Cheers to the champions of freedom for all.
Principles are easy to maintain when we feel safe and secure, but they mean nothing when we cast them aside the moment some aspect of them makes us uncomfortable.…
"A sinister cabal of superior writers."
Why I Love the ACLU in Spite of its Warts — With Hugs and Kisses to the NRA - Comments Page 2
Article comments
26 - Margaret Romao Toigo
Mr. Grande, I too, am very concerned about the violence and corruption that gangsterism has caused our society.
That is why I try to stay active in the fight to end the "war on drugs" -- which I like to call, Prohibition II, the glitzier sequel with a much bigger budget and a far higher body count.
This anachronistic and ineffective policy of drug interdiction that masquerades as a solution to itself supports the black market, which provides the most fertile breeding ground for gangsterism.
The choice, of course, is yours, Mr. Grande. You can take a pragmatic approach to addressing these concerns or you can continue to spread the kind of propaganda and misinformation that fosters the sort of tyranny and oppression that is more advantageous to the criminal element than it is to the law-abiding citizenry.
27 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
"That is why I try to stay active in the fight to end the "war on drugs" -- which I like to call, Prohibition II, the glitzier sequel with a much bigger budget and a far higher body count."
Very eloquently put, Margaret. May I suggest an alternative that may not have occurred? May I suggest that American culture, by emphasizing the things it does, instant gratification, selfishness, and the like spurs a market for drugs because drugs offer just that - instant gratification.
A war on drugs may in fact be a cultural war to push an end to viewing sex as merely a means to pleasure and self-indulgence, an end to viewing things as more important than people. A "war on drugs" may wind up being a far more encompassing effort than you imagine - going far beyond whether this or that drug is legal or not.
It may go far beyond issues that one normally associates with law, security and order.
28 - Alethinos
Ruvy, you cannot legislate morality... The trouble is that most the major religions have long since run out of spiritual steam. And like a body dying the blood pressure increases - in this case religious fundamentalists who' screams become louder as the ability to attract and hold congregations decreases. What we are seeing with the "super" Churches w/r to Christianity is, as often as not, a simple desire for COMMUNITY.
You're analysis of American culture IS on target in most instances though. However, the answer is not to whip the population into line. This decline in the spiritual vitality of Christianity and now Islam has been in process for centuries. A new path is needed.
How and where that is remains to be seen.
Alethinos
29 - Margaret Romao Toigo
Ruvy in Jerusalem writes, "American culture, by emphasizing the things it does, instant gratification, selfishness, and the like spurs a market for drugs because drugs offer just that - instant gratification."
Indeed, that is true. I believe that this dynamic also accounts for obesity, indebtedness and knee-jerk legislation that imposes tyranny as a simple and convenient solution to complex problems.
I do not usually discuss the demand side of the drug issue in connection with the "war on drugs" because the vast majority of the drugs that people use for gratification are sold in pharmacies and supermarkets, not street corners.
The "war on drugs" is a fight against the supply side, an underground enterprise worth over $100 billion per year in the US alone. It really has very little to do with culture as it is an issue of economics.
The social problem of drug abuse/addiction is merely a political selling point intended to confuse the underlying threat of economic upheaval that would occur if the "war on drugs" suddenly ended in the same fashion as Prohibition (1920-1933).
The "war on drugs" is an example of the most pernicious manifestation of tyranny, social engineering imposed upon us "for our own good."
30 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Prohibition was an attempt to legislate morality. Anyone who knows American history knows just what a success it was, too. The WCTU attacked the product without even looking at the culture which produced the drinking.
Present prohibitions on drug use go hand in hand with mixed messages from advertisers to use and to desire drugs - not to mention subsidies to tobacco growers. So, naturally, it is as failure.
Like I said, I'm looking far beyond this into the culture. There are elements in your culture that promote drug use that need to be curbed. It can be done, if looked at carefully and shrewdly enough.
31 - Alethinos
I totally agree Ruv... Now, if you'll excuse me, I hear a gin and tonic calling me...
