ACLU: Abstinence-only program violates church/state separation

  • Thread starter Thread starter sweetchuck
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The idea that a party supports any position that it fails to litigate against is ludicrous. I doubt BobCatholic or condan are party to any lawsuit against Montgomery County. Therefore they must support that curriculum.:whacky:

Now if someone came to condan and asked him to add his name to a lawsuit, he might readily agree. So it is with the ACLU.

We can’t conclude from their non-involvement that they agree with the Montgomery County curriculum. Opponents may have chosen for political reasons not to associate themselves with the ACLU at all, they may have asked the ACLU to file an amicus brief but no more, they may have asked the ACLU to join the case and the ACLU is still evaluating it, or they themselves may still be deciding whether to ask the ACLU for help. The ACLU may have hinted to the County through back channels that they would join the case unless the curriculum was changed. Or, the case may be mischaracterized in the news, and the ACLU declined to join because the case is not as straightforward as laid out in that Baptist Press website.

Incidentally, the County agreed in the last few days to change its curriculum.
 
Is it me, or do there seem to be a disproportionately high number of Jewish attorneys on staff at the ACLU? Am I the only one that finds this odd?
 
40.png
Scott_Lafrance:
Is it me, or do there seem to be a disproportionately high number of Jewish attorneys on staff at the ACLU? Am I the only one that finds this odd?
Click to expand...
No I think the American National Socialist Party probably doesn’t like it either.
 
40.png
Digitonomy:
The idea that a party supports any position that it fails to litigate against is ludicrous. I doubt BobCatholic or condan are party to any lawsuit against Montgomery County. Therefore they must support that curriculum.:whacky:

Now if someone came to condan and asked him to add his name to a lawsuit, he might readily agree. So it is with the ACLU.
Click to expand...
I don’t live in Montgomery County so I have no vested interested in the case and would be excluded. If it were Saratoga County, you can bet that my name would be included.

Your reasoning is more than flawed.
40.png
Digitonomy:
We can’t conclude from their non-involvement that they agree with the Montgomery County curriculum. Opponents may have chosen for political reasons not to associate themselves with the ACLU at all, they may have asked the ACLU to file an amicus brief but no more, they may have asked the ACLU to join the case and the ACLU is still evaluating it, or they themselves may still be deciding whether to ask the ACLU for help. The ACLU may have hinted to the County through back channels that they would join the case unless the curriculum was changed. Or, the case may be mischaracterized in the news, and the ACLU declined to join because the case is not as straightforward as laid out in that Baptist Press website.

Incidentally, the County agreed in the last few days to change its curriculum.
Click to expand...
The ACLU’s mission is to litigate against infringements of civil liberties and civil rights, as its name states. Clearly, the rights of Christians are being infringed upon. Only one whose vision is clouded by ideology would miss the direct point that the ACLU’s decision NOT to litigate on their behalf articulates their position.
 
40.png
condan:
Only one whose vision is clouded by ideology would miss the direct point that the ACLU’s decision NOT to litigate on their behalf articulates their position.
Click to expand...
Only one whose vision is clouded by ideology would miss the point that the ACLU may not have made any such decision, and that plaintiffs may not have requested their assistance.
 
40.png
Digitonomy:
Only one whose vision is clouded by ideology would miss the point that the ACLU may not have made any such decision, and that plaintiffs may not have requested their assistance.
Click to expand...
What stops the ACLU from using “anonymous” plaintiffs? After all, their lawsuits on behalf of NAMBLA were based on “anonymous plaintiffs” - which may or may not even exist!

If the ACLU wants to sue, trust me, they’ll find someone who they’ll sue on their behalf. They got a lot of LeftWingers waiting to make a stink about something.
 
