This meeting attracts some very big names, besides just TV stars and Nobel laureates. Perhaps the most important person to speak here today was Nadine Strossen, president of the American Civil Liberties Union. The ACLU may be the most falsely defamed organization in America. These people have devoted their lived to protecting the Constitution. That’s an act that a lot of politicians appear to have forgotten.
Ms. Strossen gave an impassioned talk about how the government is trying to destroy science in this country. She focused on medical laws, including drug laws, sex (mis)education, and Oregon’s Death with Dignity act, but she (of course) talked at length about creationism. There have been some big victories lately (like Dover, Pennsylvania and California), but the fight goes on.
She quoted the ACLU’s first leader, who said: "No fight for civil liberties ever stays won." That’s so very true, which in turn calls to mind Wendell Phillips: "Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom."
Between what she was saying, and what we’re seeing happening with school boards across this country, it’s easy to be discouraged. But it’s also good to know that whistleblowers are out there. In the case of Ms. Strossen, she shines a very strong light on some very shady dealings. It’s up to us not to flinch as we look at what she’s saying, to take action to protect our rights, and to protect the truth.
January 27th, 2006 at 7:55 pm
The ACLU does some exemplary work, and some embarrassing work. They also pick and choose which parts of the bill of rights they defend. Still better to have them than not.
January 28th, 2006 at 2:31 am
The ACLU dedicated to protecting the Constitution?! What a crock! The ACLU is a terrorist organization dedicated to destroying, not protecting, the Constitutuion along with the moral and religious values this country was founded upon.
January 28th, 2006 at 2:55 am
I’m glad things worked out in Dover, Pennsylvania and California to everyone’s satisfaction. My question is: Do ANY of these people really know what they’re talking about?
The gift shop and museum at the Alamo, in San Antonio, Texas, has a display entitled “The Evolution of the Bowie Knife.”
I would have thought the Bowie knife was more the product of
intelligent design.
January 28th, 2006 at 3:41 am
That’s a pretty strong statement you make there, Scott, calling the ACLU a terrorist organization. What do you base this on? One has the responsibility to back statements like that up.
January 28th, 2006 at 3:43 am
WHAT?!?!? I can’t believe I’m reading this garbage at this site! The
Aging Communist Leftovers Union is the greatest threat to our liberties that exists, supporting every crackpot Leftwing agenda out there.
I suggest that you rename your site “The Bad Astronomy AND Bad Political Thinking Blog”.
You’ve just lost a reader.
January 28th, 2006 at 3:49 am
I wanna be there! What a bugger to be but a poor student when such a fantastic thing as TAM happens…
Oh, and regarding the ACLU, I like some of the things they work for, and dislike some other, but I most sincerley respect them and their work… Just saying…
January 28th, 2006 at 6:03 am
Some examples perhaps, Jim and Scott? Maybe show us their terrorist acts and let us see how they’re “threatening our liberties”.
January 28th, 2006 at 7:04 am
I could not agree MORE with Scott, The ACLU is a vile organization
January 28th, 2006 at 7:09 am
I am a ACLU member, but I disagree with much of what they try to do. Some times they take a sensible position, and many times not. I agree with Frank E, and somewhat with several others who express a signficant amount of skepticism about some of the ACLU legal attacks. I doubt that the government is trying to destroy science in the country. The US government is about as strong a supporter of science as is industry. I think that we have a good government, not perfect, but no human institution is perfect, especially the ACLU.
Please be more specific next time.
Thanks,
Jim
January 28th, 2006 at 7:23 am
Phil,
You need to keep to science. Just keep your politics to yourself. We´ll all be happier.
January 28th, 2006 at 7:48 am
Scott and Jim, please. You can’t be serious. Look through the ACLU case files and you will find more than a few cases the ACLU has been on the side of conservatives and their First Amendment rights. You may not agree with them on all issues, but somebody out there needs to be vigilant to ensure this nation isn’t turned into a theocracy. And Phil, it’s your blog, you post whatever you damn well please.
January 28th, 2006 at 8:55 am
Joe wrote…
Just keep your politics to yourself. We´ll all be happier.
Well, not all of “us”.
January 28th, 2006 at 8:58 am
Another TAM participant here, blogging the event too, and a supporter of the ACLU.
As is being amply demonstrated here at the Meeting, it’s attitudes like that which are contributing to the corruption of our political process. You may be happier not to think about the intersection of science and politics, but I’m not.
January 28th, 2006 at 9:09 am
Wow, BA, you struck a sensitive nerve, huh? My views on the ACLU mirror Frank’s. Better to have them than not. It all comes down to whose ox is being gored in any particular case the ACLU takes on.
At least we have the freedom in America for unpopular ideas to be heard, including ID or “the theory of evolution.” Consider the alternative. I’m amazed at the ignorant responses of some to this blog. They need a lesson or two in civics. Democracy doesn’t mean you always get your way – it means you always get your say! I forget who said that first, but it’s still true.
Keep up your good work, BA. I don’t always agree with what you say either, but I’ll defend your right to say it and I’ll draw my own conclusions. That’s what scientific inquiry is all about, isn’t it?
January 28th, 2006 at 9:18 am
Next thing you know, you will be telling us you are a Democrat, or maybe even a Republican, and you will manage to tick off about half your readers. As for the ACLU, they do seem to lean to the left a bit.
January 28th, 2006 at 10:10 am
The Wendell Phillips quote is a rephrase of the Thomas Jefferson quote: “The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.”
http://www.quotedb.com/quotes/2283
January 28th, 2006 at 11:08 am
I can’t believe you’re taking heat for the ACLU post and I can’t believe that intelligent people are so easily led in this country. Someone NEEDS to stand up and protect our rights and especially the right to privacy in this country. These folks who wave the flag and thump the Bible for their own power and greed need to be called on the carpet. We would be much better off in this country if the people who are taking these “unpopular” stands–unpopular my tail, they’re really just pandering to the majority, would be more spiritual and less dogmatically religious.
I think the ACLU defends some folks they probably shouldn’t because abusing civil liberties just a bit is a “slippery slope”. I also think that anyone who thinks the Earth is only 5,000 years old and who doesn’t believe in evolution is an idiot! Let them do without their next flu shot and avoid modern medicine. I think most folks when they have to go to a hospital want all that evolution will provide as well as a critically thinking, well-read doctor. Why do these folks then hate intellectuals so much?
