I Breathed a 60% Nitrous Oxide Solution and Joined the ACLU Today

[John Ranalletta]

The more polarized the society, the more it requires a nutcase with extremist views to get anything done. Either that, or the society must experience great collective pain for the masses to wake up.

 

That's my thought for the day.

Your premise might have some validity; yet, the names Chavez, Castro, Putin, Tito, Lenin, Mussolini, etc. come to mind; not all of which bring much comfort.

[David]

They don't bring much comfort to me, either.

[lawnchairboy]

[Whip]

Did you just call Abraham Lincoln a nut case?

 

I know not a nut, but great collective pain followed.

 

Back to the subject, through our history our civil liberties have been taken from us to protect the nation, after the cries passes the liberties are returned, not sayin this is right but it is effective in solving short term threats.

And sometimes it is the only way for our idiots in Washington to handle something.

 

Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus.

 

FDR interned thousand of Japanese citizens.

 

At times of war our leaders are able to do things they wouldn't normally be allowed to do.

 

It will all work out.

 

But if the ACLU continues to work to make it easier for a terrorist to hurt me or my family I'm gonna continue to have a problem with them. I enjoy my freedom as much or more than anyone, but I'm willing to give a little up at this time to protect me, mine, and ours. At airports, shopping malls, major entertainment events, anywhere large groups of people gather I'm willing to be searched, delayed and questions to protect all the people around me. I think the same is true of my phone converstions, my email, what XM station I listen to whatever.

 

 

In my opinion the ACLU puts me and you at risk with some of the things they do.

 

Whip

[ghaverkamp]

I am not very politically correct and the constitution guarantees that I don't have to be.

 

The ACLU has overstepped it's boundaries in many instances.

 

So, the ACLU has boundaries, but the Constitution guarantees that you don't?

[ghaverkamp]

But if the ACLU continues to work to make it easier for a terrorist to hurt me or my family I'm gonna continue to have a problem with them. I enjoy my freedom as much or more than anyone, but I'm willing to give a little up at this time to protect me, mine, and ours.

 

If it was just your freedom at issue, then perhaps it would be okay just to ignore the rules that govern the powers of our governments when it was convenient. However, if it was all about you, we could have far more specific limits.

 

For instance, I'm sure there are racial and ethnic minorities who don't doubt you enjoy your freedom more than they do, when you feel it's perfectly reasonable to gather them up and throw them in camps if the majority feel their racial or ethnic backgrounds make them suspicious. At least you could feel safe.

 

It will all work out.

 

Until the time it doesn't. Until the time we cede so many rights that we tip the scales too far. Until, say, the leaders maintain such a state of fear that they can always justify to certain segments of the population that letting up puts their families at risk. If the powers-that-be can keep up the fear long enough, reversing the status quo becomes increasingly more difficult.

 

At airports, shopping malls, major entertainment events, anywhere large groups of people gather I'm willing to be searched, delayed and questions to protect all the people around me. I think the same is true of my phone converstions, my email, what XM station I listen to whatever.

 

Sure. It's all part of the "Why do we worry about the rights of the guilty?" argument. You wouldn't worry about any of that until it's used against you. Fortunately, there are lots of people in this country, so ceding your liberties may never adversely impact you. Screw the poor fools who felt similarly who do get caught because the government violated their Constitutional rights. Collateral damage is part of every war, right?

[Bob Palin]

Thanks Greg, I'm glad you are studying to be a lawyer.

[Antimatter]

This is one of those threads that shows the fundamental differences in the way people perceive our country.

 

FWIW, I'm a card-carrying member of the ACLU. My perception is they give people who have a grievence or a difference of opinion with the government their day in court. The courts decided on the issue at hand, and if the majority doesn't like the outcome, they can petition their elected representatives to add a new law or change the existing one to their satisfaction. Those new laws or changes are then subject to judicial challenge and review, often resulting in more legal revision. It's a long, messy, and often painful process for those involved. And that's the way government should work. There should be lots of discussion, in the open, with participation from all the groups involved. Secrecy and decision by fiat breeds tyranny, and that's what the Consititution was written to prevent. And that more than any other aspect of our system of government is what makes us who we are.

