.

I read somewhere once that the ACLU is a non-governmental agency. Is this true? If so what are they doing in governmnet affairs and what give them this right in the first place?

[The Bandit]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>1) If we do have a holiday called Christmas in the books, does that mean that government is forcing Christianity to the masses, or is it the government recognizes that the majority of the people are Christians and they would like a holiday?[/b][/quote]

I think it's clearly the latter. Many state universities (and I'm thinking mainly of the SUNY schools because that's what I'm familiar with, having friends who went to SUNY Albany) that have large Jewish student populations will give time off for Jewish holidays in addition to Christmas, Thanksgiving, etc... If a large chunk of your workers/students/etc are going to miss a day for religious reasons it only makes good sense to schedule it as a holiday.

I mean, speaking from my perspective as an atheist coming from a non-devout Christian family background (ie, parents never really went to church, my mother believes in God and I've never even had the discussion with my father -- just hasn't come up), for me Christmas is a time of year to be around family and loved ones. I say "Merry Christmas" to people most of the time, but if it's a Jewish friend I'll certainly wish them a happy haunakah. I helped my girlfriend decorate her tree yesterday -- instead of an angel she put Clifford the Big Red Dog on the top because it looked better. Don't get me wrong -- Jesus had a lot of great things to say about peace, love and charity and I think those should be celebrated -- I just don't buy into the whole 'son of God' thing. Your mileage may vary, but isn't that part of the diversity that makes this country such a great place to live?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>2) If there is a holiday in the books that represents Christianity, does that mean that there can be no holiday for other religions?[/b][/quote]

I don't see anything restricting the government from delcaring any day a federal holiday for any reason -- it just has to be voted in. Here's a link to the federal law governing legal holidays - http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/usc...03----000-.html (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode05/usc_sec_05_00006103----000-.html)

For me, Christmas is on there for the same reason as Thanksgiving -- it's a day that most people want to spend with their families and that requires travel in a lot of cases.

You won't see Good Friday, Easter, All Saint's Day, Ash Wednesday, and other Christian relgious holidays on there because, while very important to people of faith, aren't as important to the average person who might go to church once or twice a year or not at all. Christmas has gotten to a point, and this is largely driven by commercial interests, where you don't have to be religious to celebrate it -- while I can understand the resentment of many devout/fundamentalist Christians that "their" holiday has been taken away by commercialization, the important thing to remember is that gifts or no gifts, it brings families together.

-- 2bq

[Master Cephus]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>I mean, speaking from my perspective as an atheist coming from a non-devout Christian family background (ie, parents never really went to church, my mother believes in God and I've never even had the discussion with my father -- just hasn't come up), for me Christmas is a time of year to be around family and loved ones. I say "Merry Christmas" to people most of the time, but if it's a Jewish friend I'll certainly wish them a happy haunakah. I helped my girlfriend decorate her tree yesterday -- instead of an angel she put Clifford the Big Red Dog on the top because it looked better. Don't get me wrong -- Jesus had a lot of great things to say about peace, love and charity and I think those should be celebrated -- I just don't buy into the whole 'son of God' thing. Your mileage may vary, but isn't that part of the diversity that makes this country such a great place to live?[/b][/quote]

Oh sure, It's great that we all have the ability to choose how we live, worship, and what not. That's my point about seperation of church and state. I think that people have differentiate from government instituting state run religion and state acknowledgement of religion. Does that make sense?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>I don't see anything restricting the government from delcaring any day a federal holiday for any reason -- it just has to be voted in. Here's a link to the federal law governing legal holidays - http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/usc...03----000-.html

For me, Christmas is on there for the same reason as Thanksgiving -- it's a day that most people want to spend with their families and that requires travel in a lot of cases.

You won't see Good Friday, Easter, All Saint's Day, Ash Wednesday, and other Christian relgious holidays on there because, while very important to people of faith, aren't as important to the average person who might go to church once or twice a year or not at all. Christmas has gotten to a point, and this is largely driven by commercial interests, where you don't have to be religious to celebrate it -- while I can understand the resentment of many devout/fundamentalist Christians that "their" holiday has been taken away by commercialization, the important thing to remember is that gifts or no gifts, it brings families together.[/b][/quote]

Yeah, but the commercialization has nothing to do with government. I have no problem with companies yelling out happy whatever. It's their perogative and if I am offended, I can choose to not go to that store.

I still don't understand the argument of seperation of church and state because of what I said above.

[The Bandit]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Oh sure, It's great that we all have the ability to choose how we live, worship, and what not. That's my point about seperation of church and state. I think that people have differentiate from government instituting state run religion and state acknowledgement of religion. Does that make sense?[/b][/quote]

It makes sense -- and there is no room for debate about whether or not the Federal government acknowledges religion -- it clearly does so in the 1st Amendment.

The question is where does that line lie? The real problem we are facing right now, as a backlash from court decisions and cases on such things as the Pledge of Allegiance issue, is that people are overreacting trying to "CYA" against being sued. It's ridiculous to say that you can't teach about different religions in school -- Christianity especially is intertwined with world history and it is impossible to study European history over the past thousand years without a clear understanding of the role of the Catholic church, for example.

For me the line shows up when you start introducing religious texts in the classroom and saying things like "Jesus fed the massses with two loaves of bread and five fish" and presenting that as fact. Teaching about Jesus, Mohammad, Buddha, etc...

I also see the over-simplification of history in many American text books as a major problem. You end up with an uneducated populace because things are explained on the lowest common denominator -- while it might be a good idea to simplify history for grade school kids, I think you should move to a higher level during the middle school years and get to a point where you are reading source texts and letters by high school. If people actually read Jefferson's letters and Thomas Paine's pamphlets rather than paragraphs about them in textbooks you would find a populace with a much better understanding of our history as a nation.

-- 2bq

[goodwije]

Originally posted by Javen@Dec 5 2005, 11:48 AM
I read somewhere once that the ACLU is a non-governmental agency. Is this true? If so what are they doing in governmnet affairs and what give them this right in the first place?<div align="right">Quoted post</div>The ACLU is not part of the government it is a nonprofit legal orgainization which does not receive any government funds. It is supported by annual dues and contributions from its members, plus grants from private foundations and individuals.