If some of your readers abandon you over this post, then it’s no great loss. I truly can’t believe that people in this country have become so stupid as to let themselves be used by those who have power and money.
greg
January 28th, 2006 at 12:23 pm
This is my first visit to your blog and I have to say I find it fascinating. You seem to be attracting people across the spectrum of philosophies. I am always amazed by the invective that mention of the ACLU brings. I think comments like Frank’s and Jim’s more closely mirror my own feelings. It does seem a breath of fresh air to find there are skeptical people out there who actually take the time to think through an argument and don’t rely on the strength (or reputation) of the person(s) making the comment. In this first cursory reading it appears that skepticism is a key core issue. That is great! This 70+ year old woman will continue reading.
January 28th, 2006 at 1:41 pm
Jim, Joe and Scott are obviously narrow minded, belligerent and uncivil. As noted by several others they make claims which essentially are nothing more than slanderous insults or attempt to speak for others.
They present nothing to back up their vauge claims. They simply wanted to talk aout how they disliked the ACLU or preceived political preaching.
If they disagree with the political slant they find here in some entries then at least they could exspress thier dissent in a more diplomatic maner. The science here is unquestionable and the politics is often irrelevant to the science but not always so. They two are often tied together.
In anycase their comments are just rude.
I personally agree with most of the opinions I see posted here and my opinions on the ACLU are immaterial. It disapoints me to see such hostile attitudes here.
Looking over the rest of the reply’s however does make me feel a great deal better. It is clear that the mean spirited and ill informed are not the majority, at least not in the readership of this blog.
January 28th, 2006 at 1:48 pm
America needs the ACLU. They have an honest track record for civil rights and freedom. Words that are overused by politicians yet ring true for the ACLU.
January 28th, 2006 at 3:01 pm
Tonight we were enlightended, there are people like us and think like us
the world is acutally flat and rides on the back of a turtle
we need to get to the turtle, can anyone help us get there>??????
the usa never landed on the moon either
January 28th, 2006 at 3:12 pm
How many things in life have people like Scott and others ignorant of reality benefited from that could have been taken away if not for the work of the ACLU?
As a combat veteran, I thank them for helping to protect me, even when I might question certain decisions.
Oh, and I thank Phil for his work too of course!
January 28th, 2006 at 3:13 pm
I was fried that the ACLU, some years ago, defended the free speech of nazis — but after taking a sociology class, I thought through the concept that the bill of rights applies across the board, not just to people I agree with. Like the death penalty — altho it’s hard to say I’d promise not to wish death on a person who hurt someone I love, the death penalty has to apply to all or none, and the risk that someone who was erroneously convicted being executed is too great. That, and the fact that it doesn’t seem to work as a deterrant — some turkey beating his wife to death in the bedroom is not asking himself whether he lives in a death penalty state. but I digress…
The bottom line is that the ACLU serves a useful function because sometimes our civil rights are at risk (think PATRIOT Act).
January 28th, 2006 at 3:41 pm
Wow, Phil – I’m glad I don’t have your readers. One makes an asseration, another asks for suppot, a third responds by saying he will no longer read your blog. Screw teaching civil discourse, it would be enough if people could learn to move beyond argument by assertation.
January 28th, 2006 at 5:47 pm
ACLU… Good or bad? I guess the question being debated here is really… USA… Good or Bad? I say this because it is the basic fundamental principles of the United States of America that allows institutions such as the ACLU to live and thrive around us. If the existence of a belief structure and the ensuing followers of that belief are bad, then in fact the basic reason for the greatness of this nation IS bad. If instead we can firmly agree that an alternate belief system is acceptable and expected then in fact this nation is good. If we accept this notion then we must allow society to hear the perspective of those we firmly disagree with and be resolute in this allowance. If this indulgence is good then we must in fact say this nation is good and in doing so agree that the ACLU is GOOD! Why, because it firmly affirms the strength and resolve of this nation to the basic freedoms of speech regardless of view point and political assertions.
Personally, I agree with very little of what the ACLU is doing. Regardless, I support their right to do exactly as they are doing, and will stand firm on the right to their freedom!
Thanks for the BLOG!
Simper Fi
January 28th, 2006 at 5:55 pm
First of all, I want to back up RAF. Joe – be careful with your use of the word “we”.” You don’t speak for me, OK?
Second, this is Phil’s blog. People who want to tell Phil not to post about politics can go get their own blogs.
Third, I am waiting for Scott Miller, Jim Bjaloncik and Gene to make their cases. If you just spout mindless negativity about something, your opinion is useless.
January 28th, 2006 at 8:10 pm
I agree Phil, the ACLU is a maligned organization. Very seldom have I heard those who rant against it admit that how unaware they are of the numerous cases the ACLU takes on. Wendy mentioned free speech for Nazis; they’ve won a case for a KKK member’s right to burn a cross on private property, and though I don’t support racists, it’s not against the law to be a hater in the US; thankfully we don’t get sent off to the Gulag for burning a flag, etc., etc. either.
The ACLU clearly spells out on their site that teachers are often confused of what’s allowed or not allowed regarding religion in public schools, and that they often unknowingly go too far. They are defending a girl’s right to sing “Awesome God” at a talent show; they support NOT teaching Intelligent Design in science class where it doesn’t belong. One needs to look at each case before making blanket statements about their ” destroying moral and religious values.”
All I can say is read their cases on their site -http://www.aclu.org/religion/index.html – and realize that they defend a spectrum of people; conservatives, liberals, religious, non-religious, whoever…and that it could be something you or I say or do tomorrow that they defend. Considering the hundreds of cases, when some bloviating pundit picks on one or two cases to no end (aren’t we tired of hearing about NAMBLA?) then he or she is just not looking at the big picture. I’m glad they’re out there fighting for what I value most about our country.
As far govt and science – there’s been enough tampering with EPA reports, catering to special interests, et al, to be concerned about politicians abusing science for their own gains. Nothing too new there, though it seems worse in the last few years, and well, regressive. Honest dealing in facts appears harder to come by these days; there are some issues that don’t require or deserve balance, such as ID (we heard you, now go back to the drawing board). In an article about his observations of the Dover, PA trial, Matthew Chapman, great-great-grandson of Charles Darwin, simply stated:
“What was being said, not just by Buckingham and Bosnell but by the President and countless others, is that when the evidence is overwhelming, and you don’t like, ignore it.”
(The article appears in the Feb. Harper’s magazine.)
January 28th, 2006 at 8:43 pm
You guys are totally right. The ACLU really is fighting the good fight, especially when their goal is 100% legalization for minors to have abortions without notifying their guardians. Simply brilliant, it’s good to know that they are really helping people take responsibility for their own actions. What a god damn joke. They regularly partner themselves with radicals such as MoveOn.org, a website that has repeatedly called for the impeachment of President Bush, and not only defend, but ally themselves with the likes of Cindy Sheehan and Michael Moore.
