Why To Be Anti-ACLU
69The ACLU is Anti-You and Anti-Me
This is an agency that was founded by a Communist. His name is Roger Baldwin. He stated when he founded it: "My chief aversion is the system of greed, private, profit and privilege and violence which makes up the control of the world today, and which has brought it to the tragic crisis of unprecedented hunger and unemployment. Therefore, I am for Socialism, disarmament and ultimately, for the abolishing of the State itself. I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control of those people who produce wealth. Communism is the goal." So, why are so many Americans a member of this agency and why do so many use them?
This agency does the things it does using our tax money. They do things that are against the beliefs of so many Americans, yet they use our tax money for it. How is this possible?
The ACLU supports child porn distribution and child molesters. In 1985, as legislative counsel for the ACLU, Barry Lynn told the US Attorney General Commission on Pornography, that child pornography is protected by the First Amendment. Although production of child porn could be prevented by law, Lynn argued that it's distribution could not be. Why would they not stand up for children who are being abused in this sense? This is perverting the Constitution.
They defend our enemies. They have defended Quadafi and continue to today. They defend the P.L.O. They tell detainees at Gitmo they don't have to talk to interrogators. (In other words, their 'rights' are that they do not have to cooperate with American's trying to find out information in order to protect the American Public.)
These people also oppose National Security. They have stood against almost every effort the US has made in national security. But, at this, they are 2-faced. Example: They are against any matter of search done to protect people, like an airport, etc. But, if you walk into their Manhattan headquarters, you'll see signs saying that your bags will be checked before you enter. Why is it ok for them to do a search, but no one else?
They are pro-death. We all know they are pro-abortion, it's their top priority. They fight free speech rights of those that oppose pro-abortion. They also support euthanasia. If you are getting older or sick, might want to find a deserted island to move to. At least there you'd be safe. But, there is one exception to their pro-death plan. They are against it when it comes to the death penalty. How can they justify this? This is what the Bible says about abortion: Exodus 21:22 Please read this as proof that murdering an unborn baby is wrong. Don't make my word for it, take God's.
They are for open borders. They have gone so far as helping illegals cross the border. Do you realize how many of our jobs go to illegals here working for cash, while those who employ them don't pay taxes on it? They are also signing up for welfare, but have never paid a cent in tax. How does this work?
It goes without saying they are anti-Christian. Under the guise or should I say lie of 'seperation of church and state', they have made a name for themselves on being rabidly anti-Christian. They are against tax exemptions for all churches, but, they push for wiccans to have tax exempt status. They are against Christianity in school, but oddly remain silent while our children are taught about being a muslim.
They are anti-Second Amendment. Their policy is: "The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court's longstanding interpretation of the Second Amendment that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation of efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms." As a life-time member of the NRA I have one thing to say to the ACLU: "You can have it when you pry it from my cold dead hands!"
This agency also outright hates the boy scouts. They are doing everything they can to hurt them. They have already attacked their right to free speech. They are threatening schools and are in court fighting to shut chapters down. They also oppose the military supporting them, and will sue the pants off any school that attempts to charter them. It's the Boy Scouts!!
So, can someone please tell me something positive about this organization? It's hard for me to see, as an American, how this organization is able to survive here. Let alone, being a tax exempt organization. We are paying for them to do these things with our tax money. Am I the only person this bothers?
PrintShare it! — Rate it: up down flag this hub
Comments
Moonlake, Thanks so much for taking your time to come by and read the hub and comment.
All Shook Up said: This agency does the things it does using our tax money. They do things that are against the beliefs of so many Americans, yet they use our tax money for it. How is this possible?
Not sure where you got that impression, but here is the reality on ACLU funding: ACLA is nonprofit and nonpartisan and membership-based. The ACLU today is the nation's largest public interest law firm, with a 50-state network of staffed, autonomous affiliate offices. ACLU is supported by annual dues and contributions from its members, plus grants from private foundations and individuals. WE DO NOT RECEIVE ANY GOVERNMENT FUNDING.
While many people associate the ACLU with the "L" word (liberalism), here's what they say about themselves: "We protect American values. In many ways, the ACLU is the nation's most CONSERVATIVE organization. Our job is to conserve America's original civic values - the Constitution and the Bill of Rights - and defend the rights of every man, woman and child in this country." The point is, our current government is imperfect so someone's gotta watchdog this stuff.
I guess some people would prefer that certain rights (e.g., Second Amendment) be reinterpreted in their favor and certain classes of people in our country should be denied some or all of their rights. Did I read you correctly?
What exactly do you see them doing that is positive? Are you saying you favor this country becoming a communist country? That is what the founder said was the goal. What part of them do you see as conservative? They are pro-murdering babies, they are anti-Christian, anti-gun. Are you saying that if someone broke into your house and was going to rape you, you'd perfer them to just do it rather than have a gun to protect yourself? And what 'classes' of people are you taking about?
I did not say I agree with every cause the ACLU takes on. They themselves admit that they often end up defending some real doozies, but some extremly important decisions also (Scopes Monkey Trial, etc.) As they say, "Historically, the people whose opinions are the most controversial or extreme are the people whose rights are most often threatened. Once the government has the power to violate one person's rights, it can use that power against everyone. We work to stop the erosion of civil liberties before it's too late." What they are defending is what the framers of the original Constitution of the US intended.
As to Mr. Baldwin, here some things about him that might surpise you. In 1947, GENERAL DOUGLAS MACARTHUR invited him to Japan to foster the growth of civil liberties in that country. In Japan, he founded the Japan Civil Liberties Union, and the Japanese government awarded him the Order of the Rising Sun. In 1948, Germany and Austria invited him for similar purposes. Bear in mind, Japan and Germany (and under its power, Austria) were our ENEMIES in WWII.President Jimmy Carter awarded Baldwin the Medal of Freedom on 16 January 1981. So as I see it, Roger Baldwin was actually quite an American hero!
wow...Not really knowing much about this organization...it seems very UN-American to me...and why is people come here tot he land of the free and want it the way it was where they come from...stay in your own country..as far as I'm concerned. Communists said years ag o "we will take you from within"...are they? It is very scary and so uncontrolled here in the last few years...we need God back in our thoughts and our minds...not money and control..treat other's the way you want to be treated...and to protect yourself is only natural..There's a new song out by Kenney Chessney called "Everybody want to go to Heaven...but nobody wanna go now"...Hummm??? G-Ma :o) hugs
Ok, Jimmy Carter is one of the worst president's we have had. The man gave away the Panama Canal. Now the Chinese control it. Nice work there Jimmy. So, telling that Jimmy Carter gave him something really does nothing to support your argument. MacArthur was friends with the communists. He had some good points. I'll give you that about that point. But, that doesn't mean that the man you're trying to tell me is a hero is a hero. The man is for murdering unborn babies for means of birth control. He has no character. I don't care what awards he has. It's what he DOES is what concerns me. I believe Hitler was quiet the decorated man for his accomplishments too. Does that make him a hero? I think not. Because the man made peace with a nation does not mean he's a hero. Nor does it make him a good person. I am concerned with what your agency does. You sue and sue and sue for rights that are given to us by the Constitution. Ie:Boy Scouts.
G-Ma, Thanks for coming by and commenting. What you said about them taking over from within, you are 100% correct. It's happening before our very eyes and we are doing nothing to prevent it. People are so blind. They talk a good talk and twist the truth until it's truth no more and people blindly believe. It's unreal how many people claim to be educated, yet fall into snares like this. Thanks again for your post.
PS I love Kenny! :) Get their wings and fly around......................
Because the man made peace with a nation does not mean he's a hero? Then I guess you and I have very different definitions of "hero." Sounds to me like you would have preferred that Germany and Japan won WWII since your opinion of MacArthur is tainted by him being "friends with the communists." (true, Russia did fight on our side that time around).
I do agree with you about the purpose of ACLU. It sues and sues and lobbies and tries to bring out in the public eye abuses or erosions to our rights that are (or are supposed to be) given to us by the Constitution.
Here's a parallel organization for ya, the NRA. As we all know, the NRA is specifically focused on 2nd Amendment protection (only one Amendment).Whereas ACLU covers this broad range of rights: 1. Your First Amendment rights: freedom of speech, association and assembly.
2. Freedom of the press, and freedom of religion. 3. Your right to equal protection under the law: equal treatment regardless of race, sex, religion or national origin. 4. Your right to due process: fair treatment by the government whenever the loss of your liberty or property is at stake. 5. Your right to privacy: freedom from unwarranted government intrusion into your personal and private affairs.
Now, obviously the NRA feels our Constitutional rights are in jeopardy, otherwise there would be no need for the NRA. The ACLU, also looks at where citizens' rights are in jeopardy. Now here's an interesting statistic: NRA has 4 million members whereas ACLU has 500,000. So there are actually 8 NRA members to every 1 ACLU member. That's a lot of firepower!
I could argue that people should be anti-NRA because they support putting automatic weapons in the hands of criminals... but that's an oversimplification (and I do agree there are legitimate reasons to have guns. In fact, you might be surprised to know how many we own).
My point is, the Constitution was framed at the very beginning of our country. There is no way any of the founding fathers could have anticipated our country today and the sophisticated, complex society America has become. It's good to know someone is out there fighting to maintain the Constitution as it was written so that ALL AMERICANS are protected and can enjoy all of their civil rights.
Last point. RE: Mr. Baldwin, he died in 1981, so any reference to him should technically be past tense (he WAS for murdering unborn babies, he HAD no character).
I already have freedom of speech. I don't need the ACLU suing for something I already have. But I can see you suing me if I say something against someone you are for. They are suing the Boy Scouts. Why? Why would you sue the Boy Scouts? That reason could you possibly have?
What I meant that the man does, what I mean by that is what his organiztion does.
And the reason you have so few members compared to the NRA is because of what you are and what you do vs what the NRA does. The NRA has a large Christian following. You, however, want to attack Christians. You are the organization Christians have to deal with. Because you sue us for praying at a ballgame. Of if we pray at school. (By the way, prayer will never be taken out of schools.) Why do you do that? Do you understand that you are taking away our freedom of speech when you do that?
And for you saying that I shouldn't be a part of the NRA, does that mean that you don't feel I should have my guns? I'm sure the NRA is out there looking up felons getting out of prison and giving guns to them.
Where are the comments you are replying to with some of these? I see you countering what appear to be remarks someone made that you disagree with but the statements themselves aren't there. Either view points other than those in the article are being censored out of comments or I'm missing something.
You might want to listen to (or read) a small piece "What does the ACLU stand for?"
http://www.bigthink.com/truth-justice/8906
As in the recent hub page about "passive racism". Fundamentally, we are not equal - but we have EQUAL RIGHTS. And that's hard to wrap your head around when you think you're morally, religiously, sexually, racially, intellectually, financially, or physically SUPERIOR to someone else. You can not respect someone that you feel superior to - and even though the ACLU may not always promote my personal doctrines or beliefs - I think we need a watchdog (the ACLU) to watch over the Justice Department and ALL government bodies to insure that no one individual is destroyed or abused by the misuse of someone's personal agenda while in public office.
Please take a moment to read an article by David Brandon on compassion.
http://www.infed.org/archives/e-texts/brandon_comp
As our country explodes with diversity - it is hard to find a middle ground. In the end, I don't think that the real objective is to make you stop praying in school - it is an attempt by people that have left their homes and families (some not by choice) to have the same right as you do - to finally be able to pray without fear of political or religious persecution. I don't think that anyone is trying to take away our freedom of speech - I think they just want us to listen, even when we don't agree or understand.
blessings,
julia
julia ward - a BLINDING heart - a writer's blog - www.ablindingheart.com
I have nothing positive to say about the ACLU either.The ACLU is always defending some of societies most horrific child killers and organizations. Their defence of NAMBLA and Charles Jaynes always comes to my mind when relating to who they really are. Jeffrey Curley was a 10 old boy from Massachusetts. He was choked to death with a gasoline soaked rag when he resisted Jaynes and his partners brutal assault. They then molested his corpse, stuffed him into a rubbermaid tote when they were done and filled it with cement . Jaynes himself said it was the literature he recieved from NAMBLA led encouraged his actions. No, I have nothing positive to say about the ACLU .
