Minneapolis Finder Forum MN
RegisterSearchTutorialsMemberlistLog in
Reply to topic Page 1 of 1
Anti-Christmas Police Strike Again!
Author Message
Reply with quote
Post Anti-Christmas Police Strike Again! 
http://news.aol.com/topnews/articles/_a/skater-stunned-by-christmas-carol-cutoff/20061215124509990002?ncid=NWS00010000000001

Skater Sasha Cohen was in mid performance when a Christmas carol being sung to accompany her was cut off by a city official. The official ordered the song to be stopped due to concern that it might offend the half-Jewish skating professional. It was later learned that the also half-Christian Cohen regularly celebrates the holiday and took no offense whatsoever. She was nonetheless saved from the deadly Noel whether she liked it or not.

The Anti-Christmas Police strike again!

Reply with quote
Post  
Just got this email from the ACLU. THought I'd share it...

"The ACLU and the So-Called "War on Christmas"


By Jeremy Gunn, Director, Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief

A few years ago, a group called Public Advocate for the United States (which claims to defend America’s traditional family values) sent some Christmas carolers over to sing in front of the ACLU offices in Washington. Carrying signs reading “Merry Christmas” and “Please Don’t Sue Us!”—they also seemed to carry with them some rather strange imaginings about an assault on Christmas. I don’t know what the carolers thought might happen.

To tell the truth, the ACLU is not often serenaded by Christmas carolers. More likely, we realize the holiday season has arrived when we start to receive angry phone calls, emails and cards accusing us of trying to destroy Christmas. So it was with some excitement that the staff went outside and joined in the singing. They brought with them cookies and warm drinks to share. One staff member, who is an ordained Baptist minister, did a little witnessing about his faith to some astonished proponents of family values.

This is just one example of how some groups have used a mythical “war on Christmas” to demonize the ACLU, crush religious diversity, and make a few bucks in the process. Not only do they claim that there is a “war on Christmas,” they insist that the ACLU is leading the battle cry. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth.

The ACLU supports the rights of Christians and all religious people to celebrate their holidays in public spaces. What we do oppose is government action that promotes or endorses particular religions or religion over non-religion. Our views are dictated by the Constitution of the United States and are motivated by our commitment to religious liberty for all Americans.

The ACLU works to ensure that people remain free to choose which religious beliefs (or none) they wish to express and that governments, school boards, and legislatures do not become involved in deciding which religious beliefs should be promoted or in spending taxpayer dollars to support religious activities and symbols. We remain fully engaged in defending a broad range of constitutional rights, including rights related to freedom of religion and belief. It is sometimes wrongly imagined that the ACLU does not vigorously protect rights of freedom of religion, particularly of Christians.

What the people who attack the ACLU don’t understand is that our real strength is sticking to fundamental principles—we know that for true religious liberty to flourish, everyone must be free to practice their religion free from government interference. Thank you for everything you do, and have a peaceful holiday season!"

Reply with quote
Post Not This Time 
No one's blaming the ACLU for this one, Dora. They must be on "Winter Solstice Break"...or licking envelopes for those last tax-deductible contributions at the end of the year.

No, this appears to be simply the idiotic action of one single meaningless city functionary, who dragged along a city police officer to enforce their viewpoint. Apparently not content to respond to complaints, this official presumed to be offended on behalf of someone else. Perhaps "Prophylactic Sensitivity by Proxy"? Too bad they didn't bother to find out the "victim's" thoughts on the matter. The celebrity is embarassed. Even the mayor of the city is embarassed. What nonsense. If all religious music is banned from public performance, you can kiss much of the classical compositions of the last few centuries goodbye, since much of it was commissioned by churches.

We seek to enlighten ourselves by blinding ourselves. How brilliant! Our burning books will keep us toasty warm this winter.

Reply with quote
Post Re: Not This Time 
thrice wrote:
No one's blaming the ACLU for this one, Dora. They must be on "Winter Solstice Break"...or licking envelopes for those last tax-deductible contributions at the end of the year.



No, I realize you weren't blaming the ACLU for this one. I just thought their email was relevant to the topic. I'm so weary of this ridiculous notion of a "war on christmas." The vast majority of Americans are...guess what? Christian. The vast majority of our politicians...Christian. I realize that it's necessary for Christian identity to perpetuate this illusion of persecution, but please. Maintaining a separation of Church and State and allowing for other religions or secular identities to have equal rights and freedom does not equate to being tossed to the lions. So to all those who are fussin' and mussin' about the dreadful attacks that Christians and Christmas suffer so stoically, I say, "Climb on down off that cross. Someone needs the wood."