[KMG_365]

In my opinion the ACLU puts me and you at risk with some of the things they do.

 

Whip

No, you've got to go to the source of that concern. Look at the whole disease, not just one of the symptoms.

 

In my opinion the US's dependance on, and the GLOBAL WAR FOR OIL puts me and you at risk with some of the things they [the oil conglomerates who control our government] do.

 

"They" don't hate us for our "freedoms", they hate us for being tyrants and not extending our lofty rights and priveledges to the rest of the world as well.

 

Speaking of the internment camps, Leslie and I were just at Manzanar last month on one of our trips up the 395. If you're going that way on your upcoming trip (and you NEED to pick 395 over the I-5 or the 99 if you want to stay sane), it's WELL worth the visit. We only had a few hours there and I wished we had more. They have done up a VERY nice museum there, but it gave me the willies with it's similarities to visiting Dachau. And I had to remind myself where I was.

[Whip]

In my opinion the ACLU puts me and you at risk with some of the things they do.

 

Whip

No, you've got to go to the source of that concern. Look at the whole disease, not just one of the symptoms.

 

In my opinion the US's dependance on, and the GLOBAL WAR FOR OIL puts me and you at risk with some of the things they [the oil conglomerates who control our government] do.

 

"They" don't hate us for our "freedoms", they hate us for being tyrants and not extending our lofty rights and priveledges to the rest of the world as well.

 

Speaking of the internment camps, Leslie and I were just at Manzanar last month on one of our trips up the 395. If you're going that way on your upcoming trip (and you NEED to pick 395 over the I-5 or the 99 if you want to stay sane), it's WELL worth the visit. We only had a few hours there and I wished we had more. They have done up a VERY nice museum there, but it gave me the willies with it's similarities to visiting Dachau. And I had to remind myself where I was.

 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

Jamie....Too much Aljazeera for me....see ya in a couple weeks.

 

Greg...get out of the books and see the real world...Torrey and DVD would be a good start. Maybe the mountains of Montana...

 

Killer...I love ya.

 

Have a nice day all....I have to go protect my stores from terrorists...

 

I want you to know I think you guys are funny and would make a great TV show.

 

I think I'm gonna strap on my six shooter and ride to work on my Harley without a helmet.

 

Whip

 

 

BTW...if ya'll get a chance tell the ACLU...Thanks for helpin Rush Limbaugh.

[Whip]

Jamie

 

 

"they hate us for being tyrants and not extending our lofty rights and priveledges to the rest of the world as well."

 

I am of middle eastern decent. "They" hate us for our western way of life...The way our women dress, the TV our kids watch. "They" feel like it polutes them and there children. "They" want to destroy it before it destroys there culture.

 

It has nothing to do with us being tyrants....I listened to this stuff at every family gathering for years.

 

This is what started the whole Islamic movement. When the Shaw of Iran starting importing western culture to the people of Iran.

 

 

Throughout history our men and women have died in hundreds of countries trying to help them gain the same freedoms we have.

 

 

That other stuff is just Aljazeera propaganda.

 

Whip

[W8NONU]

Like Forrest Gump said "That's all I've got to say about that"!

[BigArn]

Wow, we are allowed to talk politics again. When did that happen???

[David]

I was hoping it we could stay away from politics, but that was certainly naive on my part.

 

Les/Mods, I apologize for starting this topic. I should not have. I am fine with your correcting my mistake.

[Ron_B]

must - not - p - p - p - post...

 

 

Ahh, that's better. Never mind.

[Les is more]

Wow, we are allowed to talk politics again. When did that happen???

 

 

That would be a no although this bumped up against politics about as hard as it could.

 

I let this go because David had a need to express something important to him. I admit to being disappointed in some of the answers. Some chose to take up the political cudgel rather than recognizing the kernel of concern in David's post.

 

For my money, it doesn't matter whether your favorite color is red or blue. The country is not sailing smoothly along right now. David is one of many seeking a restoration of honor and balance.