It is in government affairs because it's members are Americans, and they represent Americans. In our country everyone has the right to take part in our government's affairs. Their primary focus deals with freedom of expression, conscience, and association; due process of law; and equality under the law.

Some of their earlist cases revolved around Black voting rights and censorship laws. One of thier most well known cases, and very controversal for the time, was when they sucessfully defended Henry Ford in that he had the right to distribute Anti-Union materials.

[T-bone]

Patriot Act renewal set for Congress vote
By Richard Cowan

Republican congressional negotiators announced a White House-backed deal on Thursday to extend the USA Patriot Act, a centerpiece of President George W. Bush's war on terror.

"We have cut through the knotty problems to produce what I think is a balanced bill," Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, told reporters.

Specter acknowledged that the compromise was not "perfect" and some key Republicans and Democrats in the Senate were quick to say that they still opposed the measure, which expanded the government's powers to track suspected terrorists after the September 11, 2001, attacks.

Nevertheless, Specter said the Senate and House of Representatives next week would vote on extending the law, which otherwise would expire on December 31.

Specter said a key compromise worked out by House and Senate negotiators is a four-year extension of some of the most controversial provisions, which raised civil liberties concerns. The House had been seeking a 10-year extension.

The four-year limit would be on rules for "roving" wiretaps of suspects and court orders for records from businesses, libraries, book stores and others in intelligence cases.

Specter told reporters that the deal to give Congress a chance to review the impact of the law after four years was important to winning bipartisan support for renewing the Patriot Act.

"I know that there are a number of people, Democrats in the House, who told me they would vote for it if they had a four-year sunset. And I believe before we're finished in the Senate we'll have significant bipartisan support," Specter said.

New controls also would be placed on "sneak and peek" search warrants, which allow law enforcement officials to enter someone's house without their knowledge. Under the compromise bill, notice of the search would have to be given within 30-days of its execution.

The Senate originally had sought a seven-day time limit, while the House wanted a 180-day period.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which has lobbied for revisions to the Patriot Act law, criticized the compromise written by congressional Republicans.

"This sham compromise agreement fails to address the primary substantive concern" raised by civil liberties groups and businesses, said Caroline Fredrickson, director of the ACLU's Washington legislative office.

Fredrickson complained that the bill would still give the FBI access to private records of "innocent Americans" without having to demonstrate a connection between the records and a suspected foreign terrorist or terrorist organization.

Specter defended the compromise, saying that the other unsavory alternatives were to let the Patriot Act expire at the end of the year or to renew an "existing bill which has a lot of problems."

[Gavin]

Any news on the ACLU filing a lawsuit on the Air Marshal who shot the terrorist?

[Lemondrop]

Originally posted by Gavin@Dec 9 2005, 10:42 PM
Any news on the ACLU filing a lawsuit on the Air Marshal who shot the terrorist?
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>


LMFAO , the Marshal shot a mental patient .... a unarmed one .

Apparently now your a terrorist if you have medical problems too .


So lets see ,
Don't support the Iraq War = Terrorist
Don't Support Bush = Terrorist
Don't support Torture = terrorist


Soon :
Don't like Oreo Cookies = Terrorist .


The ACLU is a useful tool to prevent OUR rights from being violated .
Sure , the Government will look out for us and never think of violating the Constitution .

The "ACLU Types" giving water to Illegal Aliens ...... well , I do NOT support IA's but at the same time I do not wish them death . Is giving them water and food such a terrible thing ?

If our government would change it's policy that IA's are "Good for business because they will do jobs that American's don't want to or just won't do " then we could see a difference . They should be rounded up and deported if they do not have a valid work visa or are not on vacation , with proper passport .

We are spending BILLIONS in Iraq while the IA's flow across our border with dope and disease .

A "Terrorist" would have a easier time walking across the border than trying to enter the US by any other means yet the Administration does not care .

Why stop a good thing ? Corporations are happy , who cares .

The ACLU is like anything else , it has it's good and bad sides .

You have to ask yourself the ultimate question .

Would you feel better about the ACLU looking out for your rights or the Supreme Court ??

Remember the little "Domain" thingy from a few months back ?

[T-bone]

I love Oreo cookies.

[Gavin]

Yes, a terrorist. A few hundred people going about their day, flying somewhere for the holidays, whatever (only several years after 9/11). Suddenly interrupted by someone saying "I have a bomb!" I label this man a terrorist. I watch the news and I'm very well aware of the fact that he was bipolar and not in a good mental condition. I don't care if this SOB is a mentally deranged citizen or an armed turban-toting "terrorist". I expect no less of the officer than to shoot and yes, possibly kill him. The man broke a federal law by saying he has a bomb, so yes he is a terrorist. As far as immigrants, has one ever stolen from you? Killed someone in your town? Smuggled drugs into your town and state? Happens all the time around here. The people who give them water are encouraging illegal activity. If they want to cross the border, let them do so at their own risk. I don't wish them death either, but if they die it's their own fault. I build my own houses, pick my own vegetables, kill my own food, and support a family on less than $20k a year. I don't need some criminal that doesn't even speak English to do it for me. Every day I see more illegals gettings jobs over American citizens, because they are cheaper. This helps the economy? I appreciate some of the cases the ACLU takes on in the name of free speech and constitutional rights, but not the ones for ciminals and non-citizens.

[Lemondrop]

Originally posted by Gavin@Dec 9 2005, 11:36 PM
Every day I see more illegals gettings jobs over American citizens, because they are cheaper. This helps the economy? <div align="right">Quoted post</div>



Go back and read my post . I cannot stand IA's but I cannot stand people thinking another race or nationality is not worth helping .

So , by that point Black people steal , murder , and sell drugs so I guess they don't deserve help .

White people steal , murder , and sell dope so to hell with them too .

Get my point ?

These people come here because there is a opportunity , not because they know someone will give them water . Im sure 99% figure they will get no food or water till they find family or start working .

They will keep coming as long as our Government supports businesses that USE the IA's to make a crapload of money .

There IS a American out there that WILL do that job , you just have to pay him or her more than $2 a hour .

[T-bone]

I love Oreo cookies.

[Master Cephus]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>There IS a American out there that WILL do that job , you just have to pay him or her more than $2 a hour .[/b][/quote]

Where does it say in the constitution that people were guaranteed a great job?

