Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 22

Thread: Question for ACLU supporters....

  1. #1
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408

    Question for ACLU supporters....

    As well all know the ACLU fights all religous (well Christian anyway) forms of expression on public property (even if the masses vote for it as was the case in San Diego two weeks ago)....so why aren't they in Crawford filing suit??

    As you can plainly see this handsome, cleanly shaven human being is placing crosses in Crawford on public property...

    [IMG]http://us.news3.yimg.com/us.i2.yimg.com/p/rids/20050816/i/r22103019.jpg[/IMG]

    now, I do not know where in Crawford he is specifically placing them but the government can use anything six feet off the road for their use...and something tells me he is not putting them on private property...
    Last edited by Come Back to NY; 08-17-2005 at 04:33 PM.

  2. #2
    [QUOTE=Come Back to NY]As well all know the ACLU fights all religous (well Christian anyway) forms of expression on public property (even if the masses vote for it as was the case in San Diego two weeks ago)....so why aren't they in Crawford filing suit??

    As you can plainly see this handsome, cleanly shaven human being is placing crosses in Crawford on public property...

    [IMG]http://us.news3.yimg.com/us.i2.yimg.com/p/rids/20050816/i/r22103019.jpg[/IMG]

    now, I do not know where in Crawford he is specifically placing them but the government can use anything six feet off the road for their use...[/QUOTE]

    Interesting point. I doubt it's public property, honestly, but I also doubt this fellow owns the land he's using.

    Anyway, the ACLU doesn;t stop ALL displays. Here in NOVA we've had a few politicans who used religious symbology on their campaign signs (posted in clear public property, like middles of highways and roads) and the ACLU has made no attempt (that I am aware of) to remove them.

    I don't usally get worked up over symbology or monument-ism on public land. But I DO get worked up over Crosses or Commandments inside the COurthouse or Town Hall.

    I guess, to me, it's like this:

    Public Land is (for the most part) public, for use by ALL of the public. That means christians as well as anyone else (like Wiccans). Will of the people, and all that.

    But specific Govt Property (Courts, Legislatures, Police Stations, Fire houses, etc) should NEVER have religious monuments on them, for one very simple conceptual reason. The Govt is supposed to be neutral, to be fair and equal to ALL parties and all religious in it's citizenry. Monuments of the Ten Commandments at the door of a Courthouse, like it or not, shatters the implied neutrallity of the Govt.

    Its bad enough taht we know we have biased folks like Judge Moore (who you cannot try to claim doesn't allow his religious views to superceede human Law), but we shouldn;t be advertising that failure.

  3. #3
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    [QUOTE=Warfish]Interesting point. I doubt it's public property, honestly, but I also doubt this fellow owns the land he's using.

    Anyway, the ACLU doesn;t stop ALL displays. Here in NOVA we've had a few politicans who used religious symbology on their campaign signs (posted in clear public property, like middles of highways and roads) and the ACLU has made no attempt (that I am aware of) to remove them.

    I don't usally get worked up over symbology or monument-ism on public land. But I DO get worked up over Crosses or Commandments inside the COurthouse or Town Hall.

    I guess, to me, it's like this:

    Public Land is (for the most part) public, for use by ALL of the public. That means christians as well as anyone else (like Wiccans). Will of the people, and all that.

    But specific Govt Property (Courts, Legislatures, Police Stations, Fire houses, etc) should NEVER have religious monuments on them, for one very simple conceptual reason. The Govt is supposed to be neutral, to be fair and equal to ALL parties and all religious in it's citizenry. Monuments of the Ten Commandments at the door of a Courthouse, like it or not, shatters the implied neutrallity of the Govt.

    Its bad enough taht we know we have biased folks like Judge Moore (who you cannot try to claim doesn't allow his religious views to superceede human Law), but we shouldn;t be advertising that failure.[/QUOTE]

    They obviously can't fight everytime as they don't have the resources so are selective in their lawsuits....I believe you posted the story from Fox about the vote in SD.....yet even after the people voted "yes" to giving the land to the government and wanting the cross on the land the ACLU continues to fight...now here is a very public "situation" well covered by the media, yet where is the ACLU????

  4. #4
    [QUOTE=Come Back to NY]They obviously can't fight everytime as they don't have the resources so are selective in their lawsuits....I believe you posted the story from Fox about the vote in SD.....yet even after the people voted "yes" to giving the land to the government and wanting the cross on the land the ACLU continues to fight...now here is a very public "situation" well covered by the media, yet where is the ACLU????[/QUOTE]

    Suprisingly (perhaps), I agree with you on the issue in San Diego. IT should have been allowed based on my understandong of the situation. So in that case I'd agree the ACLU is wrong.

  5. #5
    no one gave these people permission to put the crosses on the land so who is the ACLU supposed to sue? the hippies?

    for the most part a group like the ACLU is more interested in setting legal precident then going case by case by case and attempting to enforce the laws. that's true of any lobby group.

  6. #6
    [QUOTE]the ACLU is more interested in setting legal precident then going case by case by case and attempting to enforce the laws. that's true of any lobby group.[/QUOTE]

    I respectfully dissent from that opinion.

    On the contrary, the aclu is an extremely litigious group, and commences many many lawsuits, all of which are heard on a case by case basis.

    The result is a hodgepodge of precedent, which is no more clear today than it was 500 lawsuits ago.

    It is very expensive to pursue all these lawsuits, some of which seem quite petty, and not intended to set a clear precedent.

    The two cases just decided by the SCOTUS had mixed results- that is the consequence of too much hair splitting.

  7. #7
    The ACLU is a complete joke. Guaranteed some of their members are down there and helped erect those crosses.