When looking at an organization with the ACLU’s track record it is very difficult to fathom how any thinking person can admire them. It is a case of a noble cause gone terribly, terribly wrong.
January 28th, 2006 at 9:16 pm
If some of you out there don’t believe we need folks to blow the whistle on people in power and that this Republican administration hasn’t waged an all out war on science (which is worse than anything the lame Democrats have done is recent history), please read “The Republican War on Science” by Chris Mooney. I don’t believe most of what I read without independent research on my own but the arguments advanced in his book aren’t political—they’re against using science incorrectly and for political gain.
The idea that each side to a story deserves equal time doesn’t apply in science. One can’t simply buy one’s experts and parade them to counter consensus but that’s what’s being done because it’s effective. Bush and his cronies can do what they want politically but they need to take the heat for it—don’t dress up their programs by saying they’re based on “sound science”.
I’ll admit that I think Bush should be impeached for many, many reasons and that I applaud Michael Moore and MoveOn.org for shining a light on the darkness of corruption in the administration and the Republican party. This administration’s actions are undeniable:
basic abuse of science to advance a political agenda, disregard for civil liberties continuing with the latest round of illegal wiretapping, rampant corporate corruption and suppression of the truth, and finally culminating in taking us into a war with the wrong country for the wrong reasons and outright lies is inexcusable and has been pointed out by many, many others. I’m glad that we live in a country where a viewpoint can be expressed and where there exists support for the whistleblowers.
January 29th, 2006 at 4:32 am
Well, I don’t always agree with everything phil says (or what anyone says for that matter), but I don’t have to agree. That is after all the nature of *opinions*.
So my problem becomes this: would I rather be exposed to opinions I believe to be wrong, or would I rather they be suppressed and risk my own opinions eventually falling out of favour with those currently in power? The answer is of course the former. When a government suppresses even one opinion sensorship quickly snowballs to extreme levels.
January 29th, 2006 at 2:27 pm
Interesting how these folks who bash the ACLU do so because the ACLU supports the constitutional rights of those they disagree with.
It is hypocritical to only support freedom of speech for those who agree with you. It is hypocritical to support freedom of religion only for christians of your own denomination. It is hypocritical to only support those protected activities that you find morally correct.
So much for critical thinking, and so much for big-picture thinking.
The ACLU fights to preserve the rights of us all. I hate Nazis, but if we suppress their speech because we don’t agree with them then how long before the moral majority is suppressing OUR speech to discuss evolution ANYWHERE?
Those of you who have been bashing the ACLU should remember that according to many surveys the MAJORITY OF AMERICANS think ID should be given equal time to evolution. The MAJORITY feel that evolution is morally repugnant because it makes god unnecessary. I find Nazism morally repugnant, and these folks have put nazism and evolution in the same neighborhood, along with atheism.
The ACLU protects some speech I find morally repugnant, but that’s my problem. I speak out against those things and share my reasons.
What some of these folks here are suggesting is that the government protect them from hearing things they might be morally offended by. I guess they miss the sensation of being a small child protected by mommy and daddy.
Some of us are adults and we’ll take our chances and make mature and informed decisions about our moral and spiritual well-being without your help or the government’s.
Sorry your blog got hijacked by political discourse, Dr. Plait, but science and politics are unfortunately intertwined.
January 29th, 2006 at 4:00 pm
Just wanted to say that my girlfriend and I came all the way from Norway to attend TAM4 in Vegas. And what a great week this has been! The people are fantastic. James Randi has approached us many times to check that everything is going well with us. We have talked to people like Jamie Hyneman from Mythbusters out in the hallway. Randi, Mythbusters, Penn Jillette, Richard Wiseman, Daniel Dennet, Phil Plait, Michael Shermer and other people I really admire are walking around here and you can talk to them whenever you want. They are always welcoming and kind. This is so cool!
TAM4 is now over, and we have the rest of the day to see some more of Vegas before we start the long journey back home to Norway tomorrow. This has been worth every dollar, and we really want to attend future TAMs, although it would be great if it could be in England or somewhere else in Europe. Less expensive for us…
The Bad Astronomers talk was very interesting and entertaining. Keep up the good work Phil!
Regarding the ACLU I must just say that Nadine Strossens talk was great! She outlined many of the problems USA faces regarding the way science is been down-prioritized here. She was inspiring and my impression was that she was very clearsighted and objective. I’m shocked to see how people here in these comments don’t want to allow meanings that they themselves object to.
Well, great work Phil, and I hope you will come to an eventual European TAM! (And yes, the internetservice here at the Stardust is crap…)
January 29th, 2006 at 6:47 pm
From what I’ve seen, the ACLU typically takes the counterpoint in arguments that some people believe are critical and others believe are silly. It all comes to a head in a courtroom where, usually, rationality rules. I don’t agree with everything I’ve heard that they do, like I don’t agree with everything that either political party does. I don’t claim to have full knowledge of the ACLU’s actions, wouldn’t focus on one action I know about or just go to their website to find out what they do, either.
Skeptical enough?
January 29th, 2006 at 9:16 pm
People like to take shots at the ACLU for defending the freedoms of those they may not agree with. Organizations like the KKK for instance.
It seems pretty straighforward to me: If you don’t support free speech for everyone, then you don’t support free speech. Can’t pick and choose.
January 29th, 2006 at 9:51 pm
“The majority of Americans think I.D. should be taught” ..or something like that. But, I truly wonder, do the majority of Americans know what the
I.D.ers actually are saying?
I think not…I believe, and I could be wrong, that they are just picking up on the phrase “Intelligent Design” not the real group and what they stand for.
And as far as the ACLU goes, for the majority of cases that seem to make it on the news, they stink….what makes it? Oh, religious things like not being able to show the 10 Commandments or a Creche on public property,
or the problem of the term “God” on our coins, our national seal and in our pledge. Yes, we do live in a secular society made up of people that are predominatly Jewish or Christian.
And that is the way it is.
But we have the right to praise God or not too.
No one is ever forced by the state here in America to do either.
And we must not forget the idiot lady who sued NASA and everyone for letting Astronauts Borman,Lovell & Anders quote Genesis on Christmas Eve as they orbited The Moon!
And politics (read the peoples business) does intersect science and science does intersect politics.
At any rate, it’s Phil’s Blog…he has the right to say what he thinks is allowable or not!
January 30th, 2006 at 1:02 am
Gunnar Roland Tjomlid, are you an older white-haired man with a Norwegian flag on your jacket? I saw someone with that description looking rather out of place at that light show in Vegas as race cars zoomed over the street and the overhead video screens flashed images of monster trucks driving over cities and flames shooting from the rooftops.
