Finally!! Someone in the press talking about the ACLU....

[mark]

...............finally....... someone in the press is talking about the ACLU the same way normal Americans do.
Click this link out & read:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,171995,00.html

Here's a thought posted: ( & I totally agree )

The ACLU simply wants a different country, a nation where conduct it approves of, public sexual displays, child molestation literature is allowed. But the ACLU wants to inhibit conduct it disagrees with, like protesting the border and celebrating the birth of Jesus.

More thoughts posted from Oreilly:

Now my next comments are directed at our liberal viewers. How can you support a group as nakedly, pardon the pun, radical as the ACLU? This isn't about freedom. This is about imposing a radical secular progressive agenda on a country that has traditionally voted on public policy issues. If the live sex act initiative was put on the Oregon ballot, it'd be voted down big. Remember, Oregonians voted against gay marriage.

So.........how can anyone support an organization like this one?? They have lost all credibility with me my friends. I'd love to hear from others who supports this type of legislation.

Comments?? ..................see ya mark

[Groundhog]

I am a member of the ACLU, however I do not agree with everything they support. The only reason I am a member is because the ACLU supports and fights for freedom of religion, as well as freedom from religion. If there was another group that had as much success with that issue as the ACLU, I probably would not be a member. George Washington himself stated after the revolution that America was never founded to be a Christian nation. Just because some of the men who wrote the constitution were Christian does not make America a Christian nation. This is as true now as it was then, but there are some who are trying to start the myth that America was founded by Christians for Christians. The Nazis had a saying...Tell a big enough lie long enough and loud enough, people will start to believe it. Christianity is a myth, just like any other myth, and it should be read as such. It is a fact, however, that Christianity cannot survive long in the open forum of a democratic society. It must use force of some form to maintain its influence over people. This is a proven fact and history bears witness to the extent that Christians have gone to in the past to do so. If their victims could speak, I wonder what they would say about the God of Love. That is why we need groups like the ACLU. It protects free men and women from religious intolerance. So, I will believe in the divine any way I want, I will practive that belief openly, I will read and write anything I want about my belief and publish it if I want, and there is nothing that the Christians, their Churchs, or their God can do about it. Nuf said?

[kay]

Mark. I never supported the ACLU in the first place. I can't understand how this organization was ever allowed to exist in the first place.
And to Groundhog:
Those who died in the name of Christianity, I know where they are and they don't have to worry about fighting for what they believe in there.
You have every right to believe in what you want and so do I. So I will just leave it this way: You will be in my prayers.
Thanks as always for letting me give my opinion, whether we agree with one another or not.

[mark]

Christianity is a myth, just like any other myth, and it should be read as such.


................I read from this statement that you're against religion. That's OK with me. Jesus has even predicted that will happen. Here's an example from Matthew 25:

( The Parable of the Sheep & the goats )

33He ( Jesus ) will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
34"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'

37"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'

40"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'

41"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'

.................................................. .......................

Personally, I try everyday to be one of the sheep. Even if I'm totally wrong ( sorry, I believe I'm right ) & nothing comes of religion, at the very least I try to be a good person & one can't go wrong with that.

I simply say to anyone who is anti-religious, just let the rest of us go. We'll keep on ministering to whoever will listen. If there is a prayer at a football game, if you want, don't participate. Just look around for a minute, the game will soon follow. Getting rid of religion is something others has tried for 1000's of years.

Sorry, when a political group cherry picks their battles.......mostly cases that are in favor of child porn, open homosexuality & other perverted lifestyles, they have lost ALL & yes, I mean ALL creditibility with me......................see ya mark

[Foxy]

Sorry, when a political group cherry picks their battles.......mostly cases that are in favor of child porn, open homosexuality & other perverted lifestyles, they have lost ALL & yes, I mean ALL creditibility with me......................see ya mark


AMEN! I agree. The ACLU wille judged by the fruits of thier labor.

I also agree "You have your beliefs and I have mine". I have no problem learning about others beliefs, as long as the person is willing to learn about mine.

[Foxy]

[QUOTE=Foxy]AMEN! I agree. The ACLU wille judged by the fruits of thier labor.QUOTE]

Sorry, I meant WILL be judged...

[kay]

Right on Mark. How about that? We agree again.
I always enjoy reading your opinions. Have a great Sunday everyone!
Oh, yes, Oct. 23 is "Invite a Friend Day" to go to church. Don't forget.

[kdown]

I am a member of the ACLU, however I do not agree with everything they support. The only reason I am a member is because the ACLU supports and fights for freedom of religion, as well as freedom from religion.

I tend to agree with groundhog. The original purpose of the ACLU was to protect the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Who could be against that ?

