Religion in the Public Square: All or Nothing

[silverback66]

Clearly there's been a great deal of lawsuits over the past few years to remove any elements of faith and religion from the public square. This of course is spearheaded by the ACLU. What I'm wondering is why rather than allowing the full expression of our cultural and spiritual diversity that we allow groups like the ACLU to rape America of the very civil liberties they proclaim to protect? Why is something that brings hope and comfort to millions around the world the subject of attack in America? Do we still have our right to free speech and freedom of expression? Do we truly have the feedom from religious persecution? Who is supressing who here?

[zimv20]

wow, tons of loaded questions there. to which cases do you refer? what does it mean for the ACLU to "spearhead" something? do you have evidence of that? do you make any distinction between cases that involve separation of church and state and any perceived "attack" on christianity?

i'm not seeing anything in your operning salvo which would lead me to believe you're willing to have a resonable discussion on the matter.

[silverback66]

I didn't mention Christianity. I spoke of religious diversity which I think you'd agree is a pretty inclusive statement. You assumed I was speaking of Christianity which says something doesn't it? To me it (could but not neccessarily does) say you recognize that groups like the ACLU are in fact trying to silence people of faith because it doesn't fit within the framework of the secular progressive society they want to create. Perhaps you agree with the idea of a secular progressive society in which case your views would be in line with those of the ACLU, BUT in so doing are you protecting the rights of those of faith to express their faith freely as is afforded them by the constitution?

I love Jesus Christ and He is my Savior and Lord.

Did that make you cringe a bit? Maybe roll your eyes? Why is that? What's behind your reaction to my expression of love for a God that I believe in and yet am not trying to impose on you in anyway? I haven't infringed on your rights in anyway but merely expressed my own within the limits of what the constitution says I am permitted. So then, in light of this do you truly support the constitution and free speech, or does it only extend so far as it is in line with a certain agenda you may or may not have?

And just as a note, I'm not neccessarily refering to YOU specifically, but rather am writing in a way that will hopefully speak more personally to any who might read it. I'm not trying to offend, merely trying to make a point.

[aquajet]

link (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EVOLUTION_DEBATE?SITE=TXBRY&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT)

FRESNO, Calif. (AP) -- A rural high school teaching a religion-based alternative to evolution was sued Tuesday by a group of parents who said the class should be stopped because it violates the U.S. Constitution.

Frazier Mountain High in Lebec violated the separation of church and state while attempting to legitimize the theory of "intelligent design" by introducing it as a philosophy class, according to the federal lawsuit filed by parents of 13 students. The teacher is also a minister's wife.

"The course was designed to advance religious theories on the origins of life, including creationism and its offshoot, 'intelligent design,'" the lawsuit said. "Because the teacher has no scientific training, students are not provided with any critical analysis of this presentation."

The suit was filed by Americans United for Separation of Church and State, which successfully blocked Dover, Pa., schools last month from using science courses to advance the theory that living things are so complex they must have been designed by a higher being.

continued...


Perhaps this is an example, silverback?

I'm especially interested in the opinions of those who embraced the Dover decision, but suggested that ID be taught in a philosophy class.

[mactastic]

Judeo-Christian religions are the only ones in 'the public square'. :confused:

[zimv20]

I didn't mention Christianity.
neat how you turned that into an attack on me.

since you're unable to frame your argument, perhaps i can help. the aclu takes cases, and when someone brings them a potential case whereby some government institution has indicated an endorsement of a particular religion (and i've only seen cases where that religion is christianity), then the aclu may lobby for the removal of that endorsement. helping, as you say, to foster diversity and inclusion.

so the basic question to you is: is separation of church and state a good thing? and if you say it is, then the onus is on you to present evidence of the aclu hindering that effort.

[mactastic]

I'm especially interested in the opinions of those who embraced the Dover decision, but suggested that ID be taught in a philosophy class.
I'd actually support it if it's not just ramming Christianity down the kids throats. But it sounds like just an attack on evolution to me. Just saying evolution is wrong isn't a good basis for an educational class -- particularly when so many other areas of the educational system are sucking. The school probably needs an expanded AP program or more supplies for their teachers or after-school tutors for at-risk kids more than they need a class on ID.

If it was in the context of a 'creation myths' literature class I'd say go for it. Make it a tough, college prep class. This implementation just sounds like a lame waste of badly needed money to me though. And that's from someone who's married to a public HS teacher.

[silverback66]

That is an example of something Mac, but not really what I was referring too. Give me a few moments to think of the most appropriate example because I want to communicate as clearly as possible with this. I don't want it to be about mudslinging between one side or the other.

With regards to you comment about judeo Christian religions being the only religions in the public square, that's only true from a certain point of view and one thats based more so in statistics than anything else.

Here's how I see it and I'd love to have your opinions. I think organizations like the ACLU see that the majority of American's are Christian (and naturally thats why it's the most commonly seen and expressed faith in America and in fact in the world at large) and similarly to what we see with colleges and workplaces seeking to meet racial quota's, we also see with secular organizations and Christianity. However the form it takes is this...It's perceived that because of Christianities pervasiveness in society it's influence must be diminished for the sake of creating a status quo of ideas. However, if the majority do in fact believe in Jesus as their God then is it morally, ethically, or constitutionally right to seek to suppress those ideas?

With regards to ID, I think it's a valid theory that ought to be taught but not in a science class. A philosophy class would be perfect and it'd be great for such a class to cover the belief systems of all major religions in the world! A lot of hate stems from a lack of understanding. We're all too willing to label those who believe differently than us (as I confess I've been guilty of on here). We need more understanding and a broader exchange of ideas rather than rhetoric and blind devotion to idealogies that do nothing but make our hearts bitter.

[zimv20]

organizations like the ACLU see that the majority of American's are Christian [...] and similarly to what we see with colleges and workplaces seeking to meet racial quota's, we also see with secular organizations and Christianity.
iow, the aclu has an agenda to promote religions other christianity? please cite any specific cases the aclu has taken to promote such an agenda. we'll need links.

[silverback66]

neat how you turned that into an attack on me.

since you're unable to frame your argument, perhaps i can help. the aclu takes cases, and when someone brings them a potential case whereby some government institution has indicated an endorsement of a particular religion (and i've only seen cases where that religion is christianity), then the aclu may lobby for the removal of that endorsement. helping, as you say, to foster diversity and inclusion.

so the basic question to you is: is separation of church and state a good thing? and if you say it is, then the onus is on you to present evidence of the aclu hindering that effort.


Again, it was not intended as an attack, merely a means of making a point. I apologize if I went too far with it.

You're quite right about the burden of proof being on me and I'll do my best. The seperation of Church and state is not constitutional. Let me explain. That wording is nowhere to be found in the constition. It comes from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to a Baptist organization which was concerned about the govenment limiting their rights. It wasn't until the 1940's I believe that a supreme court justice who also happened to be a member of the Ku Klux klan wrote a judgement that included those words. This of course was because of his own personal hatred for Irish catholics and the fear that the Vatican would somehow exert it's influence on the American government thus edging out protestants. So, in essence, the concept of the seperation of church and state was meant as a protection for reigious freedom in it's original phrasing and later manipulated as as a weapon in order to supress Irish Catholics. I think we need to be very careful about how liberally (no pun intended) we throw around that phrase.

No the constitution does say the government shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion (paraphrasing here, my wording may be a little off), but what does that mean? Just look at it. It basically says The government shall not establish a national church and/or religion. No where does it say that religion ought to be kept out of the public square. It fact, congressional meetings were and still are opened in prayer. Why then should it not be allowed for students (and this is my example by the way) to read their bibles in school and pray in school? Do those thing not fall under their rights of freedom of expression and freedom of speech?

[CanadaRAM]

However, if the majority do in fact believe in Jesus as their God then is it morally, ethically, or constitutionally right to seek to suppress those ideas?

The role of civil rights defenders is to ensure that the majority do not use their weight to suppress the minorities. It is dangerous to assume that 'democracy' takes precedence in all areas of life and Majority Rules in all decisions. If it were so, then the majority of right handed people could vote that all left handed people had to take a 50% cut in pay. Clearly, that's an absurd example, but it illustrates the fallacy of the majority.

Religion's place is with peoples choice of faith. Government and the education system's role is to govern and educate without reliance on one or another faith. It would be as wrong to teach Hindi or West Coast Salish creation stories in science class as it is to teach Christian creation.

[silverback66]

iow, the aclu has an agenda to promote religions other christianity? please cite any specific cases the aclu has taken to promote such an agenda. we'll need links.


No, no no, that's not what I was saying. The ACLU never touches any other religions but Christianity so I can only speculate as to their true motives. What I BELIEVE however is that the ACLU sees Christians being in the majority as being a threat since it's seemeingly not inclusive. Many people allow their perceptions of Christians to be shaped by bad experiences they've had or heard about. Here's the thing though...I've had a few bad experiences with black people, does that mean I'm justified in becoming a rascist? No, certainly not. Similarly so, I don't think those who base their perceptions of Christians on isolated experiences or heresay to have any right to discriminate against them based upon such factors. Sensible people ought not to pass judgment on groups based on the actions of individuals.

I may have said too little, but I'm thirsty and need some water. Let me know if I've fallen short of what you expected.

[silverback66]

The role of civil rights defenders is to ensure that the majority do not use their weight to suppress the minorities. It is dangerous to assume that 'democracy' takes precedence in all areas of life and Majority Rules in all decisions. If it were so, then the majority of right handed people could vote that all left handed people had to take a 50% cut in pay. Clearly, that's an absurd example, but it illustrates the fallacy of the majority.

Religion's place is with peoples choice of faith. Government and the education system's role is to govern and educate without reliance on one or another faith. It would be as wrong to teach Hindi or West Coast Salish creation stories in science class as it is to teach Christian creation.

What of it when the minority use their weight and finances and the court system to suppress the majority? Is that appropriate? I think I understand your example, but if you could think of one that's perhaps more clear I would appreciate it. It's not that it's bad, just not something that can be worked with as it's basis isn't in the confines of what the populace would deem moral.

And again with regards to the education system, as I said before I think a philosophy class that taught world religions would be entirely appropriate. Think of the diversity of ideas that kids could be exposed to! I wish they had that class when I was in high school. I would love to hear a budhist come in and speak on budhism. I'd love to hear more about Islam and Judaism and shitonism even! Those aren't threatening ideas to me. They are wonderful ideas that are representative of our world culture but unfortunatley are taboo in schools for reasons that I believe are unconstitutional.

[mactastic]

Here's how I see it and I'd love to have your opinions. I think organizations like the ACLU see that the majority of American's are Christian (and naturally thats why it's the most commonly seen and expressed faith in America and in fact in the world at large) and similarly to what we see with colleges and workplaces seeking to meet racial quota's, we also see with secular organizations and Christianity. However the form it takes is this...It's perceived that because of Christianities pervasiveness in society it's influence must be diminished for the sake of creating a status quo of ideas. However, if the majority do in fact believe in Jesus as their God then is it morally, ethically, or constitutionally right to seek to suppress those ideas?
Christianity isn't being suppressed. It just runs into the limits of where religion is allowed so often because of the sheer number of adherents. I don't want anyone's religion into the public square. It's bad for government. Do whatever you want in your private life, and in your churches.

Maybe you can explain to me why a group that is in the majority, claims most office-holders of the nation as members, lays claim to the heritage of our nation, feels so oppressed so much of the time?

[aquajet]

The ACLU never touches any other religions but Christianity so I can only speculate as to their true motives.

What do you think of this (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41915) take on the matter?

[atszyman]

I have no problem with religion in the public square as long as it follows these two rules:

1. No tax money was spend on the display.
2. An equal amount of time/space is available for any other religion to set up a display of their faith.

If a group of Christians wants to sponsor putting up a 20' cross in the park then there has to be room for a group of Jewish people to put up a Star of David, and the Satanists to put up a pentagram, etc...

Since mobs of people can very easily get rowdy and violent very quickly it is probably easiest to keep religion out of the public square to avoid potential conflicts. If no religion is allowed in the public square then no religion is shown a preference since they all have equal access.

Keep in mind what Jesus said about prayer in Matthew 6:5-6:7

And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites [are]: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen [do]: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.

Even Jesus believed that prayer should be between a person and God and not out on public display....

[zimv20]

No the constitution does say the government shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion (paraphrasing here, my wording may be a little off), but what does that mean?
ah, now we're getting somewhere. you disagree w/ the separation of church and state, at least how it's used in the vernacular. by that, i mean that no government institution, nor institution funded by the public, should in any way endorse religion or its practices, explicitly or implicitly. that's a vernacular w/ which i agree.

regarding the wording of the 1st amendment, remember that it's not just the original document and amendments which are the consitution. it's also effectively the decisions of supreme courts on related matters. this is why being a constitutional constructionist is so difficult, logistically and, imo, idealogically.

No where does it say that religion ought to be kept out of the public square.
what exactly do you mean by the 'public square'?

so now that we're into the meat of the matter, i.e. your issue w/ the separation, why the obfuscation? why the attack on the aclu?

[belvdr]

Keep in mind what Jesus said about prayer in Matthew 6:5-6:7



Even Jesus believed that prayer should be between a person and God and not out on public display....

I always took those verses to mean you shouldn't pray to impress others with your prayer, such as using large words or something similar just to show you are better. I also believe it is meant to state that praying a memorized verse, that doesn't really come from your heart, is not pleasing to God. So, praying in public isn't bad, but praying so you can become a public display, as you said, is not right.

[silverback66]

Christianity isn't being suppressed. It just runs into the limits of where religion is allowed so often because of the sheer number of adherents. I don't want anyone's religion into the public square. It's bad for government. Do whatever you want in your private life, and in your churches.

Maybe you can explain to me why a group that is in the majority, claims most office-holders of the nation as members, lays claim to the heritage of our nation, feels so oppressed so much of the time?

LOL, sorry, you''ll hate me for this one after what you just said, but George Washinton believed that the belief in God was essential to maitaining morality and decency in any society.

This is too big off an issue to expand off in this direction very far, but I do want to touch on it breifly. If you understood what being a Christian is all about then you'd know that this statement is representative of an unrealistic expectation, "Do whatever you want in your private life, and in your churches." Christianity at it's core is about a relationship with Christ. Imagine if someone told you that you could express your love for your wife at home but it's innappropriate to do so in public. So if you wanted to kiss your wife....sorry, not allowed. You wanted to tell your wife you loved her? Sorry, can't do that either. I'll try to keep this simple and straightforward, but the bible refers to Christians as the bride of Christ which is meant to signify our relationship towards him. shooting back to the other example, what if someone did not know your wife and how wonderful she is and what a wonderful and amazing person she was? Would that change the way you felt about her or your desire to express your love towards her? The point I'm getting to is, how do you think it feels for a Christian to be told that they can't express themselves towards someone they love even if others don't know or believe in Him?

[CanadaRAM]

What of it when the minority use their weight and finances and the court system to suppress the majority? Is that appropriate?
Unclear on what you are saying.
The court system is a presumedly impartial system with checks and balances (laws, judges, juries, right of appeal, etc.). It works equally for both sides of an actions. In the absence of an example where are majority right has been suppressed by a minority through the courts... I don't know what to tell you.

Now if you are saying that a majority wants to do X, and X isn't a right protected by law, or is limited in some way by law, and a minority can demonstrate through a court action that they have a legitimate cause to ask that activity X be limited... wouldn't that be an example of the system working correctly?

There are the rights of freedom of assembly, faith and free speech. However these are not unrestricted rights; they exist along with every other citizen's rights (including thier rights to adhere to a different faith and free speech). So if 100 Disciples of the Solar Temple wish to gather at 2 AM on the sidewalk outside my home to chant that it is time to be taken up to the mothership, I (as a minority in this situation) may act to enforce the laws that enforce noise, public nuisance, and tresspass; and in this situation, my rights will probably trump theirs. Am I suppressing them? Am I wrong to enforce my minority rights?

Schooling is a corecive situation... a child is compelled by the state to attend, no matter what the family's faith is. As such, the teaching of, or leading children in the rites of any particular faith is entirely inappropriate in a public school. The same goes for any public service.


The point I'm getting to is, how do you think it feels for a Christian to be told that they can't express themselves towards someone they love even if others don't know or believe in Him?
Actually, it doesn't matter. Really. It doesn't matter what you feel like if you are prohibited from acting in a certain way.

I am not allowed to do many things in public, including expressing the adoration of my wife in public in the biblical sense of knowing. I am also prohibited from telling the world that one religion is inferior to another, and ought to be wiped out, that certain people should be hated, or killed. I am prohibited from following people down the street against their will to tell them how insanely great Macintoshes are. I am prohibited from demonstrating my fantasies in public while in a psychotic or hallucinogenic state. The law forbids these things because they trample other people's rights. It simply does not matter whether I feel frustrated or not by my inability to do these things in public.

My faith can be celebrated in private, in my home, in my temple, by the symbols of faith that I wear or carry: the demonstration of my faith in public however intersects with your rights to your faith, privacy and freedom from harrassment. If I prostletize to you, you must have the ability to tell me to stop. If I prostletize to your children, you must have the ability to tell me to stop. In fact, you must have the state's assurance that you and your children will not be subjected to religious instruction or compelled to undergo religious rites at any governmental function.

[zimv20]

The ACLU never touches any other religions but Christianity so I can only speculate as to their true motives.
consider:
1. it may only be the adherents of christianity pushing their religion into the public sector, or
2. no one has brought a case to the aclu that deals w/ any other religion, or
3. the aclu has taken on such cases, but you haven't heard of them

...before you conclude that the aclu has any kind of religious agenda.

you're not doing any kind of research before reaching your conclusions.

[silverback66]

What do you think of this (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41915) take on the matter?


While that guy clearly has a strong felt faith, it's misdirected and taking the form of angry rhetoric. He has some reasonable ideas but they're negated by his presentation of them. No one but a Christian audience would be receptive to that article.

[zimv20]

silverback, you've brought up both washington and jefferson. do you believe that our constitution was based on christian principles?

[silverback66]

ah, now we're getting somewhere. you disagree w/ the separation of church and state, at least how it's used in the vernacular. by that, i mean that no government institution, nor institution funded by the public, should in any way endorse religion or its practices, explicitly or implicitly. that's a vernacular w/ which i agree.

regarding the wording of the 1st amendment, remember that it's not just the original document and amendments which are the consitution. it's also effectively the decisions of supreme courts on related matters. this is why being a constitutional constructionist is so difficult, logistically and, imo, idealogically.


what exactly do you mean by the 'public square'?

so now that we're into the meat of the matter, i.e. your issue w/ the separation, why the obfuscation? why the attack on the aclu?

I admit I had to look up obfuscate, but I'm glad I did. That is one cool word!

Clearly it appears that the main issue is what was meant by those words. I'm trying to keep up here, so forgive me for being breif on this response, but consider the character and faith of our founding fathers in light of what they wrote and I think it's gives you a clearer idea of what it meant. Also consider the times then versus the times now. There was no secular society then. It's wasn't even a blip on the radar. This is my opinion here, but I think it was pretty well assumed that the nation would continue to be a nation under God.

As for my obfuscating (LOVE THAT WORD!!!) I ceratinly didn't intend too and perhaps I just wasn't clear minded myself on it. With regards to the ACLU, I think they are a meance that rarely does any good for anyone. I mean take the NAMBLA cases and the boyscouts and the town in New Mexico (or was it California?) They're bad for the country and their idea of civil rights has no room for what is morally right. To me, the ACLU symbolizes a select spiteful few that do in fact want to remove all facets of religion from American life.