TAM4 was good. I would highly recommend anyone interested enough. I heard from the cabbies that the Stardust is going to be torn down next January and pulverised into starstuff, so there’s no telling where it will be next year.
January 30th, 2006 at 5:35 am
I find that those who bash the ACLU are like those who bash the BBB — for some reason, they were personally hurt by a decision the group had made against either them or their belief system.
The ACLU may seem to take on some flaky cases at times, but they are motivated by the highest goal an American citizen can take on — to ensure that the constitution applies to all. Wasn’t it Captain Kirk who said, “[These words] must apply to EVERYONE, or they mean nothing!” Admittedly a fictional character, but the statement is true. If we decide that the constitution only applies to some people and not to others, we become as bad as Nazi Germany! And we would no doubt meet the same end.
And I am also waiting for the ACLU bashers to provide specifics. I doubt they will.
January 30th, 2006 at 7:51 am
If you are in favor of science education rather than religious indoctrination, you should support the ACLU. And if you don’t, I have a question for you: How do you know it’s going to be *your* religion next time?
It’s painfully obvious that the current US government regards science as just another tool to further its aims. It’s a tool that doesn’t work for some of those aims – in fact it works counter to them – so in those cases, the tool gets tossed.
January 30th, 2006 at 9:12 am
I think as long as Phil is the one paying for hosting and all he can do whatever he likes with the site, yeah?
I find people who would go so far as to stop reading this site because of a political disagreement rather ridiculous. Makes me think it’s an entrenched ideology rather than a rationally formed position.
Why is a different opinion such an incredible threat to some people?
January 30th, 2006 at 9:25 am
Any organization that excites people to stand up and be counted is doing good. So, just so we’re all on the same page, I quote and affirm,,,
” I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
,,,and yes, that also applies to those enraged that some might disagree with them. Jim, Scott, et al. You may be knuckleheads, but this is America and you can say whatever you please, just know that I vociferously disagree.
Gary 7
PS. Hey, when I was assigned to help this small planet, nobody said it would be easy,,,
January 30th, 2006 at 9:55 am
Bill said
“And I am also waiting for the ACLU bashers to provide specifics. I doubt they will.”
I couldn’t agree more. Even Bart Sibrel has “evidence” and to back his kooky Moon Hoax theory. His examples are total bunk, but at least he backs up his arguments with something.
Phil—Keep up the good work and go on posting whatever you want on YOUR blog.
January 30th, 2006 at 10:53 am
Why is a different opinion such an incredible threat to some people?
This is the essential question. The answer is that free speech inherently promotes critical thinking, in order to make sense out of all those conflicting opinions it generates. Imagine that the Tiananmen square veterans would be free to go online in China to put their case for the Chinese people. Many young Chinese would most likely start to question the official version put out by their government. The Chinese government can only lose if they were to allow this.
Similarly, after 9/11 the US government has tried (and to a large extent succeeded) to villify their opponents (”If you’re not with us, you are against us” – not just aimed at foreign countries). As a result they could do whatever they pleased until recently. It took the catastrophe of Katrina to unveil the fact that this government does not actually serve the people.
People in power generally have a tendency to suppress opposition, and brain wash the population with carefully crafted propaganda. This is exactly why any organization that aims to protect civil rights is an asset.
January 30th, 2006 at 11:15 am
If everyone loved the ACLU, I would be suspicious. The fact that they evoke so much hatred tells me that they are doing exactly what they have set out to do — to protect and defend unpopular acts and unpopular speech. After all, it doesn’t take much effort to defend a majority viewpoint.
And, yes, their history includes protecting the freedom of speech of Communists. So what? Should you ever find yourself in a minority viewpoint trying to be suppressed because the majority finds your point of view “vile,” you’ll be happy to know that there is an organization out there willing to stand up for you, even as politicians and other “civil rights” organizations distance themselves from you.
January 30th, 2006 at 11:18 am
I couldn’t agree more. The ACLU is one of those few(?) organizations that really truly believes in what it stands for, and consistently acts on those beliefs. So they protect the free-speech rights of those on the right as well as on the left. I may not always agree with everything they do, but that’s to be expected. If they seem to be on the far left, that might be more to do with the country’s swing toward the far right over the past couple decades. That and the trend that censorship tends to come more from the right than from the left.
January 30th, 2006 at 11:43 am
Antone said: “They regularly partner themselves with radicals such as MoveOn.org, a website that has repeatedly called for the impeachment of President Bush, ”
IMPEACH BUSH, IMPEACH BUSH, IMPEACH BUSH…..there, I repeatedly called for it as well.
This administration is a disaster for America and is ruining the environment, science, the military and taking away our rights and freedoms. They are giving victory to the terorists by subverting our core values.
The ACLU fights for our rights. The police here in NYC have declared that they have the right to search you and your property without cause. They disguise it as a random search but they can ask you to stop what you are doing and step to the side while they search your handbag, knapsack or bookbag, etc and also they can do a physical search if they want!
This is illegal and unconsitutional, even if its only (at this time) at subway and ferry entrances. The ACLU lost because the judge only allowed expert testimony from …..police chiefs!
January 30th, 2006 at 1:20 pm
“Censorship tends to come more from the right than from the left.”
I don’t believe that: communist regimes (very left) are notorious for censorship (”our fearless leader has the flu”). It’s a totalitarian tendency.
On the issue of impeachment: In thirty year’s time, high school student might find on their history exam the following question:
At the turn of the century, one president performed lied about having sex in the Oval Office, while another led the country to war under false pretenses. Which one was impeached?
January 30th, 2006 at 1:24 pm
Dear BA,
I’d like to thank you for one thing. For calling Oregon’s “Death with Dignity Act” by it’s proper name. We get so tired of it being called, “Assisted Suicide Law” as its commonly called by most people that are against it. Which to me totaly portrays thier lack of understanding of what the voter implemented ACT is really about.
It was a voter sponsered measure (No Lobbyists involved) which was voted in by a majority. At the request of the Supreme Court, before the act was implimented, the Voter’s here in Oregon voted a second time a year later, to ‘Ratify’ the Act, and we even Re-Ratified it yet again the year after that at request of the outgoing Clinton administration and the federal Legislators.
Since that time, the Feds have been doing anything they could to impede it. From economic sanctions against Oregon, arresting Doctors for honoring thier terminally ill paitents wishes, to repeated attempts trying get the Supreme to stop the act through extra drug contral laws against Oregon, or persecution of people and thier Doctors for chosing to use the Act.