Let them try and take my guns away. I will show them how they work. It would help Allshookup if we knew who you were responding to in your comments. The way it looks, makes it seem as if you are arguing with yourself. 40 years old didn't used to be THAT OLD! :P
The ACLU has always been antichirst. They have always worked to udnermine society in the US. Everytime someone cries foul, they are there to protect. People aren;t always innocent but they don;t care. They only want as much good PR as possible so they can make it seems like we are the bad guys. I think the government should disband them myself.
Whoa, ther. Put the gun down lady! I never, every say you should not be part of the NRA. Nor did I say the NRA should not exist. And, if you read closely, I even mentioned that I own guns, also.
Why would the ACLU sue the Boy Scouts of America? To keep the BSA from discriminating against members or prospective members based on their religious views or sexual orientation. As a private organization, BSA would be perfectly within its rights to discriminate against anyone it wants to. However, the justices found the BSA to be "a place of public accommodation," in part because of its broad-based membership solicitation and the organization's historic partnership with various public entities and public service organizations including public schools and school-affiliated groups, and government entitites including lawenforcement agencies, fire departments, city governments, and the military which sponsor scouting units. In other words, BSA is to be held to the same anti-discrimination standards as the public entities that sponsor (read: fund, support) them. The BSA didn't meet the requirements for being a private club because its membership wasn't sufficiently limited.
Now here is another interesting point: Filmmaker and BSA Advisory Council member Steven Spielberg is particularly adamant on the matter. SPielberg says, "I have spoken out publicly and privately against intolerance and discrimination based on ethnic, religious, racial, and sexual orientation. While I support the principles of Scouting, that does not imply that I support every current policy. Although I have no direct active role in the Boy Scouts, I encourage efforts to end intolerance and discrimination once and for all."As to me suing you for something you say against someone I am for, I am not a litigious person. I do not believe in spurious lawsuits of any kind. And I firmly believe in your First Amendment rights to speak your truth.The purpose of this hub is to encourage debate and free exchange of ideas. You and I may not agree philosophically. But that's what makes America -- and HubPages -- great!
ASU, when you deny comments, deny your responses too - it looks funny this way :D
Good hub - I have never heard of the ACLU before they sound very militant - and as an aside to your words; don't hold your breath on this one - (By the way, prayer will never be taken out of schools.) because it has already happened in govt funded schools in Australai!
however forgive me for asking but your thread is not adding up - it looks as if you are answering unasked questions - would that be right? - are you adding to your hub via the comments page?
I think you are misleading people when you say the ACLU is for child pornography. In a letter to the Honorable Lamar Smith in 2002, the ACLU specifically stated, "The ACLU opposes child pornography that uses real children in its depictions. Material, however, which is produced without using real children, and is not otherwise obscene, is protected under the First Amendment. H.R. 4623 attempts to ban this protected material, and therefore will likely meet the same fate as the provisions stricken from the Child Pornography Prevention Act (CPPA) in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition."
I think there is a danger in stating as fact something that isn't really accurate. I am not a member of this organization but I appreciate much of what it did after Baldwin died, involving itself in the cause of school desegregation in the 1950s (in particular the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education) and the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s. Obviously you are a pro-life, which is your right to choose. I'm not about to get into an argument here. But they also opposed the death penalty in 1976, which is also a life or death issue I assume you also prefer left to God's discretion.
I find it funny that you deleted any comment that disagreed with you. That is censorship, and VERY UNAMERICAN. God, you ignorous religious zealots make me sick!
Anti-gun sounds good to me. Especially hand guns which have no purpose except their use aginst people. I've yet to hear a convincing argument for allowing their proliferation in a civilised society.
Paraglider, I carry a handgun. It's for protection. Where I live, it would take deputies 20+ mintues to get to our house. How could I protect my family until they get here if someone breaks in with a gun?
Can we all take a chill pill please? I haven't deleted anything. I went to bed early and just now got on and I have approved each and every comment. Breathe! Take a deep breath, it's all good.
dafla, So, I'm gulity until proven innocent? Thanks.
Shadesbreath, Again, Chill out. Every single post is on here. I was in bed before you posted. Another member on hubpages thought it was a good idea to fix it to where posts are approved before posted. She does that on all of her hubs. So, since she's been here much longer than I have, I took her advice. Again, each and every post is posted. None (0) were deleted.
ajcor, Thanks for stopping by and reading my hub. Thanks for commenting.
julia, They say they want to protect our freedom of speech? They are suing Boy Scouts for them expressing that right. They talk about being a 'watchdog' for Americans. They want to control what we do/say. It's evident in the Boy Scout case. Showing me links to what they believe doesn't hold much water with me since I personally know a Scout that is being sued for no reason other than to push their agenda to all of Amercia. Thanks for reading and commenting.
Misha, Please read what I said to Shadesbreath. Thanks for reading.
SirDent, Thanks for coming by and reading my hub. I appreaite it as well as your comment. I agree with everything you said. The world would be a better place if they didn't exist. I think a lot of the people who are for it maybe don't totally understand what they REALLY do.
Stand your ground Allshookup.
Tit 2:1 But speak thou the things which become sound doctrine:
Good hub. :)
DK5, Thanks for taking your time to read my hub and commenting. I wanted to especially thank you for sharing that story so people can see even more of the horrible things that the ACLU actually does. They don't seem to publicize when they do all those things like you talk about. Thank you again. Please come back anytime.
Mighty Hunter, Me and whole whole lot of people will be standing my your side! And haha! I know 40 is old! Heehee! That means I need more patience! LOL But, yeah, I'm in total agreement with you about the guns. I used to have a bumper sticker that said : 'When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns!' To me, that mean that the criminals will always have them OR that I will eventually have to become an outlaw because I'm not giving mine up. Thanks for coming by, you know you are always welcome!
SirDent, Thanks for your encouragment. I appreciate it more than you know!
Mighty Mom, I know why you are suing the Boy Scouts. Because they are standing for what is moral and ethical and the ACLU hates that. They have proven that time and time again. Yet, say that they are being a 'watchdog' for protect American's rights. Where are the rights for the Boy Scouts? Yet, you want to go to Gitmo and protect the 'rights' of the prisoners there. Very twisted thinking.
NAMBA exposed.
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20Americ
NAMBA site.
It is a very secretive site. Requires that a person joins before viewing anything.
Storytellersrus, Thanks for reading my hub and commenting. In my hub, you'll see that I said that they ACLU said that they didn't approve of it being done, yet they say that the first Amendment protects the right to distribute it. That is a form of child abuse. Anyone who thinks it's ok to distribute it is protecting the people who make it by oking the distribution of it. That's not right. They are hiding behind some perverted way they look at the first Amendment, yet they do not support the second Amendment. This is a good example of how they pick and choose what they want to support and what they want to sue. Thanks for bring that up. It's helped me to prove another way they think and act. Please come back and comment anytime.
SirDent, thank you for those links. I'll check them out as I hope all who reads your post does.
My Pleasure allshookup. I enjoy reading your hubs. We share many values. Keep up the good fight! We may lose some battles but we will never be defeated.
Aww, thanks DK5, I really do appreciate all of the encouragement. And yes, I feel we share alot of the same values too. It's good to know that in the end, we win huh? Thanks again!
Looks like you've really got them all-shook-up.
FoursX2, Thanks for reading my hub and posting. Great play on words LOL Come by anytime!
Allshookup - I'm glad to see the comments back on your hub. It looks a lot better! :)
Question for you...I've been trying to figure out how to take out the need to approve comments on my own hubs because it's annoying (I approve nearly everything)...how did you change it, I'm stumped.
They're up now, but yesterday, they weren't up. They were replied to, meaning you saw them and read them and wrote a reply, but they were not up. They are now though, which I'm glad to see. The conversation is delightfully two way. :)
Spryte, edit your hub then edit comments. Set it to unmoderated. All comments must be approved, but if the comments are moderated, no one can see them except you until you accept them.
SirDent :) Thank you! And here I was looking for some all-encompassing way to set that in my profile when it was hiding on each individual hub. Thanks again for preserving my sanity!
LOL ASU, I was just letting you know that you have a problem to deal with. You can safely delete both my comments here, as well as your reply - nobody will suffer :)
I think it will be a right thing to do, cause they are really off topic of the discussion here, and the topic is not something I am interested in, so I can't really contribute to the discussion in a meaningful way :)
Here is a take on the historical background of civil liberties when this country was founded and why the Constition was framed as it was. The essays conclud with "Implementing the Theories of Modern Liberalism, and Where We Go From Here".
http://www.vindicatingthefounders.com/essay1.html
For an indepth article on the ACLU and their continued battle with the Boy Scouts - http://www.bsalegal.org/downloads/War_on_Scouts.pd
Our rights, have been redifined. In an odd twist of fate, the ACLU may be the only independent group with enough power to stand up to ever growing "new bureaucracy".
I don't think it is the ACLU we need to worry about. It is the "new bureaucracy" which has redefined and now "assigns" us our rights based on some group membership. Farmers, blacks, hispancis, women...
And I don't necessarily believe this was the original intent of what we now (debate) and blame on "liberalism". I think it has been twisted by lawyers and politicians (most of whom are lawyers) for their own personal gain. Like a super-antibiotic-resistant-flesh-eating-virus, our government is now out of our control. The ACLU may just be the "mad scientist" that can save the world.
The sad truth is that the effects of existentialism on Post WWII America have been devastating and long lasting. We may have won the war, but in the end, lost the battle. And there's nothing the ACLU or the Constitution can do about that.
blessings,
julia
julia ward - a BLINDING heart - a writer's blog - www.ablindingheart.com
.....had to delete my own post....
Great hub by the way.
newcapo, Welcome. Thank you for reading my hub and commenting. My aim in the hub was to put out there the things the ACLU actually does since they seem to be able to use 'political speak' to explain the bad and ugly things they do away. I think if you know your enemy, you are better prepared to deal with them. Please come by anytime.
julia, Thank you for reading my hub. I read your post and what you feel about the ACLU and I think the things you see they are doing good and right. But, I don't see how they can explain defending prisoners of war at Gitmo, or supporting abortions ( murdering babies), sueing the Boy Scouts, or the terrorists they are defending is a good thing. Those to me are all negative. They are trying to take away the Boy Scouts freedom of speech. They claim to be a 'watchdog' agency, but it seems they only want to take away the freedoms we have, but use slick political talk to smooth over the bad and ugly deeds they do. I appreciate you reading and commenting. Please come back.
Misha, Thanks for coming in again. I didn't realize that me setting my hubs to be moderated first would be such a big deal. So, I set it back to where they'd all just show up. Thanks for the help! Come back anytime.
spryte, Thanks for coming by and commenting. I see that you have found out from SirDent about how to undo the moderation thing. I feel the same about him as you do. He rocks! Please come back anytime!
ACLU-Anti Christian Litigation Unit. (according to their actions) And it's alive and well taking away our freedoms in the guise (lie) of helping us. Don't take anyone/agency like this at their word. Research and find out the truth for yourself. It's sad in this day and time that you have to check out each and everything. But, it's the only way we will know the truth. We can't just idly by and believe lies. We need to know the real story behind everything. We need to be knowledgdable.