I am the libertarian in the matter that pay what people will work for. If someone is willing to work for less, than who are we to stop them. It's amazing that the same people who say these things go gripe about the cost of items in stores. If you want awsome wages, you are going to have to pay awsome prices for things.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>We are spending BILLIONS in Iraq while the IA's flow across our border with dope and disease . [/b][/quote]

You make fun of everyone being called a terrorist, yet go ahead and assume that everyone who comes across the border is a drug dealer/ebola carrier....

[Master Cephus]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>There IS a American out there that WILL do that job , you just have to pay him or her more than $2 a hour .[/b][/quote]

Also, let me go Krog on this and ask the above in another way...

Why should an American take that $2/hour job when they can live off the government and make $4/hour for doing nothing?

You want to know why people won't take the jobs? Because the government takes care of people....fix welfare and tell people to go where the jobs are if they want to eat and there wouldn't be an "IA" problem as you put it.

[Sargoth]

Originally posted by Master Cephus@Dec 9 2005, 10:53 PM
Why should an American take that $2/hour job when they can live off the government and make $4/hour for doing nothing?

You want to know why people won't take the jobs? Because the government takes care of people....fix welfare and tell people to go where the jobs are if they want to eat and there wouldn't be an "IA" problem as you put it.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>


You're kind of mixing your issues here. I see literally *dozens* of IA's every day. They're not sucking on the teat of Government by picking up a welfare check - they're working. And by our standards, it's a slave wage. However, by what they're used to, it's not too bad. The reason immigrants risk life and limb jumping the border and crossing 300 miles of unforgiving desert is because their standard of living *will* increase when they come here.

And here's the problem. It's simple supply and demand economics. An employer has a legal workforce that will do a job for $9.00 and hour. Or, he can break the law and hire an illegal for $4.00 an hour (plus no tax withholdings, either). This is what's driving the wages down, and this is why most American workers won't take the job. Compound this with the fact that there is next to zero enforcement of labor laws here w.r.t. illegal workers.

Originally posted by master cephus
If you want awsome wages, you are going to have to pay awsome prices for things.


Apparently the CEO of Costco (http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Business/story?id=1362779) is proving otherwise. You *can* pay a good wage, give awesome benifits, give your customer a great deal *and* be profitable.

... But don't try telling the rest of the 1% that!

[Lemondrop]

[quote]


You make fun of everyone being called a terrorist, yet go ahead and assume that everyone who comes across the border is a drug dealer/ebola carrier....
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>



No , What I was typing about is the fact that ALOT of them come across and receive medical benifits which cost us Taxpayer Dollars . Not that they are Anthrax victims , just that as with every human they have medical issues .
Yes , alot DO come acorss with dope on them . They might not be a user or seller but are carrying it for someone else . Granted , some just come for the improvement to thier way of life and don't carry drugs .

Does not change the fact either way that they flow across the border like cheeze-whiz from a microwave oven . If there was more enforcement (IE: Spend more $$ on it that's being wasted in Iraq) then the problem would likely ebb .

Im all for legal immigration , I mean hell the people coming from Mexico are trying to get by . We let the *******s into our country on student visas who murdered our people .

By the way , I have not noticed products getting cheaper in the stores , even though most of the products are made in other countries . It's not about cheaper products for the consumer as the Corporations would like the Joe-Bag-O-Doughnuts people to believe ........ It's about the millions in bonuses and stock options for the people at the TOP .

[goodwije]

I don't know, for me it is a bad time to argue the virtues of Laissez-faire markets after what happened with fuel prices.

Plus i work for a company in bankruptcey and the common statement is.. we have to slow down raise percentages to create more IFO (income from operations) meanwhile they give the top 250 executives bouneses that have in some cases doubled their anual salary.

I want to believe in our fair market system.. i just don't trust the people in charge.

.. and i just realized this is the ACLU thread so to the question of the gentleman who was not a terrorist, imo, but who was legally shot for claiming he had a bomb in an airport. What would his case have anything to do with defense of civil liberties?

[Sargoth]

Originally posted by Krogenar+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Krogenar)</div><div class='quotemain'>Originally posted by Sargoth@Dec 10 2005, 04:47 PM

You're kind of mixing your issues here. I see literally *dozens* of IA's every day. They're not sucking on the teat of Government by picking up a welfare check - they're working. And by our standards, it's a slave wage.

No, they're still sucking off the public teat, Sargoth.
If they fall down while washing dishes, they go to a public hospital for treatment. They use public transportation to get to and from work. They pay NO TAXES. They're sucking off the public teat, Sargoth.
[/b]

I was responding to MC's claim that illegals are living on welfare. That's why I said "They're not sucking on the teat of Government by picking up a welfare check". But, I should expect some cherrypicking of my posts by now...

<!--QuoteBegin-krogenar
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>However, by what they're used to, it's not too bad. The reason immigrants risk life and limb jumping the border and crossing 300 miles of unforgiving desert is because their standard of living *will* increase when they come here. [/quote]

Oh, the heroic illegal aliens, Sargoth! You make it sound like they're on frickin' Arrakis.
[/b][/quote]

Ok Krog, let's do a little experiment. Let's drop you off on the outskirts of a border town like Yuma or Nogalas with nothing more than a gallon of water and a map to Phoenix... in the middle of August. I bet about an hour before your blood crystalizes into salt you'll start seeing some Sand Worms. Hopefully the border patrol finds your remains before the Coyotes do so we can at least notify your next of kin and give you a little segment on the 6:00 news.

Dozens of illegals - perhaps hundreds - die each year crossing the sonaran desert. And they take the risk to have a better life. Which, if they survive, they usually do have.

[T-bone]

and what's to stop them from doing it legally?

red tape.

eliminate that and i'm fine with it.

we should not be rewarding people for illegal behavior while making it take YEARS for someone from say, the UK or Ireland to do it the right way.

it's a big sham and people i know from other countries who moved here are VERY pissed off about it.

they should go to mexico for a year and then just cross, it seems.
they'll expedite the process.

it's a mess that needs to be fixed and the ACLU, if they "really" cared about people, should spend their time that way instead of just sympathizing with people who cross illegally.

i don't care who comes here BUT they should all do it the same way - LEGALLY.

