PDA

View Full Version : Is the ACLU anti-Christian?


Jae Onasi
05-17-2007, 09:47 AM
Spinning off from the Falwell thread since I'm uncomfortable discussing it there.

Does the ACLU protect the civil liberties of everyone? Or is it promoting an anti-Christian agenda in a slick package?

True_Avery
05-17-2007, 11:46 AM
This is my opinion. And I personally do not know much about the ACLU, but I'll try with what I found.

Religious liberty: Defends the individual right of Americans of all religions to practice and/or display affirmations of their faith in public, but not on public property with government sponsorship or endorsement.
I fully agree. Freedom of speech and expression should be respected, but should not be forced onto others. Putting a cross on public property is a statement that does not need to be there, and if it -must- be there then it should be surounded by the symbols of a variety of other religions, from the Jewish to the Satanists, in order to be fair. Not everybody believes that Christianity is the absolute, and in the millions of Religions in history there is no proof at all that it is.

Separation of church and state; under this mandate, the ACLU:
* Opposes the government-sponsored display of religious symbols on public property;
* Opposes official prayers, religious ceremonies, and some kinds of "moments of silence" in public schools or schools funded with public money
Again with the cross in public. I am firmly, firmly, against putting prayer and religious ceremonies into public schools. In the hundreds of kids in schools, the chances that parents and students will be offended by a, lets say, purely christian prayer time would be astounding. I, personally, do not even say the pledge because of the line "One nation, under God." But Religion should be taught in schools as a reason of understanding, and I wouldn't be fully against leaning a bit about creationism in science class as long as the teacher stood specifially on what he/she is to teach... science, even though religion can be defined as a form of science itself.

Full freedom of speech and of the press, including school newspapers
Love freedom of speech, but should be exercised with respect.

Reproductive rights, including the right to use contraception and to have an abortion
Very touchy subject. If I, for instance, were to be raped and was made pregnant at the age of 13, I would want an abortion and for that it would need to be legal. Bringing a child into this world is EXTREMELY expensive and difficult and putting that onto a 16 year old who screwed up may seem like a punishment to you, but in reality you are doing nothing but punishing that child with a mother who is in no way ready to take care of it. Some women NEED abortions, even late, to save themselves from death or illness when a baby that is incomplete or seriously screwed up (Missing a brain, vital organs, ect) threatens their very life with it's problems. Now, I am not saying that I love to hang babies on a rope and beat them to death because I hate God and love Satan, but those that believe that abortion is wrong and should be outlawed... chill. Again, it is your belief and religious belief should not ever be allowed to interfere with the Justice/Law system.

Full civil rights for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender people, including government benefits for homosexual couples equal to those provided for heterosexual ones
This subject is very, very, very touchy for me and for very personal reasons I do not feel like sharing with any of you (no offense). Love is Love. I do not care for your opinion if you see it as an illness, or a mental disorder, or a disease. They are people, and people I know and love. Does that mean anybody who is different does not deserve to have the rights of others? Should dwarfs be taken away civil liberties because they were -born- shorter than you? Again, your personal beliefs and such should NOT be allowed to affect the lives of those who are just as much human as you are.

Affirmative action as a means of redressing past discrimination and achieving a racially diverse student body
Discrimination is wrong, and any attempt to lessen it is fine in my book.

The rights of defendants and suspects against unconstitutional police practices
Too often do I see police beating the hell out of someone for no good reason. Too bad they never really go to jail for it anyway.

The decriminalization of drugs such as heroin, cocaine and marijuana
I am pretty sure that means, make them legal. If it does, then I don't agree. I see too many lives ruined by them, and making them legal wont help.

I've also seen a bunch of other stuff that seem to go under rumor and urban legend, but that covers their basics as far as I can tell. Overall, not a bad setup, but I am not exactly sure how far they go for each of their beliefs.

I am not against, in any way, of the voicing of an opinion. But opinion is opinion and great thought should be taken before anything or the sort should be turned into law. If we really wanted the Bible to be our law book, America would have never been created and we would still be ruled by the Catholics in England. Seperation of Church and State happened for reasons, and those reasons are mainly due to the Church and the beliefs of some people taking control over everybody. Will America turn into this? No, probably not. Are we giving the Church a little too much power? Sometimes, yes.

Pretty much all of America has banned Gay Marriage, Abortion, and Health Care is worse than ever. Let this go on a little more and Canada is starting to look really inviting.

This does not look like an anti-christian league bent on destroying all of your beliefs. It looks like an organization that is trying to keep those beliefs where they belong... in your head, and from your mouth, but never inside a law book or on public property.

But this is all my opinion and I respect what you believe.

Achilles
05-17-2007, 11:59 AM
ACLU's Defense of Religious Liberty (http://www.aclu.org/religion/tencomm/16254res20050302.html)
This is the first link that Google spat out after searching for "aclu christian cases". There are more current examples via the links on the right.

The ACLU's mission can be found here (http://www.aclu.org/about/index.html).
This (http://www.aclu.org/about/faqs/index.html#3_3) is from their FAQ, which also links back to this (http://www.aclu.org/religion/index.html) page.

If that's too much clicking, I'll summarize by saying "Yes, the ACLU protects the civil liberties of everyone. The ACLU can only be considered anti-christian if your expectation is that they take christianity's side in every single case, regardless of whether or not that position is the correct one".

I have better examples from my time at EvC. I'll see if I can dig them up later.

SilentScope001
05-17-2007, 12:53 PM
Religious liberty: Defends the individual right of Americans of all religions to practice and/or display affirmations of their faith in public, but not on public property with government sponsorship or endorsement.

Separation of church and state; under this mandate, the ACLU:
* Opposes the government-sponsored display of religious symbols on public property;
* Opposes official prayers, religious ceremonies, and some kinds of "moments of silence" in public schools or schools funded with public money

Okay, somewhat non-conterverisal. Somewhat. Altough I would like churches (or at least, the preachers inside of churches) to partake as lobbying groups and endorse candinates to try and influence governments. Not that I am pro-Religious Right...but because I am a 1st Amendment Defender, and I don't like things that restrict it.


Full freedom of speech and of the press, including school newspapers

Yes! Still, not really that compelling when it realizes, well, uh, you don't have the right for people to listen to you.

Reproductive rights, including the right to use contraception and to have an abortion

...

Fine. It's defintently Pro-Choice. This does knock it a bit away from Jae's position, so it does back her point.

Full civil rights for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender people, including government benefits for homosexual couples equal to those provided for heterosexual ones

Uh.

Jae, you are right. I cannot believe this. All this time, I thought the ACLU concered itself with freedom of speech and getting Churches off Public Property. Not, THIS.

Forget your views on gay marriage or such. I don't care if you consider it a mental illness or if you consider it an expression of great joy. I want you to look at Jae's question...does this promote an agenda that goes against Jae? Well, it can promote any agenda, and it sometimes defend religious people, but it is also against religious people when it wants to as well.

So much for netruality. By the way, I do side with their position, but I don't think I could join their organization.

What is the ACLU's position on affirmative action?
The ACLU supports affirmative action as one of the most effective tools for redressing injustices caused by our nation's historic discrimination against people of color and women.

...Uh. Civil liberties? Civil liberties? This is a Social Justice issue, not a Civil Liberty issue!

And, I'm fine with "reverse discrimination". Still, doesn't sound like it helps civil liberties any.

The rights of defendants and suspects against unconstitutional police practices

Horray!

The decriminalization of drugs such as heroin, cocaine and marijuana

I am pretty sure that means, make them legal. If it does, then I don't agree. I see too many lives ruined by them, and making them legal wont help.

Actually it means decrease the pentalies asociated with the crimes. For example, decrease jail time.

The ACLU is calling for decriminalizing drugs? Bah. Right of happiness isn't inscribed in the Consitution.
===
Overall, um. I wanted to defend the ACLU, to ease Jae's concerns, guess like I can't.

It looks like an organization that wants you to keep your beliefs in your head and in your mouth...except when it doesn't. For example, their beliefs on abortion and gay marriage are beliefs that I think some Americans accept. But they are beliefs, and they want to enforce that belief upon the government, which is totally fine, except they are also preventing religious people from enforcing their beliefs on the government as well.

Some beliefs are fine, but other beliefs are not? What sort of organization can go and censor beliefs at will and violate the 1st Amendment? Looks to be all of them, even the ACLU. Jerry Falwell could be more blatant, but the ACLU is more hypocritical.

/sigh. Listen, if everyone (including me) really wanted civil liberties, they should get out of the USA and form their own nations.

GarfieldJL
05-17-2007, 02:03 PM
Thing of getting Churches off of Public property you've neglected to mention that they had no problems with other Religious symbols being in schools, but they blew a gasket over Christian Religious Symbols being in there with symbols from other Religions. Sorry, but that's Religious Persecution on the part of the ACLU.

Achilles
05-17-2007, 02:13 PM
Which case is this regarding?

GarfieldJL
05-17-2007, 02:29 PM
It would be more than one case:

This one is O'Reilly whom is a news commentator
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,191492,00.html

----------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,165644,00.html

----------------------------------------------------------------
A book
http://www.acluvsamerica.com/about/default.aspx

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rabbi Daniel Lapin believes that "saying Merry Christmas is NOT Offensive" and complains that "We see obsequious regard for faiths like Judaism and even Islam, while Christianity is treated with contempt". [6] Further, Lapin says that "Nationwide, Christmas Nativity scenes are banned from city halls and shopping malls but Chanukah menorahs are permitted. (They are only cultural symbols, not religious, you see.)" and concludes that "Religious Freedom is for Everyone - Not Just Minorities"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Christmas



Took me about 5-10 minutes and I could probably find a lot more.

Prime
05-17-2007, 02:37 PM
Does the ACLU protect the civil liberties of everyone? Or is it promoting an anti-Christian agenda in a slick package?Being on the outside looking in and not to familiar with the organization, I would say that the ACLU has an impossible task. If the Christian "agenda" is to denounce others and advance its views over others, then the ACLU can't really promote that and still protect the rights of others. So I guess the answer is yes to both questions. The same could probably be said if it was any other organization.

Maybe a different question is, does the ACLU strike a good balance for all groups, or does it cater too much to one specific group?

Allronix
05-17-2007, 02:49 PM
Decriminalizing drugs fits in with Amendment 4 against search and seizure. The "War on Drugs" has given police departments excuses to stretch it, if not outright break it in the name of finding and arresting drug users. It also fits in with the Repealment of Prohibition (Amendment 24, if memory serves)

Gay and lesbian marriages, as well as affirmative action, actually fits in with the Declaration of Independence more than the Constitution. ("Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"). Of course, I'd argue that race is probably should be less of a factor than economic class. However, class and race have had a really thorny relationship. The assumption ACLU makes is that gays are not "choosing a lifestyle," but are biologically wired that way. Taking that view, to allow one class to marry and another to not is discrimination by the state. A religion needn't sanction the marriage, but the state hasn't got much reason unless they are endorsing a religion...and see Amendment 1

Abortion and contraception? Well, Roe vs Wade and Griswold v. Connecticut (allowing married folks to use contraception) were ruled on using the 14th amendment. Granted "Right to Privacy" is not explicitly spelled out. However, Amendment 14 and Amendment 10 also establish that a right needn't explicitly be spelled out to be valid.

As for anti-Christian? Well, religious discrimination against non-Christians is still alive and well, I'm afraid. See the examples I gave in the Falwell post, the fight the Wiccan soldier's family had to have to get his faith recognized, and the headache that happened last year when a rabbi requested a menorah be put at Sea Tac airport...which quickly got WAY the heck out of hand.

mimartin
05-17-2007, 03:12 PM
Okay, somewhat non-controversial. Somewhat. Although I would like churches (or at least, the preachers inside of churches) to partake as lobbying groups and endorse candidates to try and influence governments. Not that I am pro-Religious Right...but because I am a 1st Amendment Defender, and I don't like things that restrict it.

They can do that now, but they lose their tax except status for doing it. Which I believe is fair. When I use to go to church I went for the lesson and not to hear the preacher’s political views. I vote the way I vote because of my beliefs and I don’t need a preacher telling me who to vote for. You know who they want you to vote for anyways. If Charles Manson was running against any democrat the preacher would tell you to vote for Charles Manson.

The ACLU is an important origination and they have done some very good things for this country. That said they do tend to go to the extreme way to often. I whole heartedly support the separation of church and state, but more and more they seem to be trying to interfere with our personal religious freedoms. I don’t know if they are purposely anti-Christian, but they step to that side way to often for my taste. Due to that fact I am unable to support them.


So to answer your question Prime as an outsider got it right. I’d say yes to both also.

Maybe a different question is, does the ACLU strike a good balance for all groups, or does it cater too much to one specific group?

I’d have to say no to this question. I don’t know about any one group they cater to, but they do seem to go against Christians a bit often.

GarfieldJL
05-17-2007, 04:06 PM
Decriminalizing drugs fits in with Amendment 4 against search and seizure. The "War on Drugs" has given police departments excuses to stretch it, if not outright break it in the name of finding and arresting drug users. It also fits in with the Repealment of Prohibition (Amendment 24, if memory serves)


Alcohol isn't the same as cocaine, crack, marijuana, opiants, etc. Also catching a drug dealer selling drugs on the street is hardly a violation of the 4th amendment.


Gay and lesbian marriages, as well as affirmative action, actually fits in with the Declaration of Independence more than the Constitution. ("Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"). Of course, I'd argue that race is probably should be less of a factor than economic class. However, class and race have had a really thorny relationship. The assumption ACLU makes is that gays are not "choosing a lifestyle," but are biologically wired that way. Taking that view, to allow one class to marry and another to not is discrimination by the state. A religion needn't sanction the marriage, but the state hasn't got much reason unless they are endorsing a religion...and see Amendment 1


Seriously, they don't have to call it marriage, they could just call it a Civil Union, because by definition marriage is between a man and a woman. If we twist things, then we open the door to polygamy.


Abortion and contraception? Well, Roe vs Wade and Griswold v. Connecticut (allowing married folks to use contraception) were ruled on using the 14th amendment. Granted "Right to Privacy" is not explicitly spelled out. However, Amendment 14 and Amendment 10 also establish that a right needn't explicitly be spelled out to be valid.


So not allowing a state attorney general to find out if someone under the age of consent comes in to have an abortion involves the Right to Privacy. What about statuatory Rape where an adult rapes a minor and then the minor has an abortion.


As for anti-Christian? Well, religious discrimination against non-Christians is still alive and well, I'm afraid. See the examples I gave in the Falwell post, the fight the Wiccan soldier's family had to have to get his faith recognized, and the headache that happened last year when a rabbi requested a menorah be put at Sea Tac airport...which quickly got WAY the heck out of hand.

Thing is the ACLU is a bunch of hypocrits. As I've pointed out where religious symbols for Islam and Judaism is allowed in public schools but not Christian ones, that's due to the ACLU and that's a violation of the 1st Amendment.

Furthermore, the ACLU routinely gets involved in politics and they are tax-exempt. Seems to me they should lose their tax-exempt status.

SilentScope001
05-17-2007, 04:36 PM
They can do that now, but they lose their tax except status for doing it. Which I believe is fair. When I use to go to church I went for the lesson and not to hear the preacher’s political views. I vote the way I vote because of my beliefs and I don’t need a preacher telling me who to vote for. You know who they want you to vote for anyways. If Charles Manson was running against any democrat the preacher would tell you to vote for Charles Manson.

You do have the right to not listen to the Preacher's stupid calls to vote for Charles Manson. It's not as if your Church is saying, "You must vote for Charles Manson OR ELSE", maybe only just your preacher, and your preacher should have the right to speak whatever he wants. Freedom of speech, you know. Prehaps the Preachers should have the right to say whatever they want, but the actual Church itself should not endorse any candinates, thereby keeping the Church out of politics, while keeping human beings inside of politics.

Sometimes, political views are tied into the life's lessons. I really don't want churches to turn into political rallies, but it could happen, and if people want it to happen, so be it. It's their right.

Thing is the ACLU is a bunch of hypocrits. As I've pointed out where religious symbols for Islam and Judaism is allowed in public schools but not Christian ones, that's due to the ACLU and that's a violation of the 1st Amendment.

I don't see any religious symbols for Islam and Judaism anywhere. Though if you are talking of religious expression, it seems the ACLU defends all forms of it, wearing crosses or head-dresses.

I think we need a new organization. I don't want the ACLU to be bogged down worrying about these sort of murky issues like abortion and marriage and legal drugs, or whatever. I think what we need instead is a new organization, prehaps some sort of "First Amendment Supporters", where its main goal is to defend that organization's broad interpertion of the 1st Amendment...NO MATTER WHAT. And that is all it's going to do, no comments on anything that does not concern the 1st Amendment.

Protests? Okay. Preachers (not the Church itself) endorsing politicans? Sure. Governments endorsing religion? No way! Basically, focus on defending the issues that matter rather than all these other...er...issues. Maybe this new organization might be better suited for promoting civil liberties than the ACLU. I don't know.

mimartin
05-17-2007, 05:16 PM
your preacher should have the right to speak whatever he wants. Freedom of speech, you know. Prehaps the Preachers should have the right to say whatever they want, but the actual Church itself should not endorse any candinates, thereby keeping the Church out of politics, while keeping human beings inside of politics.

Everyone has the right to speak to their personal option including the preacher. I don’t have a problem with one telling me who he/she is going to vote for and why. My problem is when they tell their congregation who they must vote for or they will burn in hell. That is when they step over the line. I live in the Bible belt and this in not an uncommon event here. This has happen to me in more than one church and in more than one denomination of church.

The rule now is they can not over step their bounds or they do risk losing their tax except status, so by all means they have the right to do what every he/she feels is right. Certain actions should and must have consequences. I also do not think you can separate the churches endorsement from the preachers. The preacher is the head of the church and the congregation so this person’s view is assumed the same as the church’s view.

