ACLJ = the Antithesis of the ACLU

[Colossus_500]

ACLJ Urges Senate to Protect Life & Reject Embryonic Stem Cell Bill   
 
April 9, 2007

(Washington, DC) – The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), which specializes in constitutional law, said today the U.S. Senate must reject S. 5 – a measure to be debated and voted on this week – a measure that clears the way for the federal government – using tax dollars – to conduct research on stem cells taken from human embryos.  The Senate begins debate on the issue tomorrow.

“This measure represents a frontal assault on human life,” said Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the ACLJ, which is opposing the legislation.  “To give a green light to this kind of experimentation is not only wrong, but morally and ethically unacceptable.  This measure clearly devalues human life.  We support S. 30 – a measure that prohibits the creation of embryos for the purpose of research.  We remain dedicated to protecting the sanctity of human life and that’s exactly what we’re determined to do.  That is why we are urging lawmakers to defeat S. 5 and approve S. 30.”

The Senate is debating both measures this week and a vote is expected at the conclusion of those debates.

The American Center for Law and Justice has launched a national petition campaign to oppose legislative efforts to create human embryos for the purpose of research.  Using radio, email, mail, and its website, thousands already have signed on to the ACLJ Petition to Protect Human Life.  The ACLJ is communicating with members of the Senate urging them to reject S. 5 and pass S. 30.

Led by Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow, the American Center for Law and Justice specializes in constitutional law and focuses on pro-life issues.
 

[Decker]

The ACLJ is not even comparable to the ACLU. 

The ACLJ is a religious/political interest group beholden to Pat Robertson of the 700 Club infamy.

The ACLU defends the constitutional civil liberties of anyone (Rush Limbaugh did not refuse the amicus brief filed on his behalf in his Dr. shopping/heroin case).

It amazes me how disenfranchised people have become.  The ACLU is the bad guy and the ACLJ is the good guy. 

This is inline with the current narrative out there for middle america:

the worker's union in this country hurt the workers it represents,

tax cuts for the wealthy help the middle class and poor,

Corporations/privatization is in the best interest of middle america,

etc.

I wish it were different.

[militarymuscle69]

ACLU is the bad guy, it was created with great intentions but has turned into a slimy defense lawyer.

[Hedgehog]

ACLU is the bad guy, it was created with great intentions but has turned into a slimy defense lawyer.

I disagree.

ACLU always fight a good fight.

Even when I disagree with a particular case, I think as a whole, the idea of ACLU is brilliant. They are genuinely working to protects the freedoms in the USA.

-Hedge

[Decker]

ACLU is the bad guy, it was created with great intentions but has turned into a slimy defense lawyer.

I don't think so.  Constitutional rights are the foundation of our great society.  In an adversarial arrangement, the kind that we have in our legal courts, innocence is presumed and everyone is entitled to his/her day in court.

It's not perfect, but it's the best system we have.

I would think that anyone unfairly deprived of life, liberty or property would welcome with open arms the defense of the ACLU. 

Like I said, Rush rails against the ACLU, but when the rubber met the road and his own freedom was on the line, he did not turn away the help offered by the ACLU.

[Colossus_500]

I disagree.

ACLU always fight a good fight.

Even when I disagree with a particular case, I think as a whole, the idea of ACLU is brilliant. They are genuinely working to protects the freedoms in the USA.

-Hedge

Especially freedom from Christianity.     They don't argue against any other religion. 

[Colossus_500]

The ACLJ is not even comparable to the ACLU. 

The ACLJ is a religious/political interest group beholden to Pat Robertson of the 700 Club infamy.

Wrong, ACLJ has a VERY STRONG presence in Washington.  Most of the briefs you see regarding the big issues are drawn up by the ACLJ.  Check it out for yourself.  Don't get them confused with Pat Robertson.  Dude. you gotta dig a little deeper than you are with regard to where you get your information.

www.aclj.org

[Decker]

Especially freedom from Christianity.     They don't argue against any other religion. 

These people would disagree with you:
The ACLU Is Not Evil
And neither are many people with whom we disagree.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/may/22.64.html
"It might surprise some critics that the ACLU defends the free speech and free exercise rights of, well, Christians."

The ACLU does challenge the gov. establishment of Christian religion in the form of governmental sponsoring of religious idols or any proselytizing/recruiting in the name of Christianity...or Judaism or any other religion.

[Decker]

Wrong, ACLJ has a VERY STRONG presence in Washington.  Most of the briefs you see regarding the big issues are drawn up by the ACLJ.  Check it out for yourself.  Don't get them confused with Pat Robertson.  Dude. you gotta dig a little deeper than you are with regard to where you get your information.

www.aclj.org

I'm not wrong.

"The American Center for Law & Justice (ACLJ) is a legal advocacy group founded to aggressively promote the Christian Right agenda through the courts. The ACLJ is Pat Robertson's response to the ACLU."

"Someone has got to stop the ACLU in court," Robertson said. "And that's exactly what we are going to do at the American Center for Law and Justice. Our attorneys are defending Christians in courtrooms all across America.""

"Sekulow boasts of having SWAT teams, which he defines as "spiritual warfare assault teams," to defend religious liberty and fight anti-Christian bigotry." http://www.publiceye.org/ifas/fw/9503/empire.html

I've followed Jay Sekulow's career somewhat.  He's a good lawyer.  How many cases has he defended on behalf of Muslims, Jews or Buddhists?

If the ACLU defends the constitutional rights of anyone, why the hell does the ACLJ seem bent on stopping the ACLU?

There seems to be some cognitive dissonance over what is defense of a constitutional right and wholesale Christian advocacy.

[OzmO]

Especially freedom from Christianity.     They don't argue against any other religion. 

That's not true,  plus, Christianity is the main stream majority religion in the US.

They sold me on their intentions, purity of purpose and integrity when they defended the KKK's right to hold a peace full march.

They are simply a tool to help protect our rights a citizens.

[Decker]

That's not true,  plus, Christianity is the main stream majority religion in the US.

They sold me on their intentions, purity of purpose and integrity when they defended the KKK's right to hold a peace full march.

They are simply a tool to help protect our rights a citizens.

That is a terrific point.  Thanks.

[Dos Equis]

The ACLU has lost it's way IMO.  Haven't they been fighting every attempt by the feds to combat child porn? 

[Decker]

The ACLU has lost it's way IMO.  Haven't they been fighting every attempt by the feds to combat child porn? 

Child pornography is illegal in every state in the Union.  There is no constitutional right to own illegal subject matter.  I sincerely doubt your assertion.

Nadine Strossen is the Current president of the ACLU and a top flight attorney.  I've read some of her books.  She may question the efficacy of the Miller Test for obscenity but she certainly does not support/advocate child porn in any way.

What you are likely thinking of is that a former local ACLU chapter executive was pinched for child porn.  I would not indict the organization on the basis of the illegal activity of one former member.

[OzmO]

The ACLU has lost it's way IMO.  Haven't they been fighting every attempt by the feds to combat child porn? 

As they should, along with every attempt by the feds to illegally search a size property, illegal wire taps etc...

We have to be able to serve justice without violating our constitutional rights.   

Should not allow defense attorneys who defend these sex offenders also?

That's why i say they are a non-bias tool who's purpose is to protect our constitutional rights.  good or bad.

[Decker]

As they should, along with every attempt by the feds to illegally search a size property, illegal wire taps etc...

We have to be able to serve justice without violating our constitutional rights.   

Should not allow defense attorneys who defend these sex offenders also?

That's why i say they are a non-bias tool who's purpose is to protect our constitutional rights.  good or bad.

Yours is a better answer. 

[militarymuscle69]

I don't think so.  Constitutional rights are the foundation of our great society.  In an adversarial arrangement, the kind that we have in our legal courts, innocence is presumed and everyone is entitled to his/her day in court.

It's not perfect, but it's the best system we have.

I would think that anyone unfairly deprived of life, liberty or property would welcome with open arms the defense of the ACLU. 

Like I said, Rush rails against the ACLU, but when the rubber met the road and his own freedom was on the line, he did not turn away the help offered by the ACLU.

that is my thing, people use the vague wording of freedom of speach (for example) for anything that suits their needs and the ACLU supports them in that. Freedom of speach is abused often and you can't deny that. I do like when ACLU aids people in things like eminent domain, but they go overboard on many other issues

[militarymuscle69]

That's not true,  plus, Christianity is the main stream majority religion in the US.