[Master Cephus]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>I was responding to MC's claim that illegals are living on welfare. That's why I said "They're not sucking on the teat of Government by picking up a welfare check". But, I should expect some cherrypicking of my posts by now...[/b][/quote]

No I wasn't saying illegals were living on welfare. I am saying that Legals are living on Welfare and won't work because it's easier to do. If that system were fixed and the system was a "temporary" aid to help people back on their feet, then those jobs that illegals were taking might be a little harder to find.

[walong]

Originally posted by T'bone@Dec 11 2005, 04:33 PM
it's a mess that needs to be fixed
True, it's a mess but it probably won't be addressed until it becomes a Real Problem. Unfortunately Big Government isn't too good at fixing either of those.

Social Engineering types of issues will always be rather problematic.

[Sargoth]

Originally posted by Master Cephus@Dec 12 2005, 09:48 AM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>I was responding to MC's claim that illegals are living on welfare. That's why I said "They're not sucking on the teat of Government by picking up a welfare check". But, I should expect some cherrypicking of my posts by now...

No I wasn't saying illegals were living on welfare. I am saying that Legals are living on Welfare and won't work because it's easier to do. If that system were fixed and the system was a "temporary" aid to help people back on their feet, then those jobs that illegals were taking might be a little harder to find.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>
[/b][/quote]

Ok, that makes sense. And I am inclined to agree with you.

[goodwije]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Fuel prices having been coming down for months[/b][/quote] Yeah and they stayed up for monthes. Your right though, the free market economy worked just as it should. Gas prices stayed as high as people where willing to pay for them. Also, not sure how it is in NY but gas prices have gone down around here, but they have not be continually dropping for monthes. It took a dive (about 20 cents) and stayed right there. Between 2.00 and 2.10 a gallon.

I just think it was too high, and that Oil companies made huge profits on the backs of a lot of small buisness. Specifically private truck owners.

oh and BTW, i suppose i could become an executive. I heard the surgery to remove half the brain and three quarters of the soul is really painful though.

and yes i could change companies, but there are some compelling reasons for me to stay. I do realize however that the half brained, quarter souled executives want people to jump from job to job. I am sure that the more entry level workers a company has the less is paid out in salary, vacation, etc. Hence more money for the executive. I am of the mind that workers in many cases could be the best asset a company has. Of course they don't have a degree, and it takes a degree for a person to have any amount of skill and talent. Wish someone would tell my managers that though, sense they have about as much talent as a bird flying into a closed window.

Seriously you don't see anything wrong with a company making record sales, and record profits, and then telling its workers that there is no money.. yet patting each other on the back and giving each other huge raises and bonuses? Your only response is.. well become an executive? Yeah there is no reason someone should be proud, good at, and get paid fairly for doing a job that doesn't require saying yes to the bigger boss every few minutes.

[The Bandit]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>I agree. Is the ACLU claiming that citizens have the right to yell, "I HAVE A BOMB!" in a crowded airport terminal? Sounds like they are, which means they're stupid, as usual.[/b][/quote]

Actually, as far as I can tell, this conversation stemmed from conjecture by another member on "how long will it take the ACLU to sue about this" rather than any actual news report.

There is no mention of any legal action regarding this case on the ACLU web site.

A search of the AP for "ACLU" brings up no hits regarding this case.

-- 2bq

[Master Cephus]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Seriously you don't see anything wrong with a company making record sales, and record profits, and then telling its workers that there is no money.. yet patting each other on the back and giving each other huge raises and bonuses? Your only response is.. well become an executive? Yeah there is no reason someone should be proud, good at, and get paid fairly for doing a job that doesn't require saying yes to the bigger boss every few minutes.[/b][/quote]

I think Krog's point is that if you don't like it, then you have the oppertunity to find new employment. There is nothing wrong with an employer giving out great salaries, great benefits, and keeping their workers as happy as possible. But, if an employer wants to give slave wages, hardly any benefits, and keep their workers as barely satisfied, then that's their right.

Capitilism gives you the oppertunity to better yourself and find a place that you like to work at, not where you HAVE to work.

[Sargoth]

Originally posted by Master Cephus@Dec 14 2005, 08:03 AM
I think Krog's point is that if you don't like it, then you have the oppertunity to find new employment. There is nothing wrong with an employer giving out great salaries, great benefits, and keeping their workers as happy as possible. But, if an employer wants to give slave wages, hardly any benefits, and keep their workers as barely satisfied, then that's their right.

Capitilism gives you the oppertunity to better yourself and find a place that you like to work at, not where you HAVE to work.


Yeah, sounds great on paper doesn't it? But what happens when the company that is paying the slave wages controls 85% of their market? What happens when the other 15% of the market drops their wages to "remain competitive"? What happens when said companies screw employees w/ 20 years of senority out of their entire pensions - pensions that they were promised when they were hired? The deregulations of the 80's allowed loopholes for corporations to have no legal obligations to honor their contracts with their employees. All it takes is a major reorganization or a buy-out, and a pension plan is reduced to being more worthless than the paper it's printed on.

Tell the laboror who was due to retire in 2 years not to worry about his $150,000 pension (that he *earned*) disappearing. He can always find another career. That's the free market, right???

[Master Cephus]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Tell the laboror who was due to retire in 2 years not to worry about his $150,000 pension (that he *earned*) disappearing. He can always find another career. That's the free market, right???[/b][/quote]


I think the problem (as I see it Sargoth) is that when looking at this, you find the most extreme case and say "There you go"


Play if fair, give the worst case on the other side...

How about having a job that sucks according to pay, benefits, etc. and not having the oppertunity to change jobs because that is your job...

[Sargoth]

Originally posted by Master Cephus@Dec 15 2005, 06:11 PM
I think the problem (as I see it Sargoth) is that when looking at this, you find the most extreme case and say "There you go"


The issue is that this is not uncommon. Time magazine ran an cover story about 2 months ago about the problem of "pension pilliaging" that showed the issue to be almost pandemic in corporations. Corporate bankruptcy laws *used* to protect these funds. Not anymore. I grew up in the middle of the Rust belt. I saw how the Steel Industry screwed hundreds of thousands of workers out of their life savings in the 80's - legally. Today, corporations are reverting to this tactic as a way of "controlling cost" and "maximizing profits".