Alethinos
32 - Margaret Romao Toigo
Indeed, there are elements in American culture that promote drug use, not the least of which is the lack of unbiased information with regard to regulated and unregulated inebriants.
However, the suggestion that these elements need to be somehow "curbed" begs the question, "how can that be done without imposing tyranny, which is far more damaging to society than mere cultural decadence?"
33 - Dave Nalle
interesting that no right-wingers have spoken up to commend you for your support of the NRA. Or for that matter, spoken up to praise your excellent vindication of the ACLU. You've shown why any real conservative movement, truly friendly to freedom and hostile to tyranny in all its forms, would consider the ACLU a valued ally.
Sorry, hadn't noticed the thread. Good job on both counts. The ACLU has a dirty job, but someone has to do it.
Sadly, what passes for a "conservative" movement in America today has no interest in real freedom. Instead it spends most of its energy whipping up the fears and paranoia of its rank-and-file supporters until they can't even tell when they are ranting wildly and have failed to back up a single one of their claims with any verifiable facts. Like our Mr. Grande here, for example.
Or perhaps you've accepted these people at their word that their conservatives, when in fact they're just backwards thinking reactionaries. There are still some real conservatives and they're locked in a battle to try to keep people like Anthony from being mistaken for their spokesmen.
What such people fail to realize (and their dishonest leaders hope they never learn) is that universal human rights are not truly universal unless everyone has them -- even very bad people. And if human rights are anything less than universal, then nobody really has them.
I'm happy to hear about your support for the Iraqi people and our efforts to bring them freedom and human rights.
If your freedom of speech depends on being popular, it is only an illusion of freedom. Today you might have it, and next week you could lose it when the winds of public opinion shift against you.
So true. But then what is your opinion of the ongoing efforts of the left in America to curtail freedom of speech and define what forms of speech are 'acceptable'?
Dave
34 - Anthony Grande
O.k. Victor, you give me ACLU.org to prove that the ACLU is good and I give you this to prove that the ACLU needs to wither and die.
35 - Anthony Grande
And if those things that your site listed are true than here something that proves that the ACLU are a bunch of hypocrits
36 - Anthony Grande
And here is another one that I found interesting
37 - Anthony Grande
The ACLU needs to wither and die or get on the ball and stop using its energy to remove religion from out hills, coins, schools and seals and put it to fighting for parental notification for abortion, fair union dues, stopping illegal immigration, fighting terrorism, fighting drug abuse, redistricting in areas that need it, ending capital punishment and many other things that America needs.
38 - Margaret Romao Toigo
Don't you recognize political propaganda when you read it, Mr. Grande? There is no vast conspiracy to remove religion from the public square any more than there is some vast conspiracy to make America into a Christian theocracy.
The people who promote that sort of nonsense are reactionary authoritarian theocrats whose only agenda is to engage in a phony "culture war" with authoritarian socialists whose propaganda alerts us to the specter of Christian theocracy.
The Truth About God in Public Schools
How The Secular Humanist Grinch Didn't Steal Christmas
39 - Anthony Grande
Ms. Ramao Toigo (Is that Portuguese?), if they are not trying to remove Christianity from the public then why did they force the removal of a cross that overlooks the freeway near my house?
Why are they trying to end prayers before football games?
Why are they trying to ban the word "Christmas" from our schools?
How come I can't say merry Christmas to my teacher or anyone at school?
How come only a Muslim can wear a head garment at school?
And why in the world are they trying to remove the cross from the city seal of Las CRUSAS (what does Crusas mean in Portuguese?)
40 - Margaret Romao Toigo
Mr. Grande, did you read those two articles I posted in comment #38?
The threat of a ban on Christmas has been greatly overrepresented since the late 1950s when department stores began using the generic greeting, "Happy Holidays" (or "Season's Greetings") instead of "Merry Christmas."
That change was a business decision made by companies that did not wish to offend their Jewish customers. The use of "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" is a product of capitalism, not any sort of "culture war."