I'm OK with rifles if they are used in hunting for food out of necessity, or in extreme cases of self defense - like when the red coats were storming the colonist's homes and taking over, etc. However, I learned to shoot a handgun at age 18 and even with ear plugs and shooting earmuffs on, I went deaf for three days, so No thanks! to handguns.
WOW, I came back to check your site and couldn't believe all the post you have. Good job.
So...people who want to move to the US, which is supposedly the country with the most freedoms, shouldn't because they shouldn't be free to believe what they want to believe? That's logic for you. The Founding Fathers would be very disappointed...
Just because you fight to give people the right to hold jobs does not mean you are undermining anyone's freedom. Without organizations like the ACLU, the US would not be any better than any of the dictatorships, communist and non-communist, that you regularly attack and wish to be hit with a nuclear bomb.
moonlake, Thanks for coming back by. And thanks for your compliment. It kinda shocked me how many people posted too. But, I was pleased that people came in to voice thier feelings for it, pro or con. It's interesting to see why people believe how they do and why. Please check back anytime!
uninvited, Thanks for commenting and for reading the hub, if you did. The ACLU is taking away our freedoms. I realize that they make it sound as if they are protecting people, but it's quiet the opposite if you really look at what they are going. Once again, thanks for commenting.
Also, It would be nice of you to not try to read my mind. What I have said about nukes is that should be used ONLY if necessary. I do not WISH to do it to anyone or any country. I only want the US to be protected. I don't like war, but I also am not stupid enough to think that it's not happening and that we don't need to be prepared if a country that has nukes should attack us.
Patti, Thank you so much for coming my and reading and commenting on my hub. Yes, they can be really loud. My daddy taught me to shoot without earplugs. Back then, no one really used them much. (Showing my age :/) I do use them and our son has never shot without using them. If you are leaning against the hood of a pickup when you shoot a 44 mag, you ears will indeed ring for days. Thanks for commenting.
I would like to apologize to you. I was wrong about the comments, and I'm big enough to admit when I'm wrong. However, ignorant religious zealots still make me sick. You just wait until someone tries to take away your right to religion. You'll be begging the ACLU to help you.
I will add, though, that I do think that our rights get a little broadly interpreted sometimes. I honestly think all pornography should be banned, even cartoon pornography. JMHO, though. I also think all radical religious propaganda should be banned, no matter who it comes from.
dafla, Thank you so much for coming by and commenting. I hate that everyone thought that I wasn't going to post comments and everyone got so upset by that. I hope that I have that fixed now. I honestly feel that the ACLU is taking away my rights. Well, the rights rights of American citizens. And that bothers me a lot. That's why I did the hub. They are representing terrorists. And I agree with you about the porn. I don't think that is freedom of the press, I think it's abuse of children. It comes across to me that they have an agenda and are suing anyone who does not adhere to that agenda. It seems you feel that I am a radical religious person and that is something you want to ban. If you tried to ban me, do you honestly think the ACLU would come to my rescue? Be honest. Do you see them coming to the help of a Christian for freedom of speech, etc?
In the immortal paraphrased words of Voltaire*, the ACLU's stance is: "I may disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Voltaire never said those exact words, but he did suggest, in his "Treatise on Toleration"
Not only is it extremely cruel to persecute in this brief life those who do not think the way we do, but I do not know if it might be too presumptuous to declare their eternal damnation.
In other words, everyone's entitled to their opinion.
Mighty, Thanks for coming by again. I have never seen anyone persecuted for their beliefs if they are not Christian. But, I do see the ACLU persecuting the Boy Scouts for their beliefs. The fact that if you don't believe what they do, they'll sue you. I agree that it's extremely cruel for it to be done, but as the world has seen, they are still sueing them. It's fine for the ACLU to have whatever opinion and beliefs they choose, but it's not fine for them to go around sueing anyone who doesn't believe like they do. Thanks for your comments.
Hi Allshookup,
I've never heard about ACLU before, and as I'm not an American resident I'm finding it hard to form an opinion either way. What I do have an opinion on, however, is guns. I believe it's in the constitution that you have the right to bear arms. How scary is that? Maybe it was necessary in the days of the wild west, but surely a civilised society shouldn't need to have guns in every home? I'm so thankful that that is not normal practice here in the UK, and I sincerely hope that it never will be.
Amanda, Thank you for coming by my hub and reading it. Welcome. I have always been for the freedoms we are given by our founding fathers. We are given the rights to defind ourselves. If someone broke into your house and were trying to rape your daughter and your only armed with a cell phone and the closest polieman is 30 mintues away, what would you do if you don't have a gun? If we have no guns, it would also make it way to easy for this to become a police state. Following that would be communism. I'm sorry that people in the UK can't own guns, it's very unfair. Criminals will ALWAYS have them. That's one reason you need them, For protection. Thank you for commenting. Please come back!
Thanks ASU for doing this hub...some great dialogue from varied walks of life here. It's amazing how many people are not aware of the ACLU's history and glad it has been shared/brought to light. I think you are absolutely correct they would not come to the defense in support of anything to do with Christianity. Years ago, I personally started praying for the dismantling of the organization and it's been a while since I've had such a petition. Thanks for the reminder.
christinekv, Thank you so much for taking your time to read my hub. For many years we have seen the things this organization stands for and the actions they take. I admire you for starting to pray like you are and I will join you, along with my husband. It's very sad to see organizataions like the Boy Scouts losing their rights due to these people. Thank you for commenting and sharing. Come by anytime!
Why are you sorry that the people in the UK can't own guns? Ignorance? We can own guns so where you got that from is well, unfounded! Anyway, my point is my parents live in what you would call the suburbs and guess what they don't own a gun! Most of us don't and here's another fact. There is hardly any gun crime in the UK in comparison to America. Why, well it's easy really the criminals find it much harder to get a hold of guns because we are not all running round with them!!!
You said - I'm so thankful that that is not normal practice here in the UK, and I sincerely hope that it never will be.
- That's where I got it. From you saying that, it seemed to me that it's not allowed or normal there in the UK.
Saying I am ignorant is very rude. Very immature. But, it's a comment I expect for someone who doesn't support the Amendment that gives me that freedom. I was only going on what you said in your post. I want to have guns I can hunt with and also for my families' protection. I love them and would do what it took to protect them from intruders. We live 20+ mintues from town. It would take the police too long to get here. No telling what could happen in that time and I'm not going to sit on my thumb and be unprepared to protect my family. I love them too much. It's up to you how much you value your family and want to protect them.
Oh get a grip lady! Try reading before you respond! I did not call you ignorant and further more your quoting some-one elses comment not mine. You missed the entire point again!
If you don't like how I comment, you're more than welcome to ignore my whole hub and not come back. Take a chill pill. Seem to have your undies in a wad. LOLOLOL
Now you do finally have a point lol
Why don't you run and share that with shadesbreath and the rest who have been trashing me? Very mature of you and so nice. You talk about me deleting posts, which I never did. But, it's ok for grundy and others to since they can make a better judgement on who 'trolls' are. I see how you are. So does everyone else. It's ok if you want to do something, but no one else can unless you agree with them. Grundy has excuses for the ones she deletes. Nothing gets said. I don't even do it, and I get criticized. And I understand what trolls are to you people. Trolls = someone who doesn't agree with you 100%, so you delete their posts. Careful, your character is showing!
This has certainly gained a lot of attention. I didn't read all comments, but I congratulate you on doing such a great job of writing.
Thanks SirDent. I sent you an email earlier today. Thanks for checking in and for the encouragement.
This is where America is heading. Americans beware of the ACLU.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGVAQOUi6ec
Apparently hand gun crime is up at least 40% since the ban in the u.K.? Hmmmm.
I just replied to your email. I hope it helps. I will go to the forums and look for your post asking for help.
SirDent, thanks so much for all your help!
DK5, I have one thing to say to you: YOU TOTALLY ROCK! Thanks for putting those links on there so people can see the facts and not just call what's on here opinion. Hard to argue with facts. Thank you for doing that research!
Like the saying goes 'When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns' To me, they help deter breakins, holdups,car jackings, etc when lawful citizens are able to have them to protect themselves. I notice the question I asked about protecting family was never answered. Why do you think that is? Hmmm....
"I notice the question I asked about protecting family was never answered. Why do you think that is? Hmmm...."
Different time zone, no worries, I'll answer it now because it was me you said it to.
Most 1st world societies, e.g. Canada, Europe, Australasia, many years ago decided to try the civilised experiment of outlawing guns and policing the decision. And most of these societies have less gun crime than the US. Do you think that is a coincidence?
There is also the Christian argument that surely should apply to you as a professed Christian, Matthew 5.39:
But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
Or is this one of the sayings of your Lord that you think was just a joke?
This Hub takes the prize for the most misinformation in a single Hub in the history of Hubpages!
Re DK5's comment - In the UK, sporting guns have always been legal but subject to strict license conditions. This includes police inspection of your premises to ensure you have an adequate gun safe to prevent theft of weapons or ammunition.
Hand guns were further restricted because of a rise in the gun culture among some inner city gangs and because of one particular incident. This rise is attributable to alienation of parts of society. An alienation that is correctly addressed by political solutions and social programmes.
The rise has nothing whatsoever to do with the increased restriction on hand guns and everything to do with criminality. The last thing we need is armed vigilantes shooting it out with the street gangs.
Civilised societies don't need guns in every home.
Allshookup,
I guess we'll have to agree to differ about the guns, but I'm still glad that my only acquaintance with these weapons, has been the ones I've seen in museums, and the spud guns that the kids play with.!
Honestly don't feel sorry for us in the UK. We're fine as we are. Really!
BTW I've just looked at the two links brought up by DK5 as evidence to support a pro-gun lobby in the UK. In the first case gun crime is showing as 40% up since the ban. Well 40% increase on a tiny amount (relative to the USA equivalent) is still a small amount. Secondly, the youtube clip is one of the most politically skewed pieces of reporting I've ever come across. The protest marches shown on this clip were to do with fox hunting, not the gun ban. People were talking about the right to defend their homes, but this does NOT implicitly mean with guns. In this instance it could just as readily be with a kitchen knife, or any heavy object. Yes of course there is gun crime in the UK, but it is minimal, and largely confined to the cities. Guns are smuggled in from abroad, just as drugs are. It's not ideal, but we're not living in an ideal world.
Amanda, a 40% increase in hand Gun crime in two years since its inception is a staggering increase.
In the protest marches if you watched the entire clip you would see the march was not just about fox hunting but about the outrage from the people as their basic rights and liberties are stripped from them one by one by the Government. I encourage you to watch the entire piece.
DK5 - The increase in hand gun crime had nothing to do with the ban. Coincidence is not the same as cause. In fact, as has been well reported, hand gun crime in UK is closely associated with inner city street gangs in a few areas. There has not been a wave of armed robbery or assault. It's about stupid kids showing off and shooting each other. Not pretty, but the answer is not to arm the general public.
There is no groundswell of opinion in the UK in favour of liberalising hand gun control. To pretend there is is simply disingenuous.
Nice hub was posted. Are you interested in shopping. If so, here is my hub on online shopping. http://hubpages.com/hub/CouponsfromBigBrands This is very interesting one. I hope you will like it.
DK5 - I did watch the clip right through, and as I said, it is a skewed piece of reporting. You can always find people who are incensed about specific issues, and if you then take clips of what they're saying, and use them out of context you can readily produce an item such as this. I'm sure that many of those featured would be appalled if they knew that their words had been manipulated in this way.
That was the largest march in the history of the U.K.. Did you see how many people were there? I encourage all Americans to read this hub and watch the documentary and decide for themselves. As I said before, Americans beware of where Obama and the elitists in this country want to take you.
Paraglider, please direct me to the " groundswell" of support in the U.K for liberalism gun control. I can't seem to find it.
{{Paraglider, please direct me to the " groundswell" of support in the U.K for liberalism gun control. I can't seem to find it}}
Did you not understand what I said? I certainly don't understand your oddly reworked question. Clarify your confusion and I'll try to answer.
DK5, the march was certainly impressive, and I know people who went. They were marching against the ban on fox-hunting, not guns. Read the banners. We're talking about middle England here!
Paraglider, Again, welcome. When you replied to the question of protecting family, I have asked that of quiet a few people and never really got an answer. I still don't feel I have one. I'll ask again, If someone broke into your house and was going to rape and kill your child, would you want to have a gun to protect your family? This is for anyone who says that banning hand guns are a good thing. Do you love your family enough to protect them? It's that simple.
This question has nothing to do with turning the other cheek Paraglider. Those of you who choose not to be saved, yet you try to take a Scripture and prove something, it just doesn't work. Sorry. That's not what that verse is for. You're comparing apples and watermelons. Quiet a few of you try to find verses to prove your points and aim them at saved people. But, before you can accurately do that, you have to have truely understand the Scripture and that only comes with guidence from the Holy Spirit. If you accept Him and His guidence, you could understand what I'm talking about. His Hand is out to you. Please come by anytime!
DK5, Thanks for all of your posts. I admire how you stand your ground and speak what is right. The ACLU is one of the worst if not the worst organizations in the history of the US. It lies to people saying it's protecting their rights when what they are actually sueing people for using their rights. It's so hard for me to understand why people can't see what they are really all about. Thanks again for the research and your posts. I appreciate it! Keep up the good work!
Amanda, Thanks for reading my hub and commenting. I have a question for you, Why would people have to be marching if things are so great there? You're telling me that you can't have guns to hunt with? What kind of place takes away your rights like that? It's a place I would never want to live. I know you don't feel that it's sad, but to me, it's sad because I live where I'm free, thank God. I realize that the ACLU and Obama would love to take my guns, but they are in for a fight! Please come by anytime.
Sharon, thanks for coming by and reading and commenting on my hub.
Ralph, since you're the one who feels that way, I take it as a compliment, thank you! :)
Here is some more accurate information on the ACLU:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACLU
The ACLU works to protect everyone's rights under the Constitution. It is not afraid to pursue unpopular causes. Here's an example of a case where ACLU helped protect gun-owner rights:
http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2007/04/07/aclu-in
The ACLU works to protect the rights of Christians
http://adamkemp.newsvine.com/_news/2006/01/28/7324
Do you actually believe that the ACLU or any other group like that is going to put on their front page "Give us some money, we need to protect terrorists so they can bomb the US again" ? Come on, get real. They are not going to share all the things they do with people. Please don't tell me you believe what they say. You are an adult, you have lived in the US I take it? Then you should know you have to dig deeper to find out truths from an organization like this than going to wikipedia. What else do you have to show me something positive about them? Something real.
Roger Baldwin was not a communist. In fact, he purged the communists from ACLU:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Nash_Baldwin
Your Hub is lies except for the "the's," "ands" and "buts."
Did you not read his own words and goals when he started this organization?
Again with the wikipedia?
Goodness me Allshookup. Don't get in a lather about this. Of course I would always want to protect my family, but I just don't feel it's necessary to have a gun at home to do that. And as for the march, well fox hunting is not done with guns. It's done with hounds, and that's one of the main reasons town dwellers wanted it banned. The people that introduced the ban favoured guns and poison as a method of controlling the fox population. That's what I mean by skewed. The American reporter attempted to present the march as being about the exact opposite to what it was actually about. Come on! I live here, and Paraglider comes from here. Give us a little credit!
Still, I don't see how you will protect your family against an armed intruder. I don't feel you answered my question. All I got from what you said about it was you don't feel the need to have a gun. So, what do you feel the need to have to protect them?
An armed man comes into your home at night. He is going to rape and/or kill a member of your family. You have no gun. What do you do?
Thankfully I live in a society where guns are extremely hard to get hold of (even for most criminals) and consequently the scenario that you are describing is no more likely to occur than say, an aircraft landing on my house. I feel sad for you if society in America has become so degraded that you live with a constant fear of this kind of crime. I've no wish to fall out with you, but really, honestly, society and attitudes here are very different, as are our expectations of being the victims of crime.
I guess I just have never heard of a place where there is virtually no crime at all. I am thankful, though, to live where I do. I wouldn't trade it to live anywhere else in the world. Thanks for your comments.
Allshookup, we do have crime, but other than gang crime in inner cities, it tends to be of a different order than that which you describe. Let's agree to disagree on this one!
I hate Adolf Hitler. But, if Adolf Hitler were a U.S. citizen, or even if he were not, and if he were on trial here, there would an expectation of justice and proper representstion for him in court.
If a defendent is not properly represented by an attorney, justice is not being served. The Constitution guarantees ALL our rights, not just the rights of those which are "morally correct".
The ACLU may not be popular, but if it were taken away, we would be no better than a Communist or Fascist state which denies equal justice for all, even the unpopular or "morally deranged".
The ACLU does not have to agree with a client, and in many cases they don't. They are there strictly to see that the Constitution is upheld and that the legal system functions as the Constitution demands it must.
Amanda, I don't have gang crime and I don't live in an inner city. I live in a county which has 18,000 people and the town, which is about 20 mintues from my house, has about 8,000 people in it. I live in the sticks, waaaay out in the boonies. And we love it here. I'd never live in a city unless it was have-to case because of family. I'm not a city-dweller at all. I can agree to disagree with you, no problem.
The only place that there is no crime is not in this world at all. All around the world there are people whose sole purpose in life is to hurt others. They are wicked and evil. It is that way here in the US also. Anyone who says there is no violent crimes in their country is a liar.
ASU is only saying that guns can be used for protection. She said the ACLU was formed to undermine what is good and decent in the US. They have done a great job of it so far. They are Antichristian and antichrist.
Now I ask, why are they suing the Boy Scouts of America?
Chef, how can a person with a conscience defend Adolf Hitler, knowing what he did? Or, how can the ACLU defend terrorists who are at Gitmo? They are protecting terrorists who can easily bomb us or know who is going to. How can they do it with a clean conscience? Our equal justice was provided for many years ago when our founding fathers wrote it. They are against the first amendment. Look at what they are doing to the Boy Scouts. They are the Boy Scouts, come on. Was that just a slow day for them? They pervert the Constitution to suit their agenda.
SirDent, Thanks for coming by and for your encouragement. I hope you get your question answered. Come by my hubs anytime! :)
Well, you'll have to disagree with me as well, because I've lived in maybe 20 different countries. The US is the only one where people equate guns with freedom. Like Amanda, I'd rather take the risk (extremely long odds) of some maniac breaking into my house intending to rape my cat (sorry, but my daughter got through all the dangerous years unraped, like most UK kids do) than spend my life carrying a murder weapon.
And be sensible. If someone breaks in when you're asleep, how are you going to get to your murder weapon in time? Will it be loaded and ready to kill? Is that how you want to live your life? Your 'pro-life' life?
OK, now, you said to me -
"This question has nothing to do with turning the other cheek Paraglider. Those of you who choose not to be saved, yet you try to take a Scripture and prove something, it just doesn't work. Sorry. That's not what that verse is for. You're comparing apples and watermelons. Quiet a few of you try to find verses to prove your points and aim them at saved people. But, before you can accurately do that, you have to have truely understand the Scripture and that only comes with guidence from the Holy Spirit. If you accept Him and His guidence, you could understand what I'm talking about. His Hand is out to you. Please come by anytime!"
Let me tell you, that is very patronising. I was brought up Christian but decided there was nothing convincing about God, the afterlife, whatever. I am and have been for many years, rationalist, and have dispensed with belief. However, I value many of the lessons of Christ, including the verse I quoted to you.
It appears you have the secret code to what it really means, and I don't?
Please explain why it is all right to kill, against Mosaic commandment and Christian law, as practised by unbelievers the world over. I'm all ears.
Allshookup, while I understand your anger and rage against defending the people who seem to least deserve it, we would not be Americans, following the Constitution unless we make certain that even the most heinous person gets a fair trial. Do you disagree with that?
Our Constitution does not separate us into "likeable and unlikeable". we are ALL guaranteed equal justice under the law, no matter how terrible our crimes may be. Never forget we are all considered innocent until proven guilty. That is the law. It doesn't say," Some are innocent until proven guilty, but in really nasty cases, well, those people are guilty without a doubt!"
I personally do not have any opinion about most of the cases the ACLU takes on, other than when it's something I disagree with, but none of us could be certain of keeping and using our rights unless we all can be certain and sure of being able to defend ourselves.
Years ago when a blackman was accused of a crime it was assumed he was guilty, and he was hanged or shot or whatever. The ACLU may not be something you like, but they are defending the Constitutional rights of all of us.
As I said, I hate Hitler, but if he were in court and opinion alone caused him to be executed, then tell me what kind of justice is that?
Remember the Salem Witch trials? It was opinion and ignorance that condemned people to death. Where is the fairness in that? "She has a cat, therefore she is a witch!"
What if your neighbor decided you were guilty of a crime? Let's say you are religious and someone says you sacrifice children because it's in the Bible? Would you want to be found guilty of such a foolish thing?
Would you want his or her opinion alone to convict you? After all, you own a Bible, and there's that nasty story of sacrificing a son onthe altar. Jews in Europe were often slain because of that very Bible teaching! No proof, no body, just rumor and inuendo!
I personally believe child molestors should be given the most harsh punishment available after proper legal trials in which they are convicted, but I want to make certain first of all that the correct child molestor gets convicted, and then to make sure the conviction was legally and Constitutionally carried out.
To do otherwise undermines the entire moral fibre of our justice system.
I don't expect you to agree with the cases the ACLU defends, but I would expect that we all should understand that everyone, and that includes child molestors, whom I believe are the most foul amongst the human species, be given a fair trial.
John Adams, our second president, defended the British troops and their officer after the Boston Massacre. He did not particularly like them, or even agree with them, but justice is not about who we like and who we believe is guilty or innocent. He had to overlook the injustice Britain was imposing upon us at that time, and had to do his best to defend his clients, no matter the public outrage or the bad oress.
Abraham Lincoln had to defend people whom the community already decided were guilty. He did so never really knowing if the clients were guilty or innocent. He did so because he believed in the Constitution and the right to equality before the law, and the Constitutional test of being considered innocent before a trial may or may not find you guilty.
If you want to know what it's like to live under the opposite kind of system, then read about how Hitler brought people to court, not to discover their innocence or guilt, but rather simply to condemn them by popular demand.
Many Christians in NAZI Germany were sent to their deaths simply because of that kind of system. How many Jewish people died without trial simply because fo the outcry of public opinion against them?
Jews, Chriatians, disabled and gay, gypsies, Slavs - the list goes on. People were convicted by the snitch next door or down the street. Inuendo and secret whispoers, unproven charges of being a criminal, but no proof of it. None of them were allowed a fair trial.
Is that what we want here?
Guilt by public opinion?
I doubt it.
As for the Bioy Scouts, I do not know much about that case other than it involved civil rights, and in the past decades civil rights have eroded.
Most of the important crime latelly has been in the White House. Torture, illegal surveillance of American citizens, a political purge of U.S. Attorneys in the Justice Department, illegal hiring based on political affiliations, lying about the outing of Valery Plame and so forth ad nauseum.
Chef, What I see from them is the taking away of our rights. Not defending them. I can see why you'd support and like an organization that did these things you talk about. But, the ACLU is not one of those organizations. The public only sees a portion of what they do. I have a friend involved in one of their law suits. Unfouded as it is. She has a son who is a Boy Scout. I don't see them enforcing the Boy Scouts rights. What about them?
And about the child molesters, I know I'm going to get trashed for this, but I honestly believe it. I worked in a Phych Unit for years. I worked with women and children (boys and girls)who were victoms of sexual abuse. And from the kind of exam we did, (I will not go into details here.) There could be no doubt if the tests were positive that the man did what they were charged of. Even some of the men were their own fathers. How sorry a person can you be? When those type of cases happen and it's proven beyond a reasonable doubt (Using the testing and finding it out 100% without a doubt) then I feel they should get the death penality. Those people should not live after the torture they bring on their victoms. It's cruel and vicious and effects the victoms for life. They are never the same after this happens. So, neither should the pervert be that did it. The punishment needs to fit the crime. If it did, we'd have much less crime in the world today.
Ralph, In my mind this goes under the heading of 'Keep the Government out of my Business'. I dont' like Big Brother. I don't like the fact that they watch us. I hate it in fact. I know that you have seen me post on what I believe because you tend to post back to me on here alot. So, you already know my beliefs. The Founding Fathers wrote what we needed, they didn't have spies watching every person that I know of. And I don't think it should be happening now. I don't like the satellites that can see every person 24/7/365. It ticks me off to think about it. I have nothing to hide. I am no criminal. I have never even had a speeding ticket. So, why watch me? They have no reason to in my book. It's a huge waste of taxpayers money and invasion of our privacy.
In case you haven't noticed, the Hill is pretty much a soap opera. Sad but true. People on here seem to think that since I am anti-Obama that I am pro-Bush about everything he does. That is not true. I think there were more out there better than he was to be our president. But, I didn't get asked who I'd put in the office. I didn't get asked this year, or McCain would not be running. Let alone Obama. There are better men on both sides to run than those who are. Such a travisty.
ASU - my last setence was ambiguous. Please let me clarify:
{{Please explain why it is all right to kill, against Mosaic commandment and Christian law, as practised by unbelievers the world over. I'm all ears.}}
should read:
Please explain why it is all right to kill which seems to contravene Mosaic and Christian Law and also 'common law', as practised by unbelievers the world over.
Sorry for any confusion.
If it's proven beyond a reasonable doubt - that is a verdict that can only be rendered by a legal court of law under the Constitution, not by mere observation. That is what I am saying.
Those cases I mentioned were also "beyond a reasonable doubt" in the minds of those in the communities, judged as they were by the popular opinion, and people were ready to storm the prisons and hang the prisoners.
But what turned out in those cases was that popular opinion makes for a poor system of justice.
The British officer was found innocent because he never gave an order to fire. Two of the soldiers were guilty for firing their weapons, and were branded on the thumb. the other soldiers were found innocent because they were facing an angry mob. Indeed, the mob should have been found guilty of inciting a riot, but those charges were never put forth.
Anyway, I m going to take a rest from this for now. Suffice to say the Constitution is the final abiter of justice and how it is carried out. If a molestor os found guilty then by all means punish to the full extent of the law, but never presume guilt until a court of law pronounces it.
Otherwise that leads to mob justice and that is never fair.
Provocotive, interesting hub!
But, Paraglider, I thougt you agreed it was useless to confiscate weapons?
Hi everyone, great to see this discourse is still going! Excellent volley back and forth. Chef Jeff and Ralph Deeds -- thank you for taking up the defense of the ACLU, admittedly a "necessary evil."
Allshookup, you deserve kudos for bringing so many hubsters together on your hub. That's what this is really all about -- the exchange of ideas and getting to know our fellow hubsters. Also improves our debating skills, which only improves our writing!!
This is in response to your strong impulse to defend your family. I totally agree with that. I've seen you write many times that you live 20- minutes outside of town and by the time the police got there, it would be too late.
I live in the middle of a city. My house backs up to a park. It is not uncommon to hear gunshots (obviously not during the day when people are playing soccer there on weekends).I don't like it one bit.
Not long ago my husband and I were awakened by the sound of a gun seemingly on the other side of the park. One shot. Then a silence. Then another. It was 5am. We called the police. They said they would "look into it." More gunshots. We called again. No police. More random gunfire. At 7 am I got up and took my son to meet his ride for a basketball tournament. When I came home my husband was disturbed. He had heard a commotion and went over to the park. Ambulances, fire trucks, yellow crime scene tape. Turns out the shots we heard were "cries of warning" from a suicidal man. They found him tucked under the slide with a hole in his head.
Is there a moral to this story? Just another tragedy of a gun in the wrong hands.
I agree with you, we cannot rely on police protection to keep us safe. On the other hand, with the laws the way they are, you need to be very, very clear about using a gun against an intruder. If you are not already 100% clear on what constitutes legal self-defense, read up on it. The letter of the law -- the basis of any court case if, God forbid, someone tries to hurt your family on your property, might suprise you (and NOT in a good way).
"Guns in the wrong hands" by Mighty_Mom certainly seems to be very apt. It is so easy for a mentally sick (suffering from extreme emotional outburst\psychopathic tendencies) person to possess a gun in US. For getting even a driving licence written/driving tests are conducted but for holding gun no such tests are conducted.
Also only US citizens are allowed to possess a gun and recently an incident happened near chicago where the assailants broke in, kidnapped and murdered an Indian girl on a student visa staying alone in an appartment(knowing that she is an international student and will not have any means to defend herself).
The argument goes either make it available for everyone or make some psychological tests mandatory (I agree such weapons can also be obtained in grey market).
Paraglider, You are referring to the 10 Commandents God gave him on the mountain. My son just calls them 'the 10 Commandments.' If you study the one verse you are referring to, it originally read, Thou shalt not kill (murder) the innocent. People have been taking that one verse for many years and trying to prove a point that has nothing to do with the verse. That's what I mean about truely understanding the Word. I didn't mean it to be patronizing. I can say that because before I was saved, I could not understand what Christians got out of the Scriptures either. I was sharing a personal experience with you. I'm sorry if it came across in a bad way. There is no code to understand it, just the Holy Spirit. That's the Key. Anyway, back to the Commandment. It was meant not to kill people who are innocent. If you go back to the original writing, you can kinda see more why it was written in the first place. Innocent: Manslaugher, Murder, Abortion. Cases like that are what is commanded of us not to kill. However, in the case of war, no one is considered innocent when in a war. We see this in the Bible, as God helped in wars and in battles. When a war is waged and the goal is peace, then that is not considered murder. Protestors from the hippies til now try and use that verse, but when they do, it shows that they have not studied the Word very deeply to find the total meaning of the verse. They only want to find words and somehow make them fit their objective. Genesis 9:5&6, I think it is, that talks about capital punishment and that shows that it is Biblical. This is when someone kills an innocent person. This is not talking about defending yourself. This is not talking about a war situation. Deu Chapter 20 tells the qualifications of military men.
Thank you Chef for reading and commenting.
Wish I'd never brought up ol' man Moses because I knew all that. What about Jesus's injunction -
But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
Please spirit that one away on a cloud of convenience ;)
Why are you censoring my comments?
Excellent hub!!! I have always had a problem with the ACLU. They only seem to step into a situation that suits their motives. It's very one sided. While I understand the need for a seperation of church and state, the intent has been drastically skewed over the years. It is supposed to provide a freedom to practice whatever religion you choose, not to protect you FROM religion.
Mighty, I did take some law classes in college. Decades ago lol. I would never go out and shoot someone for fun or because they walked through my yard. I would only shoot if it HAD to be done. And saying HAVE to be done to me means they have broken the door or window and come into my house attacking me or my family. I'd never want to live with killing or even shooting someone on my conscience. But, the founding fathers gave me that right. To bear arms. I have hunting guns that I use to hunt with and I eat what I kill. I have a hub on that 'Adventures in Eating' if you'd like to know what I kill and what I eat. We live in the sticks and own all the land around us including a 4 1/2 acre lake. I also shoot snakes with our guns. We killed 6 this year with guns. My husband cut off the head of one with the weedeater. I'm sad for the person who shot himself. Anyone who dies at their own hand is a very very sad case. But, if that man was determined to die, taking the gun would not have prevented it. He could have done a number of things to take his own life. The suicides that take place around here are rarely with a gun. They are either OD's or getting in their car and turning on the engine and going to sleep, for good. If you are wanting to protect the world from harm, you'd have to take away kitchen knives, ropes, cars, razor blades, medications, bridges, bodies of water that are greater than 3 inches, frying pans (for all you women out there mad at your husbands), draino, gasoline, I could go on, but you are intelligent and I know you see my point in this. Guns are not the only means someone can harm themselves or someone else with. I actually asked our Sheriff what consititues a break-in and when am I in the clear on defending myself and family should someone break in. He gave me details on what it means in Mississippi. Some states are different.
Ralph, I am not censoring anyone comments. All the posts now go directly on the hub page. I have not deleted one comment. Each and every post is on here. If yours is not showing up, try to type and send it again. AGAIN I AM NOT DELETING ANY COMMENTS. They post directly to the hub! Please try again Ralph.
Anna, Thank you for taking your time to come by and read my hub. Well said. I don't know anyone who could have said it better! Thanks so much. I totally understand what you mean. I think if everyone knew everything they did, they'd feel the same way. Please come by anytime!
Also carrying on from my last comment. If there were stricter laws to prescribe who should be carrying guns (like allshookup who doesn't have even a speeding ticket), and proscribe for psychological patients like cho in virginia tech who went to local gun dealer to buy guns.
I would suggest a stricter psychological assessment with atleast 20/30 minutes written or oral assessment of the gun buyer. Also do some sort of back ground check with the help of the local police about the person's behaviour in general (even for giving a job where he/she may mess up with the company's time&money and here he/she can take someone's life it's very important). Also police may not be able protect each and everyone everytime esp when guns are easily available even in grey market hence whynot allow legal residents to possess a gun why the restriction for only US citizens.
Does the ACLU fight for all the people in USA or only US citizens in USA?
countrywomen, Thanks for reading and commenting. I understand that it's dangerous for people with mental disablilties to have the ownership of anything that is dangous. But, that is all the more reason to have them in case a mentally disturbed person attacks you. You have protection. What if a mentally distrubed person somehow got a hold of a military hum-v and went on a killing spree running over random people on the streets of a city? Would you want to take all cars away from people? Mail would surely be slow then. Guess we'd have to use the Pony Express again. What I am saying is that people keep yelling about guns guns guns. But, if you take guns, to complete your argument and make it fair, you'd have to take anything that someone could use to hurt someone else with. That would mean us women would be able to make pony tails on our legs because the razors would all be taken. Finish the logic from taking guns. Don't just say take guns. What else should be taken?
To ease all of your minds about me, I have a carry permit. You have to be checked out for that. How bout that? They think I'm stable enough to have a gun!
I agree allshookup we need to be able to defend ourselves. My father sent me alongwith my brother for karate classes for some basic moves back in India. I came to US as a student and going to get a green card shortly. Recently there was an Indian girl (just like me) who came as a student and was murdered near chicago. My point is whynot make it legal for every legal resident and also why stricter controls aren't exercised for allowing who should be able to buy....unlike Cho in virginia tech who could just buy a gun like going to walmart.
Paraglider, Our Lord encouraged His disciples to get protection for use in self-defense. Elsewhere in the NT we have Paul saying that one must take care of his own family (1 Tim. 5:18) and, as I said, this also implies defending them as well. The New Testament does not contradict the Old Testament instruction on self-defense by saying "turn the other cheek". I hope that I have shown that "turning the other cheek" does not forbid one to use self-defense when one's life and/or family is facing life threatening situations. Referring to the Matt. 5:38-39 passage to prove pacifism is misleading and wrong.
countrywomen, That story is horrible. There are some laws in place that keeps felons and people who have broken the law to a certain extent from obtaining a gun. Also, in Mississippi, I don't know about other states, if you have been in a phych ward within a certain amount of time, you can't get a gun.
countrywomen, That story is horrible. There are some laws in place that keeps felons and people who have broken the law to a certain extent from obtaining a gun. Also, in Mississippi, I don't know about other states, if you have been in a phych ward within a certain amount of time, you can't get a gun.
countrywomen, the ACLU is fighting for the rights of prisoners at Gitmo, who are in no way American citizens. Also they are 'representing' terrorists overseas. Also, they are non-American. These are people who would love to kill Americans or anyone living here.