Reply with quote
Post Clarify the Issue, Please! 
The issue here, IMHO, isn't a matter of being non-Christian. The issue is the fact that a single government official, backed by uniformed police officers, shut off the microphone of a youth group on the off chance that someone might be offended by a generic reference to a broad based group of religions.


Radical imams, rap singers, and Nazis are perfectly free to spew nearly any kind of offensive speech and performance in public places, and their rights to First Amendment free expression are zealously protected, often by tax exempt advocacy groups like the ACLU. But if someone slips and makes mention of or displays a symbol of a Western religion in a tax supported facility, that's considered potentially offensive and must be stopped by emergency intervention.

The ACLU has a long and proud history of advocating suppression of any public expression of religion, nearly always on behalf of aethiest clients. That's a given, and theoretically will be extended to all religions. It's a different story altogether when government officials, acting on their own, presume to ban expressions that may potentially offend us. That opens up an entirely different can of worms. The Columbus Day holiday and parade will be banned because it is deeply offensive to Native Americans. The 4th of July could be banned because of its gloating hostile references to the British. There is no end to it, so there should be no beginning to it. Not my words. It's in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Reply with quote
Post Funny But... 
Ironically enough, one of the major points the ACLU uses in First Amendment cases applies beautifully here. They have repeatedly made the point that free speech is often offensive, alarming, and disturbing. It is that fact, they say, that makes such expression rights those most in need of protection. True enough. If people had not said and advocated things that disturbed the powers that be, we would not have a United States today.

Reply with quote
Post  
The ACLU is a joke anyway. It exists to protect the civil liberties of everyone but those who really need it.

Reply with quote
Post  
bwoodsdesign wrote:
The ACLU is a joke anyway. It exists to protect the civil liberties of everyone but those who really need it.


Care to explain?

Reply with quote
Post  
The ACLU has fought to have all the prisoner pictures from iraq released to the media, whom does this help?

Reply with quote
Post  
HERES HOW THE ACLU HELPS AMERICA dorajar

The Manhattan-based public-interest law firm is defending the North American Man-Boy Love Association in a $200 million civil lawsuit filed by Mr. and Mrs. Robert Curley. The Curleys claim that Charles Jaynes was driven by the literature and website of NAMBLA, an outfit that advocates sex between grown men and little boys, reportedly as young as age 8.

Jaynes did not simply read NAMBLA's materials and ponder its message. He and Salvatore Sicari actively sought a boy with whom to copulate. They picked 10-year-old Jeffrey Curley of Cambridge, Massachusetts. They lured him into their car as he played outside his home in October 1997. When Curley resisted their sexual advances, they choked him to death with a gasoline-soaked rag. Then they took the boy's body across state lines to Jayne's apartment in Manchester, New Hampshire. They molested the cadaver and stuffed it into a cement-filled Rubbermaid container. Finally, they crossed state lines again into Maine, whereupon they tossed Jeffrey Curley's remains into the Great Works River, from which it was recovered within days. Jaynes and Sicari were convicted of these crimes in 1998, for which they are serving life sentences.

Reply with quote
Post  
dorajar wrote:
bwoodsdesign wrote:
The ACLU is a joke anyway. It exists to protect the civil liberties of everyone but those who really need it.


Care to explain?


Can you explain why the ACLU does not defend the second amendment, but defends gay marriage as a constitutional right.

Reply with quote
Post  
dorajar wrote:
bwoodsdesign wrote:
The ACLU is a joke anyway. It exists to protect the civil liberties of everyone but those who really need it.


Care to explain?


Sure. First off, the ACLU used to exist to protect my civil liberties under the constitution and all its ammendments. Then they go and CHANGE the first ammendment to remove 'freedom of religion, freedom to worship' and replaced it with

"Your First Amendment rights-freedom of speech, association and assembly. Freedom of the press, and freedom of religion supported by the strict separation of church and state."

The rest, taken from their mission statement (off the ACLU website):

* Your right to equal protection under the law - equal treatment regardless of race, sex, religion or national origin.

* Your right to due process - fair treatment by the government whenever the loss of your liberty or property is at stake.

* Your right to privacy - freedom from unwarranted government intrusion into your personal and private affairs.

=========

As I said before, the ACLU does not protect EVERYONE'S civil liberties. They CLAIM to...but what they really try to do is destroy the American way of life. They don't like or agree with ALL freedoms. They don't like or agree with ALL Democracy. They think everyone is five years old and must be babysat.