This is evident of what I was discussing earlier: If company 'x' turns a profit by (legally) screwing its employees over, competitors 'y' and 'z' will likely follow suit.

Of course, you and I know that the idea of a 'pension' today doesn't exist. That's why I have my IRA, 401k, and thousands of worthless .com stock options. But many of our parents' generation were promised a fair pension for a fair life's work. And that promise is being systematically broken with the government's tacit approval.

I view corporate law to be similar to civil law: If you can behave yourself and play fairly, the government leaves you alone. If you're a schmuck and start stomping on other people, a little regulation might be in order. There are many economic issues that "fix themselves" in the free market, but what we're seeing now: a handful of megacorporatoins that own *everything*, the market forces that keep checks and balances in place are weakened.

[mirax terrik horn]

Originally posted by Master Cephus@Dec 15 2005, 06:11 PM


Play if fair, give the worst case on the other side...

<div align="right">Quoted post</div>


I'm sorry what is the worst case scenario? That they love their jobs and are happy with what the company gives them! That doesn't sound bad. I recently learned that friends of mine had just lost their jobs which they had worked at for 23 years b/c they were payed too much.

[Master Cephus]

^ you were almost there....just one more line and you could have had it!

[T-bone]

flapdoodle = my new word of the day.

it sounds so...british.

carry on!

[Sargoth]

Originally posted by Krogenar
Flapdoodle


If this is a game that everyone can play, I'd like to make my own entry to the English Lexicon:

Krogbollocks n. A rhetorical arugment, that while appearing to be well constructed, fails due to citation of incorrect statements as facts. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif

Now, you are correct that Goodie's argument concerning executives is a generalization. However, your assesment of the current state of General Motors is, quite simply, Krogbollocks. You put the blame right on the shoulders of the linemen who have the audacity to demand a living wage for what they do, and the UAW, who act on their behalf. What you fail to cite, my good man, are the more telling managerial mis-steps that GM has taken over the past five years. Here's a couple of 'em.

1) GM's cash cow has been the SUV. High margins, high sticker price, crappy gas milage. It was their big seller in the late 1990's when we could still get gas for under $1 a gallon. They ain't selling so hot no more. I wonder why. Perhaps the savants who sit in GMs boardroom would've had a contingancy prepared for this.

2) Failure to respond to what their customers want. You may slag Andy Rooney for his assertion, Krog, but he is right. And GM analysits have been warning about this for years. GM has too many makes & models with little differentiation between them. Does Pontiac really need another new mid-size sedan? In today's world of skyroketing oil prices, companies like Toyota have cashed in on America's desire for hybrids. The Prius actually appreciated in value after market for cripes sake! Where is GM's competition to this? The Cobalt? Guess again!

3) Delphi's Bankruptcy. About 5 years ago, GM spun off Delphi, and there was much profit for everyone involved. However, Delphi is now in bankruptcy. Perhaps the GM execs should've paid a little more attention to the contract they signed stating that they would pick up the health care expenses of every Delphi employee should they go into bankruptcy within 7 years. They just took on the group plan of what, 70,000 workers overnight? Which leads into...

4) Skyrocketing healthcare. Now, if a former Fortune 1 company has difficulty negotiating a good Group Policy with its insurance providers, you know there is a problem with the system. From the innefectual HMOs' to Hospital and Pharmacy execs who mark up products dispensed by upwards of 1000% before submitting the claim to insurance. But that's a topic for another thread...

So who's to blame for these disasters Krog? The workers? If they only worked more efficiently, more crappy, gas guzzling cars would sell, right? Well guess what, it's the workers, as well as the towns that support their factories that are going to suffer for upper management incompetence. GM has always paid a good wage and good bennies to its employees, and they did fine. But their failure to respond to what their customers want has left them high and dry. Their stock price is at a 25 year low!. And the sick thing is, is that analysts have been warning of this for years now. So, Krog, the lion share of the blame lies not on the "greedy workers and their communist unions", but on the overcompensated Executives whose failure in leadership and lack of vision have turned the mightiest company in America into a shining example of what *not* to do.

So what happens when the shareholders revolt and fire all the CxO's Krog? Ever hear of the phrase "Golden Parachute"? Do you realize that the penalty for being fired from the board of a large corporation is, almost without exception, a multi-million dollar severance package?

Krogbollocks, I tell you!

[goodwije]

Originally posted by Krogenar+Dec 16 2005, 01:29 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Krogenar @ Dec 16 2005, 01:29 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'>Originally posted by goodwije@Dec 14 2005, 08:54 AM
oh and BTW, i suppose i could become an executive. I heard the surgery to remove half the brain and three quarters of the soul is really painful though.

What flapdoodle!

See, that's exactly the kind of working class hero nonsense that prevents people who are probably very well qualified to be managers or executives from following through. Do you really believe all managers and executives are hlaf-brained, and 'quarter-souled'? Or do you need to believe it because you're envious of their salaries and position? They say that the human mind, when presented with things it cannot have first envies and then hates.
[/b]Actually i don't believe it at all, it was a joke at the expehnse of executives everywhere. A friend of mine just stepped down as a CEO of a local financhial institution (in preperation of retirement in a couple of years) I do not believe executives are bad people, just people, and as such make poor decisions sometimes.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-goodwije
and yes i could change companies, but there are some compelling reasons for me to stay.[/quote]

Ah-ha, and there it is. The company is terrible, but not so terrible that it's worth finding a new job. Which really means that the company, overall, is good for you. Otherwise you'd leave and find new work elsewhere. [/b][/quote] I don't remember saying it was terrible, only that some of the decisions they have made i don't agree with. The one real compelling reason i stay is that they offer same-sex domestic partner insurance
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Finding people who can make these decisions correctly is much harder than finding someone to make spot welds, goodwije. And consequently, they are paid more handsomely than you. [/b][/quote] I never said i deserved "as much as" executives that make the type of decisions you mentioned. I also have done quite a bit more than make spot welds. A lot of primary employees within my company have. Including taking part in capitol improvement design, sig sigma and 5S work. Safety programs and administration. Diversity awarness and training.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>More class warfare flapdoodle. You need to find a job that makes you happier.[/b][/quote]ah yes, finally something on which we agree.