That said you are right the preacher has every right to express his/her views, but just not from the pulpit. If the preacher wants to travel to every member home and speak personally to each member of the congregation that is his/her right. If they want to call a special meeting to state the case for voting for their candidate that is their right too. My problem is when they dismiss a candidate just because of the party without knowing fully the facts on both candidates. I also do not see why I’m going to hell for researching the candidates and making an informed vote.

Achilles
05-17-2007, 06:03 PM
It would be more than one case:
<snip>
Took me about 5-10 minutes and I could probably find a lot more.
I'm afraid you lost me here.

The first link is a commentary made by O'Reilly (I'm glad you said "news commenator" and not "journalist"), in which he makes several references to the ACLU but does not appear to site any reference to a specific case in which the ACLU was involved in religious persecution of Christians.

The second link is a marketing site of a book which has a clear conservative bias. That doesn't mean that none of their points are valid, however I haven't read the book (and it doesn't look like something I would buy) so I can't speak to any specific references that it makes to the ACLU's religious persecution of Christians.

The third link takes me to a wikipedia site on the subject of The War on Christmas. The only specific mention of ACLU was in the external sources section which takes me to an ACLU "pro/con" website. On said site, I see many baseless claims (read: not sited) made by right wing "news commentators" on the left of the page and several comments made by ACLU representatives denying said baseless claims. Score 1 for attempted unbiasness. Score 0 for success of attempted unbias.

In summary, you made a claim that ACLU participates in religious persecution of christians. I asked you for an example of a case in which an ACLU lawyer did such a thing and you replied with biased rhetoric. None of the links you provided actually did this. The rhetoric I would be able to forgive if it had made reference to a specific case, but 2 of the 3 sources (can't speak for the book) clearly did not. Would you like to present an example of a case or are you willing to concede the point?

I’d have to say no to this question. I don’t know about any one group they cater to, but they do seem to go against Christians a bit often. Do you think this is because they have an unfair bias against christians or do you think it's because christians sometimes push the envelope too far in the interest of their agenda and the ACLU has to step in? It's one thing to say that the ACLU is going after christians and quite another to say that christian groups need a lot of supervision. Just interested on your take on this.

Alcohol isn't the same as cocaine, crack, marijuana, opiants, etc. Also catching a drug dealer selling drugs on the street is hardly a violation of the 4th amendment. I think the point is that we don't have enough room in the prison system for all the violent offenders because of all the non-violent offenders that probably don't need to be there. By decriminalizing drugs (not the same thing as legalizing their use), the idea is to find alternative consequences so that we can save the cages for the truly dangerous wackos. At least that's my take on it.

Seriously, they don't have to call it marriage, they could just call it a Civil Union, because by definition marriage is between a man and a woman. If we twist things, then we open the door to polygamy. Slippery slope fallacy. First, why not call it marriage? Or we could just change all "marriages" to "civil unions". What's in a name? You quote the definition, however you fail to mention that this is an arbitrary definition used by a very specific group of people. Since that word can have any value that we assign to it, there's no reason it can't be "a committment between two people".

Second, (and this is way off-topic), if it's consensual, why not allow polygamy? Not a lifestyle I would want, but if someone else wants to do it, what give me (or you) the authority to stop them?

So not allowing a state attorney general to find out if someone under the age of consent comes in to have an abortion involves the Right to Privacy. What about statuatory Rape where an adult rapes a minor and then the minor has an abortion. Requiring the disclosure of personal information could place an undue burden on the woman. I'm afraid there aren't any "right answers" on this one. Best guess aka lesser of two evils.

Thing is the ACLU is a bunch of hypocrits. As I've pointed out where religious symbols for Islam and Judaism is allowed in public schools but not Christian ones, that's due to the ACLU and that's a violation of the 1st Amendment. You've made the claim but have not provided any real evidence. In other words, saying it doesn't make it true. You very well may have an air-tight case that supports you comments, but we've yet to see it.

Furthermore, the ACLU routinely gets involved in politics and they are tax-exempt. Seems to me they should lose their tax-exempt status. ACLU gets involved in politics by backing political figures and/or parties or ACLU gets involved in legal cases which happen to have political impact?

@mimartin's post: QFE/T

lukeiamyourdad
05-17-2007, 06:11 PM
Thing of getting Churches off of Public property you've neglected to mention that they had no problems with other Religious symbols being in schools, but they blew a gasket over Christian Religious Symbols being in there with symbols from other Religions. Sorry, but that's Religious Persecution on the part of the ACLU.

I agree that it's exaggerated to demand removal of Christmas trees and such, especially that Christmas is now as Christian as Kwanza. However, I'm unaware of cases where religious symbols, worn by the kids for example, have been banned, at least in North America. As such, on a personal and private level, religion is still perfectly allowed.

Personally, I would not use Bill O'Reilly in any kind of serious discussion. Ever. Or any American news commentator. Or every news commentator as a matter of fact.

SilentScope001
05-17-2007, 06:35 PM
Everyone has the right to speak to their personal option including the preacher. I don’t have a problem with one telling me who he/she is going to vote for and why. My problem is when they tell their congregation who they must vote for or they will burn in hell. That is when they step over the line. I live in the Bible belt and this in not an uncommon event here. This has happen to me in more than one church and in more than one denomination of church.

Ah, but that's the preacher's view that "If you do not vote for [Such-and-such], you should go to Hell", and if so, should he not express that? It's not the Church's view, but the preacher's view, and I think that preacher should be able to say that.

It probraly does step over the line of decency, and it makes me wonder if this preacher is attempting to use religion to back his political party and rally his supporters. But it works. Freedom of speech exist because it allows for people to rally others to their cause, and screaming that voting for a party is your religious duty encourages people to vote. And because it works, I think he could be able to say that, from the bloody pulpit.

However, there are limits to free speech, and I believe that it is okay for those limits to occur, as long as the preacher is able to communicate his message in some way, shape or form. All the other ways you mention are okay as well...

I also do not think you can separate the churches endorsement from the preachers. The preacher is the head of the church and the congregation so this person’s view is assumed the same as the church’s view.

Not in my Church. We got several preachers, and while some of them share the same views, not all actually do. (Then again, now that I look back, I could understand that they were vague in their statements, possibly to avoid the tax-man, but I know the underlining political message inherent in their speeches. I wonder if they are walking that fine line of using the bloody pulpit to present a lesson...and using the bloody pulpit to present subliminal messages to vote for a candinate or not.)

I think my Church is somehow going through a period of splintering. On the one hand, most of the preachers are against the Iraq War, so they are becoming pro-Democrat and pro-ACLU. On the other hand, they are going to have to accept whatever the Democrats say...which includes gay marriage, abortion, etc. Not to mention that some preachers has allied with another Church to wage a protest march against Planned Parenthood, as a way of showing inter-religious unity. As long as there are preachers on both side of the divide, as long as some preachers say, "Abortion is wrong!" and other saying, "Abortion is wrong, but it's a woman's right to choose wheter to do wrong!" and possibly even others saying, "Abortion is right!" (this is an example...I expect much more division in the near future though), if the Church is basically divided (like I predict my Church is), then I don't see any problem. The Church's many factions will all hate each other, and present their views as "truth".

After all, preachers are humans too.

But, maybe mine is a very special case. If a church is indeed unified in what the preachers believe, it could also be possible that the followers of that church may already agree with what the preachers believe, or at least close to it, and make a political statement by staying within that Church and accepting his views. Prehaps, in that case, it might be better for the Church's leader to create some sort of Political Action Committee, where the Church's leader make in big disclaimers: "This PAC has nothing to do with The Church. Nothing at all. Nada." When making his arguments, he quote the Bible or any Holy Book at hand, but he must state that the Church DOES NOT endores it, just merely that Church's leader. It might also be nice for the Church's leader to use evidence other than from the Holy Books, to provide a more robust argument for supporting the PAC.

[EDIT: By Church, I actually mean any Religious organization (regardless of religious oriention), or even a whole religion itself. I do not specfically single out Christianty when I say the term "Church". Sorry for the confusion.]

Allronix
05-17-2007, 07:36 PM
Alcohol isn't the same as cocaine, crack, marijuana, opiants, etc. Also catching a drug dealer selling drugs on the street is hardly a violation of the 4th amendment.

However, siezing and auctiong off the propterty of those ACCUSED of drug crimes (notice that it's ACCUSED not CONVICTED) was common practice in Washington State. It was proposed as a good idea because it cut off drug dealers' assets...the problem was that people acquitted were being told "sorry, charlie. Just because the court let you off doesn't mean you can get your property back." Needless to say, the ACLU got in on that.

Seriously, they don't have to call it marriage, they could just call it a Civil Union, because by definition marriage is between a man and a woman. If we twist things, then we open the door to polygamy.

The same BS argument was trotted out 50 years ago regarding interracial or interfaith marriage. The Bible was even trotted out saying that God had put the races of men on different continents and nations, and therefore it was ordained by heaven that they shoudn't mix, lest thew whole idea of marriage implode. The rather appropriately-named Mr & Mrs Loving challenged the state of Virginia on this point and won the right to have their wedding recognized. Now, interracial marriage makes up about 7% of all US weddings and the world ain't ended. Canada, Belguim, and the Netherlands have legallized gay unions and we don't see people lining up with their cattle or pet rocks yet, so the idea that letting a gay person have the same civil rights will cause the four horsemen to saddle up seems kinda silly.


So not allowing a state attorney general to find out if someone under the age of consent comes in to have an abortion involves the Right to Privacy. What about statuatory Rape where an adult rapes a minor and then the minor has an abortion.


If there's a crime, deal with the crime, but don't go punishing the victim by denying her medical caren Two wrongs aren't making a right here.


Furthermore, the ACLU routinely gets involved in politics and they are tax-exempt. Seems to me they should lose their tax-exempt status.


They're a lobbying group, so donations to them don't fall into tax exemption.

Jae Onasi
05-17-2007, 08:20 PM
This is by no means anywhere near exhaustive. It would take me an entire book to list all the cases where the ACLU targeted religion (almost exclusively Christian), or did not defend the civil liberties of a religious organization that was clearly having its constitutional rights violated. I did get these cases from conservative sites, yes, but the briefs are public record and speak for themselves.

Has the ACLU looked in the mirror lately? (http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2006/12/19/opinion/commentary/20_27_0512_18_06.txt)--admittedly conservative, but the six cases listed here are the kinds of things that disturb me in regards to free speech and freedom of religion. I can look up and link all the cases at some point if you're dying for me to do that. Otherwise, you can certainly google the cases yourself.

Kerrigan Brief (http://www.telladf.org/UserDocs/KerriganBrief.pdf)--The Conn. Governer signed legislation allowing benefits to same-sex couples, but also defined _marriage_ (not civil unions) as being between one man and one woman. The state legislature passed it, and the governor signed it, and same-sex couples have the same benefits as married couples. Why are they now suing? Regardless of what you think of homosexuality (I'm fine with civil unions, btw, just so you know), if it's the decision of the majority of people, _and_ same-sex couples are afforded the same rights except for the one name, why is the ACLU not defending the will of the people?

ACLU sues Pentagon to keep Boy Scouts off bases (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41467)--speaks for itself. Heaven forbid we allow places for wholesome groups like the Boy Scouts to meet.

Gray vs. Kohl (http://www.telladf.org/UserDocs/GrayComplaint.pdf) --Why did the ACLU decide not to defend what clearly is a violation of the First Amendment and was improper arrest by police? If this was any other religion besides Christianity, certainly any other non-religious group, they would have jumped all over it. I think it's hypocritical to say you defend religious rights, but only if you're not Christian.

The ACLU defends NAMBLA (http://www.acluvsamerica.com/news/story.aspx?cid=149) and the wiki link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curley_v._NAMBLA) I'm not sure how the ACLU can possibly defend an organization that explains in detail how to molest young boys. Even with their little 'disclaimer', it's astonishing that they'd defend a group that willingly violates laws and more importantly, children. What about the young boy who was molested and died? Did the ACLU care about _his_ rights? Apparently not. That says just about all that can be said about this group.

SilentScope001
05-17-2007, 09:02 PM
The ACLU defends NAMBLA and the wiki link I'm not sure how the ACLU can possibly defend an organization that explains in detail how to molest young boys. Even with their little 'disclaimer', it's astonishing that they'd defend a group that willingly violates laws and more importantly, children. What about the young boy who was molested and died? Did the ACLU care about _his_ rights? Apparently not. That says just about all that can be said about this group.

Uh.

That wiki link shows that NAMBLA is an association, not a corproation, therefore, it is not repsonsible for anything, since it is merely an association. THAT isn't a free speech issue, this is an issue of responsiblity. Since anyone can join an association, it is merely the fault of the people inside of the association. If NAMBLA was a corporation, then it could be held responsible for the actions of people inside of the organization, but it is not. It is an association, therefore, the people who should get punished are the people inside of the organization.

Which is exactly what is happening now. They are suing the leaders of NAMBLA, not NAMBLA itself. Just held up in court, that's all.

Yes, yes, this misses the whole point of the lawsuit. But it's true, it's merely an association.

(But, ACLU was worried about the prosecution of political groups just because they are unpopular, hence why they went to defend it. Unpopular viewpoints need to be defended and all. Why? Because if you say you can censor certain viewpoints because we hate them, then it leads to precentent. Why must I censor that one viewpoint? Why not censor others?)

Now, of course, if they have DONE illegal actions, then all that free speech issue get thrown out the window. It's illegal to throw a bomb and then hide under free speech. It is also illegal to rape a child or commit pedophilia (without the consent of the child, but according to law, a child cannot give consent, so this is moot). But, the burden of proof is on the prosecutors to prove NAMBLA's leaders are guilty rather than on NAMBLA's leaders to prove innocence. And NAMBLA's leaders can whine that it's being done as a way to supress them, so the ACLU is defending those leaders. Not only that, but it seems that the only evidence they got is NAMBLA's phamplets, meaning that it will be a hard case for the prosecutors to nail NAMBLA's leaders.

NAMBLA, the association, advocates a position that many people dislike, no doubt about it, which is Legalization of pedophila. But, well, it does not advocate breaking the law, at least in public. There is no evidence that NAMBLA's leaders has broken the law, therefore, it looks to be a crusade against NAMBLA's right to free speech. Innocence before proven guilty...

[EDIT: now that I think about it, I must clarify, I wasn't defending NAMBLA, only whatever ACLU is doing.]

Listen, if you really want to go and make the ALCU look bad, bring this up:

Spam
The ACLU's stance on spam is considered controversial by a broad cross-section of political points of view. In 2000, Marvin Johnson, a legislative counsel for the ACLU, stated that proposed anti-spam legislation infringed on free speech by denying anonymity and by forcing spam to be labeled as such: "Standardized labeling is compelled speech." He also stated, "It's relatively simple to click and delete."[50]

This analysis is rejected by many Internet service providers and system administrators as failing to address the uninvited costs of spam, which are borne by the owners of the mail servers that have to filter or handle it.[51] One legal comparison used in criticizing the ACLU's position is to compare spam to junk fax, which is illegal because of the cost of fax paper and other limited resources on the part of the recipient.[52] Spamming not only imposes costs on the recipient, but is most often sent through stolen computer resources, such as by use of computer viruses to send spam through home computers.

This debate found the ACLU joining with the Direct Marketing Association and the Center for Democracy and Technology in criticizing a bipartisan bill in the House of Representatives in 2000; already by 1997 the ACLU had taken a strong position that nearly all spam legislation was improper,[53] although it has supported "opt-out" requirements in some cases. The ACLU opposed the 2003 CAN-SPAM act[54] suggesting that it could have a chilling effect on speech in cyberspace.

ACLU is for Spam? Gah!

EDIT2: As for that Gary case, it seems he did not contact the ACLU, since there are also numerous cases where the ACLU does get involved...cited by Achilles. Do remember that this is a pro-ACLU site though, and it does not give much descriptions on what cases they are doing.

Jae Onasi
05-17-2007, 09:23 PM
Uh.
That wiki link shows that NAMBLA is an association, not a corproation, therefore, it is not repsonsible for anything, since it is merely an association.

I'm not about to go click on Nambla's site to find out its exact legal status. There are associations that also have corporation status, even if it's an LLC and not an s-corp.

The Nambla folks didn't call the ACLU, either. The ACLU volunteered for the job.

SilentScope001
05-17-2007, 09:38 PM
I'm not about to go click on Nambla's site to find out its exact legal status. There are associations that also have corporation status, even if it's an LLC and not an s-corp.

Well, no, it's not on their website, it was on the wikipedia article you cited about the court case. The courts ruled it was an association. I also wonder if the LCC or such usually are for businesses, and the NAMBLA seem to be a political organization...

The Nambla folks didn't call the ACLU, either. The ACLU volunteered for the job.

NAMBLA just probraly being a bit too pro-active in their defense of the 1st Amendmnet for their own good, what with the slippery slope, and the cause of precedent (If we can destroy one organization because we hate them, we can destroy others). While censorship is distasteful to me and I hate it, I wonder if having a bit (or a lot) of political censorship could be pretty useful in helping keep society in line and in check with social norms. I rather society choose either no censorship or all censorship...not pick and choose.

GarfieldJL
05-17-2007, 09:47 PM
The fact is the ACLU does target Christians, and only conservative sites will report on it because the ACLU promotes the left wing agenda of the Left wing liberals in the media.

Prime
05-17-2007, 11:16 PM
But does it target Christians because the Christians target everyone else? I don't know.

And is the right conservative Christians agenda-free?

Dagobahn Eagle
05-18-2007, 12:18 AM
Does the ACLU protect the civil liberties of everyone? Or is it promoting an anti-Christian agenda in a slick package?When the ACLU rails against things like organized prayer in public schools and ten commandment displays outside of public courthouses, it certainly easily appears so to many Christians. However, the ACLU does indeed defend religious peoples' rights. You have the right to pray in school as long as it does not interrupt class for everyone else. You have the right to pray at extracurricular events. You have the right to put as many crosses as you want to on your own lawn. And so on. The ACLU is everything but anti-Christian.

Jae, you are right. I cannot believe this. All this time, I thought the ACLU concerned itself with freedom of speech and getting Churches off Public Property. Not THIS.It concerns itself with all civil rights, not merely those of religious people and atheists.

Forget your views on gay marriage or such. I don't care if you consider it a mental illness or if you consider it an expression of great joy. I want you to look at Jae's question...does this promote an agenda that goes against Jae? Well, it can promote any agenda, and it sometimes defend religious people, but it is also against religious people when it wants to as well.It's not 'against religious people' to allow homosexuals rights. That's like saying that the ACLU should not defend Christians' rights to pray in school because that'd be 'against Satanism', or that universal suffrage is 'against chauvinism'. Your rights go to my nose.

So much for netruality. By the way, I do side with their position, but I don't think I could join their organization.It is neutral in that it defends everyone's civil liberties. Homosexuals fall under the 'everyone' category. Again, your rights end at my snout. If your religious teachings prohibit gays from marrying, it can't be respected if it's not morally sound to allow gays to marry.

Fine. It's defintently Pro-Choice. This does knock it a bit away from Jae's position, so it does back her point.No. It disagrees with the Christian perception that abortion is evil, but it's not targeting Christians.

Seriously, they don't have to call it marriage, they could just call it a Civil Union, because by [current] definition marriage is between a man and a woman.Marriage is not an absolute, solid definition that's remained unchanged forever. It was once illegal for a white man to marry a black man - should they have to call their pact a 'civil union' too? After all, marriage was once defined as being between a man and woman of the same ethnicity. Or social class. Or nationality.

Thing is the ACLU is a bunch of hypocrites. As I've pointed out where religious symbols for Islam and Judaism is allowed in public schools but not Christian ones, that's due to the ACLU and that's a violation of the 1st Amendment.I can't think of a single such case.

The ACLU defends NAMBLA and the wiki link I'm not sure how the ACLU can possibly defend an organization that explains in detail how to molest young boys. Even with their little 'disclaimer', it's astonishing that they'd defend a group that willingly violates laws and more importantly, children. What about the young boy who was molested and died? Did the ACLU care about _his_ rights? Apparently not. That says just about all that can be said about this group.The ACLU defends freedom of speech, and while NAMBLA shouldn't be protected if they described in detail how to commit rape, their position on pedophilia, while culturally and morally backwards, should be defended. Same with neo-nazis and other people who really tick me off.

The fact is the ACLU does target Christians, and only conservative sites will report on it because the ACLU promotes the left wing agenda of the Left wing liberals in the media.1. It targets Christians who seek to infringe on others civil liberties, or violate the Constitution.
2. ACLU views coincide with the 'left wing agenda' because said agenda happens to promote civil liberties and freedom. There's nothing more to it than that.

SilentScope001
05-18-2007, 12:50 AM
It concerns itself with all civil rights, not merely those of religious people and atheists.

Hm. Well, not with the civil right to disagree with another person.

It's not 'against religious people' to allow homosexuals rights. That's like saying that the ACLU should not defend Christians' rights to pray in school because that'd be 'against Satanism', or that universal suffrage is 'against chauvinism'. Your rights go to my nose.

And your rights goes to my nose.

Listen, I agree with ACLU, but they are declaring their beliefs to be "true", thereby making Jae mad. They are forcing their beliefs on all these other people, by claiming that they are the defenders of "civil liberties". You are basically telling them that gays could get married, and these people personally disagree. What the ACLU wants to do is metaphorically punch these people in the nose, by telling them that they are wrong and that they should not use their civil liberties to speak out against this suppression of a civil liberty.

The most important civil liberty is the ability to speak, to speak out against your enemies. And the ACLU wants to silence people who are against gay marriage because they are going against what they see as a civil liberty. I do not want to curtail one civil liberty in order to support some other civil liberty, thank you very much.

You have the right to campagin for gay marriage, and they have the right to curse gay marriage.

It is neutral in that it defends everyone's civil liberties. Homosexuals fall under the 'everyone' category. Again, your rights end at my snout. If your religious teachings prohibit gays from marrying, it can't be respected if it's not morally sound to allow gays to marry.

It does not respect everyone's civil liberties to call them wrong.

Teachings cannot be respected if you believe something that other people do not? Sounds like a person punching another person in the snout right there.

This is why there should be an organization soley devoted to the protection of the 1st Amendment, specifically the freedom of expression and speech. Many people, in using the 1st Amendment, ends up trying to prevent other people from using the 1st Amendment.

No. It disagrees with the Christian perception that abortion is evil, but it's not targeting Christians.

Does the ACLU protect the civil liberties of everyone? Or is it promoting an anti-Christian agenda in a slick package?

Jae never said that it was targeting Christians, just that it had an anti-Chrisitan agenda. If you are Jae and you believe that abortion is wrong, and that message of abortion is a key part of Christanity, then it seems anti-Christan, even if it is not purposely targeting Christanty.

GarfieldJL
05-18-2007, 01:02 AM
Actually they are anti-Christian when they support Muslim symbols in schools but they move to bar Christian ones at the same school. That is a violation of the 1st amendment right there.

Samuel Dravis
05-18-2007, 01:04 AM
Has the ACLU looked in the mirror lately? (http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2006/12/19/opinion/commentary/20_27_0512_18_06.txt)--admittedly conservative, but the six cases listed here are the kinds of things that disturb me in regards to free speech and freedom of religion.Most of those I don't really see the point of the ACLU doing it. However, I don't think they were technically incorrect about the cases in general, save the one with the creche.

Kerrigan Brief (http://www.telladf.org/UserDocs/KerriganBrief.pdf)--The Conn. Governer signed legislation allowing benefits to same-sex couples, but also defined _marriage_ (not civil unions) as being between one man and one woman. The state legislature passed it, and the governor signed it, and same-sex couples have the same benefits as married couples. Why are they now suing? Regardless of what you think of homosexuality (I'm fine with civil unions, btw, just so you know), if it's the decision of the majority of people, _and_ same-sex couples are afforded the same rights except for the one name, why is the ACLU not defending the will of the people? Married, civil unions - why does it even matter? There's little difference between the two; the only difference being that one group thinks that God approved of their contract. Why can't the same-sex union people think the same? Being "married" is essentially what they are doing. Why can't they just say they're married? If the reason behind the law is solely religious, then that law should not exist, regardless of what the majority says.

ACLU sues Pentagon to keep Boy Scouts off bases (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41467)--speaks for itself. Heaven forbid we allow places for wholesome groups like the Boy Scouts to meet. I am in scouts, but it's pretty clear that their general policy is religious in basis - agreement with the oath and code (http://post369.columbus.oh.us/venturing.d/oath.html) is required to join. From what I can see, the ACLU is correct.

Gray vs. Kohl (http://www.telladf.org/UserDocs/GrayComplaint.pdf) --Why did the ACLU decide not to defend what clearly is a violation of the First Amendment and was improper arrest by police? If this was any other religion besides Christianity, certainly any other non-religious group, they would have jumped all over it. I think it's hypocritical to say you defend religious rights, but only if you're not Christian.Reading through that I agree that it was a violation of their right to hand out Bibles. They didn't go on school grounds. I'm okay with it. Whether it was intentional of the ACLU to forgo the case is unclear, but it's not evidence that they are against christians.

The ACLU defends NAMBLA (http://www.acluvsamerica.com/news/story.aspx?cid=149) and the wiki link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curley_v._NAMBLA) I'm not sure how the ACLU can possibly defend an organization that explains in detail how to molest young boys. Even with their little 'disclaimer', it's astonishing that they'd defend a group that willingly violates laws and more importantly, children. What about the young boy who was molested and died? Did the ACLU care about _his_ rights? Apparently not. That says just about all that can be said about this group.A couple of things: Just because they're the "bad guys" doesn't mean that don't have rights. Everyone has rights, and they don't give them up because we think they should. Supporting everyone's rights equally should be the goal of ANY system that wants to have the idea of justice remotely associated with it.

Second, the boy is dead. Nothing will change that. The people suspected responsible for his death were/are being prosecuted, and those convicted will be unlikely to harm society again. I suggest you grant the living what is theirs - the protections of a just society. Getting inflamed about it DOES NOT remove their right to that protection.

Overall, I am okay with the ACLU. I disagree with some of the stances they take, but for an organization I think they provide a useful service to our society.


Actually they are anti-Christian when they support Muslim symbols in schools but they move to bar Christian ones at the same school. That is a violation of the 1st amendment right there.Source it, please.

Hm. Well, not with the civil right to disagree with another person.Civil rights are PERSONAL. They do not extend to anyone else. Other people have their OWN rights, which are theirs to make use of as they wish.

Achilles
05-18-2007, 02:09 AM
This is by no means anywhere near exhaustive. It would take me an entire book to list all the cases where the ACLU targeted religion (almost exclusively Christian), or did not defend the civil liberties of a religious organization that was clearly having its constitutional rights violated. I did get these cases from conservative sites, yes, but the briefs are public record and speak for themselves.


Has the ACLU looked in the mirror lately? (http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2006/12/19/opinion/commentary/20_27_0512_18_06.txt)--admittedly conservative, but the six cases listed here are the kinds of things that disturb me in regards to free speech and freedom of religion. I can look up and link all the cases at some point if you're dying for me to do that. Otherwise, you can certainly google the cases yourself. If this is indicative of the rest of this post, then I'm probably going to end up doing a lot of your leg work for you.

Ok, the first case listed (at least I'm assuming this is the case referenced because the source you linked to is incredibly vague) refers to ACLU being called in after some parents complained about a local minister dressing up as santa and going to 3 county schools to prosteletize about jesus christ. The issue was settled by the school board without going to court. The sites' claim that the "ACLU tried to eliminate one school's long-standing Santa tradition" is preposterous. Link (http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2002/dec/25/santas_message_hohoholy/).

The second case listed (again, I think) refers to a case where the ACLU was once again called in by parents. According to this (http://atheism.about.com/b/a/091395.htm) site (one of two I was able to find that specifically discuss this case), some of the actions of the school were out of line, however the case was dropped when the plantiffs moved out of state (as attested to by this (http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/news/story.aspx?cid=3500) site). Apparently, the ACLU is considered "pwned" by the right whenever trivial legal factors such as the plaintiffs leaving the state happens. Way to win the day, ADF.

*LOLs at "ACLU backs down..." headline*

Indeed, they were "conspir to crush a creche in a public school library".

The third case, once again at the request of several local residents, the ACLU [i]sent a letter to an Iowa courthouse regarding a nativity scene put in a section of courthouse lawn. These ACLU people are real bastards. Link (http://www.aclu.org/religion/gen/16092prs20031203.html).

Unfortunately, I was unable to find any sources (other than the article itself) regarding the fourth case. Based on the pattern, I would tend to assume that the ACLU (again) became involved at the request of local citizens and (again) was acting within their mission. However I will concede that my assumption is not proof, but luckily the burden of proof regarding the claim of the ACLU's alleged inappropriateness lies with the author (and/or you).

As for the fifth case, once again the ACLU got involved at the request of a few Jewish families who's children didn't feel comfortable in Christian christmas pageant Link (http://www.washtimes.com/culture/20031127-102240-2100r.htm).

Finally, in the sixth case, you guess it - the ACLU was called in after local residents complained about nativity scene on the city counsel lawn. Apparently, the mayor exacerbated the situation by trying to implement a policy that made his action legal. Link (http://www.aclu.org/religion/gen/16093prs20031222.html).

Poor article, Jae. :(

Kerrigan Brief (http://www.telladf.org/UserDocs/KerriganBrief.pdf)--The Conn. Governer signed legislation allowing benefits to same-sex couples, but also defined _marriage_ (not civil unions) as being between one man and one woman. The state legislature passed it, and the governor signed it, and same-sex couples have the same benefits as married couples. Why are they now suing? Regardless of what you think of homosexuality (I'm fine with civil unions, btw, just so you know), if it's the decision of the majority of people, _and_ same-sex couples are afforded the same rights except for the one name, why is the ACLU not defending the will of the people? Defending the will of which people? Is such action inconsistent with the stated mission of the ACLU? Help me understand how a case regarding same-sex marriage supports your argument that the ACLU is anti-christian (in light of the fact there are many pro-homosexual christian groups). Is the concern anti-christian or anti-neoconservative?

PS: I'm not reading a 28 page legal briefing. Sorry.

ACLU sues Pentagon to keep Boy Scouts off bases (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41467)--speaks for itself. Heaven forbid we allow places for wholesome groups like the Boy Scouts to meet.Again, anti-christian how?
FYI, the link your article will take interested readers to this site (http://www.aclu.org/religion/discrim/16382prs20041115.html) which as more information about the case. Of particular note (emphasis mine):

Previously, Defense Department units held charters to lead hundreds of Boy Scout troops and Cub Scout packs, which exclude youths who do not believe in God. Additionally, the Boy Scouts of America requires troop and pack leaders, in this case government employees, to compel youth to swear an oath of duty to God. The ACLU of Illinois charged that the Boy Scouts' policy violates the religious liberty of youth who wish to participate but do not wish to swear a religious oath, and that direct government sponsorship of such a program is religious discrimination.

Gray vs. Kohl (http://www.telladf.org/UserDocs/GrayComplaint.pdf) --Why did the ACLU decide not to defend what clearly is a violation of the First Amendment and was improper arrest by police? If this was any other religion besides Christianity, certainly any other non-religious group, they would have jumped all over it. I think it's hypocritical to say you defend religious rights, but only if you're not Christian. Did Mr. Gray solicit help from the ACLU in this case? Perhaps the ACLU didn't volunteer to jump to the cause because they felt the plaintiff was trying to turn a wrongfull arrest case into a free speech case? In other words, maybe they weren't compelled because no one's free speech right were violated (yes, I read most of the 24-page brief after stating that I wouldn't read the 28-page one. Don't ask why :)).

The ACLU defends NAMBLA (http://www.acluvsamerica.com/news/story.aspx?cid=149) and the wiki link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curley_v._NAMBLA) I'm not sure how the ACLU can possibly defend an organization that explains in detail how to molest young boys. Even with their little 'disclaimer', it's astonishing that they'd defend a group that willingly violates laws and more importantly, children. What about the young boy who was molested and died? Did the ACLU care about _his_ rights? Apparently not. That says just about all that can be said about this group.Right wing sources citing right wing sources in a nauseating circus of faux-journalism. Yikes.

Taken from your very own source:
According to ACLU Massachusetts Legal Director John Reinstein, the Constitution sides with the publication of any material, however heinous, unless said material is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action." Apparently, for the ACLU, "lawless action" doesn't cover the sodomy and murder of a little boy.

Taken from the ACLU:
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.

So, were they defending NAMBLA or were they defending free speech? Regardless of whether you agree with their actions or not, I think the distinction is an important one. And regardless of that, this point is still irrelevant to your argument that the ACLU is anti-christian.

In a completely off-topic aside, is there any way that we can enforce some sort of standard regarding the quality of the sources used here? I know that "Kavar's Corner is not the Senate" but it really is a lot of work to chase down legitimate sources when others use less-reputable sources to support their claim. I think we can have standards and not risk our "friendly" status. Thoughts?

Thanks for reading.

EDIT:
Actually they are anti-Christian when they support Muslim symbols in schools but they move to bar Christian ones at the same school. That is a violation of the 1st amendment right there. Source/citation please. I can't possibly comment on the case you're referring to because I don't know which one it is :D

Allronix
05-18-2007, 04:18 AM
The fact is the ACLU does target Christians, and only conservative sites will report on it because the ACLU promotes the left wing agenda of the Left wing liberals in the media.

Ah. Classic "the lack of evidence proves there's a coverup" argument. Seriously, Garfield. I know you can swing better than that.

Dagobahn Eagle
05-18-2007, 06:13 AM
Listen, I agree with ACLU, but they are declaring their beliefs to be "true", thereby making Jae mad.Every time you make a decision, you risk offending those who disagree with you. If you defend gays, you're 'anti-Christian'. If you oppose gays, you're 'anti-gay'. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. It can't be avoided.

They are forcing their beliefs on all these other people, by claiming that they are the defenders of "civil liberties". You are basically telling them that gays could get married, and these people personally disagree. What the ACLU wants to do is metaphorically punch these people in the nose, by telling them that they are wrong and that they should not use their civil liberties to speak out against this suppression of a civil liberty.No one in the ACLU, to my knowledge, is saying freedom of speech should be curbed concerned gay rights. Attack gays all you want.

It does not respect everyone's civil liberties to call them wrong.And yet it certainly does not disrespect them either.

Teachings cannot be respected if you believe something that other people do not? Sounds like a person punching another person in the snout right there.What I'm saying is that if your religion goes against civil liberties, then the ACLU's agenda will not coincide with it. No one's saying you can't preach it. Again, attack gays all you want, I can't keep you. We both live in free nations.

if it's the decision of the majority of people, _and_ same-sex couples are afforded the same rights except for the one name, why is the ACLU not defending the will of the people?Because that is not their role. Their job is to defend civil liberties, not cater to the majority.

Jae Onasi
05-18-2007, 09:32 AM
I'm zipping through this because I have a meeting to go to that will last all morning....

Poor article, Jae.
I gave fair warning on that, Achilles, and said it was more important for the cases themselves. My point was to show multiple cases where the ACLU has gone after Christians.

Defending the will of which people?The people who elected the legislators or voted for the marriage amendments.

You may have a point on pro-Christian vs. just conservative, however.

BTW, 'conservative' is NOT a pejorative. ;)

and that direct government sponsorship of such a program is religious discrimination.How is allowing them to meet on bases 'government sponsorship'?
And why isn't the ACLU going after Muslim organizations that meet on bases, which routinely discriminate by excluding women or require non-Muslims to pray to Allah? It's very much a double standard.

Right wing sources citing right wing sources
Sheesh. Like a left-wing source is ever going to consider the possibility that the ACLU is not fair in the application of its own standards. What other sources am I supposed to use? Being a conservative source does not automatically make it a poor source, any more than being a liberal source makes it a poor source.

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.

The fact is that these men would have court-appointed representation and the ACLU did not have to go rushing in to defend molesters. I _used_ to be in favor of the ACLU's ideals in defending free speech. I cannot support an organization that condones the actions of child molesters. You're right--that's not an exclusively Christian issue. It should be a concern of anyone who finds child sexual abuse abhorrent.


In a completely off-topic aside, is there any way that we can enforce some sort of standard regarding the quality of the sources used here?
Jae's rule on forming policy: Never legislate what you can't enforce.

There's no way to enforce any kind of standard other than maybe snipping the source. To be honest, I just don't have the time to track down and evaluate every single source cited, read it, and make a determination on its quality, and my idea of quality of ultra-liberal sources is likely different from yours. ;)

Samuel Dravis
05-18-2007, 12:04 PM
The people who elected the legislators or voted for the marriage amendments.If the people do something against the constitution, it's still against the constitution. If the will of the people constitutes religious law, then it should not be made law.

How is allowing them to meet on bases 'government sponsorship'?

And why isn't the ACLU going after Muslim organizations that meet on bases, which routinely discriminate by excluding women or require non-Muslims to pray to Allah? It's very much a double standard.The use of government land is sponsorship.

Also, what the ACLU does or does not do to OTHER organizations does not mean its actions in this regard are incorrect. Selective enforcement, I don't know, but preventing groups from using public land who discriminate based on religion is perfectly fine.


The fact is that these men would have court-appointed representation and the ACLU did not have to go rushing in to defend molesters. I _used_ to be in favor of the ACLU's ideals in defending free speech. I cannot support an organization that condones the actions of child molesters. You're right--that's not an exclusively Christian issue. It should be a concern of anyone who finds child sexual abuse abhorrent.It does concern me, Jae. However, I'm not the one who decides whether someone's guilty. That's the court's decision, and until they're proven guilty I will not treat them like they are. They are just as eligible for support by the ACLU as your people handing out Bibles. I will quote myself again: "I suggest you grant the living what is theirs - the protections of a just society. Getting inflamed about it DOES NOT remove their right to that protection."

SilentScope001
05-18-2007, 12:23 PM
Civil rights are PERSONAL. They do not extend to anyone else. Other people have their OWN rights, which are theirs to make use of as they wish.

Civil Rights are personal, which means it is my right to say anything I so desire, as long as it conforms to laws.

But they are attacking my own expression of civil rights, by calling my use of it wrong, since I am going against other people's civil liberties. They call me intolerant. They will defend to the death my right to say it, and yet they will also defend to the death their right to have their view get government support, because their view is the "correct" one.

Every time you make a decision, you risk offending those who disagree with you. If you defend gays, you're 'anti-Christian'. If you oppose gays, you're 'anti-gay'. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. It can't be avoided.

What about having some more tolerance in the world? Saying, I defend Gays, but I respect your viewpoints about why you dislike Gays, let's agree to disagree, what you say may be vaild in certain respects, yadda, yadda, yadda? If we all had more tolerance, debates would be far less...harmful...than they are now.


No one in the ACLU, to my knowledge, is saying freedom of speech should be curbed concerned gay rights. Attack gays all you want.

I'm talking about "silencing". There is a big difference. The ACLU wants to change the laws so that gay marriage occurs, and want to do so despite the voices. What's the point of freedom of speech if the ACLU just going to snidely say, "We're going to defend your right to say it, but you're just wrong." What's the point of freedom of speech if you can't effect the government's descion, and the government does do gay marriage, overriding your concerns, overriding your voices, because you are "lunatical", not respecting of "civil liberties"? Do you know how alienating it is to have someone call you a "nut"? I'd call it the equivilant of punching someone in the nose.

It's de facto censorship, cursing the enemy, rather than de jure. The only civil liberty I care about is Freedom of Speech, and as long as the ACLU claims to be a defender of civil liberties and does what it does, it can help to silence certain "free speech".

What I'm saying is that if your religion goes against civil liberties, then the ACLU's agenda will not coincide with it. No one's saying you can't preach it. Again, attack gays all you want, I can't keep you. We both live in free nations.

But by ridiculing that religion's agenda about going against civil liberties, you are restricting that civil liberty of the right to speak. The reason being, if you succed in terming that religion intolerant, less people will listen to it, and therefore, you are de facto censoring it.

The ACLU claims to be the union that support civil liberties, and using that position, it can promote beliefs, claiming that they fall under the banner of civil liberties. This is fine. When they start saying that those who are against the ACLU are against civil liberties, and that speaking out against civil liberties make you anti-"civil liberties", well, that's the punch to the nose.


How is allowing them to meet on bases 'government sponsorship'?

And why isn't the ACLU going after Muslim organizations that meet on bases, which routinely discriminate by excluding women or require non-Muslims to pray to Allah? It's very much a double standard.

Uh. To be ACLU's advocate...and maybe trying to explain their actions...

You see, the same reason the ACLU is not going after Muslim organizations that meet on bases is the same reason the ACLU is not going around after (many) non-Muslim organizations. Because if a religious organization meets on that base, suppressing that religion would be against the 1st Amendmnet. Everyone can go where they please, if they have proper government clearance.

However, if said organization however have some oath that advocates worship of God, like the Boy Scouts, then it must not be premissable, due to the fact that it is an endorsement of the Boy Scouts and therefore is not premissable.

However, all the Muslim organizations I went to (and therefore, hopefully, all Muslim organizations in general) do not have such an oath. Due to the fact that Muslim organizations, are, by definition, Muslim, and that Muslims have to actually make a declaration (NOT an Oath) that they believe in Islam to join up with Islam, this means that it does not advocate the worship of God at all. I believe the ACLU was only concerned with that Boy Scout's Oath, and had the Boy Scouts took away that Oath, then they would be allowed to go in.

The 1st Amendment allows for the freedom of people to join together in groups. For example, a Men's Club is allowed to say: "Only Men". Otherwise, the group would disenigrate. The freedom to assembly allows for the freedom to exclude, but they are limits. Those limits are in the courts, but I think it is fair to say that Muslim organizations are allowed to exclude non-Muslims.

As for the talking about the discrimnation charge, well, I'm not so sure. For the most part, the seperation of man and woman is merely part of the culture (which is quite similar around the world), and that Non-Muslims don't have to pray along with Muslims. I think the Non-Muslims do that just to be friendly.


If the people do something against the constitution, it's still against the constitution. If the will of the people constitutes religious law, then it should not be made law.

It leads to a question...why does the Consitution needs to continue to operate if the actual founders and backers of the Consitution (the people) do not want it anymore? What's make the Consitution have any power to begin with?

Inherent human rights? Well, it was because the human mob who disliked the British Consitution decided to rebel and create the USA, so even in that case, it was because the majority of the people were upset at society, and therefore, rebelled. It's not some mystical power that grants us rights, it's the screams, protest marches, and gunfire of the human race that provides rights.

If nobody likes the Consitution anymore, then should the Consitution be trashed? Granted, nobody here is saying or calling that, least of all Jae, but...I just wonder.

GarfieldJL
05-18-2007, 12:38 PM
Okay I decided to use google to find stuff yes all of the sources are Conservative, why cause the left wing media will not report on the ACLU because they are staunch supporters of the ACLU. This is just web sites, I've loaned a few books out to people that have more incidents.

http://www.dianedew.com/aclu.htm
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/1/13/172143.shtml
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/pdf_files/ACLU.pdf


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1831933/posts
http://www.legion.org/?content=aclu_magarticle


------------------
going to try to find the case referred here http://jacklewis.net/weblog/archives/2005/09/aclu_ignores_sc.php


Removing a Cross from a War Memorial?
http://www.alainsnewsletter.com/s/spip.php?breve214

http://www.baltimorereporter.com/?p=3836

Samuel Dravis
05-18-2007, 12:41 PM
Civil Rights are personal, which means it is my right to say anything I so desire, as long as it conforms to laws.

But they are attacking my own expression of civil rights, by calling my use of it wrong, since I am going against other people's civil liberties. They call me intolerant. They will defend to the death my right to say it, and yet they will also defend to the death their right to have their view get government support, because their view is the "correct" one.Their view is the one that does not infringe on other's rights. It's pretty clear why this is important in a country like the US, where not everyone is concerned about who marries whom. The view that should get government support is the one that protects the rights of EVERYONE under the aegis of the government, and not only those groups favored by the majority.

I'm talking about "silencing". There is a big difference. The ACLU wants to change the laws so that gay marriage occurs, and want to do so despite the voices. What's the point of freedom of speech if the ACLU just going to snidely say, "We're going to defend your right to say it, but you're just wrong." What's the point of freedom of speech if you can't effect the government's descion, and the government does do gay marriage, overriding your concerns, overriding your voices, because you are "lunatical", not respecting of "civil liberties"? Do you know how alienating it is to have someone call you a "nut"? I'd call it the equivilant of punching someone in the nose.The reason your opinion would be overridden is because you're infringing on other's rights. While you may enjoy the thought of all marriages being M-F, never divorcing, etc etc, you're only free to choose that for yourself. You can argue against their decisions all you like - that's the free speech part - but it's important to realize that it's their decision to make.

But by ridiculing that religion's agenda about going against civil liberties, you are restricting that civil liberty of the right to speak. The reason being, if you succed in terming that religion intolerant, less people will listen to it, and therefore, you are de facto censoring it.If it's intolerant, then it is. If free people don't like intolerance, then they don't like it. Seems to me that's religion's problem, not the ACLU's. Religion has a decision to make - cater to what people want, or do what they are going to regardless of popular support. If they choose the second, they lose support. Interesting how that happens, but hardly the fault of the ACLU.

The ACLU claims to be the union that support civil liberties, and using that position, it can promote beliefs, claiming that they fall under the banner of civil liberties. This is fine. When they start saying that those who are against the ACLU are against civil liberties, and that speaking out against civil liberties make you anti-"civil liberties", well, that's the punch to the nose.When someone says something factual about a situation, it's still factual. If religion does not like being called "anti-civil liberties", then perhaps it should not be as discriminatory in its judgments. Any 'punch in the nose' that results is entirely the fault of those who are unwilling to face the consequences of their own actions.

Achilles
05-18-2007, 12:44 PM
I'm zipping through this because I have a meeting to go to that will last all morning.... Those meetings are my favorite :D

I gave fair warning on that, Achilles, and said it was more important for the cases themselves. My point was to show multiple cases where the ACLU has gone after Christians. But it didn't do that...at all. All that source did was muddy the water with falsehoods and try to spin the facts in a way to make the ACLU appear to do the things you were saying it was doing.

I suppose that no one forced me to do the fact-finding for that article, but I did feel it was necessary. And it did take about an hour. So an hour of my time went into (hopefully) setting the record straight because you made the choice to use a blantantly anti-ACLU source.

I cannot speak with any degree of certainty about your intentions, but I will point out that according to Kant and the categorical imperative, attempting to intentionally decieve another person (using spun sources rather than facts to support a position perhaps) is considered unethical. And since ethics is the system of morals, one could say that using poor quality sources isn't only unethical, but immoral as well.

The people who elected the legislators or voted for the marriage amendments. Exactly. And who speaks for the little guy when the voting majority is in the wrong? That was my whole point.

You may have a point on pro-Christian vs. just conservative, however. ;)

BTW, 'conservative' is NOT a pejorative. ;) Certainly it is not. In fact I consider myself conservative in many regards (in a classical, non "neo" way), so it would be hypocritical of me to use it in such a way. I will point out that the term is used was "neo-conservative" and that term I use interchangeably as a pejorative/non-pejorative, but I think you already knew that :)

How is allowing them to meet on bases 'government sponsorship'?
And why isn't the ACLU going after Muslim organizations that meet on bases, which routinely discriminate by excluding women or require non-Muslims to pray to Allah? It's very much a double standard.Did you click (and read) the link or did you just look at the section I quoted? You still seems to be operating from the "only using the bases as a meeting place" sentiment from your source while ignoring all of this:

Under the terms of today's settlement, the Defense Department has 60 days to issue a statement to U.S. defense facilities and military bases across the world making clear that Defense officials may not sponsor Boy Scout organizations. The settlement, however, does not prohibit off-duty government employees from sponsoring Boy Scout troops on their own time. The Boy Scouts will still also have access to any military facilities that are currently made available to other non-governmental organizations.

"It is critical that the Pentagon send this very clear signal to its units across the globe to ensure that government officials are not engaged in religious discrimination in their official capacity," said Charles Peters of the Chicago law firm Schiff Hardin who assisted the ACLU of Illinois in the lawsuit.

The federal court in Chicago still must decide whether the Defense Department and the Department of Housing and Urban Development can spend millions of taxpayer dollars to support Boy Scout units that practice religious discrimination and require religious oaths. The ACLU of Illinois has raised concern, for example, about the Pentagon's handpicking the Boy Scouts of America - and no other organization - for the expenditure of an average of $2 million each year to support the national Boy Scout Jamboree. A decision on this and other issues is pending.

As for the Muslim part of your comment, I guess I would have to know more before I could speak intelligently on the matter. Perhaps it has something to do with "other military facilities made available to other non-governmental organizations" thing? Dunno.

Sheesh. Like a left-wing source is ever going to consider the possibility that the ACLU is not fair in the application of its own standards. What other sources am I supposed to use? Being a conservative source does not automatically make it a poor source, any more than being a liberal source makes it a poor source. Indeed spin goes both ways. I think this goes back to my request for citation standards.

This diatribe is largely a red herring, Jae. You used a source that was blantantly conservative and had a blatantly conservative spin. It is an unfortanately reality that the "if not conservative than automatically liberal" doctrine appears to be so prevalent amongst conservatives.

Perhaps you could try a non-biased source that has facts and/or both sides of an issue. Yes, you have to dig a little for them and sometimes you can't find one (aforementioned case 4 for example). However I think you damage your credibility with the sources that you use and inadvertently weaken the cause you try to defend. It may be that there are legitimate arguments that support your point, but it's going to be difficult for your readers to see that if all they are pointed towards are sources that have to lie or cheat to make their point. Pretty soon no one listens because your cause is the one known as those "lying-cheating guys" (not you specifically, your sources).

The unfortanate thing about your sources is that the speak a great deal about how they interpret events, but very little about the facts of the events themselves. I don't know how one convinces themselves that this is journalism while not simultaneously conceding to let others do their thinking for them. This is general statement and is not necessarily directed at you specifically.

As for the general nature of liberal sources, all I can tell you is that I don't use them. I don't doubt for a second that you won't disagree, but before you do I'll draw your attention once more to the "not conservative = liberal" doctrine that I mentioned earlier. I do so to point out that it could be you view my sources as "liberal" because they don't agree with you viewpoints, not because they actually are.

The fact is that these men would have court-appointed representation and the ACLU did not have to go rushing in to defend molesters. I _used_ to be in favor of the ACLU's ideals in defending free speech. I cannot support an organization that condones the actions of child molesters. You're right--that's not an exclusively Christian issue. It should be a concern of anyone who finds child sexual abuse abhorrent. Again, I think you missed my point.
You say, "rushing in to defend child molestors" while what I said was "rushing in to defend free speech". Important distinction Jae. Furthermore, I can only assume that you didn't take the time to click the link (or visit the ACLU site yourself at another time) to see that the ACLU does not condone the actions of the child molestors. However you continue to state that they do without having the facts.

Jae's rule on forming policy: Never legislate what you can't enforce.

There's no way to enforce any kind of standard other than maybe snipping the source. To be honest, I just don't have the time to track down and evaluate every single source cited, read it, and make a determination on its quality, and my idea of quality of ultra-liberal sources is likely different from yours. ;) I'm a member of several other forums where standards for sources exist (you can get banned for repeatedly posting without citing sources, etc). No one is asking the moderators to chase down every source. It doesn't take more than a few seconds to click on a link and recognize bias (if it is present). This is even easier if you set expectations ahead of time (you're less likely to have to chase something down if you can automatically see that it doesn't comply with the standards in the first place). So "Never legislate what you can't enforce" doesn't hold water for several reasons. If this is something that the moderating staff isn't interested in taking on that's one thing, and I'll have to live with that, but calling it impossible just isn't true.

ET Warrior
05-18-2007, 12:50 PM
*list of websites*
So I couldn't find a single instance in any one of those websites that you linked to where the ACLU was being particularly anti-christian. Perhaps I am missing something?

GarfieldJL
05-18-2007, 12:59 PM
“If the ACLU wins this one, they’re going to go after all these monuments (including Arlington and Gettysburg),” said Charles LiMandri, a San Diego attorney who has led efforts to bring the memorial under federal jurisdiction. “A lot of them have either religious symbols, text or some type of religious reference on them in every state in the union, and they’re all going to be at risk.
http://www.alainsnewsletter.com/s/spip.php?breve214


A federal judge judge has now upheld the constitutionality of an intensive three-week course in California government schools that requires children to choose a Muslim name, wear Islamic garb, memorize verses from the Koraan, pray to Allah, play “jihad games, and simulate worship activities related to the Five Pillars of Islam.”


But hasn't American Civil Liberties Union lectured us that religious instruction in school violates what it describes as “separation of church and state” (a phrase that appears nowhere in the U.S. Constitution)? Read on. That injunction seems to depend on which religion is involved.


The guidelines in ACLU's document is in effect a warning (some would say an implied threat) to schools as to how they can avoid legal challenges from the same ACLU on church/state issues in the classroom.
-- http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/1/13/172143.shtml


Seems to me like they're catering to radical Islam.

SilentScope001
05-18-2007, 01:02 PM
Their view is the one that does not infringe on other's rights. It's pretty clear why this is important in a country like the US, where not everyone is concerned about who marries whom. The view that should get government support is the one that protects the rights of EVERYONE under the aegis of the government, and not only those groups favored by the majority.

But by passing the laws that someone disagrees with, calling them anti-civil liberty and evil, you are disrespecting their right to speak out against the calls, you are silencing them.

The reason your opinion would be overridden is because you're infringing on other's rights. While you may enjoy the thought of all marriages being M-F, never divorcing, etc etc, you're only free to choose that for yourself. You can argue against their decisions all you like - that's the free speech part - but it's important to realize that it's their decision to make.

How can I argue if the ACLU laugh at me and term intolerant?

In this case, I'm worried about protecting my own right, the right to criticize and the right to have my viewpoint expressed, and the right to have my viewpoint help to influence the desicions the government. Such a branding of intolerance is wrong.

(Also a clarification: I do support the ACLU's aims, somewhat. What I dislike is their attempt to claim that they are correct, and thereby making Chrisitans pretty mad.)

If it's intolerant, then it is. If free people don't like intolerance, then they don't like it. Seems to me that's religion's problem, not the ACLU's. Religion has a decision to make - cater to what people want, or do what they are going to regardless of popular support. If they choose the second, they lose support. Interesting how that happens, but hardly the fault of the ACLU.

1) People must be tolerant towards other people. If they are intolerant, then those people are not free, regardless of what ideology they claim to be, regardless of whatever civil liberties they are upholading. Without tolerance, society is dead. Tolerance is the only thing that stands between open war between the Right and the Left, and we need it now, more than ever. Without tolerance, free speech cannot happen. To me, Free Speech is the most important civil right ever...

If the ACLU is going to remain intolerant, then so be it. It just lost all support from me.

2) If the people do something against the constitution, it's still against the constitution. If the will of the people constitutes religious law, then it should not be made law.

So, if you succed in making the minority for the view of Jae, then your view should be law and religion must change. If the majority is okay for Jae's view, then your view should be law anyway, and prehaps religion must change as well.

Your view should be law, regardless of whatever the people say. This is quite similar to fanatics of religious sects, who claim that their country should follow whatever some artibrary being or standard says, regardless of what the people want. In fact, it is some artibrary being or standard that you are using. Is that standard vaild? I don't know, but it's quite artibrary...and therefore, there needs to be some backing for that standard. That backing should be the people.

America is a democracy. The people choose. Not the ACLU. Not Falwell. And certainally not me. They must have the right to choose, to decide for themselves what is right, otherwise this turns into a tyranny. And if that tyranny is led by the ACLU or Falwell's followers, you can bet I'd be mad. It is the people who decide the law, not YOU.

When someone says something factual about a situation, it's still factual. If religion does not like being called "anti-civil liberties", then perhaps it should not be as discriminatory in its judgments. Any 'punch in the nose' that results is entirely the fault of those who are unwilling to face the consequences of their own actions.

It's not factual, it's opinonated. You presupposes that there are civil liberties, and that they should be protected, and that religion disagrees with your inteprertion of civil liberties, and so religion is steppping on civil liberties, and therefore, you can make that statement and therefore punch my nose.

It's a slur, and it's a slur that says, "Since these people are lunatics, don't listen to them. Listen to me." And it's a very cursing and evil slur, and it acts as a silencing agnet, to silence debate, and to make people agree with you. You are attacking the man, and you are attempting to stop my right to express my views.

GarfieldJL
05-18-2007, 01:21 PM
I've noticed that usually the most intolerant people were those that spout off about how tolerant they are and how everyone should be more tolerant.

SilentScope001
05-18-2007, 01:28 PM
I've noticed that usually the most intolerant people were those that spout off about how tolerant they are and how everyone should be more tolerant.

Everyone is (at least partially) intolerant. The main goal is to supress that intolerance, and to actually become tolerant, all of us. Otherwise, this will turn into a hostile warzone, and not Kavar's Corner.

Totenkopf
05-18-2007, 01:35 PM
I'm a member of several other forums where standards for sources exist (you can get banned for repeatedly posting without citing sources, etc). No one is asking the moderators to chase down every source. It doesn't take more than a few seconds to click on a link and recognize bias (if it is present). This is even easier if you set expectations ahead of time (you're less likely to have to chase something down if you can automatically see that it doesn't comply with the standards in the first place).

Perhaps, as you belong to forums where said standards exist, you can provide a view examples of which sources are specifically cited as conservative, liberal and "fair" in those forums. If the staff here can't be bothered, you could do the legwork and let them decide from there. It is interesting, however, that while you don't want "journalists" to do your thinking for you, you seem to have no problem with a "committee" deciding the nature of bias inherent in someone else's work. So, who screens the screeners?

GarfieldJL
05-18-2007, 01:38 PM
Most of the media actually has a Left-Wing Bias, sources include a Study done by UCLA.

Then there is Benard Goldberg's books Bias and Arrogance.

SilentScope001
05-18-2007, 01:43 PM
Wouldn't be fair to say that all meida is biased? They're all humans after all.

All we have to do is have said committe classify everything to "Far-Right", "Center-Right", "Center-Left", "Far Left". Even then, there's no point. They're still biased, either to the lefrt or to the right, so let just read the source on its merits, not on its political alignment. If you dislike its political alignment, you'll know it right after you read it and you'll dislike it immensely.

Telling people what sort of bias the media have would in fact be a political statement and be biased in and of itself, because one could say, "Oh, he's Center-Right" to give the source meaning and another could say, "Oh, he's Far-Right", to make the source wrong. It's better to let the readers of the source decide...and NOT some committee.

GarfieldJL
05-18-2007, 01:52 PM
True, but if well over 80% of the Media is slanted to one side, then there is a problem.


CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, are all left wing.

Fox News would be considered right wing.

That means just over 80% of the national media outlets are slanted to one side.

Then we have the situations like Rather-Gate (also know as memogate).

Allronix
05-18-2007, 01:58 PM
A federal judge judge has now upheld the constitutionality of an intensive three-week course in California government schools that requires children to choose a Muslim name, wear Islamic garb, memorize verses from the Koraan, pray to Allah, play “jihad games, and simulate worship activities related to the Five Pillars of Islam.”

Um...not quite.

http://www.snopes.com/religion/islam.htm

(Snopes is an urban legend de-bunking site. think Mythbusters for e-mail forwards)


The World Net Daily article quoted above was drawn from information provided by Assist Ministries in its January 9, 2002 article "Public Schools Embrace Islam." What World Net Daily refers to as "ASSIST News Service" is the public relations arm of Assist Ministries — despite the use of the term "news service," ANS should not be mistaken for one of the legitimate wire services, such as Associated Press or Reuters. The contents of its article should thus be taken with a large grain of salt.

Even so, there is something to what it said. Granted, that "something" is distorted and overstated, but the core element is present.

As part of their social studies curriculum, Grade 7 pupils throughout California do study ancient Muslim cultures and the impact of Islam on world history, but only as one of eleven units that comprise that year's social studies course, not as a special indoctrination into a particular religion as the ASN article presents it. The intent is to teach the position of this belief system in history, not the religion itself — the dividing line is not always clearly drawn, however, not even in the "standards" handed down by the State of California to its districts and individual schools. ("Standards" are education jargon for what the state insists be taught in a particular grade year in a particular area of study.)

According to California's Grade 7 social studies standard for this particular unit: "Students analyze the geographic, political, economic, religious, and social structures of the civilizations of Islam in the Middle Ages." In and of itself that would be fine, but the breakdown of how that goal is to be achieved opens the door to potential blurring. One item from the 6-point list on how that standard is to be reached is especially troubling: "Trace the origins of Islam and the life and teachings of Muhammad, including Islamic teachings on the connection with Judaism and Christianity."

GarfieldJL
05-18-2007, 02:16 PM
You left out the part as to who they tapped to help come up with the curriculum among other things.

Also it'd be more believable if David P. Mikkelson didn't have an agenda of his own. Seriously, what I can find on him and it isn't much is that he is involved in promoting Atheism.

mimartin
05-18-2007, 02:42 PM
Do you think this is because they have an unfair bias against christians or do you think it's because christians sometimes push the envelope too far in the interest of their agenda and the ACLU has to step in? It's one thing to say that the ACLU is going after christians and quite another to say that christian groups need a lot of supervision. Just interested on your take on this.

I hate to admit it, but some Christian groups need a lot of supervision. I don’t have a problem when the ACLU gets involved in case to defend the rights of anyone against a Christian group or any other type of group.

I have a problem when Christian groups try to implant their agenda on public school boards and other government agency. While I agree with a large part of their agenda, I believe it is important and should to be taught at home and church, but not in the class room. What if I’m Church of Christ, then why do I want a Baptist teaching my child? Although we are both Christian we have very different beliefs. What if my family is Jewish or Muslim, do I want a Baptist teaching them about creation? Even as a Baptist my views are very different from other Baptist haven been raised by a single mother and attending different churches on any given Sunday, so I wouldn’t want my child told this is the only way your faith must work. I would give them the same opportunity I was given to make up their own mind. The school is not the only place to raise our children, parents have the responsibly to help prepare their own children for life. Even if we didn’t have the separation of church and state, I believe religious teaching are best done in the home and at church and not in the class room or on the court house steps.

When does the ACLU go too far? I was thinking about a statue removed from the Texas State Capital grounds that was presented to the state at a movie premier back in 1956. It had been there without any problems or hurting anyone for almost 50 years. Then one day the ACLU said it had to go. The movie was “The Ten Commandments,” and the statue had the Ten Commandments on it. This really upset me as I’ve passed this statue every weekend UT plays home games for over 15 years. Every time I jogged I would run right by it, but never once did I read a word on it till it was set to be removed. It is one thing to remove offensive material, but destroying our history is not the answer. I can see both sides of this argument and my brain does say the ACLU was right in this case, my heart however does not agree.

So I’ll go with an example listed within this thread. Why would they not allow a group of young men whose law demands them to be trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean and reverent to have access to government facilities? Is it because they take an oath to “help people at all times”? We don’t want that in Washington. Maybe it’s the part about keeping themselves “physically strong, mentally awake and morally straight”? Can’t have them showing up the politicians in Washington by being skinny and awake (I want go anywhere near the morally straight one in a PG-13 Forum). Maybe the part about doing their duty to their country? No, then the ACLU are after the Boy Scouts for the word GOD in their oath and no other reason. This isn’t really a Christian thing since it says God and not Jesus, so this is an attack on Religion and not just Christianity. I guess I shouldn’t be allowed in my local court house since I said the pledge of allegiance when I was 13 years old or because I spent a dollar that had “in god we trust” written on it.

I was a Boy Scout and I never received any religious teachings from them outside of the scout’s oath. We had our meeting in a Church, but did not read the bible or listen religious lessons.

Name one person whose rights were violated by the Boy Scouts using a room on a military base? As for their having to believe in God to be a member, that rule was not strictly enforced when I was a member. I guess you also have to believe in god to be in the military because you have to also take a oath with gods name in it. I’m calling the ACLU to get the soldiers off our bases now.


"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962)

So yes, I believe some Christian groups push the envelope too far, but then again sometimes so does the ACLU. Overall after really thinking about it this country does need an organizations like the ACLU, but we also need organizations like the Boy Scouts.

Thanks for the question. It really made me think about it. Now I want to know what the SS had engraved on their belt buckles. It is driving me crazy.

Had another thought about this:

It could be that the ACLU seems to go after Christian organization more than other organizations because there are more Christian organization out there that are pushing the envelope. The Christian organizations want to push the envelope in order to energize their members to get them out to vote for the Christian agenda. Nothing does that better than getting their story on Fox News and their fair and balanced reporting. So it may be unfair to blame this totally on ACLU.

GarfieldJL
05-18-2007, 03:02 PM
Like wanting Homosexual Men being scout masters, sorry but someone would blow a gasket if we had a heterosexual man supervising a girl scouts troop, I think it's appropriate to not allow Homosexual men to supervise a boy scout troop.

mimartin
05-18-2007, 03:29 PM
Like wanting Homosexual Men being scout masters, sorry but someone would blow a gasket if we had a heterosexual man supervising a girl scouts troop, I think it's appropriate to not allow Homosexual men to supervise a boy scout troop.

Forgive me if this is a stupid southern boy question, but who wants homosexual men to be scout master? I don’t think my post has anything to do with that and neither does the article Jae linked about the ACLU and the Boy Scouts. The article, as far as I could figure, was about the ACLU settling a suit that will no longer allow Boy Scouts to have the meetings on military bases except in public locations. It mentioned military personal being Scout Masters, but I didn’t read anything about their sexual orientation. If something I wrote gave you the impression I was promoting the sex or sexual orientation of a Scout Master then I must apologize for that was not my intention.

GarfieldJL
05-18-2007, 03:31 PM
Actually it was because the boyscouts did not allow gays into their ranks and Atheists had complaints with the scout oath. That's why the ACLU didn't want the Boy Scouts allowed on military bases.

mimartin
05-18-2007, 03:42 PM
Actually it was because the boyscouts did not allow gays into their ranks and Atheists had complaints with the scout oath. That's why the ACLU didn't want the Boy Scouts allowed on military bases.


If that is true, then they really will be trying to get the soldiers off military bases next. I just thought I was making a joke. :laughing:

Prime
05-18-2007, 03:49 PM
Like wanting Homosexual Men being scout masters, sorry but someone would blow a gasket if we had a heterosexual man supervising a girl scouts troop, I think it's appropriate to not allow Homosexual men to supervise a boy scout troop.Sorry, but I don't understand what's wrong in either case? I mean, this kind of situation happens in everyday life constantly, doesn't it?

GarfieldJL
05-18-2007, 03:59 PM
The idea is so that you don't have someone that is possibly attracted to the children in an inappropriate manner.

Samuel Dravis
05-18-2007, 04:06 PM
But by passing the laws that someone disagrees with, calling them anti-civil liberty and evil, you are disrespecting their right to speak out against the calls, you are silencing them.If they're against the rights that are implied in the Constitution, then they are indeed anti-civil rights. This does not prevent them from speaking their mind; it simply characterizes their actions. You can continue saying whatever you like. If enough people agree with you, perhaps you can change the Constitution so that civil rights are granted by the government, not inherent in the people. I'd be against you on that one though.

How can I argue if the ACLU laugh at me and term intolerant?In whatever way you wish, save for violence. No one is required to listen to you.

In this case, I'm worried about protecting my own right, the right to criticize and the right to have my viewpoint expressed, and the right to have my viewpoint help to influence the desicions the government. Such a branding of intolerance is wrong.Sure. No one argues with that. However, the government is run by the people. If the people don't like your viewpoint, don't be disappointed when people don't support it.

(Also a clarification: I do support the ACLU's aims, somewhat. What I dislike is their attempt to claim that they are correct, and thereby making Chrisitans pretty mad.)In what other way should they be correct, then? Protecting the rights of all is necessary for a just system. It's good to remember that not all ideas are equal.



1) People must be tolerant towards other people. If they are intolerant, then those people are not free, regardless of what ideology they claim to be, regardless of whatever civil liberties they are upholading. Without tolerance, society is dead. Tolerance is the only thing that stands between open war between the Right and the Left, and we need it now, more than ever. Without tolerance, free speech cannot happen. To me, Free Speech is the most important civil right ever...Tolerance is a term used by people to excuse their actions. It's 'good' to be tolerant - of course. But not so tolerant that your rights are eliminated. Destroying a group's civil rights in the name of 'tolerance' is a disgusting perversion of the very idea of tolerance.. It seems to me that tolerance must be practiced by BOTH groups in order to work. If the majority is not tolerant they try to pass things forcing their views on others. If the minority is not tolerant they end up being a fringe group that no one likes (and thus are less effective in communicating their desires).

So, if you succed in making the minority for the view of Jae, then your view should be law and religion must change. If the majority is okay for Jae's view, then your view should be law anyway, and prehaps religion must change as well.No one is forcing religion to change, except insofar as they are no longer allowed to dictate to other people how their lives must be run. Religion can be as strict as it likes, can say what it likes, can do (for the most part) what it likes. However, its authority only exists over people who choose that religion.

Your view should be law, regardless of whatever the people say. No. We as a country do not recognize the ability of religion to dictate people's lives against their will. We decided that in 1776 and it remains enshrined in our very Constitution. If you have problems with this particular clause of the Constitution, you can argue against it if you like. However, I think you might end up as a fringe group. Good riddance, I say.

This is quite similar to fanatics of religious sects, who claim that their country should follow whatever some artibrary being or standard says, regardless of what the people want. In fact, it is some artibrary being or standard that you are using. Is that standard vaild? I don't know, but it's quite artibrary...and therefore, there needs to be some backing for that standard. That backing should be the people.I've already been over arbitrary reasons with you, SS. I'm sure I won't have to again. This is irrelevant, however, because the people chose this particular law. The people of the ENTIRE United States, by the way.

America is a democracy. The people choose. Not the ACLU. Not Falwell. And certainally not me. They must have the right to choose, to decide for themselves what is right, otherwise this turns into a tyranny. And if that tyranny is led by the ACLU or Falwell's followers, you can bet I'd be mad. It is the people who decide the law, not YOU.Indeed. So let them decide. So far, I don't see the Constitutional amendment required. Good luck with that.

It's not factual, it's opinonated. You presupposes that there are civil liberties, and that they should be protected, and that religion disagrees with your inteprertion of civil liberties, and so religion is steppping on civil liberties, and therefore, you can make that statement and therefore punch my nose.You know what I've said about the existence of rights and I will not go over it again. If you can show that religion is not infringing on the rights (both enumerated and non-enumerated in the Constitution) of people to do as they please in some cases, particularly bits about not allowing gay marriage, then do so.
It's a slur, and it's a slur that says, "Since these people are lunatics, don't listen to them. Listen to me." And it's a very cursing and evil slur, and it acts as a silencing agnet, to silence debate, and to make people agree with you. You are attacking the man, and you are attempting to stop my right to express my views.I've never said they were lunatics. If people wish to make that judgment on their own given the information and actions supplied by those groups, fine. I simply think they are infringing on the rights of others. And as far as I can tell, they are. The ACLU is protecting the rights of the people involved - and all citizens - in the process.

GarfieldJL
05-18-2007, 04:13 PM
So that excuses people being sued or called racist because they don't agree with something. Seriously, the ACLU may have been needed decades ago but they've kinda gone off the deep end now.

Samuel Dravis
05-18-2007, 04:16 PM
So that excuses people being sued or called racist because they don't agree with something. Seriously, the ACLU may have been needed decades ago but they've kinda gone off the deep end now.Sorry, I'm having trouble figuring out what you mean. Could you explain a bit more?

ET Warrior
05-18-2007, 04:27 PM
The idea is so that you don't have someone that is possibly attracted to the children in an inappropriate manner.So only homosexual men have the potential to be attracted to children in an inappropriate manner?

quote=GarfieldJL]someone would blow a gasket if we had a heterosexual man supervising a girl scouts troop,[/quote]I know of at least a few girl scout troops in my home town who had heterosexual men as supervisors. Not everyone in the world is a pedophile.

True, but if well over 80% of the Media is slanted to one side, then there is a problem.Making that number up off the top of your head? And as was pointed out by Achilles, are you sure that they're all slanted liberally, or perhaps just that they don't agree with your viewpoints so they are therefore liberal?

Jae Onasi
05-18-2007, 04:28 PM
But it didn't do that...at all. All that source did was muddy the water with falsehoods and try to spin the facts in a way to make the ACLU appear to do the things you were saying it was doing.
The ACLU either filed suit against Christian activities/organizations/people or they did not. I don't take issue with the ACLU going after very specific religious issues if they're over the line. I just want to see them applying that same standard across the board for all religions _and_ for those organizations that are violating free speech of religious organizations. I see lots of cases involving Christian groups. I see no cases where the ACLU has decided to protect the free speech rights of Christians, and I have not heard of cases where the ACLU filed suit against any organizations of any other religion except Judaism.

So an hour of my time went into (hopefully) setting the record straight because you made the choice to use a blantantly anti-ACLU source.
Well, it's kind of hard to find a source that's 'only a little bit anti-ACLU'. It's about as easy as finding a source that's just 'kinda in favor of the ACLU but otherwise generally neutral on the issue.' It's kind of like being a little bit pregnant. You either are or aren't.

I cannot speak with any degree of certainty about your intentions, but I will point out that according to Kant and the categorical imperative, attempting to intentionally decieve another person (using spun sources rather than facts to support a position perhaps) is considered unethical. And since ethics is the system of morals, one could say that using poor quality sources isn't only unethical, but immoral as well.

Of the precious few times I've ever been accused of lying, that certainly was the most...creative.

Why do you think I stated up front that it was a conservative source? I could have said nothing, but I felt it was only fair for people to know about the bias. I may make mistakes, I may not pick the best sources in the world, I may have bad days and not write at my best, but I would NEVER intentionally mislead or deceive someone. Your assumption distresses me and I'm quite hurt by it.

Exactly. And who speaks for the little guy when the voting majority is in the wrong? That was my whole point. Maybe work on going through the legislature and try to work with the voting majority?


Did you click (and read) the link or did you just look at the section I quoted? You still seems to be operating from the "only using the bases as a meeting place" sentiment from your source while ignoring all of thisI was skimming and have just now had a chance to look it over in more detail. I'd have to go back and compare the time/dates on those to sort through a couple things that may have a bearing on this.

On a more general note on perceptions, not specifically the base issue--why go after the Boy Scouts, though? Why try to bleed a decent organization of badly needed funds by forcing them to pay lawyers instead of putting it into programs that benefit the boys? It just looks for all the world like the ACLU is a big bully picking on the little kids. And I understand the legal issues they're concerned about, but the image they're creating is 'We're the ACLU, if you so much as breathe the word 'God' or 'Christian' we're going to slap a lawsuit on you so hard your head will spin, regardless of if you're saying it in an entirely legal context. And we'll go after you because you might not have the resources to fight it, so we can force you to give up and do it our way, and that's as good as a court win to us." That may not be what they think they're actually _doing_, and if it's not, then they need to do a much better job of explaining themselves, because their PR sucks on this issue.


This diatribe is largely a red herring, Jae. You used a source that was blantantly conservative and had a blatantly conservative spin. It is an unfortanately reality that the "if not conservative than automatically liberal" doctrine appears to be so prevalent amongst conservatives.

I view sourcing on a continuum--it's not 'not conservative so automatically liberal' or 'not liberal so automatically conservative'. There's a huge range.

Perhaps you could try a non-biased source that has facts and/or both sides of an issue. Yes, you have to dig a little for them and sometimes you can't find one (aforementioned case 4 for example). This is such a polarized issue that it's going to be extremely difficult to find an unbiased source, and you are likely aware of that just as much as I am.

Pretty soon no one listens because your cause is the one known as those "lying-cheating guys" (not you specifically, your sources). :¬:
Not sure what I'm supposed to think of that in light of the comments above.

I don't know how one convinces themselves that this is journalism while not simultaneously conceding to let others do their thinking for them. This is general statement and is not necessarily directed at you specifically. I didn't necessarily view those as journalism. They don't claim to try to disseminate news in a neutral manner.

As for the general nature of liberal sources, all I can tell you is that I don't use them. I don't doubt for a second that you won't disagree, but before you do I'll draw your attention once more to the "not conservative = liberal" doctrine that I mentioned earlier. I do so to point out that it could be you view my sources as "liberal" because they don't agree with you viewpoints, not because they actually are.See comments above on the conservative-liberal continuum.

Again, I think you missed my point.
You say, "rushing in to defend child molestors" while what I said was "rushing in to defend free speech". Important distinction Jae.I am aware of that artificial distinction. There are plenty of places to defend free speech that don't involve defending monsters in the process.

Furthermore, I can only assume that you didn't take the time to click the link (or visit the ACLU site yourself at another time)
Did go to the ACLU site to see their opinion on it since I wanted to see how they spun it. I think it's a cop-out excuse.


I'm a member of several other forums where standards for sources exist (you can get banned for repeatedly posting without citing sources, etc). No one is asking the moderators to chase down every source. It doesn't take more than a few seconds to click on a link and recognize bias (if it is present). This is even easier if you set expectations ahead of time (you're less likely to have to chase something down if you can automatically see that it doesn't comply with the standards in the first place). So "Never legislate what you can't enforce" doesn't hold water for several reasons. If this is something that the moderating staff isn't interested in taking on that's one thing, and I'll have to live with that, but calling it impossible just isn't true.

What kind of forums are these? Adult forums dedicated to debate or research, history or philosophy? If so, I'd expect a different kind of standard than a Star Wars gaming forum. By 'can't' please take into account that our moderating time is limited--unable can mean 'unable to spend the required time' just as much as any other kind of 'unable'. I'd prefer to limit any accusations of 'conservative mod abuse' or 'liberal mod abuse', which I see easily happening, and I sure don't want to ban a teenager for not citing a source. However, I'll certainly present your request in the moderator forum.

SilentScope001
05-18-2007, 04:44 PM
If they're against the rights that are implied in the Constitution, then they are indeed anti-civil rights. This does not prevent them from speaking their mind; it simply characterizes their actions. You can continue saying whatever you like. If enough people agree with you, perhaps you can change the Constitution so that civil rights are granted by the government, not inherent in the people. I'd be against you on that one though.

The Consitution does not protect any right to marriage. It does protect the right to an abortion.

The right to happiness is inscribed in the Declaration of Indepedence, not in the Consitution. Anything the Consitution did not give power to the federal government over belong to the states to decide.

The Consitution is silent on the matter of what you say is correct. It is up to the people...

Sure. No one argues with that. However, the government is run by the people. If the people don't like your viewpoint, don't be disappointed when people don't support it.

Sounds a bit ironic when you realize that there is a lot of homophobia that would easily help protect my viewpoint. And, of course, this also means that if people disagree with your viewpoint, then don't be disappointed when people don't support it. It works both ways.


In what other way should they be correct, then? Protecting the rights of all is necessary for a just system. It's good to remember that not all ideas are equal.

Not all ideas are equal? I disagree.

Justice: treating like cases alike. What is a like case? What is an unlike case? If the case of a man and man marrying the same as the case of a man and a woman marrying?

Tolerance is a term used by people to excuse their actions. It's 'good' to be tolerant - of course. But not so tolerant that your rights are eliminated. Destroying a group's civil rights in the name of 'tolerance' is a disgusting perversion of the very idea of tolerance.. It seems to me that tolerance must be practiced by BOTH groups in order to work. If the majority is not tolerant they try to pass things forcing their views on others. If the minority is not tolerant they end up being a fringe group that no one likes (and thus are less effective in communicating their desires).

So are we left with a society where both the majority and the minority are intolerant? This destroys my faith within society.

And indeed, I do agree, once more, that gays should have the right to get married. However, I disagree with people who do say that because it seems intolerant to other people, by suppressing their viewpoints and calling them wrong. I want to be tolerant to all sides, I don't want to be tolerant to one group while at the same time be intolerant to another group. We need tolerance for everything, EVERY idea, otherwise society won't function.

No one is forcing religion to change, except insofar as they are no longer allowed to dictate to other people how their lives must be run. Religion can be as strict as it likes, can say what it likes, can do (for the most part). However, its authority only exists over people who choose that religion.

It's not about religion however. It's about viewpoints. The viewpoint Jae has is that gay marriage should not be allowed. Now, this viewpoint may have some religious arguments, but I am sure there is some secular arguments as well. It is this viewpoint that you are all saying is wrong, and it is a viewpoint that Jae does not want to drop.

No. We as a country do not recognize the ability of religion to dictate people's lives against their will. We decided that in 1776 and it remains enshrined in our very Constitution. If you have problems with this particular clause of the Constitution, you can argue against it if you like. However, I think you might end up as a fringe group. Good riddance, I say.

Incorrect. In 1776, there were few openly gay people in America. Why? Because there were lots of homophobia all over the world. Even in the 1890's, Wilde, in Great Britian, writer of The Portriat of Dorain Grey was sent to a labor camp...because he was a homosexual.

Even in Washigiton, D.C., the capital of the United States of America, there is a ban on kites that is still in existence. Why? Kites are bad, since they make people have fun and being unnatural, a religious law quite similar to the law that bans Kites in Afghanistan under the Taliban. It is not enforced today, but it is there to show you that in fact, America followed had some aspects of religion, and it was not deeply secularized and insulated.

Religion plays no role in society, but it is the viewpoints that religion backs that does. Hostile views towards gay marriage has been present in 1776, which I suspect all the men who signed the Declartion of Indepedence believed in. Back then, people believed that gay marriage was wrong. Why put it in the Consitution after all, since nobody would ever do something like this in the near future?

It is now that we have this discussion about civil liberties for gay people, as well as other important issues. Back then, everyone probraly had the same viewpoints as Jae, who was semi-religilous, but focused more on secular affairs as well. So, I don't think they were actually thinking about gay marriage. This is an idea that has came up rather recently.

I've already been over arbitrary reasons with you, SS. I'm sure I won't have to again. This is irrelevant, however, because the people chose this particular law. The people of the ENTIRE United States, by the way.

The people of the ENTIRE United States, in 1776, would object to women's rights, ending of slavery, prohibiation, anti-prohibition, limits on wages, and ban on poll taxes. Even in that period, the people of the entire United States did not even get the chance to vote, only those who had property. The people who were voting in 1776 would surely object to the enfransching of all free white men (this was done on a state level with the presidental elections, and later, they started to get people to elect Senators as well), then later all free black men, and then all women...but they happened today. Amendments were needed to get the US in line with what Americans want today. It is a fluid documenation that sometimes, the people living under it want to change and modify because they see some faults.

Actually, religious people don't need to change the Consitution, since they can circle their ways around, by passing amendments in the states and figuring their own ways to solve the crisis. It's up to you to change the Consitution to fit your own views. I'd back you and support you in that struggle. I agree with your reasons, however aribtray. Let get this to a vote, get it passed, and end this cultural war once and for all. But until then, you're the ones living under their laws.

Indeed. So let them decide. So far, I don't see the Constitutional amendment required. Good luck with that.

But what if they pick 'wrong'?

You know what I've said about the existence of rights and I will not go over it again. If you can show that religion is not infringing on the rights (both enumerated and non-enumerated in the Constitution) of people to do as they please in some cases, particularly bits about not allowing gay marriage, then do so.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people.

Since gay marriage, or even marriage at all, is not defined in the US Consitution, it is the matter of the states to decide. Also, check here:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

This now applies to the states as well, thanks to the 14th Amendment...

Note however that it never says that Congress should not pass any laws that happens to concide with and enforce religious teachings. That is why we got that kite ban in Washigtion, D.C. That's also why we got blue laws on the books as well that mandates that there must be days off from school, as well as bans of prositution. If a state bans gay marriage, that is, in no way, endorsing Chrisitanty. It is likely to be banning gay marriage for purely secular reasons (it's tradition).

I've never said they were lunatics. If people wish to make that judgment on their own given the information and actions supplied by those groups, fine. I simply think they are infringing on the rights of others. And as far as I can tell, they are. The ACLU is protecting the rights of the people involved - and all citizens - in the process.

I think I would be better off if the ACLU said that they were protecting the rights of people who had their rights being attacked. That, I can understand, due to the fact that gay people are discriminated against, and they are cursed upon, etc. Instead, however, they call to protect the rights of everyone, which means that the rights of one person (or even an entire population) will be severly curtailed.

And I am sorry for my outburst about "lunatics". I think I agree with Achilles when it is the usually "implied" messages associated with the spoken statements are very terrible, but maybe people really seriously do not imply it. I'm merely disappointed in what the ACLU is doing.

Jae Onasi
05-18-2007, 05:05 PM
Using 'kites' in this manner is derogatory. Please use the appropriate terms. Thanks.

SilentScope001
05-18-2007, 05:10 PM
Using 'kites' in this manner is derogatory. Please use the appropriate terms. Thanks.

Uh. Jae. By kites, I mean ACTUAL kites (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kite). Like the flying ones, who fly in the air and have pretty things. I really didn't mean the other meaning for kites.

Here's the wiki definition for kite, just hopefully so that people don't misunderstand what I say:

A kite is a heavier-than-air, flying tethered man-made object. The necessary lift that makes the kite fly is generated when airflow over and under the kite creates low pressure above the kite and high pressure below it. In addition to the lift, this deflection generates horizontal drag along the direction of the wind. This drag is opposed with the tension of the one or more lines held by the operator of the kite.


Please forgive me, Jae for the misunderstanding.

Got it--that's one you may want to be extra-clear on in the future since it has taken on multiple negative meanings besides just that thing that Ben Franklin flew. --Jae

Achilles
05-19-2007, 12:25 AM
@GarfieldJL in post #40

http://www.alainsnewsletter.com/s/spip.php?breve214How about the two paragraphs that proceeded the section that you quoted (emphasis mine):

But his case is being continued by the American Civil Liberties Union, and if efforts to bring down the cross prevail, religious symbols at Arlington National Cemetery and Gettysburg will be in jeopardy.

That’s the view of attorneys defending Mount Soledad.Slippery-slope fallacy and blatant use of scare tactics. Why is it that no one seems to be able to mount an attack against the ACLU without resorting to fallacious thinking and sensationalism? Could it be because there is nothing to rally against and it's the only way these guys can get attention? Hmmmm...

What is the ACLU's involvement in this particular case?

The ACLU is challenging the legality of the special ballot that authorized the city to transfer the memorial to the federal government. It is also challenging the federal legislation transferring the land. Funny, I don't see anything about crosses in there. But they are continuing the case of the man that did file the original suit 17 years ago but died. All this from your own source.

-- http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/1/13/172143.shtml

Seems to me like they're catering to radical Islam. Wow, imagine that. The ACLU wanted some advice on how to set up guidelines for dealing with cases involving Islam, so they sought out recommendations from the American Muslim Council. Turns out the organization's leader is accused of terrorism and thrown in jail. For having contact with known terrorists? For having secretly undergone military training in an al-queda training camp? No, for this:

Alamoudi, founder and former executive director of American Muslim Council, was jailed last fall on charges that include taking money believed to come from a charity Libya has used to support terror, taking $340,000 in cash with the intent to bring it to Syria from London. It is also believed some of the money was to be taken to Saudi Arabia (or Saudi accounts) and from there to organizations of influence the United States. The charges include money-laundering, misuse of a passport and failure to report bank accounts. (Emphasis mine).

Hope this guy didn't spend any time on a waterboard for his alleged crimes.

EDIT: I just noticed that your source said "jailed last Fall" although the article was published in January. Does that mean he was thrown in jail, had his charges dropped, or went to court where he was found innocent? I don't know, but I bet you don't either. Journalistic integrity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smear_campaign) at it's finest.

@everyone else: I just got the kids to bed so now I'm going to spend some quality time with Oblivion. Heh, if it does to you what it did to Jimbo, we'll see you sometime next decade. :D --Jae EDIT: Just finished the main quest. Time for a new character! Took 212 hours, FWIW :D

I'll respond to your posts tomorrow.

Thanks for reading.

GarfieldJL
05-19-2007, 07:18 PM
Okay, I'm taking off the kid gloves now.
In Madison, Wisconsin
On Monday, October 8th 2001, liberals running the Madison Metropolitan School District voted three to two to ban schools from leading children in the Pledge of Allegiance.
They didn't just ban the Pledge, though. They also banned schools from singing the words to "The Star Spangled Banner." Instumental versions were fine, they said. But the school board made it crystal clear: using the words of America's national anthem, even during a time of war was forbidden--and that was final.

Before anybody starts off about Sean being a conservative, I'm well aware of that fact but in his book he devotes pages 297-326 just listing sources.

"We do have staff members...": Lee Sensenbrenner and Kathryn Kingsbury, "Pledge Banned in City Schools; School Board Also Nixes Anthem's Words," Capital Times (Madison, WI), October 9, 2001, p. A1.

He has quite a few things about left-wing idealogues, and several things about the ACLU, demonstrating about how they are anti-Christian and worse. Also he has sources in his book to back it up, quite a few from local newspapers. Also in this instance I mentioned he has two sources, both local papers, I just listed the first one. On several other things, he has 3 or more sources.

ET Warrior
05-19-2007, 08:21 PM
Okay, I'm taking off the kid gloves now.The real question would be why you were wearing them in the first place.

Maybe because this is supposed to be a friendly discussion forum rather than a strict debate forum. --Jae
Sometimes I forget that I'm not in the Senate, my apologies --ET

I think I'm either missing something or you aren't understanding the debate here. The question is if the ACLU is explicitly anti-Christian. The only things you've brought up have shown that they are more liberal than they are neo-conservative.

True_Avery
05-19-2007, 08:49 PM
The idea is so that you don't have someone that is possibly attracted to the children in an inappropriate manner.
So, according to your logic, I should not allow a male school teachers into a school because there might be girls there at a teen or older age that the men might happen to find pleasing to the eye?

Pedophiles and homosexuals are different things. Please check your sources and info before you make unfounded accusations towards a group of people.

CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, are all left wing.
Fox News would be considered right wing.
That means just over 80% of the national media outlets are slanted to one side.
Then we have the situations like Rather-Gate (also know as memogate).
True, but maybe they all agree because Fox News is the only one that is actually wrong? Maybe the majority of the population actually agrees that Fox News spouts complete right wing garbage, and even if the others are just as bad or worse left wing... perhaps they hold more truth or fairness that Fox ever has? Just a thought.

Ugh. Too much writing. I can't keep up, guess I'm out of watching this debate.

Totenkopf
05-19-2007, 10:12 PM
@ET--Or even conservative or moderate for that matter.

@True_Avery--More likely they all agree b/c the preponderance of people going into journalism identify themselves as liberals and or democrats. Doubtful that the "majority of population" views Fox as spewing right wing garbage as their ratings are much higher than their "more fair minded" competitors. Problem is that many of the news stations now seem to be merging from information to infotainment (yea, Fox is included too). Fact is, print media (also heavily liberal/lefty in it's slant) is also taking hits in circulation thanks to the internet and probably talk radio.

ET Warrior
05-21-2007, 05:28 PM
@ET--Or even conservative or moderate for that matter.Which is still irrelevant to the question at hand...

GarfieldJL
05-21-2007, 07:42 PM
Pages 116-117 of Let Freedom Ring:

In late September 2001, the children of Breen Elementary School near Sacramento, California, were looking for a way to express their love of God and country and to help the families of September 11 victims. So with the help of parents and teachers they raised nearly $4,000, held a rally to honor the policemen and firemen who risked and lost their lives, and put up a sign on their school grounds that declared "God Bless America." This patriotic sign was a simple, heartfelt, and innocent expression of patriotism. But certain liberals didn't see it that way.

On October 3, 2001, the American Civil Liberties Union sent a letter to school officials demanding they take the sign down immediately. The ACLU called the sign a "clear violation of the California and United States constitutions, as well as the California Education Code" and communicated "a hurtful, divisive message."...


By the way Sean Hannity provided sources concerning this too.

mimartin
05-21-2007, 07:59 PM
Pages 116-117 of Let Freedom Ring:

In late September 2001, the children of Breen Elementary School near Sacramento, California, were looking for a way to express their love of God and country and to help the families of September 11 victims. So with the help of parents and teachers they raised nearly $4,000, held a rally to honor the policemen and firemen who risked and lost their lives, and put up a sign on their school grounds that declared "God Bless America." This patriotic sign was a simple, heartfelt, and innocent expression of patriotism. But certain liberals didn't see it that way.

On October 3, 2001, the American Civil Liberties Union sent a letter to school officials demanding they take the sign down immediately. The ACLU called the sign a "clear violation of the California and United States constitutions, as well as the California Education Code" and communicated "a hurtful, divisive message."...

By the way Sean Hannity provided sources concerning this too.

Yes, and on October 9, 2001 the ACLU said it was not going to sue the school district over this according to the Associated Press. They received a complaint, investigated and decide not to proceed with the case. This actually sounds like a case where the ACLU acted responsibly to me anyways.

Of course the decision of the ACLU not to sue may have had something to do with this:
On October the 16 of that year the House of Representatives approved a resolution 404 to 0 saying that public schools should be allowed to display patriotic messages such as “God Bless American.” Even those evil liberal democratic didn’t vote against it although 10 voted only “present.”

GarfieldJL
05-21-2007, 08:18 PM
mimartin, they said that after the School District refused to back down and the specifics of the case went public. Otherwise the ACLU would have kept up the attack, they didn't bother to investigate, they demanded the sign be taken down and when the particulars of the case went public and the District wouldn't back down, the ACLU had to back down.

ET Warrior
05-21-2007, 08:57 PM
and put up a sign on their school grounds that declared "God Bless America."I am reminded of a post made in the Patriotism thread by Achiles...For instance, when I drive around and see bumper stickers that read "God bless the USA", I recognize the rest of the message which reads, "...and not your country". "God bless the world" or "God bless us all" is much more clear and uses the same number or words, so the "God bless the USA while we nuke your stupid country into the dark ages" interpretation is pretty clearly what was meant by that message (ok, I embellished a little).

In addition, the sign is a clear endorsement of religions which believe in the Judeo-Christian God displayed prominently. Trying to have it removed is not being biased against Christians, which is the point, it is simply enforcing a separation of church and state.

None of your arguments up to this point have addressed the topic of the thread, but have simply painted the picture that the ACLU is a liberal organization. Perhaps you should actually argue some of the points that have been raised, as opposed to just quoting snippets from a book. At the very least you could also copy the sources, as opposed to us taking your word for it that they exist.

GarfieldJL
05-21-2007, 09:29 PM
With all do respect if someone has a problem with "God Bless America" that's just too bad. Seriously, it was the kids that came up with the sign, in this case you're advocating a supression of their first amendment rights.

I could go even further about how this library in Boulder, Colorado banned the American Flag, but put on display a bunch of brightly colored ceramic penises. Pages 119-121 of Let Freedom Ring

Totenkopf
05-22-2007, 03:16 AM
@ET--you mean irrelevant like your comment about liberal vs neocon (rather than merely moderate or conservative)? Perhaps you could refrain from needless editorializing.

Prime
05-22-2007, 09:47 AM
With all do respect if someone has a problem with "God Bless America" that's just too bad. Seriously, it was the kids that came up with the sign, in this case you're advocating a supression of their first amendment rights.Those same set of rights allow them to say that, don't they?

mimartin
05-22-2007, 10:18 AM
mimartin, they said that after the School District refused to back down and the specifics of the case went public. Otherwise the ACLU would have kept up the attack, they didn't bother to investigate, they demanded the sign be taken down and when the particulars of the case went public and the District wouldn't back down, the ACLU had to back down.

Yes and the ACLU are known for repeatedly backing down at the first sign of public pressure. Somehow I think there is more to the reason they back down than the school and Fox news standing up to them. The ACLU did not have to back down they choose to back down. I could not find any information as to why they backed down, other than Fox news claiming victory. My suspicion is it had something to do with Congress and this all happening so close to 911.

Samuel Dravis
05-22-2007, 12:23 PM
The Consitution does not protect any right to marriage. It does protect the right to an abortion.

The right to happiness is inscribed in the Declaration of Indepedence, not in the Consitution. Anything the Consitution did not give power to the federal government over belong to the states to decide.

The Consitution is silent on the matter of what you say is correct. It is up to the people...Article I, section 10, clause 1. The state may not impair the obligation of contracts. The test for violation of this clause is: "First, the state regulation must substantially impair a contractual relationship. Second, the State "must have a significant and legitimate purpose behind the regulation, such as the remedying of a broad and general social or economic problem." If you can explain how denying such marriages remedies a "broad economic or social problem" go ahead. Until then, the state simply isn't allowed to do so. Of course, the people can change that if they feel like it - but they haven't so far, have they.

Sounds a bit ironic when you realize that there is a lot of homophobia that would easily help protect my viewpoint. And, of course, this also means that if people disagree with your viewpoint, then don't be disappointed when people don't support it. It works both ways.Thing is, I haven't been disappointed yet. Apparently the homophobia isn't strong enough to pass a Constitutional amendment.



Not all ideas are equal? I disagree.If someone says something that is untrue, and another says something that is true, then the latter has a greater truth-value and is more useful to me than whatever the first one cooked up. I'm not getting into what's "really" true because I have no use for that discussion.

Justice: treating like cases alike. What is a like case? What is an unlike case? If the case of a man and man marrying the same as the case of a man and a woman marrying?I don't consider someone's sexual orientation to be of interest whatever. If two men want to enter a contract between themselves, fine. Same with a man and a woman, etc. They are responsible for their own decisions. I'd say a like case is one that enters into a similar contract, and in this respect I see very little difference between M-F and M-M/F-F.

So are we left with a society where both the majority and the minority are intolerant? This destroys my faith within society.I simply don't expect people to be so tolerant (of the majority view, or whatever) that their own considerations are ignored completely.

And indeed, I do agree, once more, that gays should have the right to get married. However, I disagree with people who do say that because it seems intolerant to other people, by suppressing their viewpoints and calling them wrong. I want to be tolerant to all sides, I don't want to be tolerant to one group while at the same time be intolerant to another group. We need tolerance for everything, EVERY idea, otherwise society won't function.If they're wrong, then I have no problem calling them that. I don't see the need to be politically correct about something. Saying something false causes harm to everyone affected by it, and I consider it important that people know why I think so. You might even consider that a patriotic duty.

It's not about religion however. It's about viewpoints. The viewpoint Jae has is that gay marriage should not be allowed. Now, this viewpoint may have some religious arguments, but I am sure there is some secular arguments as well. It is this viewpoint that you are all saying is wrong, and it is a viewpoint that Jae does not want to drop.What secular arguments? I'm quite interested in these. Do explain.

Incorrect. In 1776, there were few openly gay people in America. Why? Because there were lots of homophobia all over the world. Even in the 1890's, Wilde, in Great Britian, writer of The Portriat of Dorain Grey was sent to a labor camp...because he was a homosexual.It's incorrect that the US is not supposed to control people's religious views, and that that opinion is in law?

Even in Washigiton, D.C., the capital of the United States of America, there is a ban on kites that is still in existence. Why? Kites are bad, since they make people have fun and being unnatural, a religious law quite similar to the law that bans Kites in Afghanistan under the Taliban. It is not enforced today, but it is there to show you that in fact, America followed had some aspects of religion, and it was not deeply secularized and insulated.Well, I'm happy that we've evolved as a society which becomes more enlightened as time goes on.

Religion plays no role in society, but it is the viewpoints that religion backs that does. Hostile views towards gay marriage has been present in 1776, which I suspect all the men who signed the Declartion of Indepedence believed in. Back then, people believed that gay marriage was wrong. Why put it in the Consitution after all, since nobody would ever do something like this in the near future?I don't know if that was the reason. However, I am glad they didn't, since it's worked out well for people's freedoms.

It is now that we have this discussion about civil liberties for gay people, as well as other important issues. Back then, everyone probraly had the same viewpoints as Jae, who was semi-religilous, but focused more on secular affairs as well. So, I don't think they were actually thinking about gay marriage. This is an idea that has came up rather recently.Are you trying to say that, since people back then were homophobes, it's appropriate to protect that kind of discrimination today? Since people way back when owned slaves, it's appropriate to protect that ownership today? I disagree.



The people of the ENTIRE United States, in 1776, would object to women's rights, ending of slavery, prohibiation, anti-prohibition, limits on wages, and ban on poll taxes. Even in that period, the people of the entire United States did not even get the chance to vote, only those who had property. The people who were voting in 1776 would surely object to the enfransching of all free white men (this was done on a state level with the presidental elections, and later, they started to get people to elect Senators as well), then later all free black men, and then all women...but they happened today. Amendments were needed to get the US in line with what Americans want today. It is a fluid documenation that sometimes, the people living under it want to change and modify because they see some faults.And some parts haven't been modified because people recognize their value.

Actually, religious people don't need to change the Consitution, since they can circle their ways around, by passing amendments in the states and figuring their own ways to solve the crisis. It's up to you to change the Consitution to fit your own views. I'd back you and support you in that struggle. I agree with your reasons, however aribtray. Let get this to a vote, get it passed, and end this cultural war once and for all. But until then, you're the ones living under their laws.As far as I'm concerned, they are interfering with personal rights and that comes under the Constitution's current protections.

But what if they pick 'wrong'?Then I'd oppose it, just like anyone can in a democracy.

Since gay marriage, or even marriage at all, is not defined in the US Consitution, it is the matter of the states to decide. Also, check here:I would say that the states not giving equal rights to gay marriages are interfering with the fulfillment of the couple's personal contract.

Note however that it never says that Congress should not pass any laws that happens to concide with and enforce religious teachings. That is why we got that kite ban in Washigtion, D.C. That's also why we got blue laws on the books as well that mandates that there must be days off from school, as well as bans of prositution. If a state bans gay marriage, that is, in no way, endorsing Chrisitanty. It is likely to be banning gay marriage for purely secular reasons (it's tradition).If there are legitimate secular reasons for banning gay marriage, then do tell. If all you have is an appeal to "tradition", then I'm afraid you haven't got much of a case. It was traditional that many things we find immoral now were done. It's traditional for genital mutilation to be practiced in Africa. It was traditional for women to be property of their husbands. Etc, etc. I'm not buying tradition.

GarfieldJL
05-22-2007, 04:11 PM
Yes and the ACLU are known for repeatedly backing down at the first sign of public pressure. Somehow I think there is more to the reason they back down than the school and Fox news standing up to them. The ACLU did not have to back down they choose to back down. I could not find any information as to why they backed down, other than Fox news claiming victory. My suspicion is it had something to do with Congress and this all happening so close to 911.


It had to do with it being so close to 9/11, because if they made too big of a deal over it, there would be a huge backlash against the ACLU, which is why they went skitish when it went public.

lukeiamyourdad
05-22-2007, 07:41 PM
I could go even further about how this library in Denver, Colorado banned the American Flag, but put on display a bunch of brightly colored ceramic penises. Pages 119-121 of Let Freedom Ring

I have not read anything about that, but I wonder if it's a public or a private library.

If public, then they have little reason to ban the American flag.

If it's private, they do whatever the hell they want.

As for ceramic penis, it seems that some Americans still cannot understand nudity for art. Then again, what do those who don't know anything about nudity in art know about art?

GarfieldJL
05-22-2007, 08:29 PM
Sorry my bad, the initial flag being taken down issue was the Boulder Public Library in Boulder, Colorado.

Colorado Senate Democrats were responsible for:

Check out this headline: "DEMOCRATS KILL REQUIREMENT FOR PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE."
I kid you not.
It was from the Associated Press--dateline: Denver--February 5, 2002.

Then it was followed by.

But that wasn't all. Nine days later there was more news from Denver: "FLAG-DISPLAY MEASURE KILLED."
That was a [i]Rocky Mountain News headline on February 14, 2002--a little liberal Valentine to the country. Sure enough, Colorado Democrats had killed a bill protecting the right of Coloradans to display the American flag in their workplaces and other public places.
The bill had been written in response to an incident in October, when the head of the Boulder Public Library prohibited employees from flying a 10- by 15 foot flag at one of the library's entrances...

Bleh it involved Denver but missed the bit about Boulder when I was reading back through.

What was particularly offensive about this incident was that days later the library had no qualms about displaying something a little less mainstream: a collection of "brightly colored penises attached to a clothesline."

Page 119 of Let Freedom Ring.

Jae Onasi
05-22-2007, 09:01 PM
As for ceramic penis, it seems that some Americans still cannot understand nudity for art. Then again, what do those who don't know anything about nudity in art know about art?

I understand nudity and nudity in art. Rainbow-bright ceramic penises aren't art. They're about as kitsch as pink flamingos.


Let me clarify something--I'm not opposed to civil unions/partnerships/etc. There are a lot of situations where someone would like to be in a legal relationship with someone else, and not necessarily in a manner that includes hetero- or homosexual activities, e.g. two long-time friends who have no other family and want to have legal rights to make health-care and financial decisions as needed for each other. My mother-in-law got married to her second husband not out of love but out of friendship--she was taking care of him as a health-care aid, and he didn't have any family nearby. He married her so that she could make health and financial decisions if he wasn't able. A civil union probably would have been a better choice for them if that option had been available.

However, I think the term 'marriage' is very specific and involves a man and a woman coming together, usually to form a family unit. Since a number of different studies have shown that children _generally_ (not exclusively) develop best in a household where a loving husband and wife are committed to the family unit, I think that model needs to be acknowledged and supported with sane private and gov't polices. For instance, welfare right now actually penalizes people for getting married--if you make too much as a household, you can't get welfare. Getting married often puts a couple above the threshold for aid but not necessarily out of poverty, so it sometimes makes more financial sense for them _not_ to get married. Sometimes it means someone with chronic health problems can no longer get Medicaid (US version)--if the couple makes too much money they lose the Medicaid benefits, but often times don't have enough money to afford their own insurance. Again, for them it's better financially if they _don't_ marry, or even forces them to get divorced. I think this is just crazy.

shamelessposer
05-22-2007, 09:45 PM
I would advise the people in this thread who are making intelligent arguments to just back down. When your opposition is quoting a crackpot like Sean Hannity, it gets to be pretty obvious that reason and logic aren't welcome in the discussion.