Thankfully the Supreme Court has upheld the voters rights in this case. Which us Oregonians have been delighting over. It was good to see the Courts stick it back to Feds (Ashcroft and company) they way thay have been sticking it to our state for 8 years now, since we voted the Act into place and ratified it twice.
Power to the People!
January 30th, 2006 at 3:09 pm
Well, this has been quite the reaction. I am amused that many who were asked for specific reasons they don’t like the ACLU have not posted again.
As others have noted, this does just so happen to be my blog. I have written both political and religious posts in the past that are only marginally — if that — related to astronomy. If someone doesn’t like it, well, there are lots of other blogs out there. Or you can come here once a week, and look through the “science” and “astronomy” categories.
And Gunnar, thank you! This was a tremendous week. I hope I can do it justice in description over the next few days. I hope I’ll have time to upload some of the fantastic pictures I have from the meeting as well.
January 30th, 2006 at 3:12 pm
The ACLU does a lot of protection of SOME rights protected by the Bill of Rights, but ignores or actively downplays others. As it is, they should really call themselves more ‘The First Amendment’ Union, as that’s the one they almost exclusively support.
They seem to actively hate the Second Amendment, and I’ve never seen them go to court to uphold the 9th or 10th Amendments, either.
January 30th, 2006 at 3:24 pm
Stuart Sanders Says:
The ACLU does a lot of protection of SOME rights protected by the Bill of Rights, but ignores or actively downplays others. As it is, they should really call themselves more ‘The First Amendment’ Union, as that’s the one they almost exclusively support.
They seem to actively hate the Second Amendment, and I’ve never seen them go to court to uphold the 9th or 10th Amendments, either.
They are honest, though, about their focus on the First Amendment. It’s the first bullet in their mission statement on their About the ACLU page (http://www.aclu.org/about/index.html).
Truth be told, the First Amendment is one of the most important of all the amendments, and it’s arguably the one most consistently needing of support (not just now, but throughout our history).
As for the Second Amendment, I can’t say I agree with everything they go to bat for. Fortunately or not, that one is very ambiguously worded, and its meaning depends heavily on how you read it. So I can see the validity of a number of different interpretations of it.
January 30th, 2006 at 4:29 pm
I don’t think the Second Amendment needs the ACLU to fight for it. Given the current political balance, it is quite safe.
Unfortunately.
January 30th, 2006 at 4:36 pm
Communist governments are only communist in name, but not by practice. Calling them “left” is just plain wrong. Although communism IN THEORY may be called leftist, communism IN PRACTICE is not. Those governments labeled as “communist” only give lip service, at best, to communist philosophy.
Of course, some might say the same about democracy too.
Communism in practice and American “Democracy” seem very similar to me: the people in power provide the people just enough to keep them passive so that the leaders can do whatever they really want – usually funnel billions of state dollars into their own coffers and that of their buddies. The difference is that in Communist nations the people are giving “just barely what they need” where as in America the is a middle class is granted the illusion of prosperity – an illusion because their percieved prosperity is nothing compared to the wealthy elite who can afford to make careers as politicians.
Also, it’s Phil’s blog, so he can say whatever he wants. I’m always shocked by the “I don’t like what you say so I’m not going to listen to you types”. I can only assume such folk have dogmatic beliefs based on flimsy reasoning that does not stand up to scrutiny. Rather than risk having their beliefs shattered, they choose to avoid any contrary thought. It’s safer that way.
January 30th, 2006 at 4:48 pm
PK Says:
“Censorship tends to come more from the right than from the left.â€
I don’t believe that: communist regimes (very left) are notorious for censorship (â€our fearless leader has the fluâ€). It’s a totalitarian tendency.
I think I misspoke a bit. I was thinking in the current age, where communism is effectively a thing of the past and most dictatorships are of the straight-up right-wing variety. Saying that censorship tends to come from extremists would have probably been more accurate.
January 30th, 2006 at 4:54 pm
Paul Says:
Communist governments are only communist in name, but not by practice. Calling them “left†is just plain wrong. Although communism IN THEORY may be called leftist, communism IN PRACTICE is not.
Quite true. When communist governments take power, they invariably turn to the far right, paradoxically enough. I think what happens is that people who are extremists will more easily slam to the opposite extreme than moderate their opinions.
Those governments labeled as “communist†only give lip service, at best, to communist philosophy.
That might be taking it a bit far. Certainly they didn’t live up to what Marx would have expected, or to anywhere near what they claimed to. Still, communist governments do tend to take care of their poor (North Korea notwithstanding). In the USSR, you didn’t go without an operation because you couldn’t afford it, you didn’t have to worry about being poverty-stricken in retirement, etc. Just don’t say anything bad about the government, comrade.
January 30th, 2006 at 5:11 pm
I’m sorry, but you’re wrong: I’ve recently been to Minsk, Belarus, which is still a communist/socialist country. It is also the last dictatorship in Europe. In one book shop they sold old soviet propaganda, and one poster was very telling. It was composed of two parts: on the left a boy with a violin on the streets of New York, poor, homeless, playing for some money. And on the right that same boy in a concert hall in Moscow. The message is clear: “We (socialists) care for our people and do not let them grow up in poverty, but instead let them grow into what they do best.”
Calling a leftwing ideology rightwing because it turns rancid is a very bad habit. First of all, people on the right get pissed off when we dump our “Left-gone-rotten” into the back of their garden (and rightly so). Secondly, it makes people on the left forget that they too can go too far. And finally, it is newspeak: calling peace war and war peace, and left right. Remember Orwell!
January 30th, 2006 at 5:33 pm
Stuart Sanders Said:
>The ACLU does a lot of protection of SOME rights protected by the Bill of Rights, but ignores or actively downplays others. As it is, they should really call themselves more ‘The First Amendment’ Union, as that’s the one they almost exclusively support.
>They seem to actively hate the Second Amendment, and I’ve never seen them go to court to uphold the 9th or 10th Amendments, either.
At least that’s some identifiable complaints against the ACLU, rather than just blanket derogatory remarks.
Amendments here
III doesn’t seem to need much protection at the moment. I haven’t seen the government trying to forcibly quarter troops in people’s homes lately.
IV gets a lot of attention and effort by the ACLU – search and seizure being a hot topic with the Patriot Act and the War on Drugs.
V deals with capital punishment, double jeopardy, self-incrimination, due process of law, and just compensation for imminent domain. The ACLU has been active on these issues as well.
VI has a variety of restrictions on criminal prosecutions. We don’t here a lot about these, mostly because defendents already have legal council to fight for these rights.