[T-bone]

I have to admit this wordplay is fascinating.

Can we make a thread in the Community area called "The Senate Dictionary" and include all these? Sargasm!? LOL!

[T-bone]

ACLU: Don't Bar Terrorist Sympathizers

The American Civil Liberties Union has filed a federal lawsuit seeking to strike down a provision of the Patriot Act that prevents foreigners who endorse terrorism from entering the U.S.

The suit was filed in Federal District Court in Manhattan on behalf of a prominent Muslim scholar, Tariq Ramadan, and three national organizations of academics or writers who have invited him to speak to their members.

Ramadan, a Swiss citizen, has been denied a United States visa since July 2004, when he was about to move with his family to Indiana to take up a tenured professor's position at the University of Notre Dame, the New York Times reports.

At the time, a spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security, Russ Knocke, cited the Patriot Act clause as the reason Ramadan's visa was canceled.

The provision bans foreigners who "endorse or espouse terrorist activity or persuade others" to support terrorism.

The ACLU suit seeks a declaration that the Patriot Act provision at issue is unconstitutional. It also seeks a court order preventing the government from relying on the provision to exclude Ramadan or any other foreign national.

Ramadan, the author of some 20 books on Islamic theology, filed a new visa application on September 16 after receiving invitations for speaking engagements in the U.S. When interviewed in December in Switzerland by agents of the Homeland Security and State Departments, Ramadan said, he was questioned about his views of the war in Iraq.

"I told them what I have said many times publicly, that I think the war was a mistake and illegal," he told the Times. "I think the resistance is legitimate but the means they are using are not."

Ramadan is the grandson of Hasan al-Banna, a founder in 1928 of the Muslim Brotherhood, an Egyptian group that has carried out violent attacks in recent decades.

He claims "there is nothing in my record supporting terrorism.”

But some critics say he espouses moderate views in Europe while embracing more militant views when addressing Muslims in the Arab world, according to the Times.

Homeland Security’s Knocke declined to comment on the lawsuit, but noted that the criteria for revoking visas included "public safety and national security risks.”

[Master Cephus]

Krog brings up a good point. Our constitution is set forth to protect citizens of the US. Would even making that part of the patriot act unconstitutional even do anything for the ACLU's cause? We are talking about non US citizens trying to come into our country, so where does the constitutionality play into this?

[Javen]

Why does the ACLU continue to attack and wage war against the Boy Scouts? Before you say because they believe in God or bring up the mythical seperation of church and state or that they exlude anyone let me remind you that it is a private organization and can exlude anyone they please.

So I ask the question again. Why do they continue to attack them? Are they bored and have no one else to bully?http://www.bsalegal.org/

[Justin]

Man, that's just BS. The first amendment says "Congress shall make no law concerning religion," not "the United States government can't lend support to any organization that briefly mentions God."

[Sargoth]

Originally posted by Justin@Apr 10 2006, 08:56 PM
Man, that's just BS. The first amendment says "Congress shall make no law concerning religion," not "the United States government can't lend support to any organization that briefly mentions God."
Quoted post


Here's the appelate brief (http://www.aclu-il.org/legal/courtdocuments/winkler.pdf) of the suit. Please read it to get a better understanding of the legal aspects involved before this deterioriates into another silly "war against Christianity" thread. It's long, but easy to follow.

IANAL, but it looks like a *very* open-and-shut case. It hinges on a very specific law (the 1972 Jamboree Statute), which, according to precedent, looks like a clear violation of the Establishment Clause. Here's the layman's interpretation of the complaint.

1)BSA makes religion a requirement of membership. If you overtly deny belief in god (or refuse to swear the Scouts' Oath), you will be expelled.

2)The Jamboree is subsidized by the 1972 Jamboree Statute, which allows exclusive access to funds and military resources to be used during the Jamboree ($20+ million have been spent since the statue was enacted).

It's the exclusive access part that's the problem. Under this law, the BSA and only the BSA has access to these tax dollars. If there were equal access to this funding, it wouldn't be a problem. Equal access means all citizens, regardless of (or lack of) religion have the ability to use these funds. Since this law gives tax dollars only to a group where professing religion is a requirement for membership, it violates the establishment clause of the 1st amendment.

If the BSA really wants this money, they should pursue their congresscritters to rewrite the Jamboree Statue such that it passes constitutional muster. I think they have a non-starter with fighting for an appeal.

[Javen]

=Sargoth,Apr 10 2006, 11:23 PM]

1)BSA makes religion a requirement of membership. If you overtly deny belief in god (or refuse to swear the Scouts' Oath), you will be expelled.

Which they can and have perfectly legal right to do considering it is a private organazation. They can expell or exclude if they want to.

What this is is about controlling the BSA. How they go about their ways they have been doing for a long time. The ACLU has already been doing their "silly war on christianity" as you like to call it against the BSA for a good while now.

[goodwije]

Which they can and have perfectly legal right to do considering it is a private organazation. They can expell or exclude if they want to.

Absolutley.. they can exclude whomever they choose. They can make their mission whatever they choose. Personally, I think it is a shame, I think a lot of Atheist and Gay kids out there would make fantastic scouts and will make great citizens, but that is besides the point.

The point is that if they want to be a private group that is exclusionary in principle they should not be permitted to use public money. Period.

You can despise the politics of the ACLU all you want, but you can never make the claim that they use public money for their causes. By your own argument the ACLU is a private organization, and as such they have every right to pursue such cases, and define their mission, as they fit.

Of course we are all going to rally against what we see as injustice. You see the ACLU as crusading against your faith.. The ACLU (and those who support them) see the Scouts use of Tax money as a violation of the Constitution..

It is a loose / loose situation.. such is the nature of this country in these times.

[goodwije]

the United States government can't lend support to any organization that briefly mentions GodI don't know.. that seems a bit of an understatment. They demand their members profess a belief in God. That seems a bit more than a "brief mention".

I would equate it to Freemasons getting public money. They also require their members to profess a belief in God, but they are a private institution and are therefore ineligible for public funds.

I believe in the scouts.. i just don't like these decisions they have made. I think it is sad to see the scouts turning away anyone. If the organization is as strong as it should be, I mean there are Dues and millions in sales of uniforms, patches, books, camps, not to mention private donations, they would be able to survive without the tax monies. The problem is the coruption and poor managment have made that impossible.