I don't support all the issues they take up, but then I don't have the same interpertation of some of their causes.

[MichaelB]

Good points all! Groups such as the ACLU are a necessary in our society as a counter-balance to the extremist groups, both on the right and left. Most of us are equally offended at times by both as we fall somewhere in the middle. Most recently however, I think mainly because the pendulum has swung a little to the right, the ACLU has been involved in extreme issues. I wish they would pick their fights a little more carefully so they don't become an instrument of the extreme liberals. Example: Why can't public schools include in their curriculum the theory of creationism and teach it along side the theory of evolution? Children, with their parents support, can draw their own conclusions can't they? If I'm not mistaken the Wahabist teach only one (1) theory and while that makes for a ready, continued supply of Martyrs I submit it does little else. Let's give ourselves a little credit for being able to figure things out for ourselves!

[Jeremy]

At the risk of being slammed, again I have to point out some relevant things that it appears that others have missed.

I find it "off the chart hypocritical" (to use O'Reilly's words) that O'Reilly claims his comments are "no spin" when his bulleted statements are anything but. His very first item: "The ACLU is defending the North American Man Boy Love Association, saying that although the organization champions the criminal rape of children, it has a right to do that under free expression" is a total spin on the less dubious facts of the case. They are not, in this case, defending free expression in terms of we can all do what we want to do. Here they are defending, only, freedom of publication. In reality, the ACLU does not support the total idiotic, immoral, criminal, should be hung from a tree actions of NAMBLA. The reason the ACLU is involved in this case is because NAMBLA was held responsible for the actions of a sicko who kidnapped and murdered a boy, just because the sicko had visited their web site and had one of their pamphlets. The ACLU, independent of the views of NAMBLA, believe that a publisher cannot be held responsible for the actions of one of its readers, especially based on such flimsy material. It would be like the publishers of "Guns and Ammo" being held responsible for the actions of a man who shot his wife just because there was a copy of the magazine on his coffee table. Or it would be like poor Chuck being held responsible for one of us posting a recipe for Napalm. It is precisely because they can't "cherry-pick" their cases that they must intercede in this case of normal people versus sickos.

The spin on the the second bulleted item is that the ACLU supports child pornography. The fact is that they don't. When recent legislation was put into place to ban "virtual child pornography" there were broad and indecipherable definitions of what constituted child pornography and pornography in general. For example, does a painting of a mother bathing a child count as "virtual child pornography"? The statutes didn't say. The ACLU was not endorsing child pornography at all, but rather protecting innocent artistic expression from the broad, confusing, and poorly written law that would make criminals out of someone who painted, well for example, a mother bathing a child.

And finally the spin on the last bulleted statement is that the ACLU picks and chooses their arguments and sometimes acts against free expression as in the case of the Minutemen. Total spin. The ACLU, in an official capacity, did not show up at the border to shut the Minutemen down. They were on hand to make sure the "rights" of both Americans and Mexicans weren't impeded. Specifically, from their own policy regarding the Minutemen, they were concerned over the encouragment of Minutemen to carry handguns in their protest. Obviously, one group intentionally or accidentally shooting another, would be an impediment of rights.

[frankie 2 times]

jeremy nailed it.

i am no fan of the ACLU, but with broad, indecipherable laws, someone needs to take up the fight.

NAMBLA isn't responsible for something one sicko does ... eventhough all of NAMBLA are friggin sickos.

the problem with broad based laws, that have no real definition of what is and what isn't covered,
is that the right, or more specifically, o'reilly, support any and all of em, till there is a knock at his door.

what did old right wing nutjob rush limbaugh say should happen to ALL drug abusers ?
i wonder if he still believes that, or if he thanks god for people like the ACLU,
who kept his own right wing from carrying out his wishes for other drug addicts ?

[Chuck]

Prez, OMG, Not one foul word,,,, Bro, I am impressed. You are my new found hero.

People against the ACLU will find that they will lose what ever rights they have left. The ACLU help keep the playing field equal for all men. We share this country with many different people with many different cultures. This is our country not any one mans or groups country.

We (This Country) are a team and need to work and play well with each other. The ACLU helps keep the rules equal.

[frankie 2 times]

i can go without cussing, but the ACLU protects my right to do so, at my discretion.

LMBO !!

see "LMBO", even used butt .... i am on a roll.

[Jeremy]

I am also willing to admit that there are lots of people, whole segments of the country even, who absolutely hate the ACLU and everything they do. I find this odd though because their controversial cases only make up a small percentage of the work that they do. The large majority of their cases involve racial discrimination, religious discrimination, and sexual discrimination.