VII assures the right to jury trial and trial review by rules of common law. Anybody see this being violated often?
VIII is against excessive bail, excessive fines, and cruel and unusual punishment. Again, defendents have legal representation to help with these issues, but cruel and unusual punishment gets ACLU attention.
IX protects rights that are not enumerated in the Constitution. Since these are unspecified, this is very vague. Should the ACLU be focussing more attention here? What unenumerated rights should they be identifying and fighting for?
X reserves powers not granted by the Constitution to the Federal Government to the states or the people. I assume you’re arguing States’ Rights, versus rights of the People vs. the Fed. Government. I suppose one could make a case on this one, but the American Civil War shifted interpretations of federalism.
II seems to be the real crux of the matter.
January 30th, 2006 at 8:17 pm
Irishman says:
“VII assures the right to jury trial and trial review by rules of common law. Anybody see this being violated often?”
One word: Guantanamo
January 30th, 2006 at 8:49 pm
well, I’m sure if the king of england invades the 13 colonies, and the english colonists are forced to take up arms against him, the ACLU will actively jump into the second amendment debate:P. Until that happens I really don’t see a point.
January 31st, 2006 at 1:52 am
One reason the ACLU doesn’t usually take on Second Amendment cases is simply that the NRA, which does, has a lot more resources (e.g. money) than they do. The ACLU is pretty much a “last refuge” organization and it makes no sense for them to take on cases where someone else is in a better position to do so.
January 31st, 2006 at 6:36 am
“IV gets a lot of attention and effort by the ACLU – search and seizure being a hot topic with the Patriot Act and the War on Drugs.”
Let’s not forget the warrantless wiretapping scandal. The ACLU just filed a big lawsuit in regards to this with several others signing on—including writer Christopher Hitchens.
January 31st, 2006 at 10:49 am
Belarus being s Dictatorship actually supports my claim. They SAY they are communist (in theory) and put out the propaganda, but what they DO is not communsit at all. If you believe Belarus is “communist” than you are just believing the propaganda (while at the same time claiming it’s false …. do you see that your statement makes no sense because you claim both sides are true?).
January 31st, 2006 at 10:50 am
Quite a tempest in a teapot. While on occasion the ACLU has backed the wrong horse, the majority of their actions have been in the interests of defending the Constitution. The ideals that the matter of God is up to the believer and their God without the interference of government. Have they represented some really vile people? Yes. Just because the message sucks does not mean that their right to say it should be infringed.
I’ll leave you with the words of Pastor Martin Neimoller.
First they came for the Communists,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Communist.
Then they came for the Social Democrats,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Social Democrat.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Jew,
Then they came for me,
and by that time there was no one
left to speak up for me.
Pastor Niemoller spent from 1937 – 1945 in German concentration camps for these views. They echo Voltiares “I do not agree with a word you say but i will defend to the death your right to say it.”
Something that the ACLU has done extensive work in defending. They have consistantly defended the individual who is expressing their religion and opposed government institution led expressions of religion.
January 31st, 2006 at 11:24 am
The problem is, a lot of people don’t WANT freedom of speech, or freedom of religion, or anything like that. They want THEIR views protected and promoted, but they do not want to hear anything that may contradict their views. They take offense at anybody who says anything that contradicts what they believe, and would prefer to live sheltered lives where they never have to know anybody disagrees with them. For the group in the majority, the elected officials naturally pander to them and try so supress unpleasent opposing views. This is the basic idea of democracy, where the views interests of the majority hold absolute sway and the views and interests of the minority, where they conflict with those of the majoirty, are ignored or even actively supressed. Luckily we don’t live in a democracy, we live in a constitutional republic. The very reason for the existence the constitution in general, and the bill of rights in particular, is specifically to protect the rights of the minority against abuse by the majority. Minority views are, by definition, unpopular. If they weren’t, they wouldn’t be a minority. The role of the constitution is to protect those views, those interests, and those groups that are unpopular. For elected officials, it is in their best interests to follow the views of the majority because they are the ones that control the ballot boxes. They would gladly eliminate rights of minority groups and supress minority views if it will get them elected (and in fact they do so on a semi-regular basis). That is the purpose of the courts. They are NOT bound by ballot boxes, they get no benefit from supporting the majority over the minority. This leaves them free to see whether the rights of the minority really are being violated without having the pressure of having to answer to the majority. Without the courts, there is no branch of government can be counted on to protect the minority. The problem is that the courts do not have the ability to eliminate any law that violates the rights of the minority. Someone has to complain first. These people must have the time, money, training, and background to get through a whole series of lesser courts. That is where the ACLU comes in. When the rights of the minority are violated, they offer assistance to these groups. Naturally, this makes them unpopular with many in the majority. After all, the job of the ACLU is to protect those who are unpopular with the majority. But someone has to do it or the constitution becomes just another meaningless piece of paper.
I think a quote from Benjamin Franklin best sums it up:
“A democracy is two wolves and a small lamb voting on what to have for dinner. Freedom under a constitutional republic is a well armed lamb contesting the vote.”
January 31st, 2006 at 11:24 am
I know I’m flogging a dead horse here, but we need to add one more group to those that the ACLU defends: [URL=http://www.palmbeachpost.com/localnews/content/news/limbaugh/011304_limbaugh.html]ACLU bashers[/URL]!
(I hope the hyperlink works right.)
January 31st, 2006 at 12:17 pm
PK Says:
I’m sorry, but you’re wrong:
NOT. Paul addressed that pretty well.
Calling a leftwing ideology rightwing because it turns rancid is a very bad habit. First of all, people on the right get pissed off when we dump our “Left-gone-rotten†into the back of their garden (and rightly so). Secondly, it makes people on the left forget that they too can go too far. And finally, it is newspeak: calling peace war and war peace, and left right. Remember Orwell!
I wasn’t aware that being called conservative was derogatory. Saying that the communist states were/are far-right isn’t dumping them in anyone’s garden; it’s identifying their ideology. Liberalism is rooted in the idea that people are generally good and can be trusted to do the right thing; conservatism is based on the idea that people are generally bad and need to be restrained.
I’m not saying one is right and the other’s wrong; there’s as much evidence for one as for the other. That’s just the way the political spectrum is defined. What we identify as liberal and conservative varies a little at any given time, and both “liberals” and “conservatives” in our country have a mix of both in their approach to specific policies. (I’m doing my best to summarize what would be a difficult poly sci lecture into a couple paragraphs…)
What happens when far-left extremists get in a position of power is that they find their ideals don’t work on their own the way they’re supposed to, so they typically resort to force (eg, Pol Pot). Resorting to force and government control is a conservative method.