[Deadboy]

Interesting thread...I used to be a member many years ago, but am not longer willing to send them my $$ as the cases they champion tend to be very “one side of the aisle” oriented.

 

I fully support anyone’s right to join them, but personally they are just not for me.

 

However I will say that anyone who thinks they do not have a political agenda is fooling themselves….everyone does, and frankly groups claiming not too make me more suspicious than those who have one I do not happen to agree with….

[Tasker]

I let this go because David had a need to express something important to him. I admit to being disappointed in some of the answers. Some chose to take up the political cudgel rather than recognizing the kernel of concern in David's post.

 

I have to wonder if what David felt the need to express was the opposite of what he actually expressed, prompting opposite reactions, if this thread would be here.

 

The country is not sailing smoothly along right now. David is one of many seeking a restoration of honor and balance.

 

If you're talking specifically about the war in Iraq, I'd agree to an extent.

 

Otherwise, the USA is doing pretty well, right now.

 

If restoring honor and balance means heading our country down the path of open borders, worrying about offending those countries/leaders who want to harm us, higher taxes, more regulation, reduced protection for our country because of fears that a phone call while ordering new moto tires might be listened too, then I'll pass.

 

The one thing that seems to be missing from the red, the blue, the ACLU, etc. is common sense.

 

For every cause that the ACLU decided to fight or support, there are plenty they did not fight or support because they did not align with their ultimate, political/value position.

 

The same is true for those "leaders" colored red and blue.

 

Hypocrisy and politics, ain't America great!

[90%angel]

ACLU? Ouch. Please tell me this is just some small part of a grand Halloween outfit/gag?

 

I can't stand the ACLU. Perhaps if they fought for EVERYONE, I'd like them better (would hate when they fought against issues I didn't agree with, but at least could rest in the knowledge that they were impartial and fought for everyone), but they have their own agenda, just like everything else in this country/the world. (Yes, I've become a cynic like my husband...)

 

I can't really get into specifics without getting into political, religious and all kinds of other topics that get peoples' ire up and cause mods all manner of headache and grief. But I'll summarize that whatever the problem, the ACLU aint the answer (IMHO).

 

Geez...what a week for unbelievable events! First the Dani/Nicky crash, now David a card-carrying member of the ACLU? Why is the devil ice-skating...

[Tasker]

First the Dani/Nicky crash, now David a card-carrying member of the ACLU?

 

There has to be a connection here...

[DavidEBSmith]

Trying to get this back on topic and away from politics . . .

 

In my mind, some of the things they defend are abhorrent, others are crucial.

 

People often fail to make the distinction between the things that the ACLU defends and the people they defend. The ACLU at least ostensibly is concerned with protecting constitutional rights. The biggest threat to constitutional rights arises when they are being exercised by people who are outside the mainstream, which may be because they're bad people (like NAMBLA and the Nazis) or may not be (like the Jehovah's Witnesses or Amish who have religious objections to many government regulations). If you truly believe in the freedoms guaranteed by the U.S. constitution, you have to believe that those freedoms are guaranteed universally for all - the majority, the minority, the good and the bad, the deserving and the undeserving. Otherwise, there's little point in believing that our system is superior to anyone else's. NAMBLA and the Nazis having the freedom to advocate their positions through speech, even thought repulsive (but not through conduct), protects everybody's right to free speech.

 

As a thought problem for those who think the ACLU goes too far, now that we have the Military Commissions Act that allows the president to (essentially) decide that someone is an enemy of the state and secretly hold them indefinitely, do you feel equally as confident in George W. Bush exercising that power as you would about Hillary Clinton exercising that power? If you trust one of these but not the other, you might sleep better knowing the ACLU is there to keep an eye on both of them.

[Tasker]

If you trust one of these but not the other, you might sleep better knowing the ACLU is there to keep an eye on both of them.

 

I guess if this were really the case, then I would sleep better.

 

I have seen cases that our local (Indianapolis) ACLU got themselves involved with, as well as national ACLU cases that seem to not support your statement.

