The ACLU Revisited
This past October I spent a few minutes discussing the ACLU and some of the criticisms that have been levied against it.
Here is a brief snippet of what I said:
“The ACLU is an organization whose existence seems to polarize people, you either love them or hate them. The middle ground is few and far between, which really is too bad because when you reach a point where life is black and white there are problems.
I am not a fan of every ACLU initiative, but I think that they serve a meaningful role and that there is a place and purpose for them. Society needs people to questions the leadership, to poke, prod and pick at the system and in general serve as another check/balance.”
In my mind nothing has changed. That still represents my feelings on the matter quite well. The reason that I bring this up is that I noticed the ranting and ravings about the ACLU here and here. In case you are wondering I do know that this is the same post just crossposted.
These arguments and examples are almost moronic in nature. They are long on wind, short on substance and heavy on spin.
“The ACLU is anti-Christian. The list is endless on this one. Under the guise of â€œseperation of Church and Stateâ€, the ACLU have made a name for theirself on being rabidly anti-Christian.”
I read this and fell down laughing. Talk about clueless. Talk about completely misunderstanding the Jeffersonian position on religion and government. I have no problem laughing at this whining. Most of their major holidays are Federal holidays and observed on a national level, but this is not good enough. It is too much fun to whine and complain about being asked to be sensitive to minorities and to accept that we live in a pluralistic society and are not homogenous.
“The ACLU Opposes National Security. The ACLU have opposed almost every effort in the arena of national security. From the bird flu to bag searches, the ACLU have been against it. No matter what kind of search someone tries to do to protect people, the ACLU have proved they are against them across the board.”
Again the lack of nuance and understanding of why it is dangerous to just blindly accept changes to our civil liberties. These are the same people who go nuts at the idea of their being any restrictions on owning a gun but are willing to just allow any sort of search under the guise of protecting us.
Long time readers know that I am a big supporter of the war on terror and that I think that there are some compromises on civil liberties that are going to have to be made, but I would not be so foolish as to allow carte blanche.
I could go on about this but I think that the point is made. The ACLU is an important organization and part of the checks and balances that the country operates under. I do not agree with all of their policies and see plenty of room for adjustment but at the same time am grateful that they are here to try and help protect us all.
Jack's Shack November 14, 2005 at 6:32 am
I hear you but the reality is that good points have to be relevant and the person who is pushing these is really stretching.
He needs to rethink and rework it.
Ezzie November 11, 2005 at 3:57 pm
While the way in which those sites word it is obviously slanted, they make good points: For example, the ACLU’s blanket “no-searches” policy is stupid and wrong. We all recognize the reasons why a search could be neccessary – in Israel, people get annoyed when they’re not searched.