January 31st, 2006 at 3:59 pm
Leon Said:
>I wasn’t aware that being called conservative was derogatory. Saying that the communist states were/are far-right isn’t dumping them in anyone’s garden; it’s identifying their ideology.
So far, so good. Not making a value judgement, identifying by behavior.
>Liberalism is rooted in the idea that people are generally good and can be trusted to do the right thing; conservatism is based on the idea that people are generally bad and need to be restrained.
This is the first time I’ve seen that definition for the distinction between liberalism and conservatism. Typical definitions I’ve seen are that conservatives was less government (i.e. they’re conservative about how much government control there is) and liberals want more government (i.e. they use a liberal amount of government).
Applied to social programs, for instance, conservatives want social programs to be run by charities working on donations, where liberals want social programs run by the government supported by taxes. On economic systems, conservatives want open markets and less regulation, liberals want more regulations and controlled markets.
This doesn’t explain the distinction on social issues, where conservatives seem to want less individual freedom (make laws against unseemly behavior like homosexuality, promiscuity, etc) and it is the liberals who seem to want less government intrusion. Your definition explains that part of the equation better.
But if I apply your description to business issues, it breaks down. Conservatives trust businesses and rich people, and want less regulation on them. It is the liberals who want more controls on businesses and corporate owners.
January 31st, 2006 at 4:01 pm
Time and again people use words with a well-established specific meaning and redefine them for the purpose of their argument. This is not the way to conduct a proper discussion, and it is ultimately unproductive and a time-waster. From Webster:
Conservatism:
2 a : disposition in politics to preserve what is established b : a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change
3 : the tendency to prefer an existing or traditional situation to change
Liberalism:
b : a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard c : a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties
(I omitted the irrelevant meanings to this discussion.)
Note that it says nothing about the inherent good or bad in people. That’s just your valuation of it.
On left- or rightwing totalitarianism: neither side has the monopoly on liberalism. In fact, libertarians are naturally on the right of the spectrum. And socialists are notoriously intolerant of other people’s views.
When in power, the exteme left does not just turn right, they get corrupted just like normal human beings.
January 31st, 2006 at 4:36 pm
Sorry Irishman, I was giving the high-level definition of liberal and conservative. That’s really the groundwork of how the distinction started, and what’s identified as “liberal” vs. “conservative” has changed dramatically over the course of time. I just couldn’t resist contributing that from my political science background. The parts where the definition didn’t make sense when applied to current trends is why I mentioned (too subtly, I think) that both sides use a mix and match of the two.
January 31st, 2006 at 4:40 pm
PK says:
Note that it says nothing about the inherent good or bad in people. That’s just your valuation of it.
Really? Not even Liberalism c., “a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race”?
It’s not my valuation. It’s the definition used in professional/academic political science.
February 1st, 2006 at 4:27 am
Yep, you got me there. Next time I should read better (or not post a comment late at night after a few white russians).
Still, I stand by my assertion that a totalitarian regime is not necessarily rightwing.
I think we can all agree that communism is a leftwing ideology. What happened in Russia was a pervertion of this ideology, and indeed, I would not call that communism anymore. However, just because it’s no longer communist in the ideological sense does not mean they are also no longer left-wing.
“Resorting to force and government control is a conservative method.”
No. It’s a totalitarian method.
Why are you so hell-bent on calling the old soviets a rightwing regime? Their rule had definite leftwing traits, such as the fact that there was no unemployment, and that everything was state-owned.
“I wasn’t aware that being called conservative was derogatory.”
I never used the word conservative until you brought it up. I did not for a moment suggest that being called conservative is derogatory. I don’t know where you got that.
February 1st, 2006 at 10:25 am
White Russians? Nice pun!–and not a bad idea for an evening at home, either.
That’s true, you didn’t use the word conservative. But conservative and right are +/- synonymous (I know they’re not exactly the same thing, but for general discussion it works), so I made that leap.
“Resorting to force and government control is a conservative method.â€
No. It’s a totalitarian method.
Actually, I’d say more authoritarian, since it’s a favorite tool of dictatorships of all stripes.
What happened in the USSR and the other communist countries was definitely a perversion of Marx’s theories. No question there.
I probably shouldn’t have taken us down this tangent. I just saw too many political terms being misused I succumbed to the temptation to say something.
February 1st, 2006 at 12:02 pm
But we still haven’t agreed which ones are being misused and in what way they are being misused.
February 1st, 2006 at 3:42 pm
And to my defense, I wasn’t drinking at home
In fact I was watching “the big Lebowski” with friends. Hence the drinks…
February 1st, 2006 at 4:39 pm
Ah, ok. But have you seen “The Big He-Bowski”?
February 2nd, 2006 at 3:06 am
Philip Plait: “Well, this has been quite the reaction. I am amused that many who were asked for specific reasons they don’t like the ACLU have not posted again…..” Perhaps they do not for two reasons, the first that a blog comment properly is brief and to the point, not a dissertation. So then all you get from ACLU opponents are throwaway assertions on its communist origins, Skokie, and appalling NAMBLA defense. Second, could they believe that direct discourse with Philip Plait with his life views and outside his expertise would be as talking to Christine Maggiore, the AIDS denier, a foolishness?
February 2nd, 2006 at 5:05 pm
Always amusing to see how many conservatives regard defending the Constitution as subversive.
February 2nd, 2006 at 8:24 pm
ratbags says:
“Perhaps they do not for two reasons, the first that a blog comment properly is brief and to the point, not a dissertation. ”
Not here it isn’t. Sure there are brief and too-the-point comments, but there are also multi-page comments, there may even comments that are longer than the blog article being commented on. Evidence is expected, if you do not post something to back up your claims they hold not value here.
ratbags says:
“So then all you get from ACLU opponents are throwaway assertions on its communist origins, Skokie, and appalling NAMBLA defense.”
If they have something of value to add to the discussion, no one will fault them for saying it. Pointless, baseless, inflammatory comments add nothing. If that is all they are willing to do they are better off not posting, it only makes their side of the debate look bad and gives ammunition to the other side.
ratbags says:
“Second, could they believe that direct discourse with Philip Plait with his life views and outside his expertise would be as talking to Christine Maggiore, the AIDS denier, a foolishness?”
If that is their feeling, why post at all? Posting a one or two-sentence, borderline trolling post with no substance or information whatsoever seems a lot more foolish to me than posting something that BA disagrees with but actually has something, anything, to support it. At least then they would be saying something, as opposed to just blowing out hot air. Besides, there are a lot more people here than just BA.
