Sustaind.org is sick. :( If you're a PHP programmer, can you help us upgrade Sustain'd and get it working again? If interested, email richard AT moregoodfoundation DOT org.
5
sustain!
I know Mormons like to bash the ACLU over the Main Street plaza case but here is one more of the legal actions they've been involved in on the side of the church. Remember the case about school prayer in Texas? That was an LDS family too. Opinions?
comments
/lame joke
Anyways, I'm not going to go all "awwwwww" and all huggie and kissie with ACLU over this. And no, I'm not talking about the Main Street plaza issue, but rather because of ACLU's long-time curriculum of bullying lowly-funded school district boards with lawsuits over democratic decisions and of pushing their i-will-sue-everyone-over-an-offensive-t-shirt, abortion-on-demand-should-be-legal, kids-should-not-have-to-notify-parents-after-an-abortion-in-freakin-California immoral agenda.
Yup, it's not the little exceptions that make up the validity of a morality (ouch, I guess that not only applies to ACLU but also to all accusations against """LDS culture""" based on the-bishop's-son-didn't-say-hi-to-me whining characteristic of the wrong end of the valley).
LOL... your stream of consciousness is as constant as mine...
I've never particularly understood the sheer hostility that Mormons have to the ACLU. I don't exactly agree with every court decision they engage in but goodness... at least their consistent and will come to the defense even of people who campaign against them and call them traitors.
And I guess it also applies to the 'I'm so persecuted because I'm Mormon and once someone waved a sign in my face at general conference' at the 'right' end of the valley.
Well, maybe some of the arguments with dash lines in my previous comment may help explain why most Mormons are hostile against ACLU. The diametrically opposed point of views is almost caricaturesque.
"I don't exactly agree with every court decision they engage in but goodness... at least their consistent and will come to the defense even of people who campaign against them and call them traitors."
What is consistency's value? Is it good for something to be consistenly wrong, or consistenly immoral? For example, I hardly think a criminal who is consistent in breaking the law can really count consistency as a "virtue" (note: it was an example, not a parallel).
I can honestly say that I strongly dislike and oppose ACLU not because "that's what Mormons do" or other go-with-the-flow implied accusations, but rather I came to my conclusions after studying ACLU's website, especially the items under "Issues" on the right-hand navigation (hehe, a little web designer's tip: navigation menus are presented more intuitively when placed on the left-hand side.)
Also, I don't like ACLU's moral tactics. They bully school boards with threatening lawsuits, and, since the school district does not have enough money to pay a lawyer to face a lawsuit, they are forced to settle. I guess that is the new definition of "advancing America" according to the new political correctness trends.
But well, at least they're consistent about bullying, so that must be right and moral.
Comment: The ACLU is quite the bully at times, wearing down their victims with constant litigation. Thankfully, the Church will stand up to them and fight, quite rightly too. Sadly, other organizations don't have the resources and/or will to take a stand.
I wonder what sparks the ACLU's attention against local school boards? Is it possible that they are *gasp* denying constitutional rights to their students?
Now of course consistency in bullying is not a good thing. Snarky Snarky... What is constant is their defense of freedom of speech issues. Which is why the ACLU gets involved when communities try to limit Mormon proselyting and why they kicked up such a fuss in the Main Street plaza case. What exactly however is bad about pushing constitutional issues into the supreme court? US v. Reynolds anyone?
I'm just so amused at the idea of the ACLU as the big bad. What specific tactics (other than school board lawsuits) and beliefs do you find objectionable? Personally, Curley v. NAMBLA tweaks my ears pretty severely. But, the free speech principles in C. v NAMBLA contributed to the Supreme Court decision that allowed the Boy Scouts to continue to discriminate against James Dale. For different reasons, both cases are objectionable to me... but the links between them I can understand.
Oh... please provide links to school-board bullying actions. I want to read up on this