[silverback66]

I always took those verses to mean you shouldn't pray to impress others with your prayer, such as using large words or something similar just to show you are better. I also believe it is meant to state that praying a memorized verse, that doesn't really come from your heart, is not pleasing to God. So, praying in public isn't bad, but praying so you can become a public display, as you said, is not right.

Quite right. Especially when you consider the breadth of prayer. God would never say, "You want to talk to me? GO TO YOUR CLOSET!!!" You can talk to God anytime anywhere and in virtually anyway. God's great at nonverbal communication! Dang I wish I could explain what I meant but you guys would just think I was nuts hahaha! But yes, Jesus was mainly speaking against the Pharisees in those particular versus and warning believers not to be like them and grand stand with their prayers in order to win public favor. It's something you have to be conscious of when praying in groups. You have to keep your mind on just who it is that you're praying to.

[mactastic]

LOL, sorry, you''ll hate me for this one after what you just said, but George Washinton believed that the belief in God was essential to maitaining morality and decency in any society.
And other FFs said other things. What is the point? Does your argument carry more weight because you whipped out a FF quote? If I find a contradictory one, does that put my argument above yours? Seriously, you're going to have to do better than 'but Washington said...'.

This is too big off an issue to expand off in this direction very far, but I do want to touch on it breifly. If you understood what being a Christian is all about then you'd know that this statement is representative of an unrealistic expectation, "Do whatever you want in your private life, and in your churches." Christianity at it's core is about a relationship with Christ. Imagine if someone told you that you could express your love for your wife at home but it's innappropriate to do so in public. So if you wanted to kiss your wife....sorry, not allowed. You wanted to tell your wife you loved her? Sorry, can't do that either. I'll try to keep this simple and straightforward, but the bible refers to Christians as the bride of Christ which is meant to signify our relationship towards him. shooting back to the other example, what if someone did not know your wife and how wonderful she is and what a wonderful and amazing person she was? Would that change the way you felt about her or your desire to express your love towards her? The point I'm getting to is, how do you think it feels for a Christian to be told that they can't express themselves towards someone they love even if others don't know or believe in Him?Isn't that how the Church treats gays? Ask Lee if he feels like he can express love for a partner in public without the condemnation of religious people.

Besides, you make a specious argument. Nowhere in this country are Christians told they cannot be Christians. No one is saying you can't express yourself toward anyone else in any fashion you want (within reason, of course). You're still talking like an oppressed minority, when you are in fact, in the majority.

[mactastic]

As for my obfuscating (LOVE THAT WORD!!!) I ceratinly didn't intend too and perhaps I just wasn't clear minded myself on it. With regards to the ACLU, I think they are a meance that rarely does any good for anyone. I mean take the NAMBLA cases and the boyscouts and the town in New Mexico (or was it California?) They're bad for the country and their idea of civil rights has no room for what is morally right. To me, the ACLU symbolizes a select spiteful few that do in fact want to remove all facets of religion from American life.
Would you say a KKK member has a right to his hate speech, or not?

[silverback66]

Unclear on what you are saying.
The court system is a presumedly impartial system with checks and balances (laws, judges, juries, right of appeal, etc.). It works equally for both sides of an actions. In the absence of an example where are majority right has been suppressed by a minority through the courts... I don't know what to tell you.

Now if you are saying that a majority wants to do X, and X isn't a right protected by law, or is limited in some way by law, and a minority can demonstrate through a court action that they have a legitimate cause to ask that activity X be limited... wouldn't that be an example of the system working correctly?

There are the rights of freedom of assembly, faith and free speech. However these are not unrestricted rights; they exist along with every other citizen's rights (including thier rights to adhere to a different faith and free speech). So if 100 Disciples of the Solar Temple wish to gather at 2 AM on the sidewalk outside my home to chant that it is time to be taken up to the mothership, I (as a minority in this situation) may act to enforce the laws that enforce noise, public nuisance, and tresspass; and in this situation, my rights will probably trump theirs. Am I suppressing them? Am I wrong to enforce my minority rights?

Schooling is a corecive situation... a child is compelled by the state to attend, no matter what the family's faith is. As such, the teaching of, or leading children in the rites of any particular faith is entirely inappropriate in a public school. The same goes for any public service.

I think the name of the Town was Las Cruces....not sure about the spelling. Anyway, they had a cross on their town seal that reflected the town's historical foundings. I believe they had the oldest church in America. The ACLU said this was a violation of church and state and despite the town overwhelmingly wanting the cross to stay, the ACLU leveraged the court sytem and the knowledge that the town would not be able to afford a lengthy court battle and forced them to remove the cross from the seal despite it's historical roots and the ctizenries overwhelming support for retaining the cross.

Certainly, you have the right to take action against those who infringe on your rights, but where does it stop? I have a problem with seeing gays making out in public, especially when little kids are around....should I sue? I also have a problem with (true story) one of my professors in my class on the Reformation assigning a book about an Italian Lesbian nun that seemingly has no relvance to the topic itself except to promote a gay agenda.....should I sue him too?

If the belief in no god is considered just as valid as the belief in a god then standards of equality must apply.

[silverback66]

consider:
1. it may only be the adherents of christianity pushing their religion into the public sector, or
2. no one has brought a case to the aclu that deals w/ any other religion, or
3. the aclu has taken on such cases, but you haven't heard of them

...before you conclude that the aclu has any kind of religious agenda.

you're not doing any kind of research before reaching your conclusions.

C'mon man cut me a break here. I'm trying to keep up as best I can. I don't have time to research lol. I'm doing my best, honest.

[silverback66]

silverback, you've brought up both washington and jefferson. do you believe that our constitution was based on christian principles?

Absolutley. Mind you, you said principles and not religion and that is the thing I agree with. Though I do have to say, it's more accuratley described and Judeo-Christian Principles since the totality of the said principles is the combination of both the new and old testament.

[CanadaRAM]

I also have a problem with (true story) one of my professors in my class on the Reformation assigning a book about an Italian Lesbian nun that seemingly has no relvance to the topic itself except to promote a gay agenda.....should I sue him too?
Short answer: Yes.

Not sue as in haul into court necessarily, but take the appropriate steps for complaint given the situation. Accountability is part of every position of responsibility. Responsible action is the obligation of every person of conscience; otherwise they are merely called complainers.

Abuse of process is an entirely different debate, and I may well line up alongside you on specific instances. Certainly there are special interest groups who are adept at using publicity, the legal system and the political system to futher their agendas. Some of those are large Christian religious organizations, too.

But an isolated incident does not a conspiracy make. You can always pick out absurd examples to hold up as a straw man.

[zimv20]

I admit I had to look up obfuscate, but I'm glad I did. That is one cool word!
off topic, but you may want to check out the ioccc (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Obfuscated_C_Code_Contest).

consider the times then versus the times now. There was no secular society then.
i don't think that's accurate. besides, you're making the assumption that, just because some framers were christians, that the resultant document reflects christian beliefs or is based on the bible. it's not. the document has a number of influences, as described here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_constitution#International_influences_on_the_development_of_the_Constitution).

[zimv20]

C'mon man cut me a break here. I'm trying to keep up as best I can. I don't have time to research lol. I'm doing my best, honest.
what you're doing is blaming the aclu for the perceived ills and implying that the removal of the aclu will remove what you perceive as a problem. it won't. understand that the aclu takes cases presented to it, cases where a group or individual believes their civil rights are being violated.

your blame is misdirected.

[atszyman]

I always took those verses to mean you shouldn't pray to impress others with your prayer, such as using large words or something similar just to show you are better. I also believe it is meant to state that praying a memorized verse, that doesn't really come from your heart, is not pleasing to God. So, praying in public isn't bad, but praying so you can become a public display, as you said, is not right.

Somewhere in there we agree. I'm not saying that you cannot pray privately in a public setting, however it does admonish making a public spectacle out of prayer (which is one of my biggest problems with going to Church, too much repetition and regurgitation, not enough true inner reflection and peace to talk to God, but that's another topic).

What are public religious displays other than grandstanding to show how much you love your God?

What purpose do these public religious displays serve? Why do people think that they need them?

[Sayhey]

Clearly there's been a great deal of lawsuits over the past few years to remove any elements of faith and religion from the public square. This of course is spearheaded by the ACLU. What I'm wondering is why rather than allowing the full expression of our cultural and spiritual diversity that we allow groups like the ACLU to rape America of the very civil liberties they proclaim to protect? Why is something that brings hope and comfort to millions around the world the subject of attack in America? Do we still have our right to free speech and freedom of expression? Do we truly have the feedom from religious persecution? Who is supressing who here?

Let's see,

1 - No. The ACLU rapes no one. In fact they have spearheaded lawsuits to protect religious liberty.

2 - No. Religion in America is under no serious attack. You'll have to provide a few sources to show where the phantom attack is taking place. Hint: The "Left Behind" Series is not a good reference.

3 - Maybe. It depends on if you disagree with this administration.

4 - Yes.

5 - If any "religious persecution" or "supressing" of people's religious beliefs is taking place it is through the attempt to establish christian fundamentalist religious beliefs as the laws of the land in defiance of the Constitution.

There. I hope I answered your loaded questions.

[silverback66]

And other FFs said other things. What is the point? Does your argument carry more weight because you whipped out a FF quote? If I find a contradictory one, does that put my argument above yours? Seriously, you're going to have to do better than 'but Washington said...'.

Isn't that how the Church treats gays? Ask Lee if he feels like he can express love for a partner in public without the condemnation of religious people.

Besides, you make a specious argument. Nowhere in this country are Christians told they cannot be Christians. No one is saying you can't express yourself toward anyone else in any fashion you want (within reason, of course). You're still talking like an oppressed minority, when you are in fact, in the majority.


With the Washinton remark I was trying to show the character of one of our nations leading figures to shed some light on what was truly meant by the piece in the constitution.

With regards to your comment about the church and gays, let me put it to you this way...do you believe it's possible to hate a certain behavior without hating the person? Let's take it further, if you had a son who did something that you hated, would you hate your son too? We're taught to hate the sin but love the sinner and we're far from perfect at it. Christianity is not an easy thing by any means. I mean do you have any idea how hard it is to go from being a typical college student (which I was two years ago) to trying to control lustful thoughts when you're in a room full of gorgeous girls? IT's tough as all get out! How much harder do you think it must be to try to hate what someone does and still love them? If you ask why do I hate the behavior, that's simple, because God hates it. But you know those "God hates Fags" signs that you see? That's ********....complete and utter hateful ********. God loves those people and His interest isn't in getting them to behave right, it's in drawing them into a relationship with Himself because of how much He loves them. Thats why it makes me so angry when Christians mischaracterize God and propogate this idea that He's some kind of tirant that only cares if you follow the rules. Here's the deal, obeying God's will is ultimatley a response to the love that He's shown you. Jesus said that whoever loves Him would obey His commandments. He gave two.....first, love God and second, love others. Please, if you ever encounter a Christian spewing hate directed at individuals, bring these things to their attention. Rebuke them openly for it, because they're not reflecting God as they ought to. If I go too far with something please bring it to my attention too. Even if you gusy don't believe in God I at least want to be able to give you a better sense of who I know Him to be.

With regards to the last part, all I want is the freedom to express deeply held beliefs and ideas wherever I want. I don't support trampling on other rights by any means and this expression cannot violate other sensible (and I emphasize sensible) laws, but the freedom to read a book or to pray with other like minded people in a public school are rights that are being denied right now. I don't know what the proper term would be, but we are a deiphobic nation and not in a positive way.

[Sayhey]

Since the ACLU is so obviously anti-religious in the view of some, I thought a reference to cases involving religious liberty and the ACLU might be in order.

ACLU's Defense of Religious Liberty (3/2/2005)

The right of each and every American to practice his or her own religion, or no religion at all, is among the most fundamental of the freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. The Constitution's framers understood very well that religious liberty can flourish only if the government leaves religion alone.

The American Civil Liberties Union has a long history of working to ensure that religious liberty is protected. From the famous 1920 Scopes trial-in which the ACLU challenged a Tennessee law prohibiting the teaching of evolution in schools-to the current Ten Commandments case before the Supreme Court, the ACLU remains committed to keeping the government out of the religion business and protecting every American's right to believe as he or she wishes.

Recent ACLU involvement in religious liberty cases include:

September 20, 2005: ACLU of New Jersey joins lawsuit supporting second-grader's right to sing "Awesome God" at a talent show.

August 4, 2005: ACLU helps free a New Mexico street preacher from prison.

May 25, 2005: ACLU sues Wisconsin prison on behalf of a Muslim woman who was forced to remove her headscarf in front of male guards and prisoners.

February 2005: ACLU of Pennsylvania successfully defends the right of an African American Evangelical church to occupy a church building purchased in a predominantly white parish.

December 22, 2004: ACLU of New Jersey successfully defends right of religious expression by jurors.

December 14, 2004: ACLU joins Pennsylvania parents in filing first-ever challenge to "Intelligent Design" instruction in public schools.

November 20, 2004: ACLU of Nevada supports free speech rights of evangelists to preach on the sidewalks of the strip in Las Vegas.

November 12, 2004: ACLU of Georgia files a lawsuit on behalf of parents challenging evolution disclaimers in science textbooks.

November 9, 2004: ACLU of Nevada defends a Mormon student who was suspended after wearing a T-shirt with a religious message to school.

August 11, 2004: ACLU of Nebraska defends church facing eviction by the city of Lincoln.

July 10, 2004: Indiana Civil Liberties Union defends the rights of a Baptist minister to preach his message on public streets.

June 9, 2004: ACLU of Nebraska files a lawsuit on behalf of a Muslim woman barred from a public pool because she refused to wear a swimsuit.

June 3, 2004: Under pressure from the ACLU of Virginia, officials agree not to prohibit baptisms on public property in Falmouth Waterside Park in Stafford County.

May 11, 2004: After ACLU of Michigan intervened on behalf of a Christian Valedictorian, a public high school agrees to stop censoring religious yearbook entries.

March 25, 2004: ACLU of Washington defends an Evangelical minister's right to preach on sidewalks.

February 21, 2003: ACLU of Massachusetts defends students punished for distributing candy canes with religious messages.

October 28, 2002: ACLU of Pennsylvania files discrimination lawsuit over denial of zoning permit for African American Baptist church.

July 11, 2002: ACLU supports right of Iowa students to distribute Christian literature at school.

April 17, 2002: In a victory for the Rev. Jerry Falwell and the ACLU of Virginia, a federal judge strikes down a provision of the Virginia Constitution that bans religious organizations from incorporating.

January 18, 2002: ACLU defends Christian church's right to run "anti-Santa" ads in Boston subways. ACLU (http://www.aclu.org/religion/tencomm/16254res20050302.html)

silverback, try checking your assumptions before swallowing them.

[silverback66]

Would you say a KKK member has a right to his hate speech, or not?

My mind is saying yes, but my heart is saying no. He is afforded that right under the constitution, but it's a grossly immoral thing and I personally wish that we as a country would at the very least bring down a societal hammer of disapproval on groups that engage is rascist speech. Of course the issue then is that people overdo and mis apply it and so the only true way to ensure the rights of the most people is to allow speech regardless of personal opinions on the speech itself.

[mactastic]

With the Washinton remark I was trying to show the character of one of our nations leading figures to shed some light on what was truly meant by the piece in the constitution.

With regards to your comment about the church and gays, let me put it to you this way...do you believe it's possible to hate a certain behavior without hating the person? Let's take it further, if you had a son who did something that you hated, would you hate your son too? We're taught to hate the sin but love the sinner and we're far from perfect at it. Christianity is not an easy thing by any means. I mean do you have any idea how hard it is to go from being a typical college student (which I was two years ago) to trying to control lustful thoughts when you're in a room full of gorgeous girls? IT's tough as all get out! How much harder do you think it must be to try to hate what someone does and still love them? If you ask why do I hate the behavior, that's simple, because God hates it. But you know those "God hates Fags" signs that you see? That's ********....complete and utter hateful ********. God loves those people and His interest isn't in getting them to behave right, it's in drawing them into a relationship with Himself because of how much He loves them. Thats why it makes me so angry when Christians mischaracterize God and propogate this idea that He's some kind of tirant that only cares if you follow the rules. Here's the deal, obeying God's will is ultimatley a response to the love that He's shown you. Jesus said that whoever loves Him would obey His commandments. He gave two.....first, love God and second, love others. Please, if you ever encounter a Christian spewing hate directed at individuals, bring these things to their attention. Rebuke them openly for it, because they're not reflecting God as they ought to. If I go too far with something please bring it to my attention too. Even if you gusy don't believe in God I at least want to be able to give you a better sense of who I know Him to be.

With regards to the last part, all I want is the freedom to express deeply held beliefs and ideas wherever I want. I don't support trampling on other rights by any means and this expression cannot violate other sensible (and I emphasize sensible) laws, but the freedom to read a book or to pray with other like minded people in a public school are rights that are being denied right now. I don't know what the proper term would be, but we are a deiphobic nation and not in a positive way.
Let's not get into the gay debate right now. My point was simply that if religious folks are going to say they don't want the 'gay lifestyle / agenda' forced upon them (which you have said already), don't act all surprised and hurt when others want the same right with regard to your religion.

[silverback66]

Short answer: Yes.

Not sue as in haul into court necessarily, but take the appropriate steps for complaint given the situation. Accountability is part of every position of responsibility. Responsible action is the obligation of every person of conscience; otherwise they are merely called complainers.

Abuse of process is an entirely different debate, and I may well line up alongside you on specific instances. Certainly there are special interest groups who are adept at using publicity, the legal system and the political system to futher their agendas. Some of those are large Christian religious organizations, too.

But an isolated incident does not a conspiracy make. You can always pick out absurd examples to hold up as a straw man.

Well in another class last semester I was going to make a documentary on a matter of faith. The professor openly mocked me and my beliefs and stopped just short of tellign me he'd fail me if I made a "narrowminded" film. Needless to say I made the film anyway and it stood way above the others and he was forced to begrudginly give me an A. Of course you would have never guessed it by the way he continued to mock my beliefs in analyzing the film afterwards and basically telling me I was full of hate.

Then in another class we were having a orundtable discussion about things that are important to us. We each were supposed to get three minutes but roughly 20 seconds in, my teacher cut me off. I started speaking about how my faith is important to me and how it's helped me through some difficult times and to be able to love those around me better. She said that Christians are dangerous and are no better than the radical islamic terrorists.

So, in short, it's not an isolated incident. This IS what the University system is today. I've gone to two different school and encountered this at both. When I mention my faith of God in the classroom it becomes open season on mocking me, belittleing me or accusing me of ridiculous ideas. And frankly, I'm a really sensible easy going guy. I'm not a bible thumping maniac, just trying to sincerely express what it is that I believe and hold close to my heart.

[silverback66]

off topic, but you may want to check out the ioccc (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Obfuscated_C_Code_Contest).


i don't think that's accurate. besides, you're making the assumption that, just because some framers were christians, that the resultant document reflects christian beliefs or is based on the bible. it's not. the document has a number of influences, as described here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_constitution#International_influences_on_the_development_of_the_Constitution).

Hey you can't cite Wikipedia lol. I could go change that nformation right now if I wanted to to anything I wanted. Plus I think it's fair to think that a persons beliefs would dictate how they would go about creating a governing document. Maybe it's just a logic clash here, but it seems ridiculous that it wouldn't come into play. I'm starting to get tired....may start drifitng off soon.

