www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News ACLU at it again

Well that quote seems to come from a current and totally unbiased source.....


Sharon
(Who is probably goin' ta hell for listening to Public Radio and being a faithful subscriber to Mother Jones)

Sharon,

Yup. It has a ring of McCarthyism to it. Hee, hee. But the founder of the ACLU, Rogera Baldwin, was associated with the Communist party, wasnt' he?

BTW, did you support the ACLU when they came to the defense of the Neo-Nazi party to demonstrate in Skokie, IL, in the late 70s? It was only about free speech, right? It's ALWAYS about free speech ... unless it is the kind of free speech that is rejected by the ACLU.


Joe

Joe,

Actually, I did. I thought then and I think now that such speech is hateful, but in America, theoretically, one has the right to say anything. (There are consequences in certain places for certain types of free speech of course.)

I recently watched and enjoyed the PBS show "Colnial House." the "governor" of the colony is a Southern Baptist minister in the 21st Century. In the "epilogue" section where they interviewed participants, he observed that he'd never before considered that some of the colonies were established to escape religious persecution, and then turned around and imposed it on anyone who didn't meet their standard of orthodoxy.

Democracy MUST be strong enough to withstand commentary, criticism and unpopular, even hateful tirades. In order to remain strong, we as individuals and families must be well rooted in our own morality, and know right from wrong. It's part of what has in the past, served to make America a great nation. We must also defend the rights of those who say things we don't want to hear to say those things.

Sharon

A special blessing for Sharon Mech. Don't know whether Roger Baldwin had anything to do with the Communist Party, but I do know that several people who later became beloved of the right had similar connections.
Free speech means nothing at all unless it means the right to say what is not popular.
Incognitus

Sharon,

Do you think freedom of speech is good when it is backed up with enforced court orders to squash any speech that the ACLU agrees with?

Many Christians think that wearing a cross on a necklace or chain is OK at a public school, but the ACLU has challenged this practice. Wear do you draw the line?

Joe

I support the Southern Poverty Law Center, a branch of the ACLU which is dedicated to the civil rights of all Americans and the fight against any and all groups that promote hatred.

Joe,

In a public school, I think it's OK for a kid to wear a cross, or a hijab, or a Mogan David. It's not OK for a public school to MAKE a kid wear any of them.

I grew up as a Jewish kid in a largely Christianized secular culture. I think such a background makes one a bit tetchy about sanctioned religiosity in the governmental sphere.


Incognitus,

Thank you for your blessing. (I need all I can get!) I hope that if push ever comes to shove, I'll have the courage of some of those alleged "fellow travellers," and other dissidents through history who stood up for right, no matter the cost.


Folks,

I'm goin' home. Got a nice long weekend ahead. See ya Toozday, God willing. Say a special prayer for those who paid the cost of freedom this comng Monday.

Sharon

Joe:

Couldn't find any reference to this on-line. Can you give one?

Is 'not popular' only of value? Explain.

Joe,

Roger Baldwin was involved with the United Front and the Popular Front, both of which were sympathetic to communist ideals; however, he became very dissolusioned after the signing of the Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact in August 1939 and severed all ties with such entities. Additionally, he made organizational changes within the ACLU that barred anyone affiliated with totalitarian organizations from ACLU board membership.

For some additional info on him, see:

Roger Baldwin biography [harvardsquarelibrary.org]

Neither Baldwin nor the ACLU qualify for sainthood in my conception of same, but the roster of unpopular causes in which they have fought the good fight, on the side of right and against injustice, outweighs the instances in which they have stepped over the line of reason.
Just to name a few examples, the ACLU took an active role in the Sacco-Vanzetti case, the trial of the Scottsboro Seven, the Scopes "Monkey" trial, the WWII internment of Japanese-Americans, and Brown v. Board of Education.

If, BTW, you fall into any of the following categories (and I defy you to determine that none potentially apply to you), you might want to look in your local paperback bookstore for the applicable ACLU book on the topic - from its "Rights of" series - each is an incredible compendium of useful information on the rights of the named population:

Aliens & Refugees
Authors, Artists, & Other Creative People
Crime Victims
Employees & Union Members
Families
Indians & Tribes
Lesbians & Gay Men
Older Persons
Patients
People Who Are HIV Positive
People with Mental Disabilities
Prisoners
Protestors
Public Employees
Racial Minorities
Students
Women

as well as those on:

Your Right to Government Information;
Your Right to Privacy; and,
Your Right to Religious Liberty

Many years,

Neil

La Familia,

The SPLC, a remarkable entity and defender of the rule of law in its own right, isn't actually a branch of the ACLU; although the ACLU has provided assistance to it in some cases and I believe has donated funds to it through its foundation arm. The SPLC was the creation of 2 white lawyers from Alabama, Morris Dees and Joe Levin, together with its first president, Julian Bond.

Many years,

Neil

Joe Thur asks whether "Free speech means nothing at all unless it means the right to say what is not popular." means that "not popular" is the determinant of value.
In a discussion of freedom of speech, yes. To take an obvious current example, it is cheap and easy to advocate "abortion rights", but highly unpopular in important circles to point out that such an alleged "right" has no basis in morals.
Supporting freedom of speech only for those whose utterances are popular is ridiculous - in Stalin's time, citizens of the USSR were "free" to praise Stalin to the skies, but I hope no one currently reading these lines would call that "freedom of speech".
And so forth.
Incognitus

Since I'm on a nostalgic punk trip . . .

The rules according to the Ramones:

"First rule is: The laws of Germany
Second rule is: Be nice to mommy
Third rule is: Don't talk to commies
Fourth rule is: Eat kosher salamis"

Sorry. Just read the communist questions and I couldn't resist.

Personally I prefer Milanese salami.
Incognitus

Hey, Incognitus, I don't make the rules I'm just saying what they are. If you don't like them the ACLU will probably take the case.