 

They seem to be more selective based on their idealistic goals rather than our Constitution and law.

 

Is perception reality?

[Boffin]

The problem with allowing a "trustworthy" government of "Now" draconian powers is that you also give them to all successors, no matter what their agenda.

 

Keep the power with the people, that way laws tend to the middle view and restricts all extremes.

 

In the name of "protection" in the UK we now have to apply to the police for permission to demonstrate in groups. We cannot make protests within 1/2 mile of parliament. A person who has been acquitted by a court can now be re-tried if "significant new evidence" is found. A person can be held under virtual house arrest on the suspicion of the authorities.

 

My son is at university in Lincoln. At the castle there they have one of the original copies of Magna Carta. For 800 years its principles protected the people. Now it is just an old piece of velum.

 

Protect your freedoms.

 

Andy

[ghaverkamp]

I have seen cases that our local (Indianapolis) ACLU got themselves involved with, as well as national ACLU cases that seem to not support your statement.

 

They seem to be more selective based on their idealistic goals rather than our Constitution and law.

 

This seems to keep coming up in this thread, but so far as I know, not one person has listed specific examples.

[Tasker]

I have seen cases that our local (Indianapolis) ACLU got themselves involved with, as well as national ACLU cases that seem to not support your statement.

 

They seem to be more selective based on their idealistic goals rather than our Constitution and law.

 

This seems to keep coming up in this thread, but so far as I know, not one person has listed specific examples.

 

I will say that I was impressed and shocked that the ACLU came to the defense of Rush Limbaugh in his case in Florida, even though in the end, it did not help him much. His medical records were ultimately opened, even though the Florida constitution clearly prohibits it.

 

I guess they had no choice but to defend his position in his case due to the national spotlight of the law regarding his case.

[Tasker]

I have seen cases that our local (Indianapolis) ACLU got themselves involved with, as well as national ACLU cases that seem to not support your statement.

 

They seem to be more selective based on their idealistic goals rather than our Constitution and law.

 

This seems to keep coming up in this thread, but so far as I know, not one person has listed specific examples.

 

It took me a few minutes to find this because I could not remember the names of the people involved, but here is an example:

 

http://www.jasonpye.com/blog/2006/06/where_was_the_aclu.html

[SeanC]

Like dentistry, I understand and believe in the goals of the ACLU -- especially the preventative/maintenance actions of both -- but when serious corrective procedures are necessary, I get a bit squeamish. Sometimes this leads to denial and procrastination. "Maybe the problem's not that bad.... Maybe it will resolve on its own...." Etc. But cracks in the system are like cracks on a molar -- they only get worse with time if left untreated. Pockets of decay eventually spread to other parts of the system. Of course, I know all this already, and yet I'm still reluctant.

 

That's not to say there aren't a lot of questionable and controversial procedures. Never trust a dentist, for instance, who claims you need to remove older amalgam fillings containing mercury for health reasons. He's either a schiester or a zealot. Dentistry and the ACLU have their share of both. Removing a cross from a public landmark, for example, is not necessary to protect the Constitution, and the misguided legal battles so often waged do nothing but waste money and needlessly disrupt local communities.

 

On the other hand, even the legitimate corrective procedures involve a certain amount of disruption and destruction. It's unavoidable. When a dentist drills out decay to put in a filling, he must also remove a certain amount of otherwise healthy tooth to do it. It's necessary to anchor the filling and keep it in place. This kind of destruction to healthy tooth is sorta like the criminals who sometimes get off, with help from the ACLU, purely on the grounds of a technicality, the kinds of cases where it's patently obvious the defendant committed the crime, but gets off because the police or the courts broke or bent the rules to obtain a conviction. The real decay here isn't the release of an otherwise guilty scumbag, but in letting the executive or judicial functions of government bend or break rules. The criminal who gets off is the unavoidable destruction required to fix the decay.

 

I still don't like the ACLU, though. But I don't like dental procedures either. So I brush and floss daily and go to the dentist every six months to have my teeth cleaned and checked.