The ACLU has been working toward a more inclusive society in which no religion is given preference over others. Admittedly, the ACLU has pushed the outside of the envelope, but in those cases in which they pushed too hard, they lost.
For most of our nation's brief history, Christianity was treated as if it was our unofficial state religion. That has changed over the last 50 years or so as we have come to realize the value of diversity and the error of our previous ways.
Because we are still experiencing the backlash and fallout from the many strides toward greater religious freedom in America, some people are overcompensating, mistakenly believing that being inclusive of non-Christian faiths must entail the banishment of Christian references.
The prevalence of this "trying too hard to be all-inclusive" dynamic depends upon locality. Some communities have experienced more than their fair share of controversy while others have somehow managed to please most everyone.
What you have here, Mr. Grande, is a conspiracy theory (some might call it a paranoid hypothesis) that works wonders toward getting a certain politically advantageous group of people whipped up into a frenzy and voting for candidates who know how to exploit fear, apathy and ignorance.
You appear to be a somewhat smart fellow, how can you possibly take any of it seriously?
Romao, which is my maiden name, is Portuguese. Toigo is Italian.
41 - Anthony Grande
Ms. Romao Toigo, I understand and am OK with the businesses going from the "Merry Christmans" to "Happy Holidays" to get a more diversified market because our country is becomming more diverse in reiligious terms.
There are times when the ACLU wins and loses. We still have "under God" in the pledge but the term "Christmas" is gone from public schools. The cross that overlooks my town has been removed. Las Crusas still has its seal. Football players still pray before a game.
But just because the ACLU loses in certain circumstances doesn't mean it is OK to forget and pretend not to notice what they are trying to do.
P.S. Portuguese and Italian is a good combination.
42 - Alethinos
Oh good GOD man! Yes, you Tony G! Do you examine ANYTHING before you type it? Do you read anything other than the church newsletter, Heathens Must Die?
"God" in the Pledge of Allegiance as (I thought) everyone knew by now was injected into the Pledge in the EARLY 50's at the insistance of conservative, commie-sniffin'politicians who's thinking was only limited by their lack of intelligence. You see they thought that if they added "God" in the Pledge communists, who in their minds were akin to vampires or demons, would be UNABLE to SPEAK the word GOD without bursting into flames... I guess it never crossed their minds that ATHEISTS tend to say God more than most church goers sence they're always ranting about God being all over the place...
Really, I am begging you - STOP getting your "NEWS" and "FACTS" from such obviously biased sources.
Alethinos
43 - Victor Plenty
Nobody will be stopped from saying "under God" in the Pledge if they really want to.
Even if the ACLU fully wins every case related to the subject, all it will mean is that nobody will need to fear being punished if they choose to recite the Pledge in its original form, without the clumsy addition of "under God" in a conspicuously inappropriate place.
What people like the ACLU are trying to establish is not a system where all religious expression is banned, but a system where religious expression is always voluntary and never compelled by government power.
44 - Victor Plenty
ACLU actions to defend religious freedom can be verified in many places, not only on their own web site. For example, one of the cases on the list which Anthony clearly never bothered to read involved a New Mexico street preacher who was arrested and jailed by police, but later freed with assistance from the ACLU.
The incident occurred in the city of Portales, New Mexico. The local newspaper, the Portales News-Tribune, reported on the ACLU's role in restoring the street preacher's freedom to express his religious beliefs.
But wait! you might say. Isn't that a mainstream media outlet and don't those all have a liberal bias? Well, peruse the admission by avowed conservative blogger Mark A. Rose that the ACLU had done a good thing in favor of religious freedom.
I am quite certain every story on the list I linked in comment 22, every action the ACLU has taken to defend religious liberty, can be similarly verified. Can the same be said for the wild-eyed accusations people have made against the ACLU?
45 - Victor Plenty
So I checked into the links Anthony provided above. The first, claiming to provide "facts" about the ACLU, contains no easily verifiable references, and cannot be considered a reliable source of information.
Likewise, the second appears to provide some references for its claims, but the links it provides for those supposed news stories open up to a commercial subscription wire service, where I can't verify the source material without having to pay.