They sold me on their intentions, purity of purpose and integrity when they defended the KKK's right to hold a peace full march.

They are simply a tool to help protect our rights a citizens.

if they show up for Imus and say his free speach rights are violated....I will relook at their position

[OzmO]

if they show up for Imus and say his free speach rights are violated....I will relook at their position

I don't think it will come to that because Imus isn't on trial.

But they did go to bat for the KKK.   

[militarymuscle69]

I don't think it will come to that because Imus isn't on trial.

But they did go to bat for the KKK.   

not on trial? maybe not in court but they are calling for his job, if he loses it then they should defend his freedom of speach.

[OzmO]

not on trial? maybe not in court but they are calling for his job, if he loses it then they should defend his freedom of speach.

He wasn't fired.   And the ACLU usually doesn't get involved unless the courts are involved.  Also, the station he works for is a business.  they have a right to protect their business.  If he was working in a factory or on an assembly line then it would be different.

[Dos Equis]

Child pornography is illegal in every state in the Union.  There is no constitutional right to own illegal subject matter.  I sincerely doubt your assertion.

Nadine Strossen is the Current president of the ACLU and a top flight attorney.  I've read some of her books.  She may question the efficacy of the Miller Test for obscenity but she certainly does not support/advocate child porn in any way.

What you are likely thinking of is that a former local ACLU chapter executive was pinched for child porn.  I would not indict the organization on the basis of the illegal activity of one former member.

No, I'm not thinking of Charles Rust-Tierney.  I started a thread about him:  http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=133811.0

I wonder why the media didn't jump all over that story?  I bet if Charles Rust-Tierney was conservative pastor instead a former ACLU head CNN would have been all over this story.  

[militarymuscle69]

He wasn't fired.   And the ACLU usually doesn't get involved unless the courts are involved.  Also, the station he works for is a business.  they have a right to protect their business.  If he was working in a factory or on an assembly line then it would be different.

lol, OzmO, they won't jump in because it doesn't fit their agenda. A factory isn't a buisness?

[Dos Equis]

As they should, along with every attempt by the feds to illegally search a size property, illegal wire taps etc...

We have to be able to serve justice without violating our constitutional rights.   

Should not allow defense attorneys who defend these sex offenders also?

That's why i say they are a non-bias tool who's purpose is to protect our constitutional rights.  good or bad.

The ACLU shouldn't be fighting the feds attempt to combat child porn?  

Here is what I find despicable about the ACLU:

1.  They fight pretty much every attempt to combat child porn.  http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A24167-2003Oct14?language=printer

2.  They defended NAMBLA, a criminal organization that advocates the rape of boys by men.  http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/protest/11289prs20000831.html

Indefensible IMO.  It is one thing to try and protect the legitimate exercise of religion, free speech, etc., but child porn is a crime and the rape of boys is a crime.  There is NO legitimate reason for either of those to exist in our society.  

[OzmO]

lol, OzmO, they won't jump in because it doesn't fit their agenda. A factory isn't a buisness?

A factory doesn't have a person who's opinions are broadcast to millions of people and a factory doesn't receive income solely from advertising revenue that indicate support for what the broadcaster says.   

Remember Kobe?   Pepsi dropped him like a STD.

MM, that's the difference here.  It's not an agenda thing.

[Decker]

that is my thing, people use the vague wording of freedom of speach (for example) for anything that suits their needs and the ACLU supports them in that. Freedom of speach is abused often and you can't deny that. I do like when ACLU aids people in things like eminent domain, but they go overboard on many other issues

No, no.  freedom of speech/the first amendment has a long case history and many different tests for different types of free speech.  If an attorney was to file a lawsuit that was frivolous on its face--for anything that suits their needs--the court would dismiss the case and penalize the attorney.

Free speech is a popular and unpopular concept.  People say they love it but when, as Ozmo pointed out, someone like the KKK exercises its right to free speech people go ape shit and try to shut them down.  Free speech includes unpoplular and sometimes disgusting viewpoints.