February 3rd, 2006 at 12:13 pm
ratbags fan says:
So then all you get from ACLU opponents are throwaway assertions on its communist origins
Anyone who claims that the ACLU is a communist organization is either ignorant, delusional, or at best misinformed.
The ACLU does not espouse the teachings of Karl Marx. (By itself this is enough to make it, by definition, not communist.)
The ACLU does not plan, or want to, take over our country, or (especially) any other.
The ACLU does not have an economic agenda.
The ACLU promotes the free speech rights of everyone–just the opposite of communist regimes.
February 4th, 2006 at 2:20 pm
aclwhooy! a group of selfrighteous lawyers ripping apart the moral fiber of the United States of America under the gist of defending the constitutonal rights of its citizens, and how much money did they make defending our rights this year, oh, thats right, its all about defending the constitution!
February 4th, 2006 at 4:04 pm
kenny says:
“a group of selfrighteous lawyers ripping apart the moral fiber of the United States of America under the gist of defending the constitutonal rights of its citizens”
Once again, senseless, inflamatory rhetoric with absolutely no support whatsoever. How, exactly, could defending freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of religion, freedom of due process, things that have been the basis of our society for the last 220 years or so, all of the sudden become bad things that will destroy our culture if allowed to continue? I fail to see how that works. Now it may destroy some groups attempts to force their concept of morality on others who disagree with them, but that is the whole point. But that is not destroying “moral fiber” of our country, that is protecting us all from one group from forcing their specific concept of morality on us.
I’ll tell you what. If you don’t LIKE the freedoms the US consitution gives us, if you think that these rights are “ripping apart the moral fiber of the United States of America”, there is a very simple solution: get rid of them. Amend the constitution so that we no longer have those rights. The US Constitution has a very specific mechanism to modify parts that are no longer useful to the country, or to add parts that become necessary. If you think the bill of rights is a bad thing, then carry out your civic duty and try to have it abolished. We’ll see how far you get on that. When that doesn’t work, you can always go to a totolitarian country where the country’s moral fiber will be protected (at least the morals the ruling part accepts) and you won’t have to deal with pesky things like freedom. There are a number of options if you prefer your concept of morality over freedom. Otherwise stop complaining about all the freedom you have.
kenny says:
“and how much money did they make defending our rights this year,”
Probably no more than the lawyers defending the other side. It is also not actually the ACLU that makes the money on the court cases, it is the lawyers the ACLU hires to defend people whose civil rights are being violated.
February 8th, 2006 at 3:29 pm
SFwriter Said:
>The gift shop and museum at the Alamo, in San Antonio, Texas, has a display entitled “The Evolution of the Bowie Knife.â€
>I would have thought the Bowie knife was more the product of
intelligent design.
Funny. But the word Evolution is being used in this case in the non-technical sense of “developmental change over time”, or the original meaning of the word prior to it being coopted by biology.
February 8th, 2006 at 4:22 pm
Allow me to make an observation. The people complaining about and condemning the ACLU have not mentioned the NAZI’s or any particular case where they find the ACLU at fault. Only the defenders have stated the NAZI case, NAMBLA, and other specific items that they personally didn’t agree with.
The only direct complaints have been:
1. Scott Miller: “The ACLU dedicated to protecting the Constitution?! What a crock! The ACLU is a terrorist organization dedicated to destroying, not protecting, the Constitutuion along with the moral and religious values this country was founded upon.”
2. Jim Bjaloncik: “WHAT?!?!? I can’t believe I’m reading this garbage at this site! The Aging Communist Leftovers Union is the greatest threat to our liberties that exists, supporting every crackpot Leftwing agenda out there.”
3. Antone Lamerato: “You guys are totally right. The ACLU really is fighting the good fight, especially when their goal is 100% legalization for minors to have abortions without notifying their guardians. Simply brilliant, it’s good to know that they are really helping people take responsibility for their own actions. What a god damn joke. They regularly partner themselves with radicals such as MoveOn.org, a website that has repeatedly called for the impeachment of President Bush, and not only defend, but ally themselves with the likes of Cindy Sheehan and Michael Moore.
When looking at an organization with the ACLU’s track record it is very difficult to fathom how any thinking person can admire them. It is a case of a noble cause gone terribly, terribly wrong.”
4. Stuart Sanders: “The ACLU does a lot of protection of SOME rights protected by the Bill of Rights, but ignores or actively downplays others. As it is, they should really call themselves more ‘The First Amendment’ Union, as that’s the one they almost exclusively support.
They seem to actively hate the Second Amendment, and I’ve never seen them go to court to uphold the 9th or 10th Amendments, either.”
5. kenny: “aclwhooy! a group of selfrighteous lawyers ripping apart the moral fiber of the United States of America under the gist of defending the constitutonal rights of its citizens, and how much money did they make defending our rights this year, oh, thats right, its all about defending the constitution! ”
So that’s primarily a couple of blanket statements that the ACLU is out to destroy the moral fiber of America, and promote a liberal, Communist agenda. The common thread seems to be the feeling that the ACLU is against religion and the religious. This is a common misconception about the ACLU. The ACLU defends individual religious freedom, but it actively opposes actions of the government to impose religion on people. The conflict is in interpretation over “actions of the government” and “impose religion”.
The other major (unspecified) complaint is that the ACLU is extremist left-wing (liberal). Protecting minority interests from the majority seems an inherently liberal cause. Unfair practices that have been established through tradition without considering the conflict to the principle of Freedom of Conscience are still unfair, and changing them is a liberal (change) act, not a conservative (keep the same) one. The abolition of slavery was a liberal act, too.
I’ve already addressed 4. Their position on the Second Amendment is based upon the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the meaning of the Amendment as protecting the States’ rights to a militia, not individual’s rights to own bazookas, tanks, and nuclear missiles. IX and X don’t have specific claims to be defended.
Moore’s methods are distasteful, but his message isn’t necessarily wrong. MoveOn.org calling for the President’s impeachment is hardly radical, given the pile up of accusations against this President for abuse of power, cronyism, misleading the American public, etc. Much more sensible to call for this President’s impeachment than the last one for zippergate.
I don’t know enough about the abortion consent topic to speak fairly right now.
Nothing has been said here to really justify claims that the ACLU are terrorists or evil or out to destroy the moral fiber or any of the other extreme claims. They’re still “falsely defamed”.
February 8th, 2006 at 10:02 pm
I don’t mean to ruin a good set of comment ‘bookends’ – Frank Ch. Eiglers sensible opener and Irishmans excellent summary, but I’m curious. Which civil liberty outfits, if any, do the anti-ACLU folks recommend instead? (I don’t think the O’Reilly Factor counts.)