They dug their own hole, and now they need to sit in it

[Sargoth]

Originally posted by goodwije@Apr 14 2006, 07:52 PM
The point is that if they want to be a private group that is exclusionary in principle they should not be permitted to use public money. Period.
Quoted post


It's not the *use* of public funds that's the issue of the suit. The Catholic school I went to had many educational materials subsidized by the government.

The problem rests squarely with the 'Jamboree Statute' itself. Under this law, money and military resources are set aside for the BSA and the BSA *alone*. The unconstitutionality lies with the fact that there is no 'equal access' for other groups to receive funds under this act. Since the BSA makes belief in god mandatory for membership, this law smacks face-first into the establishment clause.

The easist way for the BSA to get around this is to lobby for the Jamboree Act to be amended. Let another group (like Campfire U.S.A) have access to these funds as well. Campfire does not make religion a prerequisite for membership.

It's really that simple...

[goodwije]

Heres what might be a silly question. Are Catholic schools exclusionary? I mean I know you don't have to be Catholic but if a kid expressed a disbelief in God would they be asked to leave? :huh:

[Javen]

Originally posted by goodwije@Apr 14 2006, 09:52 PM
Which they can and have perfectly legal right to do considering it is a private organazation. They can expell or exclude if they want to.

Absolutley.. they can exclude whomever they choose. They can make their mission whatever they choose. Personally, I think it is a shame, I think a lot of Atheist and Gay kids out there would make fantastic scouts and will make great citizens, but that is besides the point.

The point is that if they want to be a private group that is exclusionary in principle they should not be permitted to use public money. Period.

You can despise the politics of the ACLU all you want, but you can never make the claim that they use public money for their causes. By your own argument the ACLU is a private organization, and as such they have every right to pursue such cases, and define their mission, as they fit.

Of course we are all going to rally against what we see as injustice. You see the ACLU as crusading against your faith.. The ACLU (and those who support them) see the Scouts use of Tax money as a violation of the Constitution..

It is a loose / loose situation.. such is the nature of this country in these times.
Quoted post

Maybe they don't use public money per say, unless they use fear and here is the proof of that. Here they are using fear of religious groups to raise money fromth *gulp* PUBLIC.

http://action.aclu.org/site/PageServer?pag...FJ_donationhome (http://action.aclu.org/site/PageServer?pagename=FJ_donationhome)

[Sargoth]

Originally posted by goodwije@Apr 15 2006, 04:32 AM
Heres what might be a silly question. Are Catholic schools exclusionary? I mean I know you don't have to be Catholic but if a kid expressed a disbelief in God would they be asked to leave? :huh:
Quoted post


That probably depends on the school. In my HS, we had plenty of Moslem, Jewish and Protestant students. Everyone was required to go to religion class and attend Mass regardless of faith. The current Catholic teaching was 'it's all the same god, the only people we don't like are the Atheists.' ;)

I was still in the midst of my personal 'crisis of faith' with the Church, so I hadn't really comitted to being a non-believer until after I graduated. But after seeing how the school treated some other students (e.g. the ones that got pregnant), I'm pretty sure they would've asked me to leave had I openly expressed disbelief in god.

[T-bone]

I'm thinking if you got money, they got seats. :)
Just don't make waves in religion class and such.

[Das]

I went to a catholic school and I never once participated in 'mass' or whatever it was called. Me and my friends would sit and talk through it most of the time. People that would eat the biscuit and drink the wine were almost always in the minority. So if they wanted to kick out most of those students, they wouldn't have a school.

[Dutch]

Me and my friends would sit and talk through it most of the time.

Way to be respectful to others

[Das]

ha!

like i care?

[techno-union]

We had RE in Primary school, I was one of about 2 or 3 kids thats were allowed to go and read a book instead.

Regarding the scouts, I had a friend who was about to be inducted as a leader/helper for the cubs, but she didn't realise she had to pledge alliegance to god.

She asked why she had to and they said it was just an old thing they do. When she refused to do it, they told her she may as well leave. Their loss.

[Sargoth]

Here's some more info on Winkler v. Rumsfeld (http://mesh.medill.northwestern.edu/mnschicago/archives/2006/04/boyscout_locals.html).

Some interesting points:

- No suit has been filed against the BSA in this action. The suit names Donald Rumsfeld and the DOD.

- The main plaintiff in the case is Reverend Eugene Winkler. A former Methodist minister and Eagle scout.

- Along with the ACLU and Winkler, the other four plaintiffs are all Chigago area Religious Leaders. This isn't some wacky leftist - atheist conspiracy. This is church leaders who see the value of the establishment clause.

[T-bone]

Damn - I was hoping it was Henry.

[Das]

i used to be in the same situation techno-union, except i used to try and sneak into the RE classes because they were fun.

as i got older i started to ask questions about the dinosaurs and when i didn't get a decent answer i pretty much laughed it all off.

[Javen]

In Case #3-06-0924, Doe v. Wilson County School System, the ACLU has sued the Wilson County School District, Lakeview Elementary School, the school principal, and two teachers for what they have deemed ''illegal acts.''
The ACLU claims that the plaintiffs ''have been harmed ... injured ... and suffered irreparable damage'' through the ''Christmas program with Christian themes and songs.'' The ACLU is asking that those actions be declared ''unconstitutional and illegal.''




So when did a children's Christmas program become illegal? When did the nativity story and Christmas songs become unconstitutional? That would be never and they can't do this. It's plain stupid. And some of these these things the Plantiffs are saying are really rediculously dumb and humorous.

[DblDwn]

It's further proof of the society we have created for ourselves. We've come to a point where we can no longer punish, as in spank, our children because, even though it worked for many years, it is now considered child abuse. We can no longer tell people the truth because we are too concerned with hurting their feelings even though, at the same time, we have become too selfish to really care about others. We had to take "Under God" out of the Pledge of Allegiance because some parents decided that they weren't busy enough with careers and family so they had to nit pick and invent things to over-exaggerate.

Welcome to life in the 21st century.......................

[Master Cephus]

My question (and this is honestly) how can a Christmas program cause: ''have been harmed ... injured ... and suffered irreparable damage''

I mean really. If my child is in school, and there was some type of Kwanzaa play or something of the sorts, I don't think my child would suffer like that.