 

(By the way, you only need a dental exam and X-rays once a year, but you should have your teeth cleaned twice a year. And if one's a complete pussy, I imagine a dentist will offer nitrous, but what kinds of people are really that sensitive?

[ghaverkamp]

They seem to be more selective based on their idealistic goals rather than our Constitution and law.

...

 

It took me a few minutes to find this because I could not remember the names of the people involved, but here is an example:

 

http://www.jasonpye.com/blog/2006/06/where_was_the_aclu.html

 

Except, it was about the Constitution and the law. Specifically, about the rights of those listening versus the one speaking, the type of venue, and the current jurisprudence regarding the separation of church and state.

 

And unlike the characterization in the link you quoted, it was far more than just mentioning Jesus and God. In fact, the school permitted that:

In the 750-word unedited version of McComb's speech, she made two references to the lord, nine mentions of God and one mention of Christ.

 

In the version approved by school officials, six of those words were omitted along with two biblical references. Also deleted from her speech was a reference to God's love being so great that he gave his only son to suffer an excruciated death in order to cover everyone's shortcomings and forge a path to heaven.

 

There were civil liberties at play here on both sides. She wanted unfettered speech at a semi-public venue at which a government entity would historically have more of a responsibility to control speech. That government entity, in turn, wanted to protect itself from suits from others. It seems one side here was willing to compromise, while the other wasn't concerned about anyone's rights but her own.

 

How would one square the vitriol of the blogger you cited with this?

 

The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey today filed a friend-of-the-court brief in a case seeking to uphold an elementary school student's right to religious expression.

 

The Frenchtown Elementary School student, whose initials are O.T., wanted to sing the song "Awesome God" in a voluntary, after-school talent show. School officials refused to allow the student to sing her song, saying it would give the impression that the school favored religion. “O.T.” remains anonymous to protect her privacy.

 

"There is a distinction between religious expression initiated or endorsed by school personnel, and speech initiated by individual students," said ACLU of New Jersey cooperating attorney Jennifer Klear of Drinker, Biddle & Reath in New York. "The Constitution protects a student's individual right to express herself, including religious expression."

 

Or, say, the ACLU's position in City of Boerne v. Flores?

 

Short answer: it's nowhere near as cut-and-dried as some here would suggest.

[Tasker]

How would one square the vitriol of the blogger you cited with this?

 

It doesn't necessarily square, but that is what many here, including me, are talking about when it comes to consistency in the law and the constitution and what the ACLU will and will not fight.

 

I'm not an attorney or a justice, nor do I play one on TV, and I did not stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night, but as I read through the case you cited and linked to, I find inconsistent positions regarding the law and constitution.

 

I fully understand and appreciate that "things" are not cut and dry, but when it comes to the law and the constitution and the fights that are fought and not fought, it seems to me that idealistic and political rhetoric play significant roles when and where they shouldn't.

 

Naive, I know...

[DavidEBSmith]

and I did not stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night

 

See, if you'd come to El Paseo, this stuff would all be clearer.

[EffBee]

The more polarized the society, the more it requires a nutcase with extremist views to get anything done. Either that, or the society must experience great collective pain for the masses to wake up.

 

Much depends on what pain is to you. Some would say that pain is coming, or even here, in the form of people who have so much hatred for us that they want to behead your children while they force you to watch. Others would say pain is already here because Howard Stern got fined or their toothpaste was taken away.

 

Great collective pain? It's coming. Only the source is in question. External and forced upon us until our demise, or internal and self-induced until our vindication. Give me the latter. I can control it to a greater extent and I can be around to enjoy the outcome.

[Pilgrim]

Man, FB must be grinding his teeth just thinking about my defection.

 

Well, me, too.

 

But then I remembered that drugs make people do funny things. You'll turn around once they wear off.

I wish I understood what's got everyone so upset. But I know: we can't talk about that.

 

Kent

[KMG_365]

The more polarized the society, the more it requires a nutcase with extremist views to get anything done. Either that, or the society must experience great collective pain for the masses to wake up.