The third is merely a long screed of incoherent ranting which never even attempts to provide any verifiable evidence for its claims.
Care to try again, Anthony?
46 - Anthony Grande
Alethinos, I think everyone knows that it was added in the 50s but McCarthy and his crew but what difference does that make?
This is truly ONE NATION UNDER GOD. And you say that no one will be stopped from saying "under God" anyway? Yeah, if you don't mind being off key from the rest of us. It is much easier for someone to remain silent during that two seconds than for someone to add something for two seconds and then be off key.
What I am saying is that we have more important issues than banning God from schools and city seals like homelessness, drug abuse, capital punishment, prostitution, child molestation and so on.
Victor, I am glad that they got a preacher out of jail but what does it prove? It only proves that the ACLU has either changed since then or that they are hypocritical. Or maybe the ACLU thinks it is a negative symbol for religion to have a raggedy old preacher annoying people on the streets.
How does releasing a street preacher from jail help solve our nation's real problems?
47 - Victor Plenty
What it proves, Anthony, is you've been lied to about the ACLU's real goals and motives. It is NOT an organization that seeks to destroy religious freedom. In fact it seeks the exact opposite: to protect religious freedom by separating religious expression from government power.
Freeing the street preacher is consistent with their core principle that the government should neither promote nor suppress any person's expression of their faith.
Like every other sucker before you, Anthony, you have swallowed the lies you've been fed, and you are following leaders who do not have your best interests at heart.
The ACLU helped free the preacher because his wife asked for their help, and because letting the government take away one person's religious liberty is a threat to every person's religious liberty. Whether they agreed with his religion or not is entirely irrelevant. They upheld his right to express his faith without government interference.
They have done the same thing for many other people in many other cases. This is a simple fact. You could demonstrate some honesty and integrity by admitting this.
Your argument that the ACLU had "changed since then" is embarrassingly weak, Anthony. It shows you never bothered to read the article. If you had, you would know the street preacher was arrested THIS YEAR, and the ACLU's involvement in the court case happened less than four months ago. You really expect any intelligent person to believe such a large organization has completely changed its goals and motives in less than four months?
So here we have a whole list of cases with credible evidence that the ACLU has helped protect many people's freedom of religion.
What do we have on your side of the debate, Anthony? Nothing but your unverified claims about some things you think the ACLU did. You keep mentioning a cross that used to be on a hillside near where you live. You have presented ZERO EVIDENCE to verify that the ACLU had anything to do with the removal of that cross. Maybe they did, but you certainly haven't shown us any good reason to believe they did.
The same is true for all the other claims you've made. ZERO EVIDENCE. It's getting really embarrassing to debate you on this, Anthony. It's like having a battle of wits with an unarmed man, only worse, because the poor sucker doesn't even seem to realize he's unarmed.
48 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Margaret,
Referring to your comment #32. One winter evening nine years ago, I was waiting for my wife to get out from work in St. Paul where we lived at the time. My two little tykes were in their car seats. My youngest was five. I decided that since we had a long wait, it was excision night, the night to begin to excise Christmas from their lives.
It ws a pre-emptive strike. There would be no Hanukkah bushes in our house, and as long as I lived, definitely no Christmas trees.
So I talked about the legend of a man in Turkey who had the reputation for throwing gold in people's windows. I may not have had the legend exactly right, but it was good enough for government work. I explained how this fellow evolved into the Dutch Sinkt Niklaas with his pipe, travelling around and giving toys to kids at Christmas.
Then I explained how Santa Claus was the most effective marketing tool ever invented. How department stores pushed Santa because Santa pushed toys - which parents had to buy. Every time their Christian cousins - a relative had intermarried - talked about Santa Claus, I kept telling them how clever the departmnet store owners were at trying to part money from parent's pockets.
This is how you curb the desire for something. By teaching about it very early in life with a negative slant. Now obvioulsy, I'm not trying to suggest you do the same with Santa Claus. Assuming that you are a Christian of one variey or another, this is part of your holiday fun. But the concept could be extended elsewhere in your culture - by parents and other authority figures to kids.