    These same scum have tried to get rid of any hint of christianity in the country, hell these trolls would stab Santa Claus in the back if they could. Now they're displaying crosses and using soldiers deaths to forward their cause. Hilarious.

  8. #8
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    Again- liberal supporting ACLU members; where is your organization on this blatant violation of religion on public protperty??

    [IMG]http://198.65.14.85/Art/NewsArt/cindy02/02bikers.jpg[/IMG]

    [I]PRO-WAR bikers numbering around 60 or 70 paraded past Camp Casey Saturday morning in favor of President Bush and supporting troops.
    Iconoclast Photo By Michael Harvey [/I]

  9. #9
    [QUOTE]PRO-WAR bikers numbering around 60 or 70 paraded past Camp Casey Saturday morning in favor of President Bush and supporting troops.[/QUOTE]

    Alot of these bikers look like they are under 40. Since they want to be such TOUGH GUYS why dont they turn their bikes around and go to the nearest recruiter where they can sign up and REALLY show their support for our troops!

  10. #10
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    [QUOTE=kennyo7]Alot of these bikers look like they are under 40. Since they want to be such TOUGH GUYS why dont they turn their bikes around and go to the nearest recruiter where they can sign up and REALLY show their support for our troops![/QUOTE]

    Wow- you've got great eyesight! Nice way to avoid the topic completely...

  11. #11
    [QUOTE=Come Back to NY]Again- liberal supporting ACLU members; where is your organization on this blatant violation of religion on public protperty??
    [/QUOTE]

    again - read my post and you will find the answer.

  12. #12
    [QUOTE]Nice way to avoid the topic completely...[/QUOTE]

    Your topic is not worth responding to. More bashing of the ACLU from the Right. What else is new. Yes they are a flawed group. They must be , they came to the rescue of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Insannity!

  13. #13
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    [QUOTE=bitonti]no one gave these people permission to put the crosses on the land so who is the ACLU supposed to sue? the hippies?

    [/QUOTE]

    obviously, you would sue the town/city/municipality to have the crosses removed- the ACLU has plenty of experience bringing suit against local governments to have religous symbols removed-

  14. #14
    [QUOTE=Come Back to NY]obviously, you would sue the town/city/municipality to have the crosses removed- the ACLU has plenty of experience bringing suit against local governments to have religous symbols removed-[/QUOTE]


    yeah but that's not really the point - the ACLU is interested in setting precident not in enforcing existing laws.

    Suing the municipality accomplishes what exactly? the town did not endorse the cross placings, it did not fund it, it's not officially allowing it.

    if the town of Crawford wants the hippies to remove illegally placed crosses that's their business, but ACLU suing people isn't going to change anything. That's not their interest. The rules are what they are and I'm not convinced that these crosses are officially sanctioned right now.

  15. #15
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    [QUOTE=Come Back to NY]Again- liberal supporting ACLU members; where is your organization on this blatant violation of religion on public protperty??
    [/QUOTE]

    .........[QUOTE=bitonti]again - read my post and you will find the answer.[/QUOTE]

    Once again proving the fact he is NOT a liberal rather an independent!

    It's like taking candy from a baby! :yes:

  16. #16
    CBNY you don't want to see that the ACLU would have nothing to gain by interfering in this - if Crawford endorsed or funded the crosses on their land that would be one thing. This is spontanious and unofficial. The ACLU (LIKE ANY LOBBY GROUP) is far more interested in setting legal precident not being watchdogs. There is simple no legal reason for the ACLU to get involved - like i said before who are they gonna sue, the Hippies?

  17. #17
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Brooklyn/Austin
    Posts
    2,712
    [QUOTE=bitonti]CBNY you don't want to see that the ACLU would have nothing to gain by interfering in this - if Crawford endorsed or funded the crosses on their land that would be one thing. This is spontanious and unofficial. The ACLU (LIKE ANY LOBBY GROUP) is far more interested in setting legal precident not being watchdogs. There is simple no legal reason for the ACLU to get involved - like i said before who are they gonna sue, the Hippies?[/QUOTE]

    But that's the problem, Bit. Yeah, they're a lobby group, but why don't they represent themselves like that? When theres a group defending civil liberties, shouldn't they worry more about protecting EVERYBODY's civil liberties and not which ones they would gain the most from?

  18. #18
    [QUOTE=TheBrodyMan]But that's the problem, Bit. Yeah, they're a lobby group, but why don't they represent themselves like that? When theres a group defending civil liberties, shouldn't they worry more about protecting EVERYBODY's civil liberties and not which ones they would gain the most from?[/QUOTE]

    so like i said what would you have them do? Sue the city? the city didn't endorse this. What would you have them do?

  19. #19
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Brooklyn/Austin
    Posts
    2,712
    [QUOTE=bitonti]so like i said what would you have them do? Sue the city? the city didn't endorse this. What would you have them do?[/QUOTE]

    If they wanted to be fair and consistent; take them down.

  20. #20
    [QUOTE=TheBrodyMan]If they wanted to be fair and consistent; take them down.[/QUOTE]

    yes but the city didn't endorse these crosses. These crosses aren't legal, they aren't funded with tax payers money - If anything the city should be enforcing it's own laws, of that I will agree - but that's not the ACLU's goal to sue everyone who isn't doing their job. The ACLU is trying to get precident cases not be a neighborhood watch group. That's true of any lobby. The goal is to affect change on a MACRO scale not change on a MICRO scale. We aren't talking about 10 commandments in a courthouse which is funded directly by the state. These are roadside crosses of dubious legality.

    not to mention that I guaruntee if the ACLU sued the city over these crosses the same people who are advocating their action now would be against it claiming that the cross is protected by first ammendment and freedom of religion, blah blah blah.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us