 

Much depends on what pain is to you. Some would say that pain is coming, or even here, in the form of people who have so much hatred for us that they want to behead your children while they force you to watch. Others would say pain is already here because Howard Stern got fined or their toothpaste was taken away.

 

Great collective pain? It's coming. Only the source is in question. External and forced upon us until our demise, or internal and self-induced until our vindication. Give me the latter. I can control it to a greater extent and I can be around to enjoy the outcome.

And some would say pain is being witness to--or worse: complicit in--the needless deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent victims of a brutal government or despot--wherever the source. I mourn for all those millions who will not be around to enjoy the fruits of "our great collective pain".

[Tasker]

Here is my real concern:

 

It is time to hear from David's dentist.

 

Regardless of whether or not David's position on the ACLU, politics and the direction of our country has changed/evolved, it is highly unusual and unlikely that he is so public about it. He is usually very private about matters non-moto.

 

It is high-time that we hear from his dentist to find out what kind of drugs he gave David. Maybe there is a bigger conspiracy here, one that is seeking to topple Nipper's Corner and David is nothing but a tool in this plot.

 

Signed,

 

Concerned

 

[ShovelStrokeEd]

Dang,

I've stayed out of this but read it with great interest and some entertainment.

 

I gotta say, that sweet air is some potent stuff.

[DavidEBSmith]

It is high-time that we hear from his dentist to find out what kind of drugs he gave David.

 

The philosopher William James experimented with nitrous oxide and wrote an essay about his insights:

 

What's mistake but a kind of take?

What's nausea but a kind of -usea?

Sober, drunk, -unk, astonishment.

Everything can become the subject of criticism --

How criticise without something to criticise?

Agreement -- disagreement!!

Emotion -- motion!!!!

By God, how that hurts! By God, how it doesn't hurt!

Reconciliation of two extremes.

By George, nothing but othing!

That sounds like nonsense, but it is pure onsense!

Thought deeper than speech...!

Medical school; divinity school, school! SCHOOL!

Oh my God, oh God; oh God!

 

The most coherent and articulate sentence which came was this: There are no differences but differences of degree between different degrees of difference and no difference.

 

On the other hand, Robert Anton Wilson wrote that on one nitrous trip, James thought he had discovered the secret meaning of the universe and wrote it down, only to find when he awoke that he had written:

 

Overall there is a smell of fried onions.

 

I think William James was onto something there.

[tallman]

David,

You've identified two of the greatest problems in our country.

Drugs.

Protection of civil liberties.

Wouldn't it be interesting if our society stopped fighting a losing war (on drugs), legalised/taxed drugs, used the proceeds to fund a National Health Care system, and reduced overhead by restoring civil liberty to incarcerated perpetrators of victimless crimes.

The above is a non-political observation that I don't necessarily agree with.

 

To me the question is, why the ACLU?

What specifically attracts you to their organization?

What other options did you consider, discard, and why?

 

I did go to El Paseo, stayed in a Holiday Inn, and I'm confused too.

[Tasker]

Overall there is a smell of fried onions.

 

I think William James was onto something there.

 

Well, David did mention that he was eating bisquits and gravey soon after his adventure with his dentist.

[steve.foote]

It doesn't have to be a political thread.

 

The ACLU is primarily a legislative/judicial organization--not a political one.

 

David, I've been pondering this since you brought it up. I'm trying to understand a couple of things about the ACLU.

 

For clarity, I've always been of the understanding that the ACLU is highly political and leans strongly to the left. But, I must confess, I've not really studied the organization in detail until now. I have more questions than answers.

 

Q1: If the ACLU is to be non-political, and serve a primarily legislative/advocate role, how does it accomplish this, considering almost all of what it claims to protect is inherently political? How do they steer the organization to ensure it remains unbiased?

 

Q2: The ACLU website "About the ACLU" section describes it's mission in detail.

 

The mission of the ACLU is to preserve all of these protections and guarantees:

 

Your First Amendment rights-freedom of speech, association and assembly. Freedom of the press, and freedom of religion supported by the strict separation of church and state.

 

Your right to equal protection under the law - equal treatment regardless of race, sex, religion or national origin.

 

Your right to due process - fair treatment by the government whenever the loss of your liberty or property is at stake.

 

Your right to privacy - freedom from unwarranted government intrusion into your personal and private affairs.

 

Noticably missing in this mission statement is reference to the second amendment. I searched their website and found very little regarding this amendment. Where does the ACLU stand on the right to keep and bear arms? Do they defend this right with the same vigor they defend other rights? And, if not, why not?

 

Can they pick and choose which civil liberties they protect if they are not partisan?

 

(I'm not trying to stir the pot, these are legitimate questions. ).

[Jake]

Do they defend this right with the same vigor they defend other rights? And, if not, why not?

 

No. Because, as pointed out in this highly politicized (warning) blog, they are hypocrites, as are we. I submit to Tallman that he add Hypocrisy to complete the Trio of what's wrong with us.

[tallman]

Amendment accepted w/out prejudice.

[David]

Adding a note here to the tail end of the thread (and not necessarily responding to Jake), I apologized above for starting this thread and in that spirit it wouldn't make much sense to prolong the thread by continuing a discussion I shouldn't have started in the first place.

 

So I'll end by noting a few things to end my participation.

 

Larry, you make some good arguments about temporary suspension of rights by past leaders. The difference, as I see it, is two-fold: 1) I don't see it as necessary at the moment to do that, and 2) I don't have confidence that it's a temporary rollback.

 

Fernando, I think you're buying the fear argument.

 

Tim, what's prompted this right now? Living in the US and being a careful observer and participant in the political process for twenty-five years.

 

Steve, my statements about the ACLU as primarily legislative and judicial were meant to speak to the realm in which they operate: impacting the creation and enforcement of laws. My statement was not meant to imply that they do not have a political agenda while undertaking both of those activities. They certainly do.

 

Jake, we're all hypocrites. And we don't do a very good job of thinking for ourselves at times. There are parts of the ACLU that are so misguided that I detest them in the deepest part of my soul. But having lived under an evil, totalitarian regime, I'm too familiar with what unchecked power can breed. Those of you who think I'm an idiot (let's not vote on that), please at least do your own thinking and stand for what you believe. We need more folks like that. In fact, that's more important than that we agree.

 

It's an analog world that, painfully, requires digital decisions. By the time it seems "right" and "obvious" to take such a drastic step, it might very well be a tad late.

 

So now they have my $50 for a year and I'll decide again at the end of that period whether we're headed in the right direction.

 

You all are great for contributing to this discussion!

[Jake]

Well, if this is the tail end of this thread (which I suspect is true) I will state that my obection to it is based on an awareness of the human tendency to be judgmental toward others when we express or openly analyze our core beliefs bordering on the political. While some can easily tolerate the discourse (those open minded folk you referred to in another thread), others may not.

 

I'm not sure how many share this view, but I feel those who have an attraction to sport-touring motorcycling share many common elements of their outlook on the world. Freedom, liberty, - I guess a general enthusiasm for what's around the next corner. Political threads tend to muddy up that picture yet, much like staring at the Sun, are tough to avoid.

 

Would it be interesting to have Mama Hoon carve out some bandwidth so that we may benefit from the level-headed input that we see on this thread? You bet, and I'm sure I would learn much, and I'm all for it.

 

And to think, I actually believed you were simply stirring the pot with that whole "I joined the ACLU" thing. I didn't think you were an idiot, at that point...

[Whip]

Over the last 40 year the courts have slowing eroded the powers of the elected officials and the majorities in America. It began when the courts started making laws and stopping any law they didn't like. Many of the Proposition votes in California have ended this way. They get passed by overwhelming majorities and then the Ninth Circuit(Circus) of appeals made up of X ACLU lawyers calls them unconstitutional and then they have to be appealed to the Supremes which in turn overturn the Circus. This has not only happen in CA.. Anytime a law is passed through out the country a small group that do like it finds a “victim” and a sympathetic judge (usually x ACLU) and gets it thrown out.

 

This has been a slow power grab by the courts which have made the ACLU even more powerful, and has Lord Acton’s said about power.” Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

 

The pendulum needs to swing back to the elected officials and get away from the lifers (Fed Judges).

 

I think this is the opposite of what David is saying, but it is my view.

 

I think David has said the Executive and Legislative branches need to be watched more closely my the ACLU and the Courts. I don’t agree I would rather have an elected official more powerful than an appointed one with a life time to gain power.

 

David: If I have misread your posts please correct me.

 

Whip

[Jerry_75_Guy]

.....please at least do your own thinking and stand for what you believe. We need more folks like that. In fact, that's more important than that we agree,

and, if I may make a small additional suggestion, that as well as thinking for ourselves, that it is easily as important that, when considering an issue in general, or specific claims made by a person or organization, that we make, at minimum, the attempt to set aside passion, and make use of the technique of 'critical thought'.

 

This is a skill that, sadly, seems to have been left unused by the vast majority of Americans.

 

It is far too easy when exposed to some statement, or item of information, to immediately respond based on how the message resonates (or doesn't) with our own 'self assured', cozy little world view and render a judgement, often just because it 'feels' right, without having really thought about it.

 

The world and it's issues are rarely as "black and white" as many would like them to be.

[Lawman]

Whip,

I agree with you and I agree with Noah Webster. I doubt many ACLU members agree with either..and therin I believe lies the real differences...

 

Noah Webster wrote (1823):

 

In my view, the Christian religion is the most important and one of the first things in which all children, under a free government ought to be instructed…No truth is more evident to my mind than that the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people.

 

 

 

 

 

Noah Webster wrote (1832):

 

The brief exposition of the constitution of the United States, will unfold to young persons the principles of republican government; and it is the sincere desire of the writer that our citizens should early understand that the genuine source of correct republican principles is the Bible, particularly the New Testament or the Christian religion.

 

The religion which has introduced civil liberty is the religion of Christ and His apostles, which enjoins humility, piety, and benevolence; which acknowledges in every person a brother, or a sister, and a citizen with equal rights. This is genuine Christianity, and to this we owe our free Constitutions of Government.

 

The moral principles and precepts contained in the Scriptures ought to form the basis of all of our civil constitutions and laws…All the miseries and evils which men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery and war, proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible.

 

When you become entitled to exercise the right of voting for public officers, lit it be impressed on your mind that God commands you to choose for rulers just men who will rule in the fear of God. The preservation of a republican government depends on the faithful discharge of this duty;

 

If the citizens neglect their duty and place unprincipled men in office, the government will soon be corrupted; laws will be made not for the public good so much as for the selfish or local purposes;

 

Corrupt or incompetent men will be appointed to execute the laws; the public revenues will be squandered on unworthy men; and the rights of the citizens will be violated or disregarded.

 

If a republican government fails to secure public prosperity and happiness, it must be because the citizens neglect the divine commands, and elect bad men to make and administer the laws.

[KMG_365]

Please, Tim, you're buckin' for a new title!

 

There's a reason the very FIRST amendment to the Constitution was:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. (Amendment 1)

It was precisely to protect the people from those who would by rule of law impose their own narrow view of "the correct religion" on everyone else "for their own good".

 

Fortunately, the freedom of religion is also defined for those of differeing faiths (from whatever current ruling party) as freedom FROM religion as well.

 

"One Nation Under WHOSE God?"

[Jerry_75_Guy]

Please, Tim, you're buckin' for a new title!

 

There's a reason the very FIRST amendment to the Constitution was:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. (Amendment 1)

It was precisely to protect the people from those who would by rule of law impose their own narrow view of "the correct religion" on everyone else "for their own good".

 

Fortunately, the freedom of religion is also defined for those of differeing faiths (from whatever current ruling party) as freedom FROM religion as well.

 

"One Nation Under WHOSE God?"

 

"Amen!!"

[Les is more]

The thread has now veered far enough off course that its original purpose has been lost.

 

We all know how poductive it is to argue politics and religion.