ACLU vs. ID

[crimresearch]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...9&u=/ap/20041214/ap_on_re_us/evolution_debate

"The state American Civil Liberties Union plans to file a federal lawsuit Tuesday against a Pennsylvania school district that is requiring students to learn about alternatives to the theory of evolution.

The ACLU said its lawsuit will be the first to challenge whether public schools should teach "intelligent design," which holds that the universe is so complex that it must have been created by some higher power. "

So the courts have it.

 

[Number Six]

It's almost to the point where I cringe when I read that the ACLU is taking a side in a case that I agree with. These people have the worst public relations department in the world. Their MO is "Completely ignore the public and sue in the courts," which would be good if public opinion never affected court opinion, but since courts are made up of people it's a pretty foolish way to operate.

I can hear O'Reilly now railing against this case for ten minutes and then wrapping up with the too often heard phrase "We invited the ACLU on the show to discuss this but they declined our invitation." Ugh!

 

[Tmy]

Orlielly only likes to play on his home field with his umpires. But they should send reps to his show. I agree, They dont get into the public eye enough and just let the press go crazy.

Is there ANY proof that backs ID. At least evolution has factual backing. And is ID just code for GOD. I dont suppose ID covers the possibilty of aliens createiing mankind. Thats more plausable than super-deity.

 

[c0rbin]

No, no, no.

The trick is not to get bogged down in the details.

The proper response is that you should have no problems with the teaching of creationism or ID--just that it should be taught in a religion or philosophy class and not in a science class as neither creationism nor ID is science.

 

[TragicMonkey]

No, no, no.

The trick is not to get bogged down in the details.

The proper response is that you should have no problems with the teaching of creationism or ID--just that it should be taught in a religion or philosophy class and not in a science class as neither creationism nor ID is science.

US public schools don't offer religion class, and I haven't heard of any attempts to teach philosophy, either. Which is a pity. They could offer college-level introduction to philosophy class in high school as an elective, which would save the interested students some time in college, and convince the rest that philosophy is not a major for those seeking easy grades.

ID should be taught in politics class, because that's what it's about, a political attempt to subvert the separation of church and state to indoctrinate the young. Who, I hope, would be smart enough to recognize a steaming plateful of agenda when handed to them.

 

[TillEulenspiegel]

Well truth being known, the don't care much about public opinion. They a legal organization that tackles anti-constitutional behavior and the law is their primary tool. The don't run for office and they protect us all from the tyranny of the majority. They have defended Nazis, KKK and Black Panthers .

They joined with Bob Barr, former Republican member of Congress,American Conservative Union, Et.Al. against the "Patriot Acts"1 and 2, Joined conservative groups in opposing campaign finance reform, at least in its McCain-Feingold version, as violation of First Amendment. There are many other examples of the broad spectrum of the types of cases they act upon.

Their not as mono-dimensional as many seem to think Do some research before You condemn them out of hand. I hate to think what would happen if non-Profits like the ACLU didn't exist. There is aways someone or the government that tries to extend their reach. These folks help stop them. They are the embodiment of the Holm's concept of protecting the "speech we hate" and the rest of our freedoms.

I'm sure that they dismiss O'Rielly as an bigmouth A$$hole that he is, as I do.
Till - proud member of the ACLU

 

[Number Six]

Well truth being known, the don't care much about public opinion. They a legal organization that tackles anti-constitutional behavior and the law is their primary tool. The don't run for office and they protect us all from the tyranny of the majority. They have defended Nazis, KKK and Black Panthers .

They joined with Bob Barr, former Republican member of Congress,American Conservative Union, Et.Al. against the "Patriot Acts"1 and 2, Joined conservative groups in opposing campaign finance reform, at least in its McCain-Feingold version, as violation of First Amendment. There are many other examples of the broad spectrum of the types of cases they act upon.

Their not as mono-dimensional as many seem to think Do some research before You condemn them out of hand. I hate to think what would happen if non-Profits like the ACLU didn't exist. There is aways someone or the government that tries to extend their reach. These folks help stop them. They are the embodiment of the Holm's concept of protecting the "speech we hate" and the rest of our freedoms.

I'm sure that they dismiss O'Rielly as an bigmouth A$$hole that he is, as I do.
Till - proud member of the ACLU

Yeah, I'm sure they do dismiss O'Reilly as a bigmouth A$$hole, but the problem is that that is really, really stupid thing to do even if it's true. It'd be like Randi refusing to appear on LKL with Sylvia Browne because her schtick is beneath him. Yeah, her schtick is BS, but the only way you're gonig to convince people of that is by engaging them, not ignoring them and letting Sylvia Browne badmouth you unopposed.

The legal system doesn't exist in a vacuum. It is made up of people and will continue to be made up of people. Those people _interpret_ law based on their worldview, which is the sum total of things they've been exposed to. The ACLU repeatedly turning down a free, national stage to express their view because they prefer to use only the courts is shortsighted and foolish IMO.

 

[c0rbin]

US public schools don't offer religion class, and I haven't heard of any attempts to teach philosophy, either. Which is a pity. They could offer college-level introduction to philosophy class in high school as an elective, which would save the interested students some time in college, and convince the rest that philosophy is not a major for those seeking easy grades.

ID should be taught in politics class, because that's what it's about, a political attempt to subvert the separation of church and state to indoctrinate the young. Who, I hope, would be smart enough to recognize a steaming plateful of agenda when handed to them.

Either way, it's not science and has no place in a science class. Any argument against it should start from there, IMO.

 

[TillEulenspiegel]

Number Six, You may be correct as exposure would alleviate the stigma the ACLU suffers from, the misconceptions. I think however that the wrong forum would be counter-productive.

Charlie Rose , PBS, a 60 mins. piece yes, O'Rielly would be a disaster as he basically controls the direction and the editorial process. I don't think he passes muster as a news show. It's wrestling for mental midgets and the unwashed masses love it. Bread and circuses. Bleh

 

[crimresearch]

US public schools don't offer religion class, and I haven't heard of any attempts to teach philosophy, either. Which is a pity. They could offer college-level introduction to philosophy class in high school as an elective, which would save the interested students some time in college, and convince the rest that philosophy is not a major for those seeking easy grades.

ID should be taught in politics class, because that's what it's about, a political attempt to subvert the separation of church and state to indoctrinate the young. Who, I hope, would be smart enough to recognize a steaming plateful of agenda when handed to them.

Public schools used to teach logic, rhetoric, argument, and other critical thinking skills...but career politicians have made a clean sweep of getting that sort of stuff out of the classroom over the years.

After all, what politican would want schoolkids to grow up and be educated, skeptical voters?

 

[TragicMonkey]

Public schools used to teach logic, rhetoric, argument, and other critical thinking skills...but career politicians have made a clean sweep of getting that sort of stuff out of the classroom over the years.

After all, what politican would want schoolkids to grow up and be educated, skeptical voters?

I think the critical thinking was done away with by the people themselves. The concept seems to make them uncomfortable, which is why most Americans aren't asked to think critically until college, and then only in certain classes.

I still remember my first college "Great Books" class, when one of the students expressed incomprehension at the idea that she was allowed to question other people's interpretations of the text, and formulate her own. "But, what's the right answer?!" was her despairing cry.

Although it certainly benefits certain politicians when the masses can't reason for themselves. I don't think it's deliberate, because neither can most of the politicians.

 

[Mycroft]

It's almost to the point where I cringe when I read that the ACLU is taking a side in a case that I agree with. These people have the worst public relations department in the world. Their MO is "Completely ignore the public and sue in the courts," which would be good if public opinion never affected court opinion, but since courts are made up of people it's a pretty foolish way to operate.

Isn't that the point? The purpose of the ACLU is to defend constitutional principles regardless of popularity. If the majority of the public supported an issue in a way that agreed with the constitution, the ACLU wouldn't be needed.

 

[crimresearch]

I think the critical thinking was done away with by the people themselves. The concept seems to make them uncomfortable, which is why most Americans aren't asked to think critically until college, and then only in certain classes.

I still remember my first college "Great Books" class, when one of the students expressed incomprehension at the idea that she was allowed to question other people's interpretations of the text, and formulate her own. "But, what's the right answer?!" was her despairing cry.

Although it certainly benefits certain politicians when the masses can't reason for themselves. I don't think it's deliberate, because neither can most of the politicians.

The people themselves? In what part of this country, do 'the people' decide what is taught in public schools?

The people handed that over to elected school boards, in spite of all warnings, years ago.

And those subjects are disappearing from higher education too...except for law schools...and guess what degree lots and lots and lots of politicians have?

 

[Number Six]

I'm not getting on the ACLU for defending unpopular positions, rather I'm getting on them for defending unpopular positions in a foolish way. All they have to do is have an articulate and informed representative available to go on these newstalk shows at night and explain what they're doing and why. Instead they let themselves be painted in the worst possible light and then it seems like the portrayal is accurate when the host says that the ACLU declined an invitiation to dispute it.

Constitutional principles are interpreted by humans, not mathetmatically generated by a computer. Completely ignoring the PR side of things is a mistake by the ACLU. Judges are either elected or else appointed by people that are elected so public opinion enters into thing to a degree.

In the eyes of the some of the general public the ACLU is an anti-religion, pro-child molesting, pro-crime, anti-decency organization. Sure, some of that is due to irresponsible media painting them that way but a large part is due to sheer negligence by the ACLU.

 

[crimresearch]

My criticism of the ACLU has a lot to do with the cases they *ignore*, but why would they put themselves in the hands of that 'irresponsible media' if they really wanted the public to see their side of things?

 

[Number Six]

If the media is going to talk about you can either ignore them and let them paint whatever picture they want or engage them and give your side of the story. If the media painted the ACLU as evil while refusing to let the ACLU come on their show then I'd feel more sympathetic. But instead those shows invite them and the ACLU declines.

The public can't get info on the ACLU via psychic means and also most of them aren't constitutional scholars that sit around reading legal briefs about the merits of the cases made by the ACLU. Instead they're just regular folks that watch talk shows and see what people have to say. It's not exactly high debate but it's the way a lot of people get their info and so ignoring those shows is ignoring a source of power and influence.

If I had an organization, no matter what agenda I was pushing I can't imagine repeatedly declining a national stage to talk about it like the ACLU does. It's crazy.