[silverback66]

what you're doing is blaming the aclu for the perceived ills and implying that the removal of the aclu will remove what you perceive as a problem. it won't. understand that the aclu takes cases presented to it, cases where a group or individual believes their civil rights are being violated.

your blame is misdirected.

I think the ACLU is a problem yes, but I don't blame them for all the problems nor do I think their removal would fix the problem. Also, the ACLU doesn't JUST take cases presented to it. They actively go out and offer their services where it would behoove them and their agenda to do so.

[silverback66]

Somewhere in there we agree. I'm not saying that you cannot pray privately in a public setting, however it does admonish making a public spectacle out of prayer (which is one of my biggest problems with going to Church, too much repetition and regurgitation, not enough true inner reflection and peace to talk to God, but that's another topic).

What are public religious displays other than grandstanding to show how much you love your God?

What purpose do these public religious displays serve? Why do people think that they need them?


Try a nondenomination church. It may be just what you're looking for. I got tired of the stuff you described when I first became a Christian too.

With regards to public displays, it's not grandstanding, it's an outward sign of our inward love for God and a reminder of His love for us. People don't NEED the displays, but what harm do they do?

[silverback66]

Let's see,

1 - No. The ACLU rapes no one. In fact they have spearheaded lawsuits to protect religious liberty.

2 - No. Religion in America is under no serious attack. You'll have to provide a few sources to show where the phantom attack is taking place. Hint: The "Left Behind" Series is not a good reference.

3 - Maybe. It depends on if you disagree with this administration.

4 - Yes.

5 - If any "religious persecution" or "supressing" of people's religious beliefs is taking place it is through the attempt to establish christian fundamentalist religious beliefs as the laws of the land in defiance of the Constitution.

There. I hope I answered your loaded questions.

Nah, you just showed your own bias so if you don't mind terribly I'm going to ignore you and move along. Too tired now to deal with people like you.

[Sayhey]

Nah, you just showed your own bias so if you don't mind terribly I'm going to ignore you and move along. Too tired now to deal with people like you.

Not a problem, my bias is always upfront. I also try to check mine for the gaping holes evident in yours.

[silverback66]

Since the ACLU is so obviously anti-religious in the view of some, I thought a reference to cases involving religious liberty and the ACLU might be in order.

ACLU (http://www.aclu.org/religion/tencomm/16254res20050302.html)

silverback, try checking your assumptions before swallowing them.


You got that from their own website for crying out loud! Of course they're going to throw that stuff up there. They receive federal funds. They have t maintain an image of being a neautral organization. If you think that's evidence of the ACLU being a fair minded organization I'm sorry, but you're just plain out of your mind!

I mean you want to play it that way:

http://www.stoptheaclu.com/

There, just read the first paragraph.

Here's another:

http://www.stoptheaclu.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=19&Itemid=31

See how easy it is to pull up random websites that support or refute any given point?

[aquajet]

...So, in short, it's not an isolated incident. This IS what the University system is today. I've gone to two different school and encountered this at both. When I mention my faith of God in the classroom it becomes open season on mocking me, belittleing me or accusing me of ridiculous ideas. And frankly, I'm a really sensible easy going guy. I'm not a bible thumping maniac, just trying to sincerely express what it is that I believe and hold close to my heart.

Which schools did you attend?

[silverback66]

Let's not get into the gay debate right now. My point was simply that if religious folks are going to say they don't want the 'gay lifestyle / agenda' forced upon them (which you have said already), don't act all surprised and hurt when others want the same right with regard to your religion.

One issue I have with it is it's seemingly acceptable to hate christians, but Christians who hate the gay lifestyle (though not the individuals) are labelled. I mean is it okay to say ethnic slurs about jewish people? Is it okay to hate them? Why is it okay to hate christians?

[silverback66]

Not a problem, my bias is always upfront. I also try to check mine for the gaping holes evident in yours.

I said I'm doing my best. I'm not perfect, so if you'll excuse me I'm going to go respond to some sensible people now.

[silverback66]

Which schools did you attend?
I'd rather not specify, but they're both in Colorado...one in the north and one in the south.

And with that, I have to call it a night. I'm exhausted guys. Sorry if I started slipping a bit there. I really was trying my best to reflect my viewpoint, but reading back on the last page I definatley started slipping a bit. Maybe tomorrow we can pick it up again. I've enjoyed it so far. Goodnight guys!

[zimv20]

You got that from their own website for crying out loud! Of course they're going to throw that stuff up there.
it's a list of cases they've taken. are you saying that the aclu did not take those cases? that they're making them up?

They receive federal funds.
source, please.

[leekohler]

I think the name of the Town was Las Cruces....not sure about the spelling. Anyway, they had a cross on their town seal that reflected the town's historical foundings. I believe they had the oldest church in America. The ACLU said this was a violation of church and state and despite the town overwhelmingly wanting the cross to stay, the ACLU leveraged the court sytem and the knowledge that the town would not be able to afford a lengthy court battle and forced them to remove the cross from the seal despite it's historical roots and the ctizenries overwhelming support for retaining the cross.

Certainly, you have the right to take action against those who infringe on your rights, but where does it stop? I have a problem with seeing gays making out in public, especially when little kids are around....should I sue? I also have a problem with (true story) one of my professors in my class on the Reformation assigning a book about an Italian Lesbian nun that seemingly has no relvance to the topic itself except to promote a gay agenda.....should I sue him too?

If the belief in no god is considered just as valid as the belief in a god then standards of equality must apply.

EXCUSE ME! You know what? I don't go out and sue people for preaching on a street corner. Why in the world would you sue someone for making out in public, gay OR straight? Some religious people (obviously including yourself) would like for nothing else than gay people to just disappear. We WON'T. You know what? This is what kills me- I would fight for your right to practice your religion, but you would deny me the simple act of being myself. So- in answer to your question, religion does not belong in politics. Because when it comes down to it, what you're really saying is gays deserve to be shoved in a corner and shunned. You know what else man? I think you're a well-spoken guy. It would be a shame if you couldn't understand that other people deserve the same rights and respect as you.

Furthermore, here is the "gay agenda":

1. The right to decisions regarding our partner's healthcare.
2. The right to not lose our jobs simply because we're gay.
3. The right not to lose our housing simply because we're gay.
4. The right to spousal benefits.
5. The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
6. Inheritance rights.
7. The right to visit our partner in the hospital.

Most of these rights are accorded to religious people, especially with regards to housing and jobs AND they're written into law. Only 11 states make SOME of these available to gay people. Thank God I live in one of them- the great state of Illinois, land of Lincoln.

[Sayhey]

You got that from their own website for crying out loud! Of course they're going to throw that stuff up there. They receive federal funds. They have t maintain an image of being a neautral organization. If you think that's evidence of the ACLU being a fair minded organization I'm sorry, but you're just plain out of your mind!


Of course I did! I labeled it as such. Do you think slandering an organization without looking at what they say or checking out their record is indicative of anything but sloppy, simple-minded, biased research? I suggest you look at the cases cited and find out the ACLU's real record on religious liberty before you make assumptions. Or do you only look for sources to reinforce an existing bias? I'm not the one making sweeping statements about how the ACLU is trying "to rape America of the very civil liberties the proclaim to protect."

[aquajet]

I said I'm doing my best. I'm not perfect, so if you'll excuse me I'm going to go respond to some sensible people now.

He seems perfectly sensible to me. :confused: He cited information on the ACLU's website. Are you suggesting the information was entirely fabricated?

[Ugg]

Clearly there's been a great deal of lawsuits over the past few years to remove any elements of faith and religion from the public square. This of course is spearheaded by the ACLU. What I'm wondering is why rather than allowing the full expression of our cultural and spiritual diversity that we allow groups like the ACLU to rape America of the very civil liberties they proclaim to protect? Why is something that brings hope and comfort to millions around the world the subject of attack in America? Do we still have our right to free speech and freedom of expression? Do we truly have the feedom from religious persecution? Who is supressing who here?

Religion is a highly personal and private form of expression. IMO, excessive and public displays of religious fervor is like seeing someone having sex in public. I've no interest in your faith nor do I wish to see the goverment have anything to do with it. Religious institutions already have tax exempt status in the US and have historically been given a great deal of leeway.

Why do you feel that you are being persecuted and raped by the ACLU? They are representing people like me whose holiday is the solstice not christmas. You have every right to your beliefs but so do I and I am tired of having religion forced down my throat. If that's what you believe, then fine, but I'll be darned if I am going to see my tax dollars go any further in supporting religion in this country. Do what you want, on your own time and with your own money and stop whinging. Your talk of persecution is supposed to make me feel as though I'm Nero and it's so patently ingenuous that it's getting old.

[Ugg]

No, no no, that's not what I was saying. The ACLU never touches any other religions but Christianity so I can only speculate as to their true motives. .


Blanket statements like this don't pass muster here, if you're going to make such an inflammatory statement then you need to back it up with a link to a respected news organization. it's in the rules, ya know.

[silverback66]

EXCUSE ME! You know what? I don't go out and sue people for preaching on a street corner. Why in the world would you sue someone for making out in public, gay OR straight? Some religious people (obviously including yourself) would like for nothing else than gay people to just disappear. We WON'T. You know what? This is what kills me- I would fight for your right to practice your religion, but you would deny me the simple act of being myself. So- in answer to your question, religion does not belong in politics. Because when it comes down to it, what you're really saying is gays deserve to be shoved in a corner and shunned. You know what else man? I think you're a well-spoken guy. It would be a shame if you couldn't understand that other people deserve the same rights and respect as you.

Furthermore, here is the "gay agenda":

1. The right to decisions regarding our partner's healthcare.
2. The right to not lose our jobs simply because we're gay.
3. The right not to lose our housing simply because we're gay.
4. The right to spousal benefits.
5. The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
6. Inheritance rights.
7. The right to visit our partner in the hospital.

Okay, I'm back....but after this I really really want to go to sleep. I can't focus very good right now. I don't have any problem with gays doing whatever they want on a constitutional basis. They have the same rights as everyone else (save for same sex marrige which I believe is in fact between a man and a woman). I disgree with the lifestyle on moral grounds. A man preaching on the corner is not a moral issue. At my last job I worked with two gay guys. One of them was a pretty big jerk, but that's beside the point. the other guy I got along really well with and he was a really nice guy. BUT, if for whatever reason he were to start kissing his "boyfriend" in front of me I would be offended and would leave. What is constitutionally right and morally right are not neccessarily the same thing. I don't believe in moral subjectivism. I think there is a clearly defined right and wrong and for me I find that in what God says. You know, here' the kicker though, I HATE MY OWN SIN AND I SIN DAILY! So who am I to judge what you do? BUT, does me disagreeing with what your lifestyle and thinking it's morally wrong have any bearing on who you are as a person? My impression of you is that you're a good person. I can tell by the way you interact. Some people hate that I'm a Christian, some people hate that you're gay. Everybody hates everybody for something. On the otherhand, everybody is capable of loving somebody for something too. Like I said before, you seem like a good guy...I just don't agree with your lifestyle, but I do acknowledge your constitutional right to live you life that way if you so choose.

[aquajet]

source, please.


Here (http://www.answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=557527) is a thread, albeit not in the same vein as silverback suggests I'm sure.

...I just don't agree with your lifestyle...

It's not a lifestyle, it's an identity.

[leekohler]

Okay, I'm back....but after this I really really want to go to sleep. I can't focus very good right now. I don't have any problem with gays doing whatever they want on a constitutional basis. They have the same rights as everyone else (save for same sex marrige which I believe is in fact between a man and a woman). I disgree with the lifestyle on moral grounds. A man preaching on the corner is not a moral issue. At my last job I worked with two gay guys. One of them was a pretty big jerk, but that's beside the point. the other guy I got along really well with and he was a really nice guy. BUT, if for whatever reason he were to start kissing his "boyfriend" in front of me I would be offended and would leave. What is constitutionally right and morally right are not neccessarily the same thing. I don't believe in moral subjectivism. I think there is a clearly defined right and wrong and for me I find that in what God says. You know, here' the kicker though, I HATE MY OWN SIN AND I SIN DAILY! So who am I to judge what you do? BUT, does me disagreeing with what your lifestyle and thinking it's morally wrong have any bearing on who you are as a person? My impression of you is that you're a good person. I can tell by the way you interact. Some people hate that I'm a Christian, some people hate that you're gay. Everybody hates everybody for something. On the otherhand, everybody is capable of loving somebody for something too. Like I said before, you seem like a good guy...I just don't agree with your lifestyle, but I do acknowledge your constitutional right to live you life that way if you so choose.

You are free to not like what I am anytime. I really don't care. When I have a probem is when you feel the need to make laws against us in the name of religion. I could give a crap what people think of me. It makes no difference. You are absolutely entitled to your opinion. Just leave me to be who I am. BTW- I think a man preaching on a corner is DEFINITELY a moral issue. Especially when he preaches hate against others. Do I sue? No. BTW- thanks for coming into the political forum. It's good to see someone with your point of view here. You are always welcome. We fight a lot, but at the end of the day, we all love each other. And just so you know, the rights I just outlined are NOT available to gays in most states. That is our agenda and what we fight for. It's pretty basic stuff.

[silverback66]

You are free to not like what I am anytime. I really don't care. When I have a probem is when you feel the need to make laws against us in the name of religion. I could give a crap what people think of me. It makes no difference. You are absolutely entitled to your opinion. Just leave me to be who I am. BTW- I think a man preaching on a corner is DEFINITELY a moral issue. Especially when he preaches hate against others. Do I sue? No.


Dang it, why am I still awake! Just to clarify, I don't like what you do. That has nothing to do with who you are (contrary to Batman Begins philosophy). I believe you can't legislate morality thus it is stupid to make laws telling people what they can or can't do in that regard. Legislation is only needed when the situation in question entails potential harm or infringment on individual rights. You living you life the way you want doesn't pose a threat to me, though I do have to say that if I were a father and I were out with my 6 years old son or daughter and were to see you doing something inappropriate with another man I'd be fairly ticked that that was happening in front of my kids. That's me though. On the other hand if a man and a woman were doing something inappropriate in front of my kids I'd also be pretty ticked. I think common decency and morality ought to apply in public and it's wrong to blatantly flaunt sexuality whether hetero or homsexual in front of kids. Despite having the right TO DO things, we should stop and consider whether we OUGHT to do them.

I'm glad to be on the forum here, but I must say, you guys have exhausted me. I feel like Judge Alito here! hahah. I haven't decided who Ted Kennedy is yet though.

[leekohler]

Dang it, why am I still awake! Just to clarify, I don't like what you do. That has nothing to do with who you are (contrary to Batman Begins philosophy). I believe you can't legislate morality thus it is stupid to make laws telling people what they can or can't do in that regard. Legislation is only needed when the situation in question entails potential harm or infringment on individual rights. You living you life the way you want doesn't pose a threat to me, though I do have to say that if I were a father and I were out with my 6 years old son or daughter and were to see you doing something inappropriate with another man I'd be fairly ticked that that was happening in front of my kids. That's me though. On the other hand if a man and a woman were doing something inappropriate in front of my kids I'd also be pretty ticked. I think common decency and morality ought to apply in public and it's wrong to blatantly flaunt sexuality whether hetero or homsexual in front of kids.

I'm glad to be on the forum here, but I must say, you guys have exhausted me. I feel like Judge Alito here! hahah. I haven't decided who Ted Kennedy is yet though.

Ha-ha! You got me on that one man! :) Public displays of affection are always kind of rude! It's like, OK we get that you like each other. :) But both should be treated the same, yes? BTW- nice to spar with you silverback. Come back often. You're a well-spoken, reasonable person to talk to. You're welcome here anytime.

[silverback66]

Ha-ha! You got me on that one man! :) Public displays of affection are always kind of rude! It's like, OK we get that you like each other. :) But both should be treated the same, yes? BTW- nice to spar with you silverback. Come back often. You're a well-spoken, reasonable person to talk to. You're welcome here anytime.


Of course they should be treated the same. I think People are inherantly entitled to a certain degree of respect and dignity.....and yes, that includes the president! haha! I have to say this though...I don't think it's wise for homosexuals to ephasize the sexuality aspect as strongly as they do when seeking equal treatment. Though it is your reason for seeking equal treatment, if you define yourself by it, it's easy for people to lose track of the person behind the preference you know? In fact, I think you'd go a long ways to just say, "these are my rights as a person" rather than "these are my rights as a homosexual." I mean who could argue with human rights? And hopefully I've shown that not all Conservative Christians are psychotic nut jobs that will fed-ex the bible down your throat. For the most part when it comes to sharing my faith I'm like amazon.com. If you ever want to go shopping you can find just about whatever you're looking for but in the meantime I can taunt you all with pictures of enticing products and special sales.....errr....sleep....now.....yeah. Goodnight.

[IJ Reilly]

Good grief, don't any of you people go to MacWorld? ;)

Anyway, with the caveat that I have only skimmed this thread and probably deserve to the trashed to within an inch of my pitiful life for even attempting to join a discussion I haven't fully read...

It seems to me that the Establishment Clause of Constitution was intended to protect religious liberty, the Founders having been full in the knowledge that government-church entanglements lead inevitably to a loss of same. In that respect it's always seemed to me that the particular religious faith(s) of the Founders (or lack thereof) is essentially irrelevant to this debate. Now, in coming up with this language for the Constitution, I don't believe the Founders were thinking about the religious liberties of the majority, these being the liberties which are always protected in a church-state society. They were interested in protecting the religious freedoms of everyone, particularly minorities. They after all are the ones who tend to be persecuted and marginalized.

That's why the argument that Christians are being picked on by the ACLU seems so patently absurd to me. Christianity is the majority religion in the US. No other faith makes its presence more felt in American society, not by a long shot. No followers of any other religion to my knowledge attempt to inject their beliefs into public institutions like Christians do, and by in large, they get away with it (except when someone feels trod upon and hires the ACLU). No national holidays are set aside for any religious group but Christians. By any measure, Christians are the favored religious group in the US.

I have never understood why that isn't enough.

[solvs]

ACLU (http://www.aclu.org/religion/tencomm/16254res20050302.html)
A quick Google search (http://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial_s&hl=en&q=aclu+defends+christians&btnG=Google+Search) also proves just how wrong the assertions are. And the reason Christianity appears to be under attack is because certain people are using it push their agendas down our throats. Not saying what your profs did to you was right, but they do have a right to say how they feel about something, especially in their own classrooms. They should have the responsibility to be open minded, but we don't know the situation, so I don't know what happened. You could have just lodged a complaint, or, I don't know, talked to them and told them how you felt. You are free to do so. We live in a free society, and in a free society you are free to say Merry Christmas, but must be willing to hear Happy Holidays. Sometimes that means getting your feelings hurt, or hearing things you don't like, but sometimes that means the right not to be persecuted for your beliefs. It's a fine line sometimes, and the ACLU has walked on both sides. Who said anything about all or nothing? It should be the gray area it already is. We do protect religion, but we are also protected from it. ;)

And personally, I prefer attempting to live the teachings of Jesus, rather than just talk about them, or force my beliefs on others. Nor should I openly mock others, as you are hurt that your teachers did that to you, yet are quick to do yourself. It bothers me that politicians and the media are using our beliefs against us.

[belvdr]

What are public religious displays other than grandstanding to show how much you love your God?

What purpose do these public religious displays serve? Why do people think that they need them?

Ok, hit the brakes. I was talking solely about personal prayer, not about public religious displays. While on this topic, I think it depends on the church you attend as to whether it gets repititive. Currently, my church isn't repetitive at all.

