ACLU affiliate sides with Diocese of Bridgeport over lobbying investigation [CNA]

[CNA_News]

Bridgeport, Conn., Jun 28, 2009 / 03:17 pm (CNA).- The American Civil Liberties Union of Connecticut has protested a state investigation into whether the Diocese of Bridgeport should be categorized as a lobby group for fighting a bill that would have forcibly reorganized the Catholic Church. The group argues the investigation jeopardizes the core First Amendment rights of both the Church and all state residents.

“The free exchange of ideas, which is a hallmark of our society, suffers when the state places hurdles in front of the free speech of any group,” said Andrew Schneider, Executive Director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Connecticut (ACLU-CT).

A press release from the ACLU-CT said that a “burdensome” state lobbying law requires that any rally sponsors who advocate for or against legislation be required to register as lobbyists when their costs exceed $2,000.

Full article…

 

[manualman]

Well I’ll be dipped.

Cynical PR attempt or a sign of genuine principle on the part of the ACLU? Charity requires we assume the best and give credit where it is due. Thanks for being consistent guys.

 

[SwizzleStick]

To say that I am shocked is a vast understatement…

"ACLU affiliate sides with Diocese of Bridgeport over lobbying investigation

Bridgeport, Conn., Jun 28, 2009 / 03:17 pm (CNA).- The American Civil Liberties Union of Connecticut has protested a state investigation into whether the Diocese of Bridgeport should be categorized as a lobby group for fighting a bill that would have forcibly reorganized the Catholic Church. The group argues the investigation jeopardizes the core First Amendment rights of both the Church and all state residents."…

Entire article here: catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=16398

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

Well I’ll be dipped.

Cynical PR attempt or a sign of genuine principle on the part of the ACLU? Charity requires we assume the best and give credit where it is due. Thanks for being consistent guys.

I predicted this weeks ago, remember? “There are entire lawbooks on this subject. My feeling is that the ACLU is going to hang Connecticut out to dry on this one.”

The ACLU, if you look at its record impartially, is being very consistent.

Civil liberties are for everyone.

 

[manualman]

With the notable exceptions of the unborn, the terminally ill, those elderly who are no longer considered mentally competent… Basically the intended victims of the culture of death.

Basically the only culture of death intended victims I’ve ever seen the ACLU pay attention to and fight for are death row inmates.

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

Basically the only culture of death intended victims I’ve ever seen the ACLU pay attention to and fight for are death row inmates.

So now, when it is on the side of a diocese’s free speech rights, the ACLU is on the side of the angels? When it supported the freedom of religion rights of a convict forced to undergo religious proselytizing, or the free speech rights of a political group to ‘adopt’ a highway it was doing the devils work?

Civil liberties are for everyone.

 

[peregrinus_WA]

To say that I am shocked is a vast understatement…

"ACLU affiliate sides with Diocese of Bridgeport over lobbying investigation

Bridgeport, Conn., Jun 28, 2009 / 03:17 pm (CNA).- The American Civil Liberties Union of Connecticut has protested a state investigation into whether the Diocese of Bridgeport should be categorized as a lobby group for fighting a bill that would have forcibly reorganized the Catholic Church. The group argues the investigation jeopardizes the core First Amendment rights of both the Church and all state residents."…

Entire article here: catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=16398

I am not shocked at this. This will be the ploy case the ACLU will use to delude people in thinking that they are for the rights of all Americans. However, their open hostility in many cases prove otherwise.

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

I am not shocked at this. This will be the ploy case the ACLU will use to delude people in thinking that they are for the rights of all Americans. However, their open hostility in many cases prove otherwise.

Easily said. For instance?

---

“That’s the thing about liberation. One group gets it and the whole ***** world wants liberation.” – Gil Scott Heron

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

This is clearly a case the ACLU would be interested in. The ACLU has come down on the side of Churches and religious groups in many cases.
Just because you don’t like their philosophy doesn’t mean they don’t have a consistent one that they stick to. They are not an immoral and unethical group, they simply have a legal viewpoint that we often disagree with but occasionally our interests do cross paths.

 

[soflochristmas]

Well I’ll be dipped.

Cynical PR attempt or a sign of genuine principle on the part of the ACLU? Charity requires we assume the best and give credit where it is due. Thanks for being consistent guys.

As the saying goes…even a blind squirrel gets a nut every now and then.

 

[soflochristmas]

I predicted this weeks ago, remember? “There are entire lawbooks on this subject. My feeling is that the ACLU is going to hang Connecticut out to dry on this one.”

The ACLU, if you look at its record impartially, is being very consistent.

Civil liberties are for everyone.

Except for the unborn. And then there are also perceived “civil liberties” for everyone as well.

 

[soflochristmas]

So now, when it is on the side of a diocese’s free speech rights, the ACLU is on the side of the angels? When it supported the freedom of religion rights of a convict forced to undergo religious proselytizing, or the free speech rights of a political group to ‘adopt’ a highway it was doing the devils work?

Civil liberties are for everyone.

What? Does this make sense?

 

[SamH]

Well I’ll be dipped.

Cynical PR attempt or a sign of genuine principle on the part of the ACLU? Charity requires we assume the best and give credit where it is due. Thanks for being consistent guys.

They made a similar gesture on the Heller case when they filed a “friend of the court brief”. Much was made of this filing until its contents were revealed…. They simply said his case deserved a hearing (hoping appeals court ruling would be reversed?) not that the constitutional right to own a firearm would be upheld. After the SC ruling they revealed what they truly thought about a person’s constitutional rights:

The Court was careful to note that the right to bear arms is not absolute and can be subject to reasonable regulation. Yet, by concluding that D.C.’s gun control law was unreasonable and thus invalid, the Court placed a constitutional limit on gun control legislation that had not existed prior to its decision in Heller. It is too early to know how much of a constitutional straitjacket the new rule will create

.