40.png
BobCatholic:
If the ACLU wants to sue, trust me, they’ll find someone who they’ll sue on their behalf. They got a lot of LeftWingers waiting to make a stink about something.
Click to expand...
That’s probably true in most cases. But the ACLU has limited resources. And they sue for a purpose - to correct what they see as a particular wrong, and to discourage others from committing similar “wrongs” in the future. If another group is going to use their resources successfully to address this particular “wrong”, then I don’t see why the ACLU would or should use their own resources on it, especially if they are unwanted by the other plaintiffs.

I make no claim that this is what has happened. But before you can logically find fault with them, you need to rule out this possibility, as well as the others that I mentioned earlier.

I find it strange that people who despise the ACLU now find fault with it for not being everywhere at all times. It reminds me of a post last year, where someone criticised the UN, because its troops had not prevented al-Qaeda types from entering Iraq from Syria.:confused::whacky:
 
40.png
Digitonomy:
And they sue for a purpose - to correct what they see as a particular wrong,
Click to expand...
But what is the terrible wrong they are going after?

Are they going after trying to get administrative hearings unconstitutional despite all the civil rights violations? No.
Are they going after the speech codes on state U. campus which violate free speech? No.
Are they going after the abortion clinics who deny the civil rights of the unborn? No.

No, they go after cities and towns who have crosses in their city symbols. Or people who dare to express a belief in God while on government property. Or those who try to stop abortion.

Yes, they have limited resources, and when they spend their resources, they spend ON THE LEFT. Period.

Right wing constitutional causes need not apply. Looks like they believe only CERTAIN PEOPLE are entitled to civil liberties - namely leftists ONLY. Everyone else, let’s use the government to steamroller over their rights.
 
40.png
Scott_Lafrance:
Is it me, or do there seem to be a disproportionately high number of Jewish attorneys on staff at the ACLU? Am I the only one that finds this odd?
Click to expand...
You probably are. Considering recent Jewish history, it would be very odd if Jews did NOT put considerable effort and attention into civil liberties. Think about it.
 
40.png
David_Paul:
From BP news:

GREENBELT, Md. (BP)–"The curriculum – aimed at eighth- and 10th-graders – claims that Jesus “said absolutely nothing at all about homosexuality” and that being homosexual is similar to being left-handed. It notes that some Baptist churches once defended racial segregation, implying that conservative Baptists today are on the wrong side of history. It also says that future generations likely will view today’s traditional beliefs on homosexuality with “astonishment” and that “religion has often been misused to justify hatred and oppression.”

Other artciles here
Click to expand...
Correct me if I’m wrong but I don’t think Jesus said anything about rape either.
 
40.png
Digitonomy:
The ACLU is generally opposed to the government, including schools, advancing any interpretation of religious figures and their teaching. I doubt the case described by condan is any different, which is why I was interested in any source that said the ACLU supported the school’s actions.
Click to expand...
Is there a lawsuit?
 
40.png
Digitonomy:
The idea that a party supports any position that it fails to litigate against is ludicrous. I doubt BobCatholic or condan are party to any lawsuit against Montgomery County. Therefore they must support that curriculum.:whacky:
Click to expand...
The idea that the ACLU is not hostile to religion inside or outside of government, nor hostile to free citizens is an ignorant or purposefully deceptive idea.
 
40.png
Brad:
Correct me if I’m wrong but I don’t think Jesus said anything about rape either.
Click to expand...
and I would add Jesus never said anything about lots of moral issues, or at least it is not explictly in the Bible.

The problem is that the apparent “silence” is interpreted as an “approval”

Of course, that interpretation is not true.

Remember that the OT is much larger than the NT, and all of Christ’s teachings were never encapsulated in the NT.
 
40.png
Brad:
Correct me if I’m wrong but I don’t think Jesus said anything about rape either.
Click to expand...
and I would add Jesus never said anything about lots of moral issues, or at least it is not explictly in the Bible.

The problem is that the apparent “silence” is interpreted as an “approval”

Of course, that interpretation is not true.

Remember that the OT is much larger than the NT, and all of Christ’s teachings were never encapsulated in the NT.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top