I think that many displays serve the purpose of outreach to others. That's the only reason I see for them.

[atszyman]

Try a nondenomination church. It may be just what you're looking for. I got tired of the stuff you described when I first became a Christian too.

I would consider it, but my wife is Roman Catholic, and I was baptized and raised Roman Catholic, so when my wife decides we are going to church, the kind of church is already decided. That being said I have noticed some improvements recently that make it a little better. That and our one year old entertains me and allows me to take a breather if she acts up.

With regards to public displays, it's not grandstanding, it's an outward sign of our inward love for God and a reminder of His love for us. People don't NEED the displays, but what harm do they do?

The harm that they do is that they manage to make minority religions feel oppressed and uncomfortable. While I know that there is no right to not be offended in the Constitution it seems absurd to me to want to put religious displays up in the public square.

Churches own property, people own property. If religious displays are put up on the Church property or on people's private property (provided that they meet all of the regulations that are applicable) I have no problem with that. What purpose do the displays serve in the public square that aren't served by having them on private property?

Why is an outward sign of your love for God necessary? Wouldn't it be better to spend the money and time required for these religious displays and donate it to your church's missionary work or help with the poor, or volunteer to help in these aspects?

You say that they are not grandstanding but only and outward sign of people's love of God. Aren't the displays drawing attention to a particular group and basically saying "Hey, look how much we love God?" Isn't this grandstanding?

[pseudobrit]

Clearly there's been a great deal of lawsuits over the past few years to remove any elements of faith and religion from the public square. This of course is spearheaded by the ACLU. What I'm wondering is why rather than allowing the full expression of our cultural and spiritual diversity that we allow groups like the ACLU to rape America of the very civil liberties they proclaim to protect? Why is something that brings hope and comfort to millions around the world the subject of attack in America? Do we still have our right to free speech and freedom of expression? Do we truly have the feedom from religious persecution? Who is supressing who here?

I'm a member of the ACLU and without tearing too much into you, you have not an idea what you're talking about.

The ACLU is one of the most aggressive defenders of individual cultural and spiritual expression in our nation. Which is why they are also one of the most aggressive opponents of government involvement in spiritual expression.

They are highly principled, which leads many to mistake them for being highly unscrupulous. I can understand the confusion. They will defend the Bill of Rights even when it means siding with a creep possessing computer-drawn child pornography or a Ku Klux Klan chapter, and they will help sue to get the baby Jesus out of a town square's holiday decorations or stop organised Christian prayer at football games, but they will also defend a student's right to wear religious iconography or jewellery in school or to wear religious attire.

They do not push for a secular society at all. France has a secular society, and Muslim girls are not allowed to wear the required headwear. The ACLU makes sure this sort of thing never happens in the US, and you should thank them for it.

Or maybe you'd rather go on what you're told instead of checking them out for yourself (aclu.org).

[pseudobrit]

Well in another class last semester I was going to make a documentary on a matter of faith. The professor openly mocked me and my beliefs and stopped just short of tellign me he'd fail me if I made a "narrowminded" film. Needless to say I made the film anyway and it stood way above the others and he was forced to begrudginly give me an A. Of course you would have never guessed it by the way he continued to mock my beliefs in analyzing the film afterwards and basically telling me I was full of hate.

Then in another class we were having a orundtable discussion about things that are important to us. We each were supposed to get three minutes but roughly 20 seconds in, my teacher cut me off. I started speaking about how my faith is important to me and how it's helped me through some difficult times and to be able to love those around me better. She said that Christians are dangerous and are no better than the radical islamic terrorists.

So, in short, it's not an isolated incident. This IS what the University system is today. I've gone to two different school and encountered this at both. When I mention my faith of God in the classroom it becomes open season on mocking me, belittleing me or accusing me of ridiculous ideas. And frankly, I'm a really sensible easy going guy. I'm not a bible thumping maniac, just trying to sincerely express what it is that I believe and hold close to my heart.

I'm sorry that your experiences with college have been negative.

Without knowing the specifics (particularly what the class was and where its focus was supposed to be) it's hard to know for sure, but have you considered that perhaps your professors and classmates resent you for coming into the class with an extracurricular agenda?

I mean, if I was in a Literature class and took every opportunity available to talk about hockey, I'd expect people to get sick of me very quickly and the professor to start giving me hell for distracting the class.

I've had blowhard dickhead instructors as well, and while it's frustrating and defeatist to just "let it slide" it's often best to keep your mouth shut, do what he or she wants and take your grade. Many professors are more interested in getting compliant mediocrity than contrarian brilliance.

That's just the way it is.

[pseudobrit]

The ACLU receives no federal funds. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_Liberties_Union#Funding)

[pseudobrit]

It seems to me that the Establishment Clause of Constitution was intended to protect religious liberty, the Founders having been full in the knowledge that government-church entanglements lead inevitably to a loss of same.

Let's also remember that when they wrote the First Amendment, there were still Inquisitions in progress.

Let's also consider that a great number of Americans left Europe to escape religious persecution. And we're not talking about the government not letting them sing O Holy Night or some petty crap like that, we're talking about the government allowing the majority religion to **** all over them.

That's the heartbeat of the Establishment Clause.

[silverback66]

A quick Google search (http://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial_s&hl=en&q=aclu+defends+christians&btnG=Google+Search) also proves just how wrong the assertions are. And the reason Christianity appears to be under attack is because certain people are using it push their agendas down our throats. Not saying what your profs did to you was right, but they do have a right to say how they feel about something, especially in their own classrooms. They should have the responsibility to be open minded, but we don't know the situation, so I don't know what happened. You could have just lodged a complaint, or, I don't know, talked to them and told them how you felt. You are free to do so. We live in a free society, and in a free society you are free to say Merry Christmas, but must be willing to hear Happy Holidays. Sometimes that means getting your feelings hurt, or hearing things you don't like, but sometimes that means the right not to be persecuted for your beliefs. It's a fine line sometimes, and the ACLU has walked on both sides. Who said anything about all or nothing? It should be the gray area it already is. We do protect religion, but we are also protected from it. ;)

And personally, I prefer attempting to live the teachings of Jesus, rather than just talk about them, or force my beliefs on others. Nor should I openly mock others, as you are hurt that your teachers did that to you, yet are quick to do yourself. It bothers me that politicians and the media are using our beliefs against us.

Where the heck in this thread did I openly mock anyone?! Seriously, I mean you're trying to paint a picture that just doesn't work. If you guys can't even acknowledge that I've been relatively fair-minded throughout this discussion then I may as well leave. I'm sick to death of being accused of doing things I've never done.

[silverback66]

I would consider it, but my wife is Roman Catholic, and I was baptized and raised Roman Catholic, so when my wife decides we are going to church, the kind of church is already decided. That being said I have noticed some improvements recently that make it a little better. That and our one year old entertains me and allows me to take a breather if she acts up.



The harm that they do is that they manage to make minority religions feel oppressed and uncomfortable. While I know that there is no right to not be offended in the Constitution it seems absurd to me to want to put religious displays up in the public square.

Churches own property, people own property. If religious displays are put up on the Church property or on people's private property (provided that they meet all of the regulations that are applicable) I have no problem with that. What purpose do the displays serve in the public square that aren't served by having them on private property?

Why is an outward sign of your love for God necessary? Wouldn't it be better to spend the money and time required for these religious displays and donate it to your church's missionary work or help with the poor, or volunteer to help in these aspects?

You say that they are not grandstanding but only and outward sign of people's love of God. Aren't the displays drawing attention to a particular group and basically saying "Hey, look how much we love God?" Isn't this grandstanding?

I can't explain to you why certin expressions of love towards God are gloryifying to Him and entirely appropriate except to point you to the story of Mary Magdalene when she came in and poured expensive oil on Jesus' feet and wiped it with her hair. One of the disciples (Judas I believe) became angry and chastised her for not selling the oil and giving the money to the poor. Jesus said to leave her alone and that what she had done was a beautiful thing. In light of that, I'll leave it to you to make the connection.

With regards to your church situation, let me just say this, if it's not bringing you a sense of freedom and life then christ isn't in it. It's entirey possible that the traditions that make work for some and perhaps even once worked for you and now tiring and burdensome. If you truly want to experience a genuine faith, speak with your wife and see if she'd be open to attending a non-denominational church with you. Many of them even have services on Saturday nights so you wouldn't be keeping her from going to her preferred church on Sunday morning. Sacrifice a bit for each other and ou may find more than you've ever imagined.

[silverback66]

I'm a member of the ACLU and without tearing too much into you, you have not an idea what you're talking about.

The ACLU is one of the most aggressive defenders of individual cultural and spiritual expression in our nation. Which is why they are also one of the most aggressive opponents of government involvement in spiritual expression.

They are highly principled, which leads many to mistake them for being highly unscrupulous. I can understand the confusion. They will defend the Bill of Rights even when it means siding with a creep possessing computer-drawn child pornography or a Ku Klux Klan chapter, and they will help sue to get the baby Jesus out of a town square's holiday decorations or stop organised Christian prayer at football games, but they will also defend a student's right to wear religious iconography or jewellery in school or to wear religious attire.

They do not push for a secular society at all. France has a secular society, and Muslim girls are not allowed to wear the required headwear. The ACLU makes sure this sort of thing never happens in the US, and you should thank them for it.

Or maybe you'd rather go on what you're told instead of checking them out for yourself (aclu.org).

An organization that takes cases that harm children claiming it's the right thing to do is scum. I'm not even talking about the religious cases they take now. Seriously you ought to be ashamed of being a member of an organization that knowingly hurts kids.

[silverback66]

I'm sorry that your experiences with college have been negative.

Without knowing the specifics (particularly what the class was and where its focus was supposed to be) it's hard to know for sure, but have you considered that perhaps your professors and classmates resent you for coming into the class with an extracurricular agenda?

I mean, if I was in a Literature class and took every opportunity available to talk about hockey, I'd expect people to get sick of me very quickly and the professor to start giving me hell for distracting the class.

I've had blowhard dickhead instructors as well, and while it's frustrating and defeatist to just "let it slide" it's often best to keep your mouth shut, do what he or she wants and take your grade. Many professors are more interested in getting compliant mediocrity than contrarian brilliance.

That's just the way it is.

I don't bow down to that pressure in the classroom nor do I bring it upon myself. The only time I've brought up my faith is when asked to speak on something that was important to me. Conservative Christians are by far the minority on college campuses and I can deal with that. But to silence me because my values are different is just flat our wrong.

[pseudobrit]

An organization that takes cases that harm children claiming it's the right thing to do is scum. I'm not even talking about the religious cases they take now. Seriously you ought to be ashamed of being a member of an organization that knowingly hurts kids.

How does computer-drawn child porn hurt kids?

[mactastic]

Nah, you just showed your own bias so if you don't mind terribly I'm going to ignore you and move along. Too tired now to deal with people like you.
So if you show your bias, should I ignore you? :confused: What the hell is that about?

But not to worry, I like you, I just don't like your lifestyle or your agenda. I'm sure that assuages any concerns you have about people like me towards Christianity, right? I mean, since I only hate what you do, and not who you are, you have nothing to fear from me, right?

Also, I'd note that I've been ridiculed and attacked by my own professors for my progressive views in class. Can I submit that as the 'state of the education system' with no further proof?

Finally, as to the ACLU -- Which is the more likely explanation for the ACLU taking on the cause of Rush Limbaugh's medical privacy? That they have an agenda for a 'secular progressive society' (considering that Rush is one of the biggest opponents of that view), or that they believe so strongly in privacy rights that they would take on the case of someone they completely disagree with (and who has mercilessly attacked the very organization that now helps him)?

If the goal of the ACLU was a 'secular progressive society', wouldn't they have let Limbaugh twist in the wind?

[pseudobrit]

I don't bow down to that pressure in the classroom nor do I bring it upon myself.

To point out the obvious, if you don't bow down to an instructor's pressure, you are bringing it upon yourself.

The only time I've brought up my faith is when asked to speak on something that was important to me. Conservative Christians are by far the minority on college campuses and I can deal with that. But to silence me because my values are different is just flat our wrong.

Christians are the majority on college campuses. You're hardly being silenced, you're being taken to task for pissing off the instructor. Get over it.

That's college. That's life.

Wait until you have a dickhead boss. The real world is going to **** your **** up, dude.

[silverback66]

How does computer-drawn child porn hurt kids?

Well first off that's just plain sick. Second, how about taking a look at the NAMBLA case. In case you don't know that stands for the National Man-Boy Love Association and the ACLU supported them in their bid to legalize sex between grown men and young kids. That's the kind of scum the ACLU supports and you're encouraging this by being a member. So if I were to play the same game that most of you do on here, by association I could say that you essentially support grown men raping young boys. Now how fair of a statement is that? It's not right? So maybe in the future the rest of you will try to be more fair minded and not use your guilt by association games on anything that doesn't line up with your beliefs. I mean you're supposed to be the open minded ones aren't you?

[silverback66]

So if you show your bias, should I ignore you? :confused: What the hell is that about?

But not to worry, I like you, I just don't like your lifestyle or your agenda. I'm sure that assuages any concerns you have about people like me towards Christianity, right? I mean, since I only hate what you do, and not who you are, you have nothing to fear from me, right?

Also, I'd note that I've been ridiculed and attacked by my own professors for my progressive views in class. Can I submit that as the 'state of the education system' with no further proof?

Finally, as to the ACLU -- Which is the more likely explanation for the ACLU taking on the cause of Rush Limbaugh's medical privacy? That they have an agenda for a 'secular progressive society' (considering that Rush is one of the biggest opponents of that view), or that they believe so strongly in privacy rights that they would take on the case of someone they completely disagree with (and who has mercilessly attacked the very organization that now helps him)?

If the goal of the ACLU was a 'secular progressive society', wouldn't they have let Limbaugh twist in the wind?

It's well know that the majority of college campuses are left leaning. I don't think thats in queston here. If your progressive views have no regard for common morality then I'd say it's right for your professor to challenge you on them. If you merely expressed a viewpoint and got hammered for it then the prof's actions were unneccessary.

With regards to the ACLU, look at their whole body of work, not just a select few cases that are supposed to show how "fair" they are. If a person was a child rapist (which essentially is promoted by the ACLU given their case history) but they were great at taking care of the elderly, woud you ignore the fact that they were a child rapist because of the supposedly good things they've done? I mean why are you so eager to defend the ACLU? They hurt kids....isn't that reason enough to oppose them?

[silverback66]

To point out the obvious, if you don't bow down to an instructor's pressure, you are bringing it upon yourself.



Christians are the majority on college campuses. You're hardly being silenced, you're being taken to task for pissing off the instructor. Get over it.

That's college. That's life.

Wait until you have a dickhead boss. The real world is going to **** your **** up, dude.


Okay so someone who doesn't bow to pressure is somehow going to get messed up in the real world? If you think being insulted for expressing a belief is "being taken to task" then you're just an idiot plain and simple. According to your logic the Ku Klux Klan is taking Blacks to task and the Nazi's were taking the Jews to task. Nice man....real nice. It's driven by PURE HATRED.

By the way, I'll thank you not to make weak assumptions about what the world will do to me. You don't even freaking know me so just shut up about it.

[Sayhey]

Well first off that's just plain sick. Second, how about taking a look at the NAMBLA case. In case you don't know that stands for the National Man-Boy Love Association and the ACLU supported them in their bid to legalize sex between grown men and young kids. That's the kind of scum the ACLU supports and you're encouraging this by being a member. So if I were to play the same game that most of you do on here, by association I could say that you essentially support grown men raping young boys. Now how fair of a statement is that? It's not right? So maybe in the future the rest of you will try to be more fair minded and not use your guilt by association games on anything that doesn't line up with your beliefs. I mean you're supposed to be the open minded ones aren't you?

From the ACLU's statement on the NAMBLA case.

ACLU Statement on Defending Free Speech of Unpopular Organizations (8/31/2000)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

NEW YORK--In the United States Supreme Court over the past few years, the American Civil Liberties Union has taken the side of a fundamentalist Christian church, a Santerian church, and the International Society for Krishna Consciousness. In celebrated cases, the ACLU has stood up for everyone from Oliver North to the National Socialist Party. In spite of all that, the ACLU has never advocated Christianity, ritual animal sacrifice, trading arms for hostages or genocide. In representing NAMBLA today, our Massachusetts affiliate does not advocate sexual relationships between adults and children.

What the ACLU does advocate is robust freedom of speech for everyone. The lawsuit involved here, were it to succeed, would strike at the heart of freedom of speech. The case is based on a shocking murder. But the lawsuit says the crime is the responsibility not of those who committed the murder, but of someone who posted vile material on the Internet. The principle is as simple as it is central to true freedom of speech: those who do wrong are responsible for what they do; those who speak about it are not.

It is easy to defend freedom of speech when the message is something many people find at least reasonable. But the defense of freedom of speech is most critical when the message is one most people find repulsive. That was true when the Nazis marched in Skokie. It remains true today.ACLU (http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/protest/11289prs20000831.html)

I know, I know. I've done it again and gone and posted a link to the ACLU's website. Simply can't trust these folks to speak for themselves and express their own reasoning for taking cases. They must all really support child rape. :rolleyes:

Seriously, silverback, while I'm not a member of the ACLU this discussion has pushed me to the brink of joining. Please, checkout something besides rants from folks who would blame everything they believe is wrong in the US on the ACLU. Even you can't be that gullible.

[silverback66]

From the ACLU's statement on the NAMBLA case.

ACLU (http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/protest/11289prs20000831.html)

I know, I know. I've done it again and gone and posted a link to the ACLU's website. Simply can't trust these folks to speak for themselves and express their own reasoning for taking cases. The must all really support child rape. :rolleyes:

Seriously, silverback, while I'm not a member of the ACLU this discussion has pushed me to the brink of joining. Please, checkout something besides rants from folks who would blame everything they believe is wrong in the US on the ACLU. Even you can't be that gullible.


So freedom of speech for an organization like NAMBLA is more important to you than protecting kids? That says it all right there. Why not make it more personal? What if it was your kid? Would you still advocate their free speech rights over your own child's rights? I would hope not but if so you are completly sick.

[Sayhey]

So freedom of speech for an organization like NAMBLA is more important to you than protecting kids? That says it all right there. Why not make it more personal? What if it was your kid? Would you still advocate their free speech rights over your own child's rights? I would hope not but if so you are completly sick.

What is sick is the idea that in order to protect my children (I have two, thank you) I have to take away other's right to freedom of expression. Because I don't want to do so doesn't mean I or the ACLU endorses NAMBLA's agenda. Wake up, silverback, you're sounding more and more illogical and hysterical as the discussion goes on.

[miloblithe]

Silverback,

do you think that those accused of crimes deserve legal representation in court?

[IJ Reilly]

With regards to the ACLU, look at their whole body of work, not just a select few cases that are supposed to show how "fair" they are.

I think "looking at their whole body of work" is what you are being asked to do, but instead you're focusing on one case which you apparently believe discredits everything else the ACLU is doing, or has ever done.

Over the last 15 years or so, it's become an article of faith among conservatives that the ACLU is an arch-enemy -- the epitome of "bad liberalism." They've become a convenient whipping-boy for right-wing enmity. Like the "liberal media," the facts won't ever get in the way of a good political pasting, if only because it gets the troops all riled up.