Sure, they'll listen to you. But what they don't mention is that they only take on a case that appears "good" in their minds, because it's one that continues toward their goals -- obtaining money under any pretenses to advance their goal of communism. There's virtually no redeeming qualities about the ACLU, in my mind.

I could go on... how about

* The time that a history teacher at the Byron Union School District tried to to have their students adopt roles as Muslims for three weeks and encouraged them to use Muslim names, recite prayers in class and made them give up something for a day, such as television or candy, to simulate fasting during Ramadan. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals threw out a lawsuit by some of the school's student's parents, claiming it was not 'directly encouraging religion'.

But yet...the ACLU wants to ensure that no Christian students are involved in student-lead prayer taking place in school buildings before or after class--as an extracurricular activity.

* What about their strong ties to Islamic groups and terrorists in Iraq and Guantanamo Bay, possibly posing a risk to our national security.

* And support for open borders and legal attacks on groups and governments wanting to restrict services ("rights") to illegal aliens? How about that?

Reply with quote
Post  
Here is some more good deeds by your ACLU dorajar

HB 2015 and HB 2316: ACLU Unsuccessful in Stopping Oregon Expansion of the Statute of Limitations

HB 2015 was a priority bill for Speaker Karen Minnis. This bill further extends the statute of limitations on which charges may be brought against someone accused of a sex-related crime. Originally, the exception to the accepted 6-year statute of limitations was applied in limited situations. Each session, however, the legislature has incrementally extended this law. In fact, the law already provides extended statute of limitations for crimes against minors. This proposal extends the time even more, in some cases over 25 years. We oppose the continued extensions and exceptions to the general principles to the statute of limitations requirements because when so many years pass before charges are brought, it diminishes the accuser’s ability to mount a meaningful defense and erodes the principles upon which we base our criminal justice system. The ACLU of Oregon issued a floor statement against HB 2015. It passed the House by 49-10 and died in Senate Judiciary. (See House Scorecardon HB 2015.)

However, at the very end of session, this proposal was revived in the Senate Rules Committee, which removed the original contents of HB 2316 A-Eng. (another bill ACLU opposed, see above) and put the contents of HB 2015 in its place. ACLU issued a floor statement in opposition to HB 2316 B-Eng. A number of Senators spoke out against this proposal. On the first vote we were surprised but pleased when it failed in a bi-partisan vote 17-13. However, upon reconsideration a few days later, the Senate passed this bill 17-13. (See Senate Scorecard, for HB 2316 B-Eng.) The House concurred (42-13) and repassed the amended bill. We joined with the Oregon Criminal Defense Lawyers Association in asking the Governor to veto the bill, but he refused. (Loss: Passed, Veto Requested, Governor signed)
SB 200: ACLU Successfully Opposed Removing Statute of Limitations for Certain Crimes

ACLU of Oregon testified against SB 200 before the Senate Judiciary Committee that would have removed the statute of limitations on all sex-related crimes when DNA has been collected. This proposal was even more expansive than HB 2316 B-Eng. In 2001, the legislature expanded the law in this area, extending the statute of limitations from 3 years to 12 years. Relying on the advance of DNA technology, the proponents of this bill argued that the legislature should remove all barriers for future prosecution. In addition to making it extremely difficult for a person to defend against a crime that happened a long time ago, we know that the use of DNA is only as good as the humans who handle it. Wrongful convictions of innocent people based solely on DNA have occurred because DNA samples degenerate, can be mishandled and misread. Currently, there is not uniform policy or practice for handling and retention of DNA evidence across the State. After we testified, SB 200 did not get scheduled for additional hearings. (Win: Died in Committee)

Reply with quote
Post Save The ACLU! 
I can't imagine an America without it. The ACLU has done a wonderful job of filling the "Slapstick Comedy Gap" since the passing of Benny Hill.

Dateline: New Orleans

The ACLU of Louisiana filed an emergency relief lawsuit in Federal Court to stop the City of New Orleans from imposing "excessive" and "discriminatory" permit and escort fees to parade marching groups. The fees are set at the discretion of the Chief of Police, who says that the fees are needed due to rowdiness and violence by spectators at the street events which require additional police resources.

"A unique African American cultural and historical tradition will be taxed out of existence without relief from the court," said Joe Cook, Executive Director, ACLU of Louisiana. "This tradition is important for the rebirth of New Orleans and for those still struggling with the loss of family, unity, home and normalcy."

Among the main defendants in the lawsuit are Mayor Ray Nagin and Chief of Police Warren Riley.

Both men are African American.

Display posts from previous:
Reply to topic Page 1 of 1
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum