Another ACLU story

[markvid]

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/illinoisnews/story/C7767D918C4CE3268625732B00147B87?OpenDocument

It doesn't matter if the people in the town like it or not, says the ACLU.

Yeah, cause like, um, freedom of speech and voicing your opinion if it doesn't agree with the ACLU is, like, wrong.

 

[Chef]

rubbish.

 

[The Big Ragu]

I am often critical of the ACLU. I think the organization picks and chooses its causes and cases based on the politics of its members, and in many cases it creates much ado about nothing. We've done fine for more than 200 years without settling whether a Jehovah's Witness can stand on his head while saying the pledge of allegiance.

In this case, though, I am with the organization. Those words have no place on a sign "welcoming" people to town. For some people, it could actually be interpreted more as a veiled warning than a welcome. If it makes even one person uncomfortable, who is afraid to speak up because he or she is a minority, it violates everything our country was founded on regarding religious freedom--which is meant to protect the minority, not the majority. If you want Jesus to be your Lord, go to your church and let everyone there know how you feel. But it should not be a local government-sanctioned mandate serving notice to everyone who wants to freely enter the town.

 

[markvid]

But there's been no complaints in the 14 years it's been up.
Why now?

 

[Duane Postum]

It has no place on that sign. I'm with Ragu.

 

[The Big Ragu]

Mark, It can be very hard to complain when you are a minority. What if for 14 years, there have been three people in town afraid to say anything because they didn't want to risk negative response from the majority of the people in town? What if there have been people not from that town who have been reluctant to travel through the town because of the sign? The sign could be interpreted as a warning as much as a welcome by someone who isn't Christian.

Look at it in terms of an extreme example. What if the sign said, "Welcome to Hooterville. Dogs and Jews Unwelcome," and no one complained for 14 years. Would that be a good rationale for the sign being acceptable?

No, I don't equate that sign to the one they have. I am being extreme to make my point. But the sign they have is the establishment of a religion on a government-sponsored sign "welcoming" people to the town. There should be no place for that -- whether people have complained or not. It's the people who might be afraid to complain (a religious minority) that the framers of the constitution had in mind.

 

[Terence Mann]

The last quote of the story would be a better quote for the sign:

"I think most of the people in Alorton do believe Jesus is Lord. There might be one or two who don't, but I don't know where they are."
-- Former Mayor Callie Mobley.

Tells you everything you need to know if you're a visitor.


But seriously, I agree with Ragu and with the ACLU.

 

[Pastor]

If the town was smart, they could put up a separate billboard. This billboard would be for advertisements. On that, they could sell it to a church, or churches, advertising their religion. However, instead of doing that. Instead of allowing private companies, er churchs advertise their product, they slap it on a governement sign that doesn't really welcome anyone but Christians.

 

[heyabbott]

The ACLU has no comment:

BALTIMORE (Map, News) - An 88-year-old cancer patient is recovering at her southeast Baltimore home after being raped there by a man impersonating a maintenance worker Wednesday morning, neighbors and police said.

After raping her, the man demanded money and left through the back of her house after taking $6.

The Graceland Park resident was taken in good condition to Mercy Medical Center and then treated and released. She told police the man who attacked her was between the ages of 20 and 30 and about 6 feet tall with a slim build.

Neighbor David Senschal said he heard noises at the woman's home about 9:30 a.m. but didn't suspect anything. "You're talking about a predator," he said.

Another neighbor, Carolynn Vienna, says she saw the woman gardening this spring and said she has a lot of grandchildren.

"She's gotten pretty frail in the past few years, she can hardly get around," Vienna said

 

[heyabbott]

The ACLU: Anti-Boy Scout and Pro-Child Molester

George C. Landrith

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) – famous (or infamous) for using the legal system to attack the Boy Scouts and Christmas – is now protecting the “right” of convicted child molesters and sexual predators to lurk near playgrounds and other places where children gather. Simply put, the ACLU, once famous for defending the rights of free speech, now attacks the Boy Scouts and argues in favor of giving child sexual predators easy access to our children and grandchildren. To add insult to injury, the ACLU uses our tax dollars to help fund these lawsuits.

In May, the City of Indianapolis passed an ordinance that fines convicted child molesters, predators and rapists $600 if they are found within 1000 feet of playgrounds, swimming pools, recreation centers, or sports fields when children are present. The ordinance provides for a number of exceptions – including if the sex offender is accompanied by an adult who is not a sex offender. Amazingly, this past week, the ACLU filed a lawsuit claiming that this ordinance violates the constitutional rights of child molesters and child predators. And you and I are helping to fund this lawsuit with our tax dollars.

The ACLU argues that the lives of pedophiles and child molesters will be made difficult and inconvenient by the 1000 foot requirement. For example, a child rapist might have to move if he lived near a children’s playground or might have to vote via absentee ballot rather than voting in a school. The ACLU hopes we will swoon at the inconvenience this ordinance would place on convicted child predators. However, I’m at least one American who is unmoved.

The ACLU tells us that they support the rights of everyone and that they are not politically motivated. Surely this is a joke! Why is it that the ACLU is habitually suing the Boy Scouts because of their Scout Oath to “do my best to do my duty, to God and my Country?” Why does the ACLU attack the Boy Scouts for not permitting homosexual Scout Masters? Why is it that the ACLU fights to make sure that no one sees or hears any mention of Christmas or Christianity? Why is it that the ACLU demands that crosses be removed from military cemeteries? Or that cities in California which bear names relating to their long historical heritage as a Catholic mission must remove any related symbol from the city seal?

More than 40 of the 50 states have laws prohibiting law-abiding citizens from having a gun within 1000 feet of a school. There was also a federal law with the same prohibitions. I happen to live within 1000 feet of a school. Where was the ACLU to defend my rights? Unlike a child molester or predator, I’ve never committed a crime or shown any propensity towards violence. Yet, the ACLU evidently wasn’t troubled that these sorts of laws would require me to sacrifice my right to own or responsibly use a gun. And I’ve never used a gun for any illegal purpose, but still the ACLU doesn’t think my right is worth defending. But somehow pedophiles and child molesters deserve the ACLU’s active support.

This proves that the ACLU is not simply an honest defender of constitutional rights for those who may not be popular. Sadly, the ACLU is an out-of-control, extremist organization dedicated to tearing down the society most of us wish to uphold and strengthen. The ACLU seeks to tear down society and rebuild a very different culture – one where the Boy Scouts are outlawed and are more feared than criminals, one where religion and faith are taboo topics and believers are forced underground, one where the rights of convicted pedophiles and child molesters are more important than the rights of children and law-abiding citizens.

The ACLU’s vision for society is a nightmare. That nightmare will become reality if Americans don’t wake up and stand up to the ACLU.

 

[Ace]

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/illinoisnews/story/C7767D918C4CE3268625732B00147B87?OpenDocument

It doesn't matter if the people in the town like it or not, says the ACLU.

Yeah, cause like, um, freedom of speech and voicing your opinion if it doesn't agree with the ACLU is, like, wrong.

The ACLU enforces our constitutional rights. Sometimes taking popular stances, often taking unpopular ones.

A city putting up a sign that favors a particular religion seems pretty clearly to violate the separation of church and state, like it or not.

Would you like to see a sign that says, "Welcome to Podunk, where Allah is Lord?"

And some of these band-aid, feel-good laws that restrict people who are registered sex offenders (many of whom never molested a child) from living within 1,000 yards of a school or park or pre-school, even if the pre-school just opened next door, seem to violate their rights.

If you make it so hard, folks are just going to go underground and it seems to punish people twice. Hell, you can get on those lists for spanking a classmate or mooning someone.

 

[PeteyPirate]

Nobody complained about slavery for a long time either.

 

[armageddon]

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/illinoisnews/story/C7767D918C4CE3268625732B00147B87?OpenDocument

It doesn't matter if the people in the town like it or not, says the ACLU.

Yeah, cause like, um, freedom of speech and voicing your opinion if it doesn't agree with the ACLU is, like, wrong.

The ACLU enforces our constitutional rights. Sometimes taking popular stances, often taking unpopular ones.

A city putting up a sign that favors a particular religion seems pretty clearly to violate the separation of church and state, like it or not.

Would you like to see a sign that says, "Welcome to Podunk, where Allah is Lord?"

And some of these band-aid, feel-good laws that restrict people who are registered sex offenders (many of whom never molested a child) from living within 1,000 yards of a school or park or pre-school, even if the pre-school just opened next door, seem to violate their rights.

If you make it so hard, folks are just going to go underground and it seems to punish people twice. Hell, you can get on those lists for spanking a classmate or mooning someone.

ACE:

Though I agree with your stance, I'd bet you $5 the ACLU would not comment or sue if Allah was Lord of that town.

 

[PeteyPirate]

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/illinoisnews/story/C7767D918C4CE3268625732B00147B87?OpenDocument

It doesn't matter if the people in the town like it or not, says the ACLU.

Yeah, cause like, um, freedom of speech and voicing your opinion if it doesn't agree with the ACLU is, like, wrong.

The ACLU enforces our constitutional rights. Sometimes taking popular stances, often taking unpopular ones.

A city putting up a sign that favors a particular religion seems pretty clearly to violate the separation of church and state, like it or not.

Would you like to see a sign that says, "Welcome to Podunk, where Allah is Lord?"

And some of these band-aid, feel-good laws that restrict people who are registered sex offenders (many of whom never molested a child) from living within 1,000 yards of a school or park or pre-school, even if the pre-school just opened next door, seem to violate their rights.

If you make it so hard, folks are just going to go underground and it seems to punish people twice. Hell, you can get on those lists for spanking a classmate or mooning someone.

ACE:

Though I agree with your stance, I'd bet you $5 the ACLU would not comment or sue if Allah was Lord of that town.

I would take that bet every day.

 

[heyabbott]

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/illinoisnews/story/C7767D918C4CE3268625732B00147B87?OpenDocument

It doesn't matter if the people in the town like it or not, says the ACLU.

Yeah, cause like, um, freedom of speech and voicing your opinion if it doesn't agree with the ACLU is, like, wrong.

The ACLU enforces our constitutional rights. Sometimes taking popular stances, often taking unpopular ones.

A city putting up a sign that favors a particular religion seems pretty clearly to violate the separation of church and state, like it or not.

Would you like to see a sign that says, "Welcome to Podunk, where Allah is Lord?"

And some of these band-aid, feel-good laws that restrict people who are registered sex offenders (many of whom never molested a child) from living within 1,000 yards of a school or park or pre-school, even if the pre-school just opened next door, seem to violate their rights.

If you make it so hard, folks are just going to go underground and it seems to punish people twice. Hell, you can get on those lists for spanking a classmate or mooning someone.

I
The ACLU doesn't enforce OUR Constitutional rights. They seek to extort lesser financially able localities to conform to their ides of what the Constitution says.
They rarely if ever take a Second Amendment case. They never to seek to uphold the death penalty, which is Constitutional. And they interpret Article I Section 8 of the Constitution to give it an extraordinarily broad meaning to the point of giving the US Congress absolute and plenary power.

And, no matter which side of the abortion debate you are on, there is a strong argument to be made that the ACLU, given its historical context in taking the side of those least able to seek enforcement of their own rights, has chosen the side of the abortion debate which serves its financial and political interests as opposed to its goal of enforcing Civil Liberties.

The argument is that the ACLU will oppose mandatory life sentences for child abusers and sues to have civil commitments of sex offenders revoked, on equal protection, due process and cruel and unusual punishment grounds because the State can't, to any degree of certainty, identify who will molest again. Yet, when it comes to abortion and an unborn, yet viable child, the ACLU refuses to advocate on their behalf.

The ACLU is a well funded, well organized interest group that advocates on behalf of their well heeled donors' political interests.

 

[Fenian_Bastard]

This quote...
"I believe in one God, one Baptism, and one Lord," she said.
..is why the ACLU is right here.
"One baptism."
Really?
Swell.

 

[heyabbott]

This quote...
"I believe in one God, one Baptism, and one Lord," she said.
..is why the ACLU is right here.
"One baptism."
Really?
Swell.

Are you criticizing her beliefs, her right to hold them or her right to express them?

 

[PeteyPirate]

This quote...
"I believe in one God, one Baptism, and one Lord," she said.
..is why the ACLU is right here.
"One baptism."
Really?
Swell.

Are you criticizing her beliefs, her right to hold them or her right to express them?

No, he is criticizing her use of public resources to promote them.

 

[Webster]

"They rarely if ever take a Second Amendment case"

I'm sure that they will jump right to it when the next well-regulated militia out there needs representation.

 

[heyabbott]

This quote...
"I believe in one God, one Baptism, and one Lord," she said.
..is why the ACLU is right here.
"One baptism."
Really?
Swell.

Are you criticizing her beliefs, her right to hold them or her right to express them?

No, he is criticizing her use of public resources to promote them.

This quote...
"I believe in one God, one Baptism, and one Lord," she said.
..is why the ACLU is right here.
"One baptism."
Really?
Swell.

Are you criticizing her beliefs, her right to hold them or her right to express them?

No, he is criticizing her use of public resources to promote them.

No F_B's comments below her statements modify the statement , not the seperation of church and state argument of the ACLU. Additionally, his comments following the "One Baptism" quote clearly express a less than tolerant of her beliefs.

The following is her quote in context:

The city erected and maintains the signs, Mayor Randy McCallum said.

"But that wasn't my doing," he said. "They've been there at least 13 years. Maybe 14. They were put up before I was mayor."

Former Mayor Callie Mobley, who took office in the early 1980s, said she immediately pushed for the signs. The City Council approved them, and the city paid maybe $250, $350 tops for each, Mobley said. The reason for the signs was simple.

"I believe in one God, one Baptism, and one Lord," she said.

And never once did she hear any objections to the signs.

"And they had all the opportunity in the world to complain, but all I got was compliments, Mobley said. "And I mean I got compliments. Compliments, compliments, compliments."

In March 2000, Mobley pleaded guilty of income tax evasion during her federal corruption trial, where she and her husband stood accused of stealing $140,000 from the town. McCallum became mayor.