49 - Alethinos
Victor... Excellent posts old boy. Really. I doff whatever the hell that French word is for hat, at you!
Alethinos
50 - Margaret Romao Toigo
With the light of free market capitalism shone upon him, Mr. Grande apparently had a moment of clarity. In comment #41, he writes, "...our country is becoming more diverse in religious terms."
Now, Mr. Grande, why don't you take a little more time to connect the dots here? After all, our economy reveals our culture and a good capitalist knows and understands market demographics.
The American people have always been a diverse lot and multiculturalism has always been the very definition of American culture. It just took us a century or two to figure that out and acknowledge it as one of our greatest strengths.
Because Christianity wrongfully enjoyed a privileged status for so long, I can understand why its equalization feels like marginalization.
But if you can get past those emotions and use the common sense and reasoning of retailers who have improved their bottom lines with diversified marketing, you might just come to the conclusion that keeping state away from church (and vise versa) is a really Good Thing.
51 - Margaret Romao Toigo
Ruvy in Jerusalem writes, "This is how you curb the desire for something. By teaching about it very early in life with a negative slant."
Yes, that works. But it is an endeavor that is taken on by individual choice and it must be optional, not mandated by legislation.
For a predominantly American audience, you have to be mindful of how you implement the notion of "curbing" habits, behaviors and the things associated with them, or else people will get the wrong idea and accuse you of promoting tyranny and oppression.
For example, cigarette smoking is well known to be detrimental to health, but we don't ban the practice because that would feed the already rampant gangsterism associated with other forms of popular contraband.
Rather, we disseminate all the information about the addictiveness and negative health effects of tobacco and then let people decide for themselves whether or not to smoke.
Such is the case with what we teach our children with regard to our culture and its unique quirks and concerns. We do so according to our individual customs and beliefs, not some predefined governmental mandate.
52 - Temple Stark
A section editor pointed your way as a pick of the 11-19/11-25 week. Click HERE to find out why.
Cheers. Temple
53 - Eric
Good comments. I am an ACLU member and supporter and am often curious as to why people are so anti-aclu. It turns out: ignorance. Some are simply uninformed while others choose to be uninformed as it suits their comraderie with their conservative cohorts. Conservatives who are against the ACLU seem more antiamerican than what they propose against ACLU. I think its great when people make the case for ACLU and highlight the practicality through which ACLU manifests what they support or not. That being said, it is important to realize ACLU does their work because no one else will. Unfortunately, there are people who want to take advantage of such disadvantage by promoting an anti-aclu agenda. Its the good folk like you and others who save them. Keep up the good work.
54 - Eric
To Anthony Grande:
I just took notice of all the freedoms you seem to lament are taken away at the expense of the ACLU.
Wearing a cross to school is not forbidden. Then again, there is no school called ACLU. So how is it ACLU are preventing you from wearing your cross to school? In fact, ACLU have defended a persons right to worship.
ACLU does not make law. They are a "big influence in decision making" on cases that are relevant to constitutional compromise. That is, overzealouos people thinking the courts should make an exception to an entity's freedom because of what that entity represents. ACLU's significance in preventing such emotionally laced constitutional compromise are what keeps America FREE.
I simply do not believe that you are prevented from saying "UNDER GOD" in school, and at the behest of the ACLU. Instead, I believe you are acting emotionally to some percieved affliction had with something that is not actually restrained, but restrained from, perhaps, peer pressure.
The flags and your property situation is more like an association thing. You agreed to live in a community that dictates proper exterior display for the benefit of the community as a whole. Unless you live in a community explicitly managed by the American Civil Liberties Organization in Washington, DC (which is unlikely) - it is not the ACLU that is the problem, it is your choice of community. However, I strongly suggest you ask the ACLU for counsel as they will most likely support your right to decorate your home as you see fit even if it is unpopular to your conservative, anti-aclu neighbors.