ACLU - Why so hated (by some)?

[Engels]

Please tell me why so many people (on the vrod forum, at least) seem to hate the ACLU?

The principles of this organization: Protecting the rights of Americans as guaranteed by the US Constitution, seem to be worthy ones.

The methods by which it goes about accomplishing this - filing legal challenges, etc. - seem to be consistent with American values. If the ACLU tried to make its point by setting off bombs or organizing armed revolt - I could perhaps understand the hatred that is expressed.

I'm looking for an open, honest, and discussion. Thank you.

[gtrman66]

The reason I hate the ACLU is they almost always side with the anti-Christian, anti-American, hateful, and downright nasty side of mankind. I believe in protecting free speech, but that doesn't guaranty their right to be heard.

[Engels]

So - you only think free speech is for people that agree with you?

When you say "anti-Christian, anti-American, hateful, and downright nasty side of mankind - can you give me some examples?

I think we are all familiar with the support given by the ACLU for the Illinois Nazis right to parade in Skokie, Illinois in 1977. A case which, it may be noted, caused considerable dissension within the ACLU itself. However, I believe that ultimately they felt that the principle of upholding free speech, no matter how abberant the message itself, was important.

[z16monte]

THE ACLU claims to support the bill of rights, but their support is very selective. Only supporting the rights they think you should have.

[Engels]

Difficult to respond to generalities. Which rights - specifically - do they not support?

I will assume that you are referring to the ACLU policy on Gun Control. This is officially one of Neutrality.

"We believe that the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of gun ownership. If we can license and register cars, we can license and register guns.

Most opponents of gun control concede that the Second Amendment certainly does not guarantee an individual's right to own bazookas, missiles or nuclear warheads. Yet these, like rifles, pistols and even submachine guns, are arms.

The question therefore is not whether to restrict arms ownership, but how much to restrict it. If that is a question left open by the Constitution, then it is a question for Congress to decide."

You may not necessarily agree with this policy. But it is not one that in any way calls for further restrictions on gun ownership. So it is a little difficult to reconcile a "Neutral" position with the vitriol so often levelled against the group.

[Monk]

I like the ACLU, even when they fight for the rights of people I don't much care for. It's the principle of the thing.

["shazbat"]

Just my impression but it seems to me that the ACLU is mostly about promoting the civil liberties of minorities rather personal liberties in general.

[Engels]

I appreciate your comment, Shazbat.

But if you think about it, doesn't that make a certain amount of sense?

In most democratic societies, the rights of the majority are likely to be taken care of by the laws enacted by elected officials.

The genius of the Founders of the United States was that they anticipated that there needed to be a balance between the will of the many (democracy) and the rights of the few. And so we have a Constitution, and the "checks and balances" provided by the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches of Government.

The other thing to consider is this: Sooner or later, we may ALL find ourselves as a member of a "Minority." And when we do, we may be very glad that there are organizations that are commited to the principle of rights for everyone.