[DblDwn]

Exactly. We're not talking about witnessing a mass murder or having to eat your sibling to stay alive. It's a Christmas Pageant and the last time I checked no one had to endure years of therapy because they were part of a group that sang "O Come, All Ye Faithful."

This is ridiculous.

[Darth Massacrus]

amen!

[DblDwn]

The key to this entire situation is that it isn't as if the principal and the teachers held a gun to the students heads and said be in the pageant or your academic life is over. The kids, or more importantly their parents, could have had them held out of the pageant if they felt it was infringing on their religious beliefs, or lack thereof. Or, if they didn't want the child to be frowned upon, they could have allowed them to remain in the pageant and told them to simply lip sync the song lyrics, or just not do anything at all.

But no. All of that was apparently much too logical for these people to comprehend. Instead they need to make a spectacle of themselves and, more importantly, their children by this crap of a lawsuit which appears to be full of the most inappropriate example of adjectives on record.

[Krogenar]

Heres what might be a silly question. Are Catholic schools exclusionary? I mean I know you don't have to be Catholic but if a kid expressed a disbelief in God would they be asked to leave? :huh:

[Krog's first attendance of the 'Gay & Lesbian Joint Defense Force' as a member.]

"Hey, uh... I don't really agree with this whole gay marriage thing. And what's the deal with gay parades? Do you guys have to wear S&M gear during the parade? No offense, but my kids don't need to see that."

Private groups can have private control over their membership. As such a Catholic school can set guidelines for conduct. If someone who is Jewish attends the school, that's fine -- but if that student then decides to set the agenda to: "Why Jesus is Not the Messiah" wouldn't that hinder the organization and detract from the other students who are Catholic? Another example: going into a vegetarian restaurant and demanding steak tartar. Or, you go to a vegetarian restaurant and bring in your own food -- baby back ribs. The owners of the restaurant would be within their rights to ask you to leave. Customers of both the school and the restaurant become members with the express understanding that they will be among people with values in line with their own, or at the least, that their values will not be challenged.

I would bet that one of the reasons that parents send their kids to a Catholic school would be so that their child would learn about God, from a Catholic perspective -- not to have those values challenged.

[Cydon]

Man I'm sure gald the ACLJ exists...

[JediKeri]

In Case #3-06-0924, Doe v. Wilson County School System, the ACLU has sued the Wilson County School District, Lakeview Elementary School, the school principal, and two teachers for what they have deemed ''illegal acts.''
The ACLU claims that the plaintiffs ''have been harmed ... injured ... and suffered irreparable damage'' through the ''Christmas program with Christian themes and songs.'' The ACLU is asking that those actions be declared ''unconstitutional and illegal.''




So when did a children's Christmas program become illegal? When did the nativity story and Christmas songs become unconstitutional? That would be never and they can't do this. It's plain stupid. And some of these these things the Plantiffs are saying are really rediculously dumb and humorous.


Sheesh, the ACLU don't know when to quit. I went to a public school and we sang songs about Jesus all the time and it never hurt anyone. In High School we sight read out of a hymnal because it challenged us. We didn't sing the words mind you just went dooo do dooo. What a bunch of wackos the ACLU is.

[Cydon]

The ACLU has twisted the Constitution to benefit them. They also support legalized child porn.

[Sargoth]

They also support legalized child porn.

Are you referring to New York vs. Ferber? (a 25 year old case). Have you actually read the amicus brief that was filed? Or are you just ditto-ing what blogspot tells you?

[Cydon]

No, I am referring to the CRAVE report of 2004. And BTW, I don't trust the Internet for anything politically related.

[Sargoth]

^Fair enough. You got a link for that? Google returns baptkus.

[Cydon]

Sure. Here you go.

http://www.christians4america.com/exposingtheaclu.htm

[Sargoth]

That doesn't look as much like a 'report' as it does a 'brochure'. The only 'evidence' it provides is a bullet point that says : '[The ACLU] Supports Legalized Child Pornography'. No court cases, no judicial records, nothing...

Sorry, bub. You're going to have to do better than that.

[Cydon]

Okay. How bout this?

http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=13048

[Sargoth]

Okay. How bout this?

http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=13048

What about it? If you click the link on that very site about the judge striking down the law, you'll see this little tidbit:


The groups said in their suit that Vermont's new law, aimed at preventing the distribution of child pornography, was too broad and would allow authorities to censor anything deemed offensive to minors.
The law gives Vermont jurisdiction over material on a computer anywhere that is deemed to be offensive to minors. It makes exceptions for schools, museums, and public libraries, and for employees of those places who are doing work that serves their educational purposes.
In its arguments, the ACLU said Vermont law already regulated the possession of child pornography, and prohibited the use of the Internet to entice children into committing sexual acts.
"The state's need to protect minors can be effectively addressed by two other statutes that don't regulate the content of legal adult speech," David Putter, a Montpelier lawyer who argued the case for the ACLU, said on April 19.
The ACLU had also argued that the law was too broad.
"This case is about legitimate valuable information that is being prohibited on the basis that it might be harmful to some minors," Putter said.


You see, Cydon, you must understand how 'Child Pornography' legislation works in the US. Oftentimes, a 'Child Porn' law will contain *additional* legislation, or 'riders' to attempt to regulate protected speech, that has nothing to do with the exploitation of children (example here: http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=16075.) (http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=16075.) Of course, these laws usually pass with ease, because lawmakers don't want to have their name on record as being someone who voted against a 'Child Porn' law. At this point, the only remedy can come from the courts. Groups like the ACLU are necessary to make sure that unfair or unconstitutional laws are challenged.

So when you look at it, Cydon, you see that what the ACLU is challenging has *nothing* to do with "Child Porn", and everything to do with defending against overreaching, overbroad, and unconstitutional legislation.

[Cydon]

Thanks Sargoth.

[Sargoth]

No problem!

:cheers:

[Cydon]

L'chaim L'chaim to life! Oh great, now I got Fiddler on the Roof stuck in my head...

[Sargoth]

L'chaim L'chaim


I always wondered how you spelled that. :lol:

[Cydon]

I figured it out after seeing a book at Barnes and Noble with the title named.

"L'chaim"
To Life