Ok, have I addressed everyone's posts so far? Have I left anyone out? Yell now or hold your peace lol.
So you are saying that the ACLU defends even the terrorists who bomb/kill innocent people. Even in India Islamic terrorists are killing many innocent people. Then I certainly don't buy the argument that every person is innocent until proven guilty. As there are so many of these people who mercilessly murder unarmed civilians and don't deserve any mercy.
Coming to your statement that convicted felon or those undergoing psychological treatment are denied. First of all it may not be possible to share the medical history and secondly what about that first murder (when he/she isn't convicted) or a series of murders unless caught & convicted.
Wouldn't it be simpler to make it mandatory for everyone to pass psychological tests and background check (neighbours, friends, classmates, colleagues or any other people who may provide info). Also every maybe 2/3 years review of those who already possess whether they are still in sound condition to weild weapons. An incident like the one in virginia tech could certainly have been prevented.
I identify with that girl who was found murdered with a bullet(Only US citizens are allowed to buy guns but everyone has the right to defend or feel safe). I don't want to be the first victim for the govt to strip the criminal of his/her gun.
I hope you don't mind my opinions as such incidents(Indian girl student/Cho) really raise questions on the gun ownership eligibility ?
countrygirl, no I don't mind that you shared that at all. It's such a sad story.
To answer you question about who they like to represent: In 1985, the ACLU learned of an alleged plan by the CIA to engineer Qaddafi’s overthrow. Outraged, they put together a “strenuous” public protest against this proposed action. In a letter fillled with self-righteous indignation, Morton Halperin, Director of the ACLU Washington office, expressed his opinion of that plan to Senator David Durenberger, Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, with copies to everyone imaginable.And to make sure no one was left out, the ACLU also issued a press release trumpeting it’s opposition to any attempt to oust Qaddafi.The ACLU has also shown itself a willing tool of the terrorists, waging a massive anti-anti-terrorism legal campaign. This pillar of the legal Left denounced the government’s requirement that men aged 16-25 holding “temporary visas” from nations with known ties to terrorism register with the INS; represented Sami al-Arian, the North American fundraiser and co-founder of Palestinian Islamic Jihad (filing a brief upholding his inalienable right to fresh briefs!); rallied on behalf of convicted al-Qaeda benefactor Maher Mofeid Hawash; urged local communities not to cooperate with federal anti-terror investigations; and opposed the FBI’s monitoring Islamist mosques. As David Horowitz notes in his book Unholy Alliance, radical Center for Constitutional Rights lawyer Ron Kuby notes the “passionate…identification” most lawyers feel with their clients, such as that of convicted terror enabler Lynne Stewart for World Trade Center bomber Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman. Given her aid for international Islamic terrorism, the government is right to keep a watchful eye on those who perpetually side with the enemy
What you said about the gun ownership, This is just my theory, and I'm sure I'll get jumped for it, but here it goes: If our laws were stricter here in the US, there would be less of what happened to your friend. If we give the person who did that the death penalty, then that would be a deterrant. Wow, I just thought of a new hub! Thank you!! Anyway, If someone is caught stealing, and it's not because their family was actually starving and they only took some small thing to feed their family, then do like they do in other countries. Our laws are too leanant here in the US. If the punishgment doesn't fit the deed, then the crime will continue. If a person is going to rob you, they can do it without a gun. If a person is going to be a criminal, they are going to be a criminal with whatever they have. They'll find something to use. Remember the boys who made the bombs in their garage? They were intent on hurting people and found a way to do it. Criminals wont be stopped by taking guns. We need stricter punishment for laws broken. Again, just my theory. But, if you knew you were going to die or be in prison for life for a crime and know that it would actually happen, you'd be less likely to do it. Even back in the Bible, there were no guns, but people were murdered.
The American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit to stop public schools, military bases and other publicly funded organizations from allowing Boy Scout meetings as long as the scouts insist on a religious oath. The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court on behalf of five taxpayers, names as defendants the Chicago Public Schools and the United States Transportation Command at Scott Air Force Base in southern Illinois.
Read the res tof the story at http://articles.latimes.com/1999/apr/15/news/mn-27
KANSAS CITY, Mo. — The American Civil Liberties Union (search) on Tuesday sued a southwest Missouri school district for prohibiting a high school student from wearing gay pride-themed (search) T-shirts.
The district has said the T-shirts were disruptive and therefore a violation of school dress code. The lawsuit filed in federal court also names Webb City High School Principal Stephen P. Gollhofer.
Read the rest of this one at http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,139452,00.html
SD: It seems to me that the ACLU wants things both ways as long as they agree with it.
The ACLU represents clients. It is the clients who bring the lawsuits, not the ACLU. The ACLU represents them after the client has a case. That is my understanding.
Countrywoman, the basic tenet of law in the U.S. is a presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Even if one is caught in the act and goes to trial, the evidence must point to guilt. That was put into our law to prevent the abuses of the old English system of justice where one was presummed guilty and had to prove his or her innocence.
It is my understanding that in France if one is charged with a crime, one is presummed guilty and must prove innocence.
Also, in the U.S. a person charged with a crime is guaranteed an attorney. If a defendant does not have one, then the court will provide one free of charge. Again, this was to prevent abuses under the old English system of law when our nation began.
Even India follows the English system and believes in considering everyone innocent until proven guilty. Hence the conviction rate is less 10% (if the lawyer takes advantage of benefit of doubt). "Good" lawyers are known to twist evidence and witness to their client's advantage (although they don't come cheap). The "free"lawyers aren't as good as in John Grisham novels.
Iam not saying one shouldn't get a fair trial but these people who have no regard for human life and are repeated offenders (terrorist activities & child molestors) don't deserve the leniency afforded to ordinary people.
Also wasn't sure of how easy it is to obtain guns and if possible prevention(atleast tighter control) is the best cure (no more virginia tech like incidents).
SirDent, Thanks for the research and the links. I appreciate you giving those to us. I agree with everything you said. It frustrates me that people can't see through the guise they use about protecting 'our' rights. They protect what they want to protect, they prosecute what they want to prosecute ie: The Boy Scouts. They have an agenda and they do what they have to, including running over our rights given to us by our founding fathers, to accomplish that agenda. Once again, thanks!
westernwomen, I don't think that more rules and laws is the answer. No one really knows how many firearms are in America, and the total amount will never be known. They will also never be taken from most people no matter how strict the laws. Then, if law-abiding citizens actually do turn in their guns, you can be sure that criminals won't give theirs up. So, then those criminals come to rob or do worse to you, and you have no guns, then what? I will be a criminal then. I will NEVER give up my guns. Some people say that only police should have guns. I don't want to live in a police state. I know that the guy who killed all those people at VT had guns. But, if someone wants to kill, they'll do it reguardless of what they have to do it with. Remember the boys who built the bomb in their garage? If people want to kill, they'll always find a way. Taking our guns or giving the government more power in who can have them and what they have just gives the gorernment more power. Something Obama wants, of course. And he uses arguements like this to make people think guns are evil. Cars and cigarrettes kill many more Americans a year than guns do. Many many more people, by a long shot, are killed by cars in America every year. We can't ban cars either. This is a people issue, not what they use to do it with. Does that make sense?
Chef, Thanks for coming by my hub again. I agree that everyone is innocent until proven guilty. Unfortunately, the ACLU doesn't see it that way. If you don't go by their agenda, they'll sue you for not agreeing with it, just like they are the Boy Scouts. It's sorry of them to take away the Boy Scouts' rights. The ACLU don't care that they are innocent, they are guilty of not being what the ACLU wants, so they sue them and everyone within sueing distance that helps their organiztion.T here are too many innocent people being sued by the ACLU. They try to make this nation unsafe to speak, act or anything else in. If you're not pro-what they believe, then be prepared to be sued. Whether you are innocent or not. Thanks for the comment.
countrywomen said:
Iam not saying one shouldn't get a fair trial but these people who have no regard for human life and are repeated offenders (terrorist activities & child molestors) don't deserve the leniency afforded to ordinary people.
If you are a convicted felon, you are not allowed to have a gun of any kind nor can you vote in the USA. You loose that right when you commit that type of crime.
Allshookup. You said "Why don't you run and share that with shadesbreath and the rest who have been trashing me? Very mature of you and so nice. You talk about me deleting posts, which I never did. But, it's ok for grundy and others to since they can make a better judgement on who 'trolls' are. I see how you are. So does everyone else. It's ok if you want to do something, but no one else can unless you agree with them. Grundy has excuses for the ones she deletes. Nothing gets said. I don't even do it, and I get criticized. And I understand what trolls are to you people. Trolls = someone who doesn't agree with you 100%, so you delete their posts. Careful, your character is showing!"
I would like to ask at which point I have "trashed" you? Not once have I name called or talked about you deleting posts! However I have well and truly disagreed with you on some points, purely because you have made numerous comments that are based entirely on your own opinion, which you are perfectly entilted to. However when more educated people have challenged that opinion with fact, then you have blatenley been rude! Your response to a civilised comment, was again to stomp all over it without research!
You also said "I understand that it's dangerous for people with mental disablilties to have the ownership of anything that is dangerous. But, that is all the more reason to have them in case a mentally disturbed person attacks you. You have protection. What if a mentally distrubed person somehow got a hold of a military hum-v and went on a killing spree running over random people on the streets of a city?"
Well where would this unpolitically correct "mentally disturbed" person find this gun? When considering you also said "To ease all of your minds about me, I have a carry permit. You have to be checked out for that. How bout that? They think I'm stable enough to have a gun!"
That perhaps answers itself!
EJ, I said that about me having a carry permit as a joke. Although I do have one and I do carry a gun/s. I did see where there was a thread about the fact that the posts were not showing up as soon as you posted them. I set it to modreate first, which is an option that hubpages feels is ok or it wouldn't be an option on their pages. So, I still don't see why all of you got so upset that the posts weren't showing up on my hub when there are quiet a few people on hubpages who has their hubs set just like it, yet I don't see anyone writing a thread to trash them and say ugly things about it. I also saw the hub written and me brought up in it about treating people bad because I didn't have it set to where the posts posted immediately. Mine was the only name I saw on there, although there are many who's hubs are set to moderate first. I think it was unfair of anyone who talked about me ugly because I set my hub to moderate first. As I said, it's an option that hubpages has put in it's pages, and I used it, just like other people. You know where the thread is and where the hub is. Again, that I said they find me stable is a joke. Take it at that. Good grief. It's like you are looking for things to gripe at me about. Your final sentence is hateful and mean to me. But, what was said about me in the thread was too. I don't care at all that you disagree with me, at all. This is a free country and we all have that right. So, I take it by your last statement that I am not stable?
American Civil Liberties Union. That's what ACLU stands for. I hope all the Civil Liberties bashers are around to eat their words when the last of THEIR civil liberties are stripped....maybe just at a point they really NEED them. You never know when that will be in this funny old world. Open your eyes people and remember there but by the Grace of God go you, too. It's a slippery slope when you would condemn and silence an organization or person for defending Constitutional issues you happen to not agree with. Lord knows I do not like some of the ways Americans with civil liberties abuse them. But even bad nasty Americans have civil liberties and it should ALWAYS be so.
I also believe that when it comes to morals and transgressions, I will leave the judging to a higher power. Judge not lest ye be judged.
Meanwhile, allshookup....."I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Voltaire. And that is also what the ACLU is all about.