I don't agree with everything the ACLU has done, but on the other hand, I don't know who else I'd pick up the phone and call if I thought my Constitutional rights had been violated, and I didn't have a lot of money to hire a team of fancy lawyers to represent me. Maybe you know of another organization that has done what the ACLU has over the last 80 years or so in terms of taking up Constitutional cases. I sure don't.

[silverback66]

What is sick is the idea that in order to protect my children (I have two, thank you) I have to take away other's right to freedom of expression. Because I don't want to do so doesn't mean I or the ACLU endorses NAMBLA's agenda. Wake up, silverback, you're sounding more and more illogical and hysterical as the discussion goes on.

Since when is having sex with kids a freedom of expression?! Yes I know I'm sounding hysterical because I'm getting worked up about this. How can any person in their right mind advocate some perverts right to have sex with children over the rights of the kids themselves!?!?! The danger posed to the children clearly is a direct threat to their rights and thus according to the constitution trumps the rights of NAMBLA.

[silverback66]

Silverback,

do you think that those accused of crimes deserve legal representation in court?


Of course but if they're found guilty they deserve punishments that fit the crime....unlike the child rapists who recently received a 60 day sentence. That's not justice. That's a travesty of justice and a mockery of the suffering of the little girl who was his victim.

[miloblithe]

Since when is having sex with kids a freedom of expression?! Yes I know I'm sounding hysterical because I'm getting worked up about this. How can any person in their right mind advocate some perverts right to have sex with children over the rights of the kids themselves!?!?! The danger posed to the children clearly is a direct threat to their rights and thus according to the constitution trumps the rights of NAMBLA.

There's an important distinction here. I don't think many people would argue for the rights of adults to have sex with children, and as I understand it the ACLU certainly didn't argue for this. What many people would agree with is that people who want to have sex with children have the right to _say_ so and to make arguments for why it should be legal. This is what the ACLU was protecting: not the act, but the discussion.

[pseudobrit]

Well first off that's just plain sick. Second, how about taking a look at the NAMBLA case. In case you don't know that stands for the National Man-Boy Love Association and the ACLU supported them in their bid to legalize sex between grown men and young kids.

That's a lie.

That's the kind of scum the ACLU supports and you're encouraging this by being a member. So if I were to play the same game that most of you do on here, by association I could say that you essentially support grown men raping young boys. Now how fair of a statement is that? It's not right? So maybe in the future the rest of you will try to be more fair minded and not use your guilt by association games on anything that doesn't line up with your beliefs.

Maybe in the future you won't base your whole ****ing point on a damned lie.

[pseudobrit]

Since when is having sex with kids a freedom of expression?! Yes I know I'm sounding hysterical because I'm getting worked up about this. How can any person in their right mind advocate some perverts right to have sex with children over the rights of the kids themselves!?!?! The danger posed to the children clearly is a direct threat to their rights and thus according to the constitution trumps the rights of NAMBLA.

The ACLU has not argued that it is legal to have sex with children.

You're hysterical because you don't know what you're talking about.

[miloblithe]

Of course but if they're found guilty they deserve punishments that fit the crime....unlike the child rapists who recently received a 60 day sentence. That's not justice. That's a travesty of justice and a mockery of the suffering of the little girl who was his victim.

Do the lawyers who represented them also deserve punishment for representing the guilty?

As for a 60-day sentence, that sounds terrible. Do you have a link?

[pseudobrit]

Okay so someone who doesn't bow to pressure is somehow going to get messed up in the real world? If you think being insulted for expressing a belief is "being taken to task" then you're just an idiot plain and simple. According to your logic the Ku Klux Klan is taking Blacks to task and the Nazi's were taking the Jews to task. Nice man....real nice. It's driven by PURE HATRED.

By the way, I'll thank you not to make weak assumptions about what the world will do to me. You don't even freaking know me so just shut up about it.

I'm just putting it out there, man. I'm getting the picture, based on what your attitude here is and what you've told us, that you go into class with an attitude and an agenda. That's going to end up rubbing someone the wrong way.

And from that, if you can't take a professor insulting you without getting a full-on martyr complex, you're not going to make it in the real world when you have to deal with a real asshole that also happens to be your boss.

[aquajet]

Since when is having sex with kids a freedom of expression?! Yes I know I'm sounding hysterical because I'm getting worked up about this. How can any person in their right mind advocate some perverts right to have sex with children over the rights of the kids themselves!?!?! The danger posed to the children clearly is a direct threat to their rights and thus according to the constitution trumps the rights of NAMBLA.

In this case, NAMBLA's freedom of expression applies to their advocacy for a change in the law.

Read Seyhey's link to the ACLU's statement on their decision to represent NAMBLA. The ACLU isn't advocating for the rights of adults to have sex with children; they are defending the first amendment rights of NAMBLA members.

[silverback66]

I think "looking at their whole body of work" is what you are being asked to do, but instead you're focusing on one case which you apparently believe discredits everything else the ACLU is doing, or has ever done.

Over the last 15 years or so, it's become an article of faith among conservatives that the ACLU is an arch-enemy -- the epitome of "bad liberalism." They've become a convenient whipping-boy for right-wing enmity. Like the "liberal media," the facts won't ever get in the way of a good political pasting, if only because it gets the troops all riled up.

I don't agree with everything the ACLU has done, but on the other hand, I don't know who else I'd pick up the phone and call if I thought my Constitutional rights had been violated, and I didn't have a lot of money to hire a team of fancy lawyers to represent me. Maybe you know of another organization that has done what the ACLU has over the last 80 years or so in terms of taking up Constitutional cases. I sure don't.


There is another organization but I can't for the life of me remember what it's called right now. I'll get back to you if I can find it. I saw something about it on the news a few weeks back.

With regards to the ACLU, if civil liberties without regards for morailty is empty. That's my issue with the ACLU. I acknowledge they've taken up some good fights but those don't concern me. What concerns me is the shady ones that are so ridiulously immoral that they ought to be ashamed for taking them up in the first place. I mean what ever happened to the liberalism of FDR and Kennedy (Not Ted)? If that's what you gusy were all about now I would proudly be a democrat but the seemingly blantant disregard for morality is just too much to stomach. I mean please explain it to me. It's not the same party it once was and I don't get why you've turned from that. A democrat would be president right now if you had more regard for morality. I mean aside from Iraq, wasn't social issues the biggest issue of the last elections? Isn't that what pushed most middle Americans to vote for President Bush and in the polls didn't they overwhelmingly say that Bush would be better on social issues. Again, I respect your guys rights to your opinions but I have to say they're so far out of touch with what the average American values and believes to be right.

[pseudobrit]

With regards to the ACLU, if civil liberties without regards for morailty is empty.

The foundation of law that our nation derives its structure from (English Common Law) does not give a hoot about morality.

Law strives for perfection and definition. Morality strives for perfection without definition.

[silverback66]

There's an important distinction here. I don't think many people would argue for the rights of adults to have sex with children, and as I understand it the ACLU certainly didn't argue for this. What many people would agree with is that people who want to have sex with children have the right to _say_ so and to make arguments for why it should be legal. This is what the ACLU was protecting: not the act, but the discussion.


And we have the right and responsibility to take such groups and completely and utterly shut them down by whatever means possible. C'mon, this isn't a valid form of expression. This is a gathering of perverts that are a danger to society. Even if we can't legally shut them up we ought to socially and expose it's members in whatever ways we can. If they want to have sex with kids then I want them to be so ashamed that they can't even step outside their front door. Clearly, children's rights is something I'm passionate about and I would gladly deny the rights of NAMBLA if I could for the sake of protecting kids.

[silverback66]

The ACLU has not argued that it is legal to have sex with children.

You're hysterical because you don't know what you're talking about.

They protected an organization that believes that. I mean what regard do you have for morality?

[silverback66]

Do the lawyers who represented them also deserve punishment for representing the guilty?

As for a 60-day sentence, that sounds terrible. Do you have a link?

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/01/10/judge.sexual.assault.ap/?section=cnn_law theres the link.

With regards to the lawyers, no, they don't desrve punishment by the law but for those who take up cases that enable people who are a danger to society they d deserve to be harshly critiscized and treated according to what they do.

[miloblithe]

And we have the right and responsibility to take such groups and completely and utterly shut them down by whatever means possible. C'mon, this isn't a valid form of expression. This is a gathering of perverts that are a danger to society. Even if we can't legally shut them up we ought to socially and expose it's members in whatever ways we can. If they want to have sex with kids then I want them to be so ashamed that they can't even step outside their front door. Clearly, children's rights is something I'm passionate about and I would gladly deny the rights of NAMBLA if I could for the sake of protecting kids.

We do not have the right to silence those who disagree with us. Look up the 1st Amendment. Read it. Read it again.

Exposing members of groups that advocate sex with children is a much better way to go (barring illegal harrasment or physical threats). Advocating against them is great. There's this great group of people who pretend to be children online in chat rooms and lure perverts to come over to their houses expecting sex. They then photograph the person, list who they are on the Internet, and post transcripts of their conversations. There are also law enforcement officers who do similar things (although they have to be much more careful about entrapment, whereas the other group doesn't have to worry about it).

[aquajet]

They protected an organization that believes that. I mean what regard do you have for morality?

The ACLU doesn't exist to defend morality. It exists to defend the Constitution.

[pseudobrit]

They protected an organization that believes that. I mean what regard do you have for morality?

Morality has no place within the law. You need to get this simple truth through your head. Often the two seem to commingle, but it's only because our society bends "morals" to reflect the law.

For instance, smoking a joint is considered immoral, while having a martini is not. The end result is the same -- intoxication -- but the joint is considered more "wrong" because it's illegal.

Do NAMBLA members have any rights?

[miloblithe]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/01/10/judge.sexual.assault.ap/?section=cnn_law theres the link.

Once released, Hulett must undergo treatment and will be under state supervision. If he fails to abide by the terms, he could be sent back to prison for up to 10 years for aggravated sexual assault.

If he serves that time, Hulett would also face a potential life sentence for a second sexual assault count.


So it's not like that was the only punishment.

We could get into a whole other discussion here about _truth_, and your opinions of it...

This is a classic punish/cure debate. It's too bad our system isn't designed to do both effectively and at the same time. This guy sounds like he should be punished AND cured, if possible.

[silverback66]

I'm just putting it out there, man. I'm getting the picture, based on what your attitude here is and what you've told us, that you go into class with an attitude and an agenda. That's going to end up rubbing someone the wrong way.

And from that, if you can't take a professor insulting you without getting a full-on martyr complex, you're not going to make it in the real world when you have to deal with a real asshole that also happens to be your boss.

First off I don't go into class with an agenda. Why is it wrong for me to speak honestly about something I'm passionate about? I don't support proffesors who are bigots reagrdless of whether they lean to th left or to the right. It's wrong. It's immoral. If me expressing my beliefs rubs someone the wrong way, that's their problem.

As for the martyr complex statement....please. I was citing examples because someone said that I couldn't use an isolated incident to back up my point. If you don't see the difference then I don't know what to tell you. Lastly, I wouldn't work for a boss who was a complete jerk. Why would I put up with that? I'm going to allow someone to walk all over me because they're in a higher position. We have choices in life. If you choose to work for a boss who's a jerk, that's your business. I personally wouldn't subject myself to that.

[pseudobrit]

And we have the right and responsibility to take such groups and completely and utterly shut them down by whatever means possible. C'mon, this isn't a valid form of expression. This is a gathering of perverts that are a danger to society. Even if we can't legally shut them up we ought to socially and expose it's members in whatever ways we can. If they want to have sex with kids then I want them to be so ashamed that they can't even step outside their front door. Clearly, children's rights is something I'm passionate about and I would gladly deny the rights of NAMBLA if I could for the sake of protecting kids.

So if someone is guilty of it as thought crime, what rights do they retain? Any? Can we perhaps kill anyone who thinks about having sex with the underage?

[atszyman]

With regards to your church situation, let me just say this, if it's not bringing you a sense of freedom and life then christ isn't in it. It's entirey possible that the traditions that make work for some and perhaps even once worked for you and now tiring and burdensome. If you truly want to experience a genuine faith, speak with your wife and see if she'd be open to attending a non-denominational church with you. Many of them even have services on Saturday nights so you wouldn't be keeping her from going to her preferred church on Sunday morning. Sacrifice a bit for each other and ou may find more than you've ever imagined.

We've already made our compromise. She is aware of how I feel about church, but I make the sacrifice and go with her and my daughter because I love them. My relationship with God is not threatened by me going to church and not enjoying it, it is something I do for my family and was my choice.

I do experience genuine faith in my life, I don't need others to share my exact beliefs, nor do I feel the need to put my faith on display for others.

I have stated that I am not against religious displays provided that they meet the two criteria from an earlier post, of equal access for all religions and no tax money spent on the display/event.

Edit:
We seem to be off in our own little conversation at the moment, if you wish to continue on this line, you can PM me.

[silverback66]

The foundation of law that our nation derives its structure from (English Common Law) does not give a hoot about morality.

Law strives for perfection and definition. Morality strives for perfection without definition.


I don't agree with you, but let me ask this....what role does morality play in your life?

[pseudobrit]

Lastly, I wouldn't work for a boss who was a complete jerk. Why would I put up with that? I'm going to allow someone to walk all over me because they're in a higher position. We have choices in life. If you choose to work for a boss who's a jerk, that's your business. I personally wouldn't subject myself to that.

Wow. I hope your career allows you to freelance.

[silverback66]

We do not have the right to silence those who disagree with us. Look up the 1st Amendment. Read it. Read it again.

Exposing members of groups that advocate sex with children is a much better way to go (barring illegal harrasment or physical threats). Advocating against them is great. There's this great group of people who pretend to be children online in chat rooms and lure perverts to come over to their houses expecting sex. They then photograph the person, list who they are on the Internet, and post transcripts of their conversations. There are also law enforcement officers who do similar things (although they have to be much more careful about entrapment, whereas the other group doesn't have to worry about it).


The members of this group are physically threatening children with sexual abuse. Isn't there something that can be done legally because of malintent? I don't know, I'm just wondering. I mean at the very least would you agree that NAMBLA is a bad organization even if you don't agree with silencing them?

[pseudobrit]

I don't agree with you, but let me ask this....what role does morality play in your life?

Morality guides me in what I do for others. The law guides me in what I do to others.

[silverback66]

The ACLU doesn't exist to defend morality. It exists to defend the Constitution.

So who's job is it to defend morality? To me this is just a line that leads straight towards the idea of moral subjectivism. I've already expressed what I think about that.

[pseudobrit]

The members of this group are physically threatening children with sexual abuse. Isn't there something that can be done legally because of malintent? I don't know, I'm just wondering. I mean at the very least would you agree that NAMBLA is a bad organization even if you don't agree with silencing them?

I don't like them at all. I think what they would like to do is illegal.

But they are not physically threatening anyone. They are talking about it. And they are not breaking the law, so we cannot do anything about them until they do.

[pseudobrit]

So who's job is it to defend morality? To me this is just a line that leads straight towards the idea of moral subjectivism. I've already expressed what I think about that.

Morality doesn't need defending. Morality exists within you and cannot be violated unless you allow it to be.

[fistful]

So what you're saying silverback66 is that there is no distinction between thinking, saying or doing with you, that it's all the same? :confused:


pseudobrit, you can't have morals without religion, sorry but you're out of luck there bud. :rolleyes:

[pseudobrit]

pseudobrit, you can't have morals without religion, sorry but you're out of luck there bud. :rolleyes:

You most certainly can. You don't need a fear of God to tell you what to do.

Ask zim where he gets his morals from.

[silverback66]

Morality has no place within the law. You need to get this simple truth through your head. Often the two seem to commingle, but it's only because our society bends "morals" to reflect the law.

For instance, smoking a joint is considered immoral, while having a martini is not. The end result is the same -- intoxication -- but the joint is considered more "wrong" because it's illegal.

Do NAMBLA members have any rights?


I disagree though clearly given the differences we have with regards to what is immoral it'd be impossible for me to say anything that would add anything to this discussion with regards to why.

I don't think smoking a joint is immoral, but I do think it's illegal and those who do it are stupid. There's a difference. Actually on second thought it is indirectly immoral. The drug runners who bring it up from Mexico control the border towns through intimidation and women are raped and murdrd every year at their crossing points. So it could be argued that those who use the drugs are financially backing those who do immoral things and by association supporting such things is immoral. So the act itself is not immoral, but the results it produces are. Of course you could argue why not make it legal then? that'd solve the problem. I don't believe so because then you invite a whole host of other issues along with it including children becoming high off of second hand smoke in the homes of parents who are addicted. Also, generally speaking, if drugs were cheap and available you'd most likely see more widespread problems with drug abuse.

NAMBLA members have rights as far as they don't infringe on the rights of others or threaten them. Discussing ideas about how to lure children in to have sex with them clearly threatens children's right and as a result that is not aright afforded to NAMBLA.

[silverback66]

So it's not like that was the only punishment.

We could get into a whole other discussion here about _truth_, and your opinions of it...

This is a classic punish/cure debate. It's too bad our system isn't designed to do both effectively and at the same time. This guy sounds like he should be punished AND cured, if possible.

Last I heard, the man was being offered treatment within prison from day one but the judge still refused to reverse his decision saying he didn't believe in punishment. I mean how do you think the little girl and her family must feel about this? I'm disgusted that this is happening.

[aquajet]

pseudobrit, you can't have morals without religion, sorry but you're out of luck there bud. :rolleyes:

That's absurd.

Ahhh....got ya ;)

[silverback66]

So if someone is guilty of it as thought crime, what rights do they retain? Any? Can we perhaps kill anyone who thinks about having sex with the underage?

Nope, we can't delve into 1984 territory, but why should we support their rights socially? Why are you essentially advocating their rights here? If we're speaking strictly on a moral basis, do you support NAMBLA?

[fistful]

You most certainly can. You don't need a fear of God to tell you what to do.

Ask zim where he gets his morals from.

I just want to make sure my sarcasm wasn't lost on you? I can't tell by your response...


I don't know where zim gets his morals from but I found mine written on the side of a box of cereal. :)

[pseudobrit]

I don't think smoking a joint is immoral, but I do think it's illegal and those who do it are stupid. There's a difference. Actually on second thought it is indirectly immoral. The drug runners who bring it up from Mexico control the border towns through intimidation and women are raped and murdrd every year at their crossing points. So it could be argued that those who use the drugs are financially backing those who do immoral things and by association supporting such things is immoral. So the act itself is not immoral, but the results it produces are. Of course you could argue why not make it legal then? that'd solve the problem. I don't believe so because then you invite a whole host of other issues along with it including children becoming high off of second hand smoke in the homes of parents who are addicted. Also, generally speaking, if drugs were cheap and available you'd most likely see more widespread problems with drug abuse.

What if I fill up my tank today and some of that oil came from Iran and that money I buy it with allows them to build a nuclear weapon? Is it immoral to buy fuel?

NAMBLA members have rights as far as they don't infringe on the rights of others or threaten them. Discussing ideas about how to lure children in to have sex with them clearly threatens children's right and as a result that is not aright afforded to NAMBLA.

NAMBLA does not do that. Again, if you would stop basing all your assertions on lies, it would help the discussion along greatly.

[silverback66]

Wow. I hope your career allows you to freelance.


Actually yeah it does. I'm a filmmaker.

[silverback66]

I don't like them at all. I think what they would like to do is illegal.

But they are not physically threatening anyone. They are talking about it. And they are not breaking the law, so we cannot do anything about them until they do.

But don't you have the desire to? I sure do.

[pseudobrit]

Nope, we can't delve into 1984 territory, but why should we support their rights socially? Why are you essentially advocating their rights here? If we're speaking strictly on a moral basis, do you support NAMBLA?

On what moral basis? I don't support their goals at all. In fact, I oppose their goals 100%. Is that "enough" morality for you?

The law dictates that we must support their rights, including the right to freedom of speech. I support the law 100% too, because it is law upon which our society is based.

[miloblithe]

QUOTE=silverback66]Last I heard, the man was being offered treatment within prison from day one but the judge still refused to reverse his decision saying he didn't believe in punishment. I mean how do you think the little girl and her family must feel about this? I'm disgusted that this is happening.[/QUOTE]

Hulett was a friend of the victim's family and frequently stayed in her home. The victim's parents were aware that Hulett had an interest in the girl and that the two, on some occasions, slept in the same bed, court documents said.

How does the little girl and her family feel about this? Terrible. It's awful stuff.

Look, clearly the case is complicated. It involves jurisdiction and regulations and moral decisions. That's right. Moral ones. The judge isn't purely interested in codes (although he has to work within them), but is trying to figure out what's the best solution. I'd like to see a link to the assertions you're making. I don't see them in that article. I do see a lot of information in the article that you seem to be overlooking though.

[pseudobrit]

Actually yeah it does. I'm a filmmaker.

Oh wow. I have a close friend in Hollywood.

I hate to break it to you, but film is perhaps the worst business to get into if you can't tolerate arrogant egotistical blowhards. Politics has less of them.

[silverback66]

What if I fill up my tank today and some of that oil came from Iran and that money I buy it with allows them to build a nuclear weapon? Is it immoral to buy fuel?



NAMBLA does not do that. Again, if you would stop basing all your assertions on lies, it would help the discussion along greatly.


Yeah, in a way it is, but again only indirectly. though you have to consider that it's virtually impossible to tell where your oil is actually coming from so it's more or less a crap shoot on your part and thus can't directly implicate you with any wrong doing even by association. We have Oil in Alaska but environmentalist groups keep us from drilling there. We could reduce our dependance on foreign oil and would be doing a better thing than what we're doing now. We need alternative fuels s soon as possible. That would be the right thign to do.

And that's not a freaking lie! Put it together. National man-boy love association.....you don't think they talk about that stuff?

[silverback66]

QUOTE=silverback66]Last I heard, the man was being offered treatment within prison from day one but the judge still refused to reverse his decision saying he didn't believe in punishment. I mean how do you think the little girl and her family must feel about this? I'm disgusted that this is happening.



How does the little girl and her family feel about this? Terrible. It's awful stuff.

Look, clearly the case is complicated. It involves jurisdiction and regulations and moral decisions. That's right. Moral ones. The judge isn't purely interested in codes (although he has to work within them), but is trying to figure out what's the best solution. I'd like to see a link to the assertions you're making. I don't see them in that article. I do see a lot of information in the article that you seem to be overlooking though.[/QUOTE]


I got my assertions from watching the news. Clearly they didn't give the full sory but ll that the information changes is showing that this girl has awful parents that enabled this man to rape her. She ought to be removed from their custody and placed in protective care.

[pseudobrit]

But don't you have the desire to? I sure do.

Why? They don't break the law and they don't have a chance in Hell of changing the laws, which is their purpose as an organisation. If there comes a time when this changes and their agenda is up for a vote, I will do what I can to ensure that it is voted down.

[aquajet]

Nope, we can't delve into 1984 territory, but why should we support their rights socially? Why are you essentially advocating their rights here? If we're speaking strictly on a moral basis, do you support NAMBLA?

Do you really want to go down that road -- to pick and choose who gets protected under the Constitution based upon your moral criteria? Do you realize how this contradicts the ideals of the country you claim to love so much?

[silverback66]

Oh wow. I have a close friend in Hollywood.

I hate to break it to you, but film is perhaps the worst business to get into if you can't tolerate arrogant egotistical blowhards. Politics has less of them.

Maybe I should have thrown in the word independant before filmmaker. I have no intention of going to Holywood or working with them save for perhaps a distribution deal.

[leekohler]

Of course they should be treated the same. I think People are inherantly entitled to a certain degree of respect and dignity.....and yes, that includes the president! haha! I have to say this though...I don't think it's wise for homosexuals to ephasize the sexuality aspect as strongly as they do when seeking equal treatment. Though it is your reason for seeking equal treatment, if you define yourself by it, it's easy for people to lose track of the person behind the preference you know? In fact, I think you'd go a long ways to just say, "these are my rights as a person" rather than "these are my rights as a homosexual." I mean who could argue with human rights?

Maybe I missed something but, are we being denied rights because we are human beings or because we are gay? How about this statement "These are my rights as a human being AND a homosexual"?

[silverback66]

Do you really want to go down that road -- to pick and choose who gets protected under the Constitution based upon your moral criteria? Do you realize how this contradicts the ideals of the country you claim to love so much?


It's not a matter of who, but what. I think a better society comes from obeying the law and shaping society from within, meaning that if we disagree with a group such as NAMBLA we ought to use social pressure to ensure that they and everyone else knows that it is not something that is accepted or supported in society. I'll hesitanly concede the law and morality connection but I strongly believe that society and morality are entirely linked and pressure ought to be applied where appropriate to shape societal perceptions of what is and is not acceptable accordingly.

[pseudobrit]

Yeah, in a way it is, but again only indirectly.

Ah, so it's indirectly immoral? And how does that stack up?

And that's not a freaking lie! Put it together. National man-boy love association.....you don't think they talk about that stuff?

It is a lie. You're making stuff up because you don't know.

Do you think NORML leadership is just a bunch of stoners talking about the Jamaican redhair they had last week?

[silverback66]

Maybe I missed something but, are we being denied rights because we are human beings or because we are gay? How about this statement "These are my rights as a human being AND a homosexual"?


It's irrelevant because your rights that you're being denied are you rights because you are a human being, not because you're a homosexual. I don't have rights because I'm a heterosexual, I have rights because I'm a human being. It's two seperate fights. One is a matter of socal perception the other is a matter of human rights.

[atszyman]

And that's not a freaking lie! Put it together. National man-boy love association.....you don't think they talk about that stuff?

You don't know what they talk about when they get together. Neither do I, but how do you know that they aren't just talking about how to lobby their legislature to change the laws, or doing group therapy that could be keeping them from acting out their desires?

If you think stopping their rights to free speech is OK then you must also support taking away the rights of anti abortion activists, since they obviously talk about bombing abortion clinics and harming doctors when they get together.

Their agenda may be completely repulsive but they have a right to gather and discuss. However if they commit a crime or it can be proven that they are planning to commit a crime then they can be prosecuted.

[pseudobrit]

It's not a matter of who, but what. I think a better society comes from obeying the law and shaping society from within, meaning that if we disagree with a group such as NAMBLA we ought to use social pressure to ensure that they and everyone else knows that it is not something that is accepted or supported in society. I'll hesitanly concede the law and morality connection but I strongly believe that society and morality are entirely linked and pressure ought to be applied where appropriate to shape societal perceptions of what is and is not acceptable accordingly.

Maybe that's why NAMBLA barely exists anymore: link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nambla#Today)

[silverback66]

Ah, so it's indirectly immoral? And how does that stack up?



It is a lie. You're making stuff up because you don't know.

Do you think NORML leadership is just a bunch of stoners talking about the Jamaican redhair they had last week?


Way to pick and choose. Why not go back and read what I wrote after that too.

[silverback66]

Maybe that's why NAMBLA barely exists anymore: link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nambla#Today)


Good! That's exactly the kind of result we should seek.

[pseudobrit]

Way to pick and choose. Why not go back and read what I wrote after that too.

What? The part where you went way off topic talking about Alaska?

[IJ Reilly]

Maybe that's why NAMBLA barely exists anymore: link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nambla#Today)

It probably almost never did. Had anyone ever heard of this organization before the ACLU took a case in their behalf?

Those of you who have been drawn into a debate about NAMBLA have basically been playing along with a game, in which the rules are made and enforced by others.

[silverback66]

What? The part where you went way off topic talking about Alaska?

For you blind eyes:

"though you have to consider that it's virtually impossible to tell where your oil is actually coming from so it's more or less a crap shoot on your part and thus can't directly implicate you with any wrong doing even by association."

[silverback66]

I'm done for now. I have things to do.

[pseudobrit]

Good! That's exactly the kind of result we should seek.

The thing with NAMBLA is that their goals are in contradiction with a basic cornerstone of our law: consent.

Because they seek to change the law in defiance of this fundamental idea, they are doomed to fail.

The true irony is in your argument to deny them their rights. Your argument is closer in its execution to theirs than you know. You both seek to override a fundament of law to further your own moral ideals.

[pseudobrit]

For you blind eyes:

"though you have to consider that it's virtually impossible to tell where your oil is actually coming from so it's more or less a crap shoot on your part and thus can't directly implicate you with any wrong doing even by association."

Yeah, that's more topic drift. I was trying to steer us into generalities again, before you got me started on ANWR or global oil markets.

'Cause you know the precious "national security" Alaskan oil is shipped and sold directly to Asia, right? And that due to the universal nature of the product and the fluidity of its market that buying any oil is like buying a little bit from everyone (at the rate of production share), right?

[vniow]

I mean do you have any idea how hard it is to go from being a typical college student (which I was two years ago) to trying to control lustful thoughts when you're in a room full of gorgeous girls?


Oh gawd how I wish I was in that situation right now.

[pseudobrit]

Oh gawd how I wish I was in that situation right now.

This is why I sit near the front. Less gorgeous girls in view to distract me and get me all lusty-like.

[zimv20]

I don't know where zim gets his morals from but I found mine written on the side of a box of cereal. :)
me too! my morals have 2% riboflavin.

[zimv20]

It's well know that the majority of college campuses are left leaning.
sb, this is the sort of indefensible statements which will get you in trouble around here. first, i don't even know what it means for a campus to have a political view. however, if you want to make some kind of statement about the collective political views of professors, you better come with some hard data, 'cuz none of us are buying your stereotypes or the arguments based on them.

finally, i think it's quite presumptuous of you to play left-leaning and christianity as opposites. it's misleading and, again, it doesn't help your argument.

[pseudobrit]

me too! my morals have 2% riboflavin.

Being Catholic, I supplement my moral diet with an extremely high fiber breakfast.

BTW, I'm left-leaning and Christian. And I'm much less conflicted than your typical Log Cabin Republican.

[Sayhey]

Since when is having sex with kids a freedom of expression?! Yes I know I'm sounding hysterical because I'm getting worked up about this. How can any person in their right mind advocate some perverts right to have sex with children over the rights of the kids themselves!?!?! The danger posed to the children clearly is a direct threat to their rights and thus according to the constitution trumps the rights of NAMBLA.

I walk away from the computer for an hour or so and I come back to find four new pages of nonsense about who on these boards supports NAMBLA? NO ONE DOES!!! This is, or was supposed to be, a discussion about the rights of people to express ideas. In your case, silverback, it was supposed to be about how the right to express religious ideas was being denied by terrible people like the ... gasp, ACLU. If you have evidence that anyone is really stopping religious expression, other than by stopping its establishment as a preferred form of expression by the state, name it and you will get support. EVEN FROM THE ACLU. But otherwise this is all hysterical ravings about non-existent threats. I'm very close to believing, silverback, you've got to be some wandering troll who loves punching people's buttons just to stir up ....

[skunk]

Again, I respect your guys rights to your opinions but I have to say they're so far out of touch with what the average American values and believes to be right.Apparently, the "average American" believes in the End Days, a literal interpretation of the Bible and that George Bush is a Good Thing. Perhaps it's just as well that there are some dissenters.

[pseudobrit]

Apparently, the "average American" believes in the End Days, a literal interpretation of the Bible and that George Bush is a Good Thing. Perhaps it's just as well that there are some dissenters.

Not to worry, we'll ferret out that rabble soon enough.

[IJ Reilly]

I'm very close to believing, silverback, you've got to be some wandering troll who loves punching people's buttons just to stir up ....

Did it work? ;)

I'm trying to grant our newcomer the benefit of the doubt, and I do believe that nearly everyone who was debating him about the ACLU was thrown off track with the NABMLA thing. The ACLU has also defended the American Nazi Party in court. Does that make them white supremacy advocates? The logic is fundamentally twisted, in both instances.

When conservatives go to such lengths to discredit the ACLU, I wonder if they understand how hostile to civil rights it makes them appear. Is opposition to civil liberties an American conservative value? I'd certainly like to think not.

[IJ Reilly]

Not to worry, we'll ferret out that rabble soon enough.

You certainly don't want any ferrets in your rabble.

[blackfox]

Not having been around too much lately, and unwilling to read all the pages of this thread - I will merely answer the question posed from the title:

My answer is Nothing, if those are the choices to be had.

Personally I have never understood why some people, who may want the government/ public sector out of their lives to a great degree, somehow need it's validation of their beliefs or they cry foul.

Where is the faith (and implied confidence) in what you believe in that?

[aquajet]

When conservatives go to such lengths to discredit the ACLU, I wonder if they understand how hostile to civil rights it makes them appear. Is opposition to civil liberties an American conservative value? I'd certainly like to think not.

No, but it is a fascist value. Real conservatives embrace the ACLU.

[aquajet]

Not having been around too much lately, and unwilling to read all the pages of this thread - I will merely answer the question posed from the title:

Cleary you haven't read this thread...;)

[Sayhey]

Did it work? ;)

I'm trying to grant our newcomer the benefit of the doubt, and I do believe that nearly everyone who was debating him about the ACLU was thrown off track with the NABMLA thing. The ACLU has also defended the American Nazi Party in court. Does that make them white supremacy advocates? The logic is fundamentally twisted, in both instances.

When conservatives go to such lengths to discredit the ACLU, I wonder if they understand how hostile to civil rights it makes them appear. Is opposition to civil liberties an American conservative value? I'd certainly like to think not.

Yes. Most trolling works until people figure out they're being played.

On the ACLU, it is just too wonderful of a strawman for demagogues to use in attempting to whip up the hysteria. The ACLU has been used by such folks on the left as well as the right for their own - less than honest - purposes. I'm just trying to decide if, in this case, silverback is one of the used and abused or a user himself. Obviously, I'm leaning toward the latter.

[leekohler]

It's irrelevant because your rights that you're being denied are you rights because you are a human being, not because you're a homosexual. I don't have rights because I'm a heterosexual, I have rights because I'm a human being. It's two seperate fights. One is a matter of socal perception the other is a matter of human rights.

In one sense, you are correct. However, my friend John was fired because he was gay, not because he was human being. The company got away with it because there was no law to say they couldn't. Religion is one of the first things mentioned in non-discrimination laws. You shouldn't be fired for being a Christian or part of any other religion and legally you can't be. Same should apply to us.

What you're talking about is a perfect world. It's nice in theory, but doesn't happen.

[IJ Reilly]

Yes. Most trolling works until people figure out they're being played.

On the ACLU, it is just too wonderful of a strawman for demagogues to use in attempting to whip up the hysteria. The ACLU has been used by such folks on the left as well as the right for their own - less than honest - purposes. I'm just trying to decide if, in this case, silverback is one of the used and abused or a user himself. Obviously, I'm leaning toward the latter.

I think it's just because, after much nurturing, bashing the ACLU has become an instant hit on the applause meter for conservative commentators. It doesn't have to make sense. No matter where we land in the ideological continuum, I think it behooves all of us to be on the lookout for chain-yanking and button-pushing. We're all prone to responding with twitching knees.

[silverback66]

Come on guys I wouldn't have gone to the trouble of responsiding to so many of the things you wrote if I was simply trolling. I'm actually expressing what I believe and thats fine if you disagree with it, but please, don't label me as a troll for having a diffrent opinion.

[Ugg]

Come on guys I wouldn't have gone to the trouble of responsiding to so many of the things you wrote if I was simply trolling. I'm actually expressing what I believe and thats fine if you disagree with it, but please, don't label me as a troll for having a diffrent opinion.


There's a difference between differing opinions and refusing to accept that the ACLU stands up for everyone. There are enough links to info that quite clearly refute your ill-founded statements. Once again, if you're going to remain here, you need to back up your statements of fact with reliable sources. If you continue to sound off without facts, you will consider to be a troll whether you like it or not.

[miloblithe]

I think this forum needs a concerted effort to not call right-wingers trolls, as misinformed and unwilling to listen as they might be. As long as he plays by the rules (no name calling is one of them, I believe) and provides some links, I think his contributions should be welcomed.

[silverback66]

Id on't consider the ACLU's own website a valid resource. Does that make you wrong? Does that make you a troll? No it means I disagree with you about the organization. There' enough cases on both sides to distort this anyway you want to. If you think they're looking out for everybody, that's your opinion. It doesn't make it fact. I think they're a dangeros organization with glaring inconsistencies. That's my opinion. It doesn't surpirse me that I seem to be the only conservative here. Yo guys don't allow for nor do you want to hear opinions that differ from your own. I started this so I could hear your opinions but mine are somehow less valid than yours. I think that's crap.

[skunk]

Come on guys I wouldn't have gone to the trouble of responsiding to so many of the things you wrote if I was simply trolling. I'm actually expressing what I believe and thats fine if you disagree with it, but please, don't label me as a troll for having a diffrent opinion.I completely agree: a troll would not spend the time answering points like you do. I disagree strongly with many, if not most, of your posted opinions, but I would not accuse you of trolling.

[aquajet]

Id on't consider the ACLU's own website a valid resource. Does that make you wrong? Does that make you a troll? No it means I disagree with you about the organization. There' enough cases on both sides to distort this anyway you want to. If you think they're looking out for everybody, that's your opinion. It doesn't make it fact. I think they're a dangeros organization with glaring inconsistencies. That's my opinion. It doesn't surpirse me that I seem to be the only conservative here. Yo guys don't allow for nor do you want to hear opinions that differ from your own. I started this so I could hear your opinions but mine are somehow less valid than yours. I think that's crap.

Why do you consider the ACLU's website an invalid resource?

And what glaring inconsistencies are you referring to?

[miloblithe]

It's like the line from King of the Hill's Dale Gribble.

"Why listen to what others say about tobacco when you can go straight to the horse's mouth and get the TRUTH from the tabacco companies themselves?"

Generally, one doesn't use as a source the organization being questioned.

Of course, in this case, we can be reasonably sure that they've taken the cases they claim to have taken. Trusting them blindly on qualitative accounts of their performance, on the other hand, should be done from an "objective" third party.

[silverback66]

I consider it invalid because the goal of any organization is to make themselves look good.

With regards to the inconsistencies, this in my opinion and it's in regards to the moral issues they seemingly uphold in one case only to tear down in another.

[aquajet]

Of course, in this case, we can be reasonably sure that they've taken the cases they claim to have taken. Trusting them blindly on qualitative accounts of their performance, on the other hand, should be done from an "objective" third party.

And that's exactly what Seyhey linked to earlier -- a list of cases with a brief abstract, as posted on the ACLU's website. Seems perfectly reasonable to me, but silverback would have nothing of it.

[silverback66]

And that's exactly what Seyhey linked to earlier -- a list of cases with a brief abstract, as posted on the ACLU's website. Seems perfectly reasonable to me, but silverback would have nothing of it.

I don't dispute that they participated in those cases but you don't see them bragging about some of their shadier cases because there's nothing to be proud of there.

[IJ Reilly]

I didn't realize the ACLU "bragged" about any of their cases. Mind pointing one out?

[miloblithe]

And that's exactly what Seyhey linked to earlier -- a list of cases with a brief abstract, as posted on the ACLU's website. Seems perfectly reasonable to me, but silverback would have nothing of it.

Right, I agree, but the proper way to research it would be through LEXIS or something, US court records.

[silverback66]

*sigh* I didn't mean it in that way and I think you know that. They have a list of cases but you don't see their "other" cases anywhere on that list.

[aquajet]

Right, I agree, but the proper way to research it would be through LEXIS or something, US court records.

gotcha

[IJ Reilly]

*sigh* I didn't mean it in that way and I think you know that. They have a list of cases but you don't see their "other" cases anywhere on that list.

I presume you are responding to me.

Honestly, I don't know how you mean it. The point you are trying to make here is difficult for me to grasp.

I think I understand the ACLU's mission. Do I like all of the people they defend? No. Does that mean that their mission is somehow corrupted? Absolutely not. Our system of Constitutional law is meant to protect everyone, even unpopular people with unpopular views. If it does not protect them, then in the end, it does not protect anyone. This is what the ACLU is about.

[aquajet]

*sigh* I didn't mean it in that way and I think you know that. They have a list of cases but you don't see their "other" cases anywhere on that list.

Perhaps you should refrain from the provocative language, to avoid confusion. ;)

Can I ask -- what do you perceive the mission of the ACLU to be?

[silverback66]

You're right...you're right. You know how it is when you get worked up. Sorry about that. :o

with regards to the ACLU I don't doubt that there mission is what they say it is, but it carries with it the potential to deny the majority their rights for tthe sake of giving the minority theirs.

[Sayhey]

Id on't consider the ACLU's own website a valid resource. Does that make you wrong? Does that make you a troll? No it means I disagree with you about the organization. There' enough cases on both sides to distort this anyway you want to. If you think they're looking out for everybody, that's your opinion. It doesn't make it fact. I think they're a dangeros organization with glaring inconsistencies. That's my opinion. It doesn't surpirse me that I seem to be the only conservative here. Yo guys don't allow for nor do you want to hear opinions that differ from your own. I started this so I could hear your opinions but mine are somehow less valid than yours. I think that's crap.

Let's be clear, I don't suspect you of trolling because you question the ACLU's viewpoints. My objection was your use of any association with NAMBLA, no matter how tangential, to taint those who disagree with you as somehow supporting their agenda. It is a tactic that is as low as pond scum. If you're going to engage in these debates here, kindly refrain from using it. It is also an example of what trolls do when they want to jump into forums and try to push everyone's buttons. That is why I raise, legitimately imo, whether you're acting like a troll.

About the ACLU and its website as a resource, I couldn't disagree more with miloblithe. If one is trying to do legitimate research on a topic, one must reference original sources. In this case, that means looking at the writings of the ACLU on its actions and viewpoints about religious liberty. If one stops there then you're being naive, but to leave them out is to be disingenuous. Silverback, as the person who is advancing the notion that the ACLU is "raping" our nation of its rights to religious speech you have a responsibility to deal with their views, as expressed by them, if you are going to be both thorough and honest. Your dismissal of cases listed on their website without looking into their validity only shows the shallow nature of your argument. I don't think you are a troll because of this, only that your argument doesn't stand up to even elementary examination.

[silverback66]

Let's be clear, I don't suspect you of trolling because you question the ACLU's viewpoints. My objection was your use of any association with NAMBLA, no matter how tangential, to taint those who disagree with you as somehow supporting their agenda. It is a tactic that is as low as pond scum. If you're going to engage in these debates here, kindly refrain from using it. It is also an example of what trolls do when they want to jump into forums and try to push everyone's buttons. That is why I raise, legitimately imo, whether you're acting like a troll.

About the ACLU and its website as a resource, I couldn't disagree more with miloblithe. If one is trying to do legitimate research on a topic, one must reference original sources. In this case, that means looking at the writings of the ACLU on its actions and viewpoints about religious liberty. If one stops there then you're being naive, but to leave them out is to be disingenuous. Silverback, as the person who is advancing the notion that the ACLU is "raping" our nation of its rights to religious speech you have a responsibility to deal with their views, as expressed by them, if you are going to be both thorough and honest. Your dismissal of cases listed on their website without looking into their validity only shows the shallow nature of your argument. I don't think you are a troll because of this, only that your argument doesn't stand up to even elementary examination.

Well that's a funy thing to say because when it comes to conservative ideas in other threads that's about 90% of what you see. It doesn't make it right on my part which I apologize for, but really, we can't tolerate a double standard.

About the ACLu, I've already commented on that elsewhere.

[IJ Reilly]

with regards to the ACLU I don't doubt that there mission is what they say it is, but it carries with it the potential to deny the majority their rights for tthe sake of giving the minority theirs.

This is precisely where I lose track of what you are arguing. Majority and minority rights should be the same. If you could, please cite a case where anyone's right were trampled upon by the ACLU.

[silverback66]

Las Cruces New Mexico....or whatever it was called. The people wanted to keep the cross in their town seal but the ACLU came in and told them they couldn't. If it's not stepping on rights then it's political correctness gone insane.

[miloblithe]

About the ACLU and its website as a resource, I couldn't disagree more with miloblithe. If one is trying to do legitimate research on a topic, one must reference original sources.

I didn't mean that you shouldn't reference it at all; I meant that you shouldn't use that as your sole source. You should (say in a book or research paper) verify what an organization claims about itself.

Using the Gribble example again, when writing about the tobacco industry you'd want other sources than just the tabacco industry. You can't seriously be objecting to that.

[Dont Hurt Me]

I wonder what the ACLU has to say about the Muslim stampede going on in Saudi. 400 dead

[miloblithe]

Las Cruces New Mexico....or whatever it was called. The people wanted to keep the cross in their town seal but the ACLU came in and told them they couldn't. If it's not stepping on rights then it's political correctness gone insane.

You're confusing agency here (not to mention committing the pathetic phalicy). The US government told them they could or couldn't keep a cross on their town seal. The ACLU argued that point in a court.

[silverback66]

You're confusing agency here (not to mention committing the pathetic phalicy). The US government told them they could or couldn't keep a cross on their town seal. The ACLU argued that point in a court.

I'm not sure that that's true, but assuming it WAS, why would the ACLU choice t o side against the majority in the town who wanted the cross when they could have sided with them for their right to have it?

[miloblithe]

I'm not sure that that's true, but assuming it WAS, why would the ACLU choice t o side against the majority in the town who wanted the cross when they could have sided with them for their right to have it?

Because the ACLU is decicated to defending the Bill of Rights, which they do by arguing cases in US courts. The US government is then responsible for enforcing the decisions of the courts. The ACLU is not an enforcement agency. Please review:

Bill of Rights
Separation of Powers
Judicial System
Executive Power

[vniow]

I'm not sure that that's true, but assuming it WAS, why would the ACLU choice t o side against the majority in the town who wanted the cross when they could have sided with them for their right to have it?

Because the way this country (well, is supposed to) works is a little like this:

The Constitution is the law of the land, if you don't like it then petition for an amendment. The great thing that its (supposed) to do is protect the rights (there's that word again) of the minority without having those opposed by the majority. If it is found unconstitutional for a religious (meaning one religion) symbol to be in a town seal for example, it doesn't matter wether 10%, 25%, 50%, 51% or even 99% approve of it, if its against the law its against the law. Period.

Its very easy for the group that's in the majority (currently straight white Christian conservative males) in volume or the group which is currently in power to try to pass legislation that supports their rights and their agenda while stomping on others. That's why we have this little thing called checks and balances which is supposed to counteract that.

What part of keeping an oppressive majority from infringing on the rights of the minority(ies) don't you understand?

[zimv20]

I'm not sure that that's true, but assuming it WAS, why would the ACLU choice t o side against the majority in the town who wanted the cross when they could have sided with them for their right to have it?
forget majority and minority. then remember the first amendment -- it is our right to practice the religion of our choosing. it is also our right to be free of the practices of others.

wherever i live in this country, i expect that my governments will not embrace any religion. using symbology counts as embracing a religion, and if the government does that, my rights are violated. christian, buddhist, jewish, whatever, i don't want it. NO ONE has the right to force a religion on me, even if they are in the majority. ESPECIALLY if they are the majority.

you can talk all you want about the majority christian having its rights violated, but what you're actually defending is the perceived right to force its religion on others. IT DOES NOT HAVE THAT RIGHT.

[silverback66]

Well in that case....I can't wait until Alito gets on the Supreme court and starts striking down the ridiculous lawsuits brought by the ACLU and others. And I must say I also look forward to Roe v. Wade being overturned.

[aquajet]

Silverback, I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of the ACLU. The ACLU is not an agency meant to enforce the will of the majority, or the minority for that matter. It exists to protect the Consitutional rights of all citizens, regardless of your personal beliefs.

Your confusion becomes quite evident when you accuse the ACLU of inconsistency, when in fact you are measuring their worth against your own moral criteria. And as I stated earlier, the ACLU is essentially morally-neutral. It doesn't endorse the right-wing religious conservative, or the Neo-Nazi, or the pedophile NAMBLA member. It does protect the Constitutional rights of all said groups, whether you like those groups or not, without affirming their beliefs.

[skunk]

Well in that case....I can't wait until Alito gets on the Supreme court and starts striking down the ridiculous lawsuits brought by the ACLU and others. And I must say I also look forward to Roe v. Wade being overturned.I'm not a citizen of your country, so what would I know, but it seems to me that the ACLU taking a case to law is a matter of testing issues against the standard of your Constitution. It isn't so much an "enforcement" of a particular view as an opportunity to hear an argument. If Alito is confirmed, he will have to participate in those arguments just like anybody else. At that point, the ACLU will have fulfilled its mission, whether or not the judgment stands.

[Sayhey]

I didn't mean that you shouldn't reference it at all; I meant that you shouldn't use that as your sole source. You should (say in a book or research paper) verify what an organization claims about itself.

Using the Gribble example again, when writing about the tobacco industry you'd want other sources than just the tabacco industry. You can't seriously be objecting to that.

No, with your explanation I've no disagreement. I only wanted to point out the importance of not just relying on other's characterizations of someone's argument.

[zimv20]

Well in that case....I can't wait until Alito gets on the Supreme court and starts striking down the ridiculous lawsuits brought by the ACLU and others. And I must say I also look forward to Roe v. Wade being overturned.
ah, so now we come down to it.

what you really want is to assert your christian dogma. on some level, you know that this is unconstitutional and not what the framers wanted. so you attack the institution w/ defends the constitution, the aclu, while disguising yourself as the persecuted minority.

the great irony being, if you really were the persecuted minority, it'd be the aclu jumping to your defense.

i'm not buying into it, and it doesn't seem as though anyone else here is, either.

[IJ Reilly]

Las Cruces New Mexico....or whatever it was called. The people wanted to keep the cross in their town seal but the ACLU came in and told them they couldn't. If it's not stepping on rights then it's political correctness gone insane.

The ACLU doesn't have the power to "tell" anyone anything. They can only take cases which they were called upon to represent. Who was the plaintiff in this case? What are the facts, beyond what you have related? What was the outcome in court?

[Ugg]

Well in that case....I can't wait until Alito gets on the Supreme court and starts striking down the ridiculous lawsuits brought by the ACLU and others. And I must say I also look forward to Roe v. Wade being overturned.

You are continually failing to provide links to back up your claims. What ridiculous lawsuits are you referring to?

RvW is probably not going to be overturned as that is not in the interest of bushco as they are all for restricting states rights not granting them more. Overturning RvW would not mean the cessation of abortion, it would only mean that this country will find itself polarized even further. The states that believe in a woman's right to choose will pass laws affirming this right whereas the states who feel that women are more or less chattel will cancel these rights.

A generall question, could the continued polarization lead to some sort of civil conflict in the US?

[IJ Reilly]

Doing a bit of research, I discover that that the Las Cruces, New Mexico suit was filed Paul F. Weinbaum and Martin J. Boyd. At least as of last month, the ACLU had not become involved with it.

http://www.freenewmexican.com/news/32902.html

http://www.abqtrib.com/albq/op_columnists/article/0,2565,ALBQ_19865_4303112,00.html

In fact, the only places I could find references to the ACLU having anything to do with this lawsuit were on right-wing "news" sites like this one:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47022

[Sayhey]

Well that's a funy thing to say because when it comes to conservative ideas in other threads that's about 90% of what you see. It doesn't make it right on my part which I apologize for, but really, we can't tolerate a double standard.

About the ACLu, I've already commented on that elsewhere.

Ahh, but you still have yet to deal with the argument. You summarily dismiss the cases the ACLU has been involved with in which they have fought for the right to religious expression, because it doesn't fit the facts as you want them to be. When the ACLU comes into a case such as the described in this article (http://www.kvbc.com/Global/story.asp?S=3379553&nav=15MVaB2T) on behalf of religious speech, quite literally in the public square, and wins, you ignore it. Why? because it shows that what your argument is really about is not freedom of expression, religious or otherwise, but rather your wish to allow the majority status of christians in the US to impose laws, expressions, and displays that coincide with certain christian beliefs on others who don't agree, not in the general public discussion of religion, but in the very halls of government where we are supposed to be free of them. In short, your argument isn't with the ACLU and religious expression at all, rather it is with the separation of church and state. Next time start a thread with this as your upfront view and we can discuss it, but stop with the distortions of the truth and the vilification of an organization you obviously know nothing about.

[silverback66]

Come on you guys are all liberals. I knew I wouldn't get a fair shake in discussing this. And now we're going in circles because you're saying I haven't provided evidence when clearly I have. Frankly, I think this has been discussed long enough. You're going to continue to tell me what you think I believe and even if I do tell you what I believe you'll ignore the parts of it that aren't convientient for you and accuse me of something completly different.

One last thing. My issue with liberals is that they don't seem to have much regard for what is morally right. I believe in civil liberties, but I believe in human decency more. Civil liberties is what we believe everyone else owes us. Human decency is what we owe everyone else. I would fully support an organization that defended human deceny, but civil liberties often turns a blind eye to that.

[vniow]

One last thing. My issue with liberals is that they don't seem to have much regard for what is morally right.

That's the difference between you and us it seems. What we believe to be morally right is sometimes different than yours, not to mention other people's. That's why we can't legislate morality so strictly like you would have us do and focus on the freedoms that allow for us all to be a little different.

And I find it a bit insulting that we don't care about morals, of course we bloody do. We do not believe that they come from a higher power or from religion but that certainly doesn't mean we don't have any.

[silverback66]

That's the difference between you and us it seems. What we believe to be morally right is sometimes different than yours, not to mention other people's. That's why we can't legislate morality so strictly like you would have us do and focus on the freedoms that allow for us all to be a little different.

blah....blah....blah....

[vniow]

Troll.

[Ugg]

blah....blah....blah....

Why do you keep coming back? Your responses are pretty lame and your faith will never trump fact.

[zimv20]

Come on you guys are all liberals. I knew I wouldn't get a fair shake in discussing this. And now we're going in circles because you're saying I haven't provided evidence when clearly I have. Frankly, I think this has been discussed long enough. You're going to continue to tell me what you think I believe and even if I do tell you what I believe you'll ignore the parts of it that aren't convientient for you and accuse me of something completly different.

One last thing. My issue with liberals is that they don't seem to have much regard for what is morally right. I believe in civil liberties, but I believe in human decency more. Civil liberties is what we believe everyone else owes us. Human decency is what we owe everyone else. I would fully support an organization that defended human deceny, but civil liberties often turns a blind eye to that.
wow, you've really gone off the rails. interesting how you're painting yourself as being better than everyone else here because of your own definition of 'human decency' (which includes name calling, apparently).

note how such a vague concept will not result in a logical and fact-based discussion. the kind we enjoy here.

also, i'll assert that i, and probably others here, use the constitution and the law of the land as our basis for our support for civil liberties, and don't try to trump it w/ religion, which is NOT the basis for our laws.

[aquajet]

Come on you guys are all liberals. I knew I wouldn't get a fair shake in discussing this. And now we're going in circles because you're saying I haven't provided evidence when clearly I have.

Hey, I resent that! I'm not a liberal! ;)

Silverback, you have gotten quite a fair shake in this discussion, considering we've talked about your personal religious beliefs, the ACLU, into NAMBLA, the queer agenda, back to the ACLU (have I left anything out?). But you have not provided sufficient evidence to support your ridiculous claims regarding the ACLU. The only thing you have succeeded in presenting is your misunderstanding of the ACLU. Sorry. :o

[mactastic]

blah....blah....blah....
:( It's too bad... I liked you up till now. But you make a mockery of what you claim to believe when you act like this. Are you trying to confirm my worst beliefs about what a Christian is?

[silverback66]

:( It's too bad... I liked you up till now. But you make a mockery of what you claim to believe when you act like this. Are you trying to confirm my worst beliefs about what a Christian is?


You've already made up your mind long before I came around. I'll leave you guys to your Bush and Christianity Bashing.

[blackfox]

You've already made up your mind long before I came around. I'll leave you guys to your Bush and Christianity Bashing.

wow.

Acting (and occasionally arguing) like a child has nothing to do with partisan politics.

Grow up.

You may not agree with the positions put up by some on this board, but they (as I am sure part of you realizes) generally well-argued, thoughtful and constructive.

It is up to you to put forth your points in an equally competent fashion, and if you are unable or unwilling to, don't be surprised (or petulant ) that people will call a spade a spade. Again, this has nothing to do with Partisanship.

I have not been around for a while, so you are a new face to these boards to me - I will say I have enjoyed many of your posts - Posts such as the one I have quoted or the "blah...blah...blah" one a few back, however, just make you look like an arse.

I'll await a possible response, but don't expect me to bring any treats for any possible (pity) party.

Hugs and kisses...

[Thomas Veil]

My issue with liberals is that they don't seem to have much regard for what is morally right.* (chokes on his Nesquik) *

Excuse me?????

[IJ Reilly]

And here I thought telling the truth was the "morally right" thing.

You live and learn.

[Sayhey]

You've already made up your mind long before I came around. I'll leave you guys to your Bush and Christianity Bashing.

Fine. We can now get on with our secret liberal, satanic-worshipping rituals involving the promoting of a hidden secular progressive agenda to destroy christianity by forcing everyone into homosexual marriages, and take down the greatest administration this republic has ever known. Glad you ran away; I was worried you had found out the location of our underground lair, guarded by soulless ACLU myrmidons.

Now how did that go ... "blah....blah....blah...." such eloquence!

Sorry, guys, but this stuff just ticks me off. :rolleyes:

[zimv20]

guarded by soulless ACLU myrmidons.

ooh, i learned a new word today!




it's "frowzy".

:-)

[Blue Velvet]

And I must say I also look forward to Roe v. Wade being overturned.

Revealing statement.

To 'look forward' to something like this? Hateful, misogynistic, bile-filled.

I pity you with your 'morals'.

[Sayhey]

ooh, i learned a new word today!




it's "frowzy".

:-)

Great word. I've been smelling that frowzy scent all day. Time for a shower. :o

[OnceUGoMac]

I hate to break it to you, but film is perhaps the worst business to get into if you can't tolerate arrogant egotistical blowhards.

He's right. I'm one of them.;)

[solvs]

Where the heck in this thread did I openly mock anyone?! Seriously, I mean you're trying to paint a picture that just doesn't work. If you guys can't even acknowledge that I've been relatively fair-minded throughout this discussion then I may as well leave. I'm sick to death of being accused of doing things I've never done.
Everything I wrote, and this is what you focus on? Maybe you should re-read the first part. Or not. At this point I can't say I care anymore.

Way to pick and choose. Why not go back and read what I wrote after that too.
Right back atcha'.

blah....blah....blah....
Perhaps I'm psychic. Or maybe I could just see it coming.

That was rude and not very moral of you. Had you better backed up your arguement, you probably wouldn't have been "attacked" by the rest of us as you were. Believe it or not, a conservative and counter arguement is welcome here, so long as it's better supported than "this is my opinion". Your "facts" were debunked, and yet you still base your entire opinion on them. V wrote a very thoughtful post disagreeing with you, as did I, but I believe you owe her an apology.

If you don't, I'm sicking the ACLU on you. :p

[solvs]

Apparently, the "average American" believes in the End Days, a literal interpretation of the Bible and that George Bush is a Good Thing. Perhaps it's just as well that there are some dissenters.
The average voter. ;) The average American doesn't like him. Look at any recent poll.

I do believe the End Of Days is coming... but for some reason I think it's a self fulfilling prophecy.

[OnceUGoMac]

In one sense, you are correct. However, my friend John was fired because he was gay, not because he was human being. The company got away with it because there was no law to say they couldn't. Religion is one of the first things mentioned in non-discrimination laws. You shouldn't be fired for being a Christian or part of any other religion and legally you can't be. Same should apply to us.

What you're talking about is a perfect world. It's nice in theory, but doesn't happen.

I'm not even trying to debate you on this, because I agree with your position. That said, one thing intrigued me. How did the employer know that your friend was gay and what were the terms of the seperation? More specifically, did the employer tell your friend he was fired for being gay? I'm just curious as I've never experienced this.

[katchow]

And here I thought telling the truth was the "morally right" thing.

You live and learn.

not if we're discussing the "moral" right.

[pseudobrit]

One last thing. My issue with liberals is that they don't seem to have much regard for what is morally right. I believe in civil liberties, but I believe in human decency more.

My issue with conservative fundamentalists like you is that you don't believe in law. You don't believe in the Constitution or the Rights of Man. You don't believe in freedom and you don't believe in equality.

You don't even believe in humanity.

All you believe in is a shallow, spiteful hateful God whom you worship by trying to destroy everything beautiful He put on this Earth.

We've tried to argue on the level with you, but you don't want to think. You didn't come here to think.

We've wasted our time trying to get you to see things as they are, and you **** all over us and all over this forum. You don't deserve to understand. You don't deserve that anyone here should ever acknowledge your presence again.

[mactastic]

You've already made up your mind long before I came around. I'll leave you guys to your Bush and Christianity Bashing.
Yeah thanks for the condescending attitude. Very Christ-like.

And I suppose you came in here with an open mind?

See ya. Too bad you couldn't hang.

[aquajet]

Damn...this sure did go to hell right quick :(

[silverback66]

If you guys don't respect my opinion why exactly should I respect yours again? The things I presented aren't a matter of fact, they are a matter of opinion. If I think the immoral cases the ACLU took make it a bad organization who are you to tell me I'm wrong? If I think Roe v. Wade is largley an excuse for people to be sexually irresponsible who are you to tell me I'm wrong? For crying out loud, "Roe" is involved in the anti-abortion movement now! You can throw supposed "facts" around all day long, but what we're talking about here is almst entirely a matter of opinion. As for the condescending attitude....PLEASE....you've poured it on me since the beggining so don't whine when you get a little bit of it back to yourself. And lastly, yeah what I said wasn't very Christ-like, but I'm not perfect, only He is. I get pissed when liberals mock my beliefs and disrespect my opinions and I think justifiably so.

[Sayhey]

You still don't get it.

No one questions your right to your opinions. However, when confronted with facts (yes, facts,) like the ACLU does fight for the right to religious expression and has done so in specified cases, you refused to deal with the facts, but rather hide behind unfounded opinion. If you're going to debate in these forums, that won't fly. You don't have to agree with others, but you can't ignore facts that don't suit you and expect others to listen. Especially when you resort to calling people names and distorting their arguments (remember we all must support NAMBLA because we don't agree with you.)

Your condescending and rude attitude is just the topping on the cake.

[silverback66]

You still don't get it.

No one questions your right to your opinions. However, when confronted with facts (yes, facts,) like the ACLU does fight for the right to religious expression and has done so in specified cases, you refused to deal with the facts, but rather hide behind unfounded opinion. If you're going to debate in these forums, that won't fly. You don't have to agree with others, but you can't ignore facts that don't suit you and expect others to listen. Especially when you resort to calling people names and distorting their arguments (remember we all must support NAMBLA because we don't agree with you.)

Your condescending and rude attitude is just the topping on the cake.


Why do you keep going off on that? I said before that I don't argue that they participated in those cases so why do you keep coming back to that? Are you just ignoring what I actually said or what?

[miloblithe]

When debating an issue, the people involved have to agree to a certain way of communicating that allows people to exchange ideas. Certainly anyone is entitled to their opinion, but someone who isn't interested in the conversation isn't entitled to debate.

[silverback66]

Well clearly in all other threads the rules of civility and debate don't apply.

[leekohler]

blah....blah....blah....

Thanks for the maturity. You just lost me, man.

[aquajet]

If you guys don't respect my opinion why exactly should I respect yours again? The things I presented aren't a matter of fact, they are a matter of opinion. If I think the immoral cases the ACLU took make it a bad organization who are you to tell me I'm wrong? If I think Roe v. Wade is largley an excuse for people to be sexually irresponsible who are you to tell me I'm wrong? For crying out loud, "Roe" is involved in the anti-abortion movement now! You can throw supposed "facts" around all day long, but what we're talking about here is almst entirely a matter of opinion. As for the condescending attitude....PLEASE....you've poured it on me since the beggining so don't whine when you get a little bit of it back to yourself. And lastly, yeah what I said wasn't very Christ-like, but I'm not perfect, only He is. I get pissed when liberals mock my beliefs and disrespect my opinions and I think justifiably so.

Well, I respect your opinion, silverback66. But to be fair, several of your posts seemed to indicate a bit of mockery on your part. Your whole "liberal wig" (that was in another thread I believe?) post was a bit provocative, and will surely draw fire from a few posters.

If I think the immoral cases the ACLU took make it a bad organization who are you to tell me I'm wrong?

That's quite a different statement than what you began with. You began with an accusation that suggested the ACLU was eroding the rights of Christians. That type of statement requires hard facts to back up, which you didn't supply. You are free to believe the ACLU is a bad organization, but be prepared for stiff disagreement in here. Trust me, I know. I've been in your position before -- during the ID discussion, every poster in here was on my back, thoroughly interrogating my perspective on the matter. But I don't take it personally.

As for the condescending attitude....PLEASE....you've poured it on me since the beggining so don't whine when you get a little bit of it back to yourself.

As I've said before, avoid the provocative language, and you can minimize this. But I'll concede -- there are the occasional trolling one-liners. It's best just to use the ignore button in those cases.

[IJ Reilly]

Speaking for myself (though I suspect others will agree), what gets me pissed is when people misrepresent facts. This is what you have done, either willfully or because you choose to believe what like-minded people tell you without checking for yourself. I have to notice that you totally ignored my correction on the ACLU's involvement in the Las Cruses case which you cited as a prime example of the ACLU's nuttiness. Assuming you are only repeating what you heard about this, perhaps you should be more annoyed with those who have spread untruths and misled you than those who have corrected those untruths. If you want your views to be respected in a debate of this kind perhaps that might a better way to accomplish it.

BTW, I know first-hand the feeling of being on the short end of a discussion, so I can certainly appreciate how difficult it can be to keep your fingers from typing things you know you will later regret. On that score, I am sympathetic. But once you decide to take up an argument you need to be able to back it up factually, or admit error and move on. Don't expect respect for your opinions if you can't manage this.

[silverback66]

I know, I'm somewhat of a short tempered guy and usually when I lash out it's because I've seen something that upsets me. I'm a strong believer in promoting strong familes and I absolutley hate it when it seems that forces are at work to undermine that. I've seen too many people hurt by broken families and I know that faith is a unifying force so when it seems to be under attack as well I get angry. I hate to see good people suffer. I utterly and completely hate it.

[silverback66]

Speaking for myself (though I suspect others will agree), what gets me pissed is when people misrepresent facts. This is what you have done, either willfully or because you choose to believe what like-minded people tell you without checking for yourself. I have to notice that you totally ignored my correction on the ACLU's involvement in the Las Cruses case which you cited as a prime example of the ACLU's nuttiness. Assuming you are only repeating what you heard about this, perhaps you should be more annoyed with those who have spread untruths and misled you than those who have corrected those untruths. If you want your views to be respected in a debate of this kind perhaps that might a better way to accomplish it.

BTW, I know first-hand the feeling of being on the short end of a discussion, so I can certainly appreciate how difficult it can be to keep your fingers from typing things you know you will later regret. On that score, I am sympathetic. But once you decide to take up an argument you need to be able to back it up factually, or admit error and move on. Don't expect respect for your opinions if you can't manage this.

The thing is I get my news from the TV and most of the time when I'm on here I'm in the middle of doing something else and I can't take the time to go find the stories that had been reported. I'm merely reguritating what was reported as facts on those cases and if that information turns out to be incomplete or God forbid false then it's hard for me to discern what is true or not. I mean lets face it, we have a biased media and certain reporters will slant something one way and others another. We often don't get the whole truth but merely the facts that reflect a certain point of view.

[miloblithe]

Well that's fair enough. TV has biases and is summary information, which is another problem. But with that in mind I'd think you'd be more open to acknowledging that you might not have your facts straight. Certainly we all have blind spots or believe misinformation. We just have to be willing to accept evidence that contradicts what we misbelieve.

[silverback66]

Well let me officially say then that all of my facts come from TV news reports but the opinions I have based on those facts are my own.

[miloblithe]

OK. Are you willing to change your opinions based on evidence?

[Sayhey]

Why do you keep going off on that? I said before that I don't argue that they participated in those cases so why do you keep coming back to that? Are you just ignoring what I actually said or what?

Because you ignore inconvenient facts. What's does it mean to your argument that the ACLU is trying to undermine religious expression when you are confronted with facts to the contrary? It's not enough to "ok, they participated in those cases" if you don't analyze what that does to your argument. It's not enough to hide behind the "well, that's my opinion" defense." Remember, you started this thread with a series of very provocative assertions. If you do that, people will expect you to back up your ideas with logic and fact. Don't feel persecuted when others expect you to do so.

[silverback66]

OK. Are you willing to change your opinions based on evidence?


Of course if the evidence is strong enough but I still hold the opinion that because of the cases the ACLU has taken that represent clients that are strongly immoral that it reflects very adversly on the organization itself and as as a result I don't believe their perception of civil liberties is beneficial for the country. I for one if I were in fact being persecuted for my faith would not want the ACLU to come to my aide. With regards to the cases where they took up the arguments on behalf of organizations such as NAMBLA, they certainly have the right, but in my mind it is not the right thing to do.

[pseudobrit]

Of course if the evidence is strong enough but I still hold the opinion that because of the cases the ACLU has taken that represent clients that are strongly immoral that it reflects very adversly on the organization itself

Which cases?

(round and round we go, down the rabbit hole)

[IJ Reilly]

The thing is I get my news from the TV and most of the time when I'm on here I'm in the middle of doing something else and I can't take the time to go find the stories that had been reported. I'm merely reguritating what was reported as facts on those cases and if that information turns out to be incomplete or God forbid false then it's hard for me to discern what is true or not. I mean lets face it, we have a biased media and certain reporters will slant something one way and others another. We often don't get the whole truth but merely the facts that reflect a certain point of view.

Which TV network(s) are you watching? The only media sources I could find misrepresenting the Las Cruses lawsuit were deliberately and openly biased to the right. Even a local columnist who obviously has no use for the ACLU said that they weren't involved. So it does no good to talk about biased media if you choose to watch and uncritically believe openly biased media, and when you choose to ignore corrections to the facts once they are presented.

[silverback66]

Which TV network(s) are you watching? The only media sources I could find misrepresenting the Las Cruses lawsuit were deliberately and openly biased to the right. Even a local columnist who obviously has no use for the ACLU said that they weren't involved. So it does no good to talk about biased media if you choose to watch and uncritically believe openly biased media, and when you choose to ignore corrections to the facts once they are presented.


I typically watch ABC and occasionally Fox. I just don't trust MSNBC and CNN. As a bit of a correction, I believe what happened in the Las Cruces case was the ACLU sent a letter to the city council THREATENING a lawsuit if they didn't remove the cross and the city knowing that it would cost a lot of money relented.

[aquajet]

Which cases?

(round and round we go, down the rabbit hole)

In his defense, he did mention the NAMBLA case.

But I do disagree with his assertion that it reflects badly upon the ACLU. It merely defends the organization's Constitutional rights. That's hardly an affirmation of their views.

[IJ Reilly]

I typically watch ABC and occasionally Fox. I just don't trust MSNBC and CNN. As a bit of a correction, I believe what happened in the Las Cruces case was the ACLU sent a letter to the city council THREATENING a lawsuit if they didn't remove the cross and the city knowing that it would cost a lot of money relented.

Find a source and cite it. I researched this myself and found no evidence to support what you are saying.

And I think it might be ABC and/or Fox that you shouldn't trust.

[silverback66]

I'm looking for that source, but in the meantime I did find that other organization I mentioned. It's called the ACLJ which stands for the American Center for Law and Justice.

[pseudobrit]

Run, rabbit, run. Dig that hole, forget the sun. When at last the work is done, don't sit down; it's time to dig another one.

[leekohler]

Well, I respect your opinion, silverback66. But to be fair, several of your posts seemed to indicate a bit of mockery on your part. Your whole "liberal wig" (that was in another thread I believe?) post was a bit provocative, and will surely draw fire from a few posters.



That's quite a different statement than what you began with. You began with an accusation that suggested the ACLU was eroding the rights of Christians. That type of statement requires hard facts to back up, which you didn't supply. You are free to believe the ACLU is a bad organization, but be prepared for stiff disagreement in here. Trust me, I know. I've been in your position before -- during the ID discussion, every poster in here was on my back, thoroughly interrogating my perspective on the matter. But I don't take it personally.

And we still love you, don't we? :)

[pseudobrit]

And we still love you, don't we? :)

He made my Official Enemies List. But I only penciled him in. So there's hope yet.

[skunk]

He made my Official Enemies List. But I only penciled him in. So there's hope yet.Only if you know how to use a rubber...

[silverback66]

Here's a few snippets of stuff, not ll are about the ACLU. I'll keep looking for the Las Cruces thing.

Elizabeth, CO—The American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado and the Anti-Defamation League threatened to sue the Elbert County Charter School unless it removed all references to Christmas in the school's holiday concert, including the song "Jingle Bells." The letter from both groups alleged that "Jewish students no longer feel safe or welcome" at the school. The principal refused to acquiesce, and with the help of the Alliance Defense Fund, the groups backed off.

New York, NY—American Atheists again protested the cross memorial that is on the site of the destroyed World Trade Center. Ellen Johnson, president of the group, called the Ground Zero cross "Christian religious advertisement, and allowing it to stay there is an insult to everyone who doesn't believe in that particular religion."

San Francisco, CA—The Board of Super-visors voted to curtail the free-speech rights of prolife protesters. Previously, before the police could cite demonstrators for harassment, women seeking an abortion had to inform protesters to cease their expression; alternatively, women had to instruct them that they want to be left alone. Under the new law, the onus is on the protesters: they must first get the consent of women seeking an abortion before exercising their free-speech rights. Mayor Willie Brown signed the legislation.

The Catholic League called the ACLU asking what they were going to do about it. The ACLU had no interest in challenging this gag rule.

Annapolis, MD—American Atheists and the Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers filed a complaint with the Chief of Naval Operations and the Secretary of Defense to halt the practice of allowing chaplains to lead a prayer at each weekday lunch for midshipmen.

Pittsburgh, PA—A U.S. District judge ordered a teacher's aide to be allowed to return to work after being suspended without pay by the ARIN Intermediate Unit 28 for refusing to cover up or remove a 1 ¼ inch cross that she wore. The judge wrote that the agency's policy was "overtly averse to religion." Americans United for Separation of Church and State had supported punishing the teacher based on an 1895 anti-Catholic law that prohibits teachers from wearing religious symbols or garb. The law was originally written to stop Catholic priests and nuns from teaching in the public schools.

San Diego, CA—Mount Soledad Park, in a tribute to war veterans, has long been home to a 43-foot cross. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) sued the park to remove the cross. The controversy has gone on since 1991.

Barstow, CA—The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) sued the Mojave National Preserve over the right to keep a large cross on public property. As a tribute to veterans, a large cross was erected in 1934 in the park. A battle has been waging over the cross since 2001.

Chester County, PA—The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed suit against the county, maintaining that a Ten Commandments plaque on the façade of the courthouse is an unconstitutional imposition of religion.

Framingham, MA—Robert Meltzer, a Jewish attorney, filed a lawsuit in federal court seeking to render the practice of putting voting booths in churches unconstitutional. He explained his reaction to voting in a Methodist church: "In order to vote, you basically had to bow before the cross. I was sick for a week." Annie Laurie Gaylor, co-founder of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, agreed with him: "Asking a feminist to vote in a Roman Catholic Church is like asking a black man to vote in a KKK hall."


U.S. Secretary of Education Roderick Paige came under fire by secular extremists for extolling Christian values; his comments were made during an interview with the Baptist Press.

"All things being equal," Secretary Paige said, "I would prefer to have a child in a school that has a strong appreciation for the values of the Christian community, where a child is taught to have a strong faith." He also compared public schools unfavorably to Christian schools because of the latter's emphasis on values. He was criticized by Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the Anti-Defamation League, the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Education Association, the Islamic Networks Group of San Jose and the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network.

The harshest criticism came from Congressman Gary Ackerman of New York, who accused Paige of sponsoring "the Taliban approach to education," and from Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen, who charged Paige with seeking to mainstream the Christian faith into the public school curriculum.

Madison, WI—Madison Metro System printed a picture of Mother Teresa on its April bus pass. Annie Laurie Gaylor, co-founder of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, condemned it as a violation of church and state. A spokeswoman for Metro said Mother Teresa was selected because she made Time magazine's list of the 100 Most Important People of the 20th Century. The May bus pass features a picture of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.; Gaylor did not criticize this selection.



Ahhh here it is....wrong organization on my part. I apologize for the confusion:

Las Cruces, NM—The New Mexico chapter of Americans United for Separation of Church and State sued the city of Las Cruces (which means "the crosses" in Spanish) over its city logo: three crosses in front of a sun burst. They claimed it violated the separation of church and state. The highway department announced the logos would be removed, but Governor Bill Richardson ordered the agency not to remove any of the signs from state roads.


So basically, my contention is that some are interpreting the constitution as freedom from religion when in fact it's freedom of religion. It's the freedom to choose what's best for you and allow others to choose whats best for them. Basically it's a live and let live approach, but certain individuals and organizations think their rights are being violated when others express theirs. I welcome diversity of faith, but I certainly don't support stripping it from society in order not too offend a select few.

[miloblithe]

we usually provide links to sources in this forum.

[silverback66]

I'm not going to go back and find all of that again and provide links. If you think I'm lying about those cases you can look them up for yourself, but there it is exactly what you asked for.

[skunk]

Why do you object to all these questions being tested in court? Some of them seem foolish, others not. Why should they not be debated?

You appear to have a predilection for shooting messengers.