Amen, Mary!
pylos26 whispers...the ACLU is simply a non-governmental sponsered organization acting as "watchdog" over the civil liberties (civil rights) of individuals as guaranted in the u.s. constitution.
Mary, Welcome. Thanks for reading my hub and commenting. I have seen what the ACLU does. I have a friend who has been in a suit with them. They want to sue her son's Boy Scout organization. I don't see how they explain that that's protecting 'rights'. The ACLU protects the 'rights' when it fits their agenda. Are you saying that you are supporting the PLO and the terrorists that the ACLU supports? The same people who plot to kill American citizens?
Ralph, thanks for coming by again.
shook whispers to pylos26..........Please research them futher and find out what they really are doing. You will be shocked!
Thanks for coming by and reading and commenting.
The further we get from biblical principles, the more organizations we will have like the ACLU, and many even worse, I'm sure. I fear that in several decades, the ACLU might be considered a moderate organization.
adamjthompson, Welcome. Thanks for reading and commenting. I totally agree with what you said. We have to bring ourselves back to God, or it will only get worse and worse. II Chron 7:14 would be what I pray happens. But, at the rate we are going, it may very well end up like you said. Can you imgaine how horrible that would be? The ACLU has shown itself to be as anti-Christian, anti-God and anti-American as you can get nowdays. I dread to see worse, although I know it could very well happen. Their claim is to protect our 'rights'. I feel I need protection from them in order to keep my rights. I appreciate your comments. Please come by anytime.
The ACLU protects your freedom to worship as you please.
So basically you are complaining because you see the ACLU as not allowing you to discriminate against whomever you want because of your religion.
Ralph, they sue the Boy Scouts for their 'rights', in other words they are taking away the rights of the Boy Scouts. They are suing for things that I believe in. Therefore they are not protecting my rights.
uninvited, I am not complaining, I'm telling what they do. So many people don't see them for what they are. And it's sad that people just read their website and take it as they say it. I am not discriminating against anyone. I am just stating what they do in taking away rights they claim to protect. And with so many people who claim to be well-educated, it strikes me as odd as they don't do more research into this organiztion to find out what they really do. Who they represent. If you read the hub, you see some of those people. If you want to protect and support terrorists, that's your business, but I can't do that with a clean conscience.
The ACLU doesn't protect my freedom to worship as I please. The ACLU says I am free to worship as I please - so long as I allow anyone who wants to be a member of my church to be full members regardless of the stance of my church. The ACLU says that a church which believes homosexuality is wrong should allow homosexuals to be full members and have full participation rights including Sacraments. This is antithetical to the idea of allowing me to worship as I please.
The ACLU says that all organizations have to be open to everyone. But joining an organization isn't a right - its a privilege.
The ACLU doesn't defend the rights of people - they say that all privileges should be rights, and therefore should be given to everyone.
The ACLU fought a law that prohibits school children from wearing shirts/clothing with obscenities, drugs/drug paraphanelia and sexually related content. They said that the children should have freedome of speech. Eventually the other side one - it was deemed that the children's behavior in wearing those types of clothing was disruptive.
The ACLU seems to forget that not all rights are absolute rights. I don't have the freedom of speech to yell fire in a crowded theater, and they don't have the right to push their views on me. The ACLU claims I am intolerant because I believe marraige should be between a man and a woman. I calim the ACLU is intolerant because they believe in freedom of speech and expression so long as it is in agreement with their views. The ACLU thinks that the rights that I have should only be used to speak to their viewpoints, or those they agree with. But what about opposition speech? Doesn't that get the protection of the Constitution as well?
I don't think the ACLU is the devil's work. I just think they are misguided. They do - sometimes - perform important functions. But everyone is equal in the US. We don't need the ACLU anymore. They function to bring radical causes to the forefront. They function to bring the values of a small minority of the population to the front and be pushed upon the majority of Americans. The Constitution protects minorities from the majority, but where are the protections of the majority from a small and obnoxious minority?
The ACLU doesn't do anything to protect my freedoms. The ACLU doesn't protect anything - they push agendas with their causes for various things that aren't rights. I don't know when being a boyscout became a right. Someone will have to tell me. I was a girl scout, and we had a religious pledge, and we had some people who didn't believe in God but said the pledge because they wanted to belong to the Girl Scouts. Sometimes hard love needs to be given - or people need to learn to suck it up. Just because you don't like something that is traditional or conservative doesn't mean it violates your rights.
allshookup ...
The ACLU protects me from being forced to live according to your beliefs.
Likewise, they protect you from being forced to live according to mine.
The Boy Scouts of America (BSA) were not sued for their beliefs. They were sued for discrimination. BSA is not a church, it's part of an international organization for -all- boys, and as an employer they are subject to equal opportunity regulations.
nwunderlich, Welcome. Thanks for reading and fo your comments. You talked about pushing their views on you. I feel that's exactly what they do in sueing any and everyone they can to get them to change what they are doing, which is exercising our rights. Therefore, they are not protecting our rights, they are sueing to take them away from us. How people cannot see this is unreal to me. I couldn't have said what you said any better. Thanks for your comments.
Marian, Thanks for reading and commenting. The ACLU doesn't protect either of us from anything. The founding fathers did that many years ago. I don't need the ACLU to tell me what I can or can't believe. The ACLU is not the founding fathers as much as they are trying to be and believe that they are. Thanks again for commenting.
If people do not believe in what they Boy Scouts do, don't join the organization. It's that simple. There are plenty of clubs out there to join. No one is forcing anyone to become a Boy Scout. If you don't agree with what they do and what they stand for, stay away from them. How simple is that?
Allshookup, once there was a law that stated women were nothing more than grown up children, and as such, they had no right to vote, no rights in court, could not sue anyone for any reason, and that women could not work in higher paying jobs because of their legal status as elder children. Does that strike you as fair?
Those who argued in favor of this law stated that women in the workplace were a threat to the rights of men to be the breadwinners of their families. It also stated that because women were prone to "foolishness" and "flirting" and were "tempters of men" in mixed gender situations, they could not be trusted with the rights of a male adult.
That was the law for many years in the United States of America.
Once there were laws that stated that if you were Black, you had no rights at all. If a White man shot you to death, that's just too bad. Why? Because it would not be fair to the "rights" of White people to be hauled into court over the death of a Black person, In the eyes of the law Black people were not even counted as human beings. So, the murder of a Black person was treated as if a human being had killed a dog, or a cat. No big deal! Does that seems fair?
These were once the well-regarded and legal views on the United States and both were wrong. I am not going to say that I would agree with every case the ACLU has or will handle. I found their defence of the National Socialist White People's Party particularly offensive, since that NAZI organization hates Blacks, Jews, Spanish speaking people, foreigners (unless they are German) and most others who dwell in this great land of liberty. However, since as I have said every person charged with any crime is entitled to a defense, (in fact our Constitution demands it!), and since often local attorneys often will not take cases that are particulatly tense,locally unpopular or racially charged, the ACLU is usually hired to take the case.
I find it remarkable that the ACLU had never, as far as I am concerned, had to agree with a client's political, religious or racial tenets in order to defend that client. That is, the attorney from the ACLU may personally detest the ideology or spoken beliefs of the defendant, but they still give them good legal defense, because that is one of the most important tenets of our Constitution - no person can be deemed guilty until the guilt is proven in a court of law.
That is the law of the United States of America, and although I have very little knowledge of the Boy Scout case you mention, I did some quick checking and it seems that the Boy Scouts were denying a U.S. citizen of his Constitutional rights. Now, the Boy scouts are a wonderful organization. I was a boy scout, and I enjoyed it. However, i do remember that our troop did not allow some dark-skinned kids from joining. I was very quickly offering my resignation from our troop after that occurred. Why? Because I learned very early that every U.S. citizen has rights that no organization can ignore. I then joned a different troop that had no problems with the color of a kid's skin, what church he went to, or what part of town he lived in. That second troop followed the law and Constitution to the letter.
As for your church - well, please do not be too surprized if some homosexual people attend. You may not know they are homosexual, but they just might be there, and they could be any one of the congregants. How would you know if there were any? Do you have an "I am not a homosexual" test to weed them out? There are many true believers who are not heterosexual. I have met some of them and even I was surprised when they told me which churches they attended and supported!
I was very surprised as well when I was in the Air Force at how many homosexuals there were - and this was long before the don't ask, don't tell era.. I was good friends with some and I did not know it until, after they knew I would not turn them in, they confessed to me, simply because being "in the closet" took a toll on them and they had to tell someone about it.
One good friend was saved in Viet Nam by an "in the closet" homosexual who shoved my friend aside and took the bullets that would have certainly ended my friend's life. My friend had felt that homosexuals had no place in the military - up until that moment in time. Now he believes differently.
You mentioned that yo don't need the ACLU because you have your rights. Well, as I said before there was a time when you would not have been allowed to vote, own property as a legal adult, get a job that pays a decent salary, etc. if it weren't for groups like the ACLU which watch over and sometimes do things against the popular will to protect the rights of us all.
I know you will never see things this way, and that's your right, fought for successfully in your favor by people who believe that if you deny the rights of any one of us, we all have had our rights lessened.
As I said, this is a very good hub, with lots of comments and points of view. Even if I basically disagree with you, I still am glad that you have the freedom and the right to express your opinions and views. God Bless!
Chef, I can see that you honestly believe this organiztion is a good thing. But in stating those things you like about them, you also told the horrible people the represent. And that you don't agree with that. So, I guess I just don't understand how you like them so much knowing that they are at this time representing known terrorist against the USA. This to me is enough to not trust them at all. They don't care who they help. These are people who want to kill you and your family and the ACLU is helping them. That tells me the character of this organization. The founding fathers gave me my rights. Other people besides the ACLU got women the right to vote and african American that right also. This is an organization who tells people what good they do and what they do, when if it's looked at closely, do the opposite. I feel they can't keep their secrets hidden forever and everyone will see them for what they really are one day. Thanks for coming back by an commenting. I appreciate the fact that you respect my right to not trust them as I respect your right to trust them. That's not a freedom the ACLU give me or you. :)
ASU-
I commend your persistence and only wish I had found this hub sooner to help back you up. The ACLU is not for all people! They are a corrupt group of lawyers who selectively pick and choose whom they represent. I can guarantee you that the ACLU would not fight for your right to worship as you please. But try to keep a homosexual out of your privately owned organization and they will be the first to come against you.
Be confident that your love for everyone, regardless of sexual orientation, will be ignored. You will be classified a “homophobe” because you disagree with the homosexual lifestyle.
I have a friend and tennis partner who happens to be a homosexual. I have made it abundantly clear that I disagree with the CHOICE he made to have sex with men, but we get along great because we mutually respect each other as people- not based on sexual orientation. I would trust him to babysit my children, because I know that he would not do anything that would be against what I believe. He can be certain that if he had children, I would give him the same respect.
The Boy Scout issue is different. Though privately owned, the leaders of the Scouts know there would be immense fallout if a homosexual scout leader did anything improper with a scout. While most homosexuals are like my friend and do not force their lifestyle choices on others, there are those that would take the opportunity of a camp out to engage in immoral acts. The Scouts simply can’t chance it and HAVE THE RIGHT to say “no” to whomever they wish.
It is no different than the teaching profession. A criminal background check is mandatory. Even a reformed criminal will have a difficult time getting a teaching position because of the possibility of a recurrence of past offenses. It is simply a matter of liability.
As for CJ’ comments, and he and I have had many respectable disagreements, Hitler lost his right to a fair trial when he decided to exterminate the Jews. Anyone with half a brain knows what the ACLU’s defense would be. Do I really have to say it? Ok, fine- Hitler was temporarily insane. I hate the temporary insanity plea. The ACLU has effective blurred the line between mental illness and uncontrolled anger. What they forgot, unfortunately, is that regardless of motive there are consequences for our actions.
I am a pretty calm person. It takes a lot to get me really mad. But if I do lose it and kill someone, I deserve to be prosecuted as a murderer! Allow me to give you an example:
Here in Georgia, March 11, 2005, Brian Nichols went on a shooting spree and paralyzed downtown Atlanta. This story was particularly troubling to me because my beautiful bride works very close to the courthouse where this incident occurred. At the end of his murderous rampage, Judge Rowland Barnes, court reporter Julie Brandau, Sgt. Hoyt Teasley, and US Customs Agent David Wilhelm were all innocent victims of Nichols wrath. The evidence is irrefutable, yet Brian Nichols will have his day in court. He has pled “not-guilty by way of insanity.” Rather than punish Nichols for what he did, he will get his day in court and have a trial to attempt to determine why he did it.
I hate the things Brian Nichols has done, but I do not hate him. Nevertheless, Brian Nichols committed murder and there is no “reasonable doubt” about it.
As a father, I know the value of consistent discipline. If my little boy (who happens to be the cutest little guy in the whole world) hits his sister (who happens to be the most beautiful little girl in the whole world), he knows that he will be spanked or sent to his bed for a time out. Not every offense deserves a spanking or slap on the hand, but the more serious offenses do and he knows it. Go figure! A two year old knows that he will be punished if he breaks the rules. If I simply “let it go” when he hit his sister, or spent hours trying to determine whether or not his sister (who is four) deserved to be hit, the entire exercise becomes pointless.
There is so much more I could say here, but I have a couple of little ones who would like their breakfast.
Keep up the good fight ASU. You may be misunderstood by many here on hubpages, but don’t allow their dissent to silence you. Liberals don’t like people who believe what they stand for.
Wow. Too many comments for me to even read them all. But you are 100% correct. One writer commented, "The ACLU today is the nation's largest public interest law firm." This is a good example of just how deceptive they are. They do not do things in the PUBLIC interest, only to pursue their own leftist (and specifically anti-Christian) agenda.
One scary thing is that some have said they didn't even know about the ACLU! With all the outrageous things they have done to make news over the years, I would have thought that everyone would be familiar with them.
Then there is the person who said, "Anti-gun sounds good to me. Especially hand guns which have no purpose except their use aginst people. I've yet to hear a convincing argument for allowing their proliferation in a civilised society."
This too, is scary. The purpose of the Second Amendment is to make sure that the people have the ability to protect themselves. In fact, the primary need for protection the founders recognized was that of an oppressive government. They did not want our citizens to ever be faced with tyranny without weaponry to mount a defense. Anyone who things it is OK for a government to ban arms needs to do some serious study of history. One of the first steps to make tyranny possible is to take away the citizens' means of defense. Our founders realized that we could never have broken free from England without our arms. And of course, along with communications equipment (mainly radios int he 1930's) the first thing Hitler ordered done in Germany and each country he invaded, was to confiscate all weapons.
Our future, our most essential freedoms, are under attack everyday. To see someone indicate that they don't recognize this is frightening.
Wow. Too many comments for me to even read them all. But you are 100% correct. One writer commented, "The ACLU today is the nation's largest public interest law firm." This is a good example of just how deceptive they are. They do not do things in the PUBLIC interest, only to pursue their own leftist (and specifically anti-Christian) agenda.
One scary thing is that some have said they didn't even know about the ACLU! With all the outrageous things they have done to make news over the years, I would have thought that everyone would be familiar with them.
Then there is the person who said, "Anti-gun sounds good to me. Especially hand guns which have no purpose except their use aginst people. I've yet to hear a convincing argument for allowing their proliferation in a civilised society."
This too, is scary. The purpose of the Second Amendment is to make sure that the people have the ability to protect themselves. In fact, the primary need for protection the founders recognized as that of an oppressive government. They did not want our citizens to ever be faced with tyrany without weaponry to mount a defense. Anyone who things iti is OK for a government to ban arms needs to do some serious study of history. One of the first steps to make tyrany possible is to take away the citizens' means of defense. Our founders realized that we could never have broken free from England without our arms. And of course, along with communications equipment (mainly radios int he 1930's) the first thing Hitler ordered done in Germany and each country he invaded, was to confiscate all weapons.
Our future, our most essential freedoms, are under attack everyday. To see someone indicate that they don't recognize this is frightening.
Oops. I see that my comment above got posted twice. I think you are able to delete one of them.
Meanwhile, I just had to comment on this: "The ACLU protects your freedom to worship as you please."
Just the opposite is true. The ACLU may support the rights of Muslims, atheists, satanists, and even witches, but they absolute fight the practice of Christianity. This is America. Our nation, in the beginning and in many ways still today, has recognized God as the source of our many blessings. The Constitution gives us the right to worship in our own way. It prohibits the government from setting up an official church or choosing one denomination as the officially sanctioned church. It does not call for the government to repudiate God or limit our acknowledgement of Him, nor does it give the government the power to make special accommodations to one religious group while denying the rights of another (as is common today).
John, thank you so much for reading and commenting on my hub. I agree with everything you said. You are right in that the ones they protect are not me and you. Quiet the opposite. They would never defend me for what I stand for. To me, it is unreal that there are so many adults, like you said, that doesn't know what the ACLU really is. We, who are on here, have computers, so you'd think they would research and find out the truths about things themselves and not just go to a homepage of someone and read it and accept it. I was told several times on this hub and others that if I want to know the truth about the ACLU or about Obama, just go to their sites and read what they stand for. Sorry, I don't drink their coolaid. It boggles my mind that so many people who feel they are so well-informed are drinking the coolaid by the gallon. Thanks again for commenting. Come back anytime!
The ACLU is now filing lawsuits against the state of California because they didn't like the outcome of the VOTERS of the state. It was voted on my American citizens, which was totally legal. Yet, since they don't like the outcome, they are suing. Suppose the outcome was the other way around. Do you think the ACLU would be filing lawsuits for the people who are against gay marriage? This just goes to prove what I have been saying about them. They have their own agenda and will run over whoever they can to accomplish it, even if it goes against the Americans who voted for this outcome. I'm not happy with who was elected president. Think I can get the ACLU to sue the United States to reverse that decision?
For a second I thought you were talking about the UCLA!
Onusonus, thanks for coming by and commenting. I want to thank you and your church for doing that you did for this cause. I know God will bless you for it! Drop by anytime!
thanks lady!! I hope Sir Dent reconsiders :(
So do I. I have been praying about it. His heart seems heavy. I hate to see that since he's such a great person. He inspires so many, I wish he could see that.
I've been reading...if you believe you have rights, go to any family court in America and hang out in the hallway...lawyers lie and steal away mother's rights everyday if "dad" has money to fight. Mom's and children are rolled over for greed and under the "best interest of the child" and judicial power. My husband and I are fighting my ex-husband for OUR son! I pray everyday I will get a response from the ACLU and together we can fight the laws of the state of NC that put my ex-husband's name on the birth certificate because we were still legally married in hopes that another child will not be ripped away from it's mother for the pure revenge of sick individuals. It took me 16 years to get away from him and three years so far fighting for my son. Due process is violated everyday in courts...like I said go to family court and listen to the mother's beg the judges to just hear their case and look at their evidence...we need more orgs like the ACLU and legal aid for homemakers and victims of violence so they can protect their children, believe me it's nonexistent.
As for gun rights....people I live in boonies...I'm not afraid of people out here, it's wildlife that worries me whitetail deer in the "rut" is not something I'd want to face empty handed. People please, criminal getting ready to rob a convinent store would think twice if the clerk had a sidearm on...or even a sign on door..."Clerk May Be Armed". I just guess if you were raised like me with guns apart of your everyday life...it's like the american express card..."never leave home without it". I'm a girl...and at the tender age of 8, I was taught to shoot. I have 17 and 18 year old girls, I waited until I felt they could handle the responsibility, but they too can handle a firearm. My boys are young yet and I can't wait to share with them what my dad shared with me all those years ago!
dandm, I am sorry for all of the trouble you have had in the court system. It's certainly far from perfect. I don't think that the answer is getting more organizations like the ACLU though. I think the answer is getting the system fixed and that would be by putting the right people in office that cares for the 'normal' people in America. My mother-in-law had a similar expericnce as you have. My father-in-law never paid a penny in child support. She ended up on walfare and foodstamps due to it. He still owes her 18 years in child support and a great deal of other things like signing away their house and land and disappearing with all the money and didn't come back into my husbands and his sisters lives until they were over 18 years old. He chose this route and now really has no relationship with them. His health is ruined. In the past couple weeks, he's had a major stroke, and my husband is the only one in the family who has offered to help. He is pennyless and bankrupt. The state is taking his house the 16th of this month and he'll be homeless. The only person he will have to lean on now is my husband, our son, and me. Kinda ironic isn't it? Seems like life tends to turn out like that. Again, I'm sorry for what you have gone through.
About the guns, as you have seen, I agree with you. I got my first gun on Christmas when I was 8 years old. I have now passed it down to our son. I don't leave home without my .45 with me. She's my baby and she'll help me protect my self and my family. If more people used their guns, there would be less crime. I know that sounds harsh, but ask a rape victim how they feel about it, you know? Thanks for reading and commenting. I will remember you in prayer.
If guns kill people, then:
Pencils mispell words,
Cars force people to drive drunk,
Spoons and forks make people fat.
I don't have much opportunity to brows hub pages very often so I've got across this article just now. allshookup, we have so much in common! It surprises me how clearly you see things and now blind many Americans are. At the beginning of your hub you've given a perfect insight in a burning problem of nowadays America- communism/socialism threatening the country and how people refuse to admit it. This idea was somehow lost in comments and only G-Ma Johnson commented on it (May be there were more comments, but I missed them)
It was Nikita Khrushchev (one of soviet leaders, famous also by pounding his shoe on a conference table at the United Nations), who said "we will bury you" and later was trying to explain that what he meant was "your own working class will bury you", other meaning that America will destroy itself from within. This is exactly what is happening now. People should stop allowing Mass Media misinform and blind them and should start thinking with their own brain, comparing things and facts.
I just wonder how people can see anything good in socialistic/communistic system when it failed in Cuba, in Soviet Union, in Europe, it made a mess in Vietnam, North Korea, Venezuela, and China. Don't Americans see the real picture? Why would we look forward for something that doesn’t work?….
ACLU tries to rule according their own agenda, their own priorities. I'd like to shout out loud- PEOPLE, YOU DON'T REALIZE WHAT YOU ARE LEADED TO....
ReuVera, Thank you so much for reading and commenting. I feel the same as you do. With all of the eduational opportunities in America today, you'd think that people would not be so blind and could see what's coming our way. And not only see what's coming, but elect someone who will put us there faster. People claim to know so much, but it seems they are lambs being led to the slaughter, dragging us, who didn't vote for this, behind them. I'm thankful that you can see the many places these principles have failed. It does make you wonder why people in the USA would want to be like those countries. I have no answer for that because I don't see why Americans want this at all. It's going to be horrible for all of us. And you are also right about the ACLU. It shocks and saddens me that people who feel they are so enlightened and know so much, can't see what this terrible organization is and what they are doing to harm America. Please drop by any of my hubs anytime. I appreciate your input!
Nadine Strossen is the current President of the ACLU. She teaches Constitutional Law at my law school. I absolutely disagree with her political ideology; however, she is a very charming and charismatic woman.
Welcome Nickyny! Thanks for reading and commenting. From reading some of your comments, I figured you would feel like you do about it. I think that Obama is very charming and charismatic also. But, like you say, I totally disagree with his most of his beliefs. I appreciate you commenting. Please come by anytime!
moonlake says:
15 months ago
I can't...Good hub