Since a number of different studies have shown that children _generally_ (not exclusively) develop best in a household where a loving husband and wife are committed to the family unit

The studies I've seen actually show that children develop best in any situation where they have two parental figures instead of one, so long as the relationship between those two parental figures is a stable one. That can mean your mother and father, your aunt and uncle, the gay couple who adopted you, your godparents, your mother and her sister, or just about any other combination you can think of so long as it's a stable one.

The idea that only a man and a woman should be able to get married because of family stability is a dangerous one regardless. By the very same reasoning you're using, a man and a woman shouldn't have a legal right to marriage unless they plan on having children. Actually, scratch that: a man and a woman shouldn't have a legal right to marriage unless they have children. I guess that means infertile couples and couples who agreed to not have kids are SOL under the system you're advocating.

GarfieldJL
05-22-2007, 10:12 PM
I would advise the people in this thread who are making intelligent arguments to just back down. When your opposition is quoting a crackpot like Sean Hannity, it gets to be pretty obvious that reason and logic aren't welcome in the discussion.


Are you also going to say that the Denver Post, Rocky Mountain News, Associated Press, etc. are all making it up?


Furthermore, that's not what Jae was saying...

Jae Onasi
05-22-2007, 10:46 PM
The studies I've seen actually show that children develop best in any situation where they have two parental figures instead of one, so long as the relationship between those two parental figures is a stable one.
I've not seen those studies so I don't have an intelligent comment. Of the studies I have seen or heard about from Jimbo who's done some research into the importance of fathers, they do _best_ with loving parents where they see people of both genders interacting appropriately with each other. Note that just because I say 'best' does not imply the others are 'bad'. Mother/father is the A+ position when it's at its ideal, but other situations may be 'good' or 'adequate', especially compared to some bad parenting situations.

The idea that only a man and a woman should be able to get married because of family stability is a dangerous one regardless. By the very same reasoning you're using, a man and a woman shouldn't have a legal right to marriage unless they plan on having children.
That's precisely why I specifically said it's not _exclusively_ that way. I'm saying the institution of marriage should be recognized and respected for the important role it plays in society, not that other things are 'bad', and that's a very important distinction.

The benefits of marriage are not exclusively limited to child-rearing. Men, for instance, live longer if they're married than if they're single, and women have lower rates of poverty if they're married.

Totenkopf
05-23-2007, 02:00 AM
Men, for instance, live longer if they're married than if they're single, and women have lower rates of poverty if they're married.

Don't you mean suffer longer? :xp:

Prime
05-23-2007, 10:42 AM
That's precisely why I specifically said it's not _exclusively_ that way. I'm saying the institution of marriage should be recognized and respected for the important role it plays in society, not that other things are 'bad', and that's a very important distinction. Apart from child rearing, what important role are you refering to? What roles break down when the couple is not heterosexual?

The benefits of marriage are not exclusively limited to child-rearing. Men, for instance, live longer if they're married than if they're single, and women have lower rates of poverty if they're married.But men and women can still get married and have those benefits if they choose. How does homosexual marriage hurt this? What if there are similar benefits to gay couples? Why should they be denied this?

I would advise the people in this thread who are making intelligent arguments to just back down. When your opposition is quoting a crackpot like Sean Hannity, it gets to be pretty obvious that reason and logic aren't welcome in the discussion.Easy tiger.

If you have alternate views about a source provided, please comment directly on that information (preferably with information that counters) or show with evidence why a source is untrustworthy. Comments like the above don't further the discussion any. Thank you.

shamelessposer
05-23-2007, 11:22 AM
Easy tiger.

If you have alternate views about a source provided, please comment directly on that information (preferably with information that counters) or show with evidence why a source is untrustworthy. Comments like the above don't further the discussion any. Thank you.

You're right. I'm better off doing myself and my panic disorder a service through judicious use of my ignore list instead. I'd advise others to do the same.

I'll add that anyone using a Fox News personality as a source of information has immediately started a conversation on the wrong foot. If the information in question is valid, then there should be another, reputable source you can cite instead. If the information isn't valid, you're just using Fox News as an excuse for being uninformed.

GarfieldJL
05-23-2007, 03:31 PM
Actually, I've found it to be the opposite, simply because they are the only cable media source without a left-wing slant. The other media outlets would jump on them if they started spewing out rampant propaganda. Only Fox News will go after those media outlets if they start spewing propaganda, so Fox News is held to a higher standard.

All you've done is fired off blatent attacks at Sean Hannity about his credibility without anything to back it up. Whereas Sean Hannity had at least 2 sources in each thing I've mentioned.

Totenkopf
05-23-2007, 04:17 PM
You're right. I'm better off doing myself and my panic disorder a service through judicious use of my ignore list instead. I'd advise others to do the same.

I'll add that anyone using a Fox News personality as a source of information has immediately started a conversation on the wrong foot. If the information in question is valid, then there should be another, reputable source you can cite instead. If the information isn't valid, you're just using Fox News as an excuse for being uninformed.

Perhaps you can provide a list of "reputable" sources......or perhaps you mean anything BUT Fox is reputable by default?

shamelessposer
05-23-2007, 06:52 PM
Perhaps you can provide a list of "reputable" sources......or perhaps you mean anything BUT Fox is reputable by default?

I'd say that "anything but Fox" is a good start. We're talking about a news network that's made its name off of having a visible right wing bias to everything it reports.

And to GarfieldJL, I would advise you in the future to not buy into the generally anti-semitic "liberal media" conspiracy theory. You are on my ignore list, so please don't bother replying to my posts in the future.

True_Avery
05-23-2007, 07:27 PM
I'd say that "anything but Fox" is a good start. We're talking about a news network that's made its name off of having a visible right wing bias to everything it reports.

And to GarfieldJL, I would advise you in the future to not buy into the generally anti-semitic "liberal media" conspiracy theory. You are on my ignore list, so please don't bother replying to my posts in the future.
You may want to be less aggressive in your posts or you may end up on the forum's ignore list.

Let me clarify something--I'm not opposed to civil unions/partnerships/etc. There are a lot of situations where someone would like to be in a legal relationship with someone else, and not necessarily in a manner that includes hetero- or homosexual activities, e.g. two long-time friends who have no other family and want to have legal rights to make health-care and financial decisions as needed for each other. My mother-in-law got married to her second husband not out of love but out of friendship--she was taking care of him as a health-care aid, and he didn't have any family nearby. He married her so that she could make health and financial decisions if he wasn't able. A civil union probably would have been a better choice for them if that option had been available.
Civil Unions and Marriage are different things. Why should same sex couples be denied the rights and privilages of opposte sex couples when all that is different about their love is the fact they have a few different physical traits?
Two of my favorite guys to be around are a couple and they have loved eachother for going over 20 years now. They consider themselves "married", but their jobs don't consider them because it is not legal. Thus, they lose out on a lot of benefits that could help them. One of them, because he argued, was fired from his job and is having a hard time finding another.

However, I think the term 'marriage' is very specific and involves a man and a woman coming together, usually to form a family unit. Since a number of different studies have shown that children _generally_ (not exclusively) develop best in a household where a loving husband and wife are committed to the family unit, I think that model needs to be acknowledged and supported with sane private and gov't polices.
I've not seen those studies so I don't have an intelligent comment. Of the studies I have seen or heard about from Jimbo who's done some research into the importance of fathers, they do _best_ with loving parents where they see people of both genders interacting appropriately with each other. Note that just because I say 'best' does not imply the others are 'bad'. Mother/father is the A+ position when it's at its ideal, but other situations may be 'good' or 'adequate', especially compared to some bad parenting situations.
Please show me these studies done by legitimate doctors (Nothing against Jimbo). I know people who have same sex parents and they are just as loving and nice as other people, if not even more accepting of others lifestyes than kids with parents of the opposite sex. To my knowledge there is no proof that having a man and a woman as parents make you turn out better, as the majority of people I know have had terribly abusive parents, parents that didn't give a damn about them, and parents who even offered them drugs and alcohol.

In my personal opinion, the last thing this world really needs is mass amounts of babies. We are at over 6 billion people, 4 billion more than a little less than a hundred years ago. If people -really- want kids, then please. Please! Adopt kids who wants parents more than anything in the world instead of adding to the growing population. Orphanages are filled up, baby girls are killed everyday in China since their population is over 2 billion, and it is -almost- always better to grow up with parents (same sex or not) then to never have anybody to look up to in life as a father or mother figure.

interacting appropriately with each other.
But who is to say what is appropriate or not?

Mother/father is the A+ position when it's at its ideal
Why?

For instance, welfare right now actually penalizes people for getting married--if you make too much as a household, you can't get welfare. Getting married often puts a couple above the threshold for aid but not necessarily out of poverty, so it sometimes makes more financial sense for them _not_ to get married. Sometimes it means someone with chronic health problems can no longer get Medicaid (US version)--if the couple makes too much money they lose the Medicaid benefits, but often times don't have enough money to afford their own insurance. Again, for them it's better financially if they _don't_ marry, or even forces them to get divorced. I think this is just crazy.
I'd like to ask you a personal question. After writing that, would you go back in time and decide not to get married for financial reasons(This is assuming you are married, sorry if I am wrong)? I'm assuming you got married because you love your husband. Telling people, especially people who want nothing more than to be legally married, that they are better off because of money...

I can see your viewpoint and you have some good points, but I still have a hard time seeing the fact you don't seem to be opposed to them being together when you put so much evidence up saying that they should just live as roommates. Your opinion is good and has some good info in it and I respect it.

shamelessposer
05-23-2007, 07:37 PM
You may want to be less aggressive in your posts or you may end up on the forum's ignore list.

I wasn't aware that I was posting in an overly aggressive way. I'll try and tone it down.

True_Avery
05-23-2007, 07:39 PM
I wasn't aware that I was posting in an overly aggressive way. I'll try and tone it down.
If I misinterpreted I'm sorry. Just seemed a little aggressive to me :P

lukeiamyourdad
05-23-2007, 09:42 PM
I understand nudity and nudity in art. Rainbow-bright ceramic penises aren't art. They're about as kitsch as pink flamingos.

Why would it be kitsch? Why can't it be a display about different representations of male genitalia?

I have a problem with this stupid argument about allowing ceramic penises and not the American flag. They shouldn't be linked at all. It's almost as if a bunch of brightly colored ceramic penises were inherently anti-American.

GarfieldJL
05-23-2007, 10:51 PM
Why would it be kitsch? Why can't it be a display about different representations of male genitalia?

I have a problem with this stupid argument about allowing ceramic penises and not the American flag. They shouldn't be linked at all. It's almost as if a bunch of brightly colored ceramic penises were inherently anti-American.


They were saying a bunch of brightly colored ceramic penises were less controversial than the American Flag in a Public Library in the United States... Excuse me but there is a problem.

Also shamelessposer, to be completely blunt I've provided evidence that the liberal bias in the mainstream media exists. I've yet to see you provide any evidence that it doesn't exist.

I'm referring the the study by UCLA, as well as the books Bias and Arrogance by Bernard Goldberg, Let Freedom Ring by Sean Hannity, and numerous other sources. There are ample examples of a left-wing bias in the media. Fox News is the only cable news network in the US that isn't slanted to the left which ticks off the Left-wing mainstream media, so therefore Fox ends up being held to a much higher standard than the other outlets, which is why I trust Fox News a lot more than networks like CBS (also known as Clinton Broadcasting Service), CNN (also known as Clinton News Network), New York Times, MSNBC, NBC, and ABC.

And now for my word, in my opinion the line about me being on the ignore list is an attempt to insult me and my intelligence, albiet a laughable attempt. You can attempt to try to make it sound like that you were overly agressive, but in fact you were going beyond agressive and attempting to insult someone because they had a different opinion. Now to get back on topic...

Please do not flame each other here. If you all have a problem with a post, contact one of us mods or use the report post function. Any further discussions on the ignoring thing should be done by PM because if it continues here, it will be considered flame-baiting and it will earn you a warning.

Garfield, anyone has the right not to read someone's posts, and frankly, I don't care if someone doesn't read what I have to say. It's not an insult if it's done because they recognize that they themselves are uncomfortable with reading something by someone.

shamelessposer, quit posting that you're ignoring people. You don't have to announce that--just ignore them quietly.

If you all have questions, PM me or one of the other mods. --Jae

Jae Onasi
05-24-2007, 12:06 AM
Civil Unions and Marriage are different things. Why should same sex couples be denied the rights and privilages of opposte sex couples when all that is different about their love is the fact they have a few different physical traits?I never said deny same-sex couples (or other couple types that may not be involved sexually) legal rights. In fact, I wish they wouldn't. From a doc point of view, it's much easier on the family and staff if we don't have to deal with stupid legal crap (I hate HIPAA regs) when there's a medical emergency. Fortunately that doesn't happen very often in my field, and the gay/non-married couples I see usually are good about letting me know about the relationship so I make sure to include everyone appropriately.

but their jobs don't consider them because it is not legal. Thus, they lose out on a lot of benefits that could help them. In Cook county (Chicago, IL) civil unions and non-married couples are recognized and given the same legal benefits as married couples, and I think they're working on that for IL.


Please show me these studies done by legitimate doctors (Nothing against Jimbo). Kind of tough to find studies done by illegitimate doctors in reputable journals. I'll add it to my stack of medline searches. :) Jimbo will get me the titles of the books he's read, and I know one of them is Fatherless America.

I know people who have same sex parents and they are just as loving and nice as other people, if not even more accepting of others lifestyes than kids with parents of the opposite sex. I never said they couldn't, and was very careful to specify that.

To my knowledge there is no proof that having a man and a woman as parents make you turn out better, as the majority of people I know have had terribly abusive parents, parents that didn't give a damn about them, and parents who even offered them drugs and alcohol.
I specified loving parents. Abusive parents aren't loving. If I knew a parent was giving a child drugs and alcohol, I'd be on the phone with 911 so fast for abuse and neglect, their heads would spin.
Adopt kids who wants parents more than anything in the world instead of adding to the growing population. Orphanages are filled up, baby girls are killed everyday in China since their population is over 2 billion, and it is -almost- always better to grow up with parents (same sex or not) then to never have anybody to look up to in life as a father or mother figure.We actually looked at that. And at 20k and up, decided we couldn't afford it--we didn't have that kind of money. Orphanages in other countries have so many problems there'd be no guarantee that we'd get a healthy child, and at the time, both of us were working full-time and did not have the funds or time to be able to take on a special needs child. Frankly, with all the problems with Baby M getting taken from her adoptive parents after living with them for 3 years because the birth mother wanted her back, we didn't want to deal with that heart-wrenching possibility.

Interacting appropriately--in a loving way to each other that shows respect for each gender and teaches children how men and women should be treated. I used to think we could teach things in a gender neutral way, but after 2 kids, I've discovered that their different genetic makeups mean they really are wired differently as boys and girls. They do need to learn how to interact with the opposite gender and learn how to treat each other and what's acceptable and unacceptable treatment of themselves.


I'm assuming you got married because you love your husband. Telling people, especially people who want nothing more than to be legally married, that they are better off because of money...We got married for love, yes, but we didn't have the same issues some others have. I honestly don't know what I would have done if I'd been The I was speaking about live together a lot of the time. In fact one of my dad's good friends lives with a woman in a pretty platonic relationship, but they haven't gotten married for financial reasons (alimony I think in both their cases). I've seen more than one patient who's in a relationship with someone else, and they've told me they wanted to get married but couldn't because they'd lose their Medicaid (we talk about a lot of things in my office :) ). In fact it was one of the concerns of my sister-in-law when she was considering marriage a few years back, because she has some serious health problems that require a lot of care and medications that she couldn't afford.

I can see your viewpoint and you have some good points, but I still have a hard time seeing the fact you don't seem to be opposed to them being together when you put so much evidence up saying that they should just live as roommates. Your opinion is good and has some good info in it and I respect it.Having a civil union affords the same legal rights--I never said they shouldn't have rights.


Why would it [brightly colored ceramic penises] be kitsch? Why can't it be a display about different representations of male genitalia?

Because it ranks right up there with brightly colored ceramic Chia Pets. It's something my kids would make, for heaven's sake. At least do something that has real artistic value. The human body is an amazing thing and deserves better than something you'd find in the picnic section of the dollar store.

True_Avery
05-24-2007, 01:48 AM
I never said deny same-sex couples (or other couple types that may not be involved sexually) legal rights. In fact, I wish they wouldn't. From a doc point of view, it's much easier on the family and staff if we don't have to deal with stupid legal crap (I hate HIPAA regs) when there's a medical emergency. Fortunately that doesn't happen very often in my field, and the gay/non-married couples I see usually are good about letting me know about the relationship so I make sure to include everyone appropriately.
Hmm, that does bring up an interesting point.

In Cook county (Chicago, IL) civil unions and non-married couples are recognized and given the same legal benefits as married couples, and I think they're working on that for IL.
Thats great, only wish we had that here. Civil Unions are different from marriages here, but to what degree I'll look up and see. I know Civil Unions don't get marriage benefits from jobs and some other silly legal stuff.

Kind of tough to find studies done by illegitimate doctors in reputable journals. I'll add it to my stack of medline searches. :) Jimbo will get me the titles of the books he's read, and I know one of them is Fatherless America.
I never said they couldn't, and was very careful to specify that.
Fatherless America? I'll look that up then. Might be interesting. I think I might actually have it, but never read it.

I specified loving parents. Abusive parents aren't loving. If I knew a parent was giving a child drugs and alcohol, I'd be on the phone with 911 so fast for abuse and neglect, their heads would spin.
Good point, misread what you mean't.

We actually looked at that. And at 20k and up, decided we couldn't afford it--we didn't have that kind of money. Orphanages in other countries have so many problems there'd be no guarantee that we'd get a healthy child, and at the time, both of us were working full-time and did not have the funds or time to be able to take on a special needs child. Frankly, with all the problems with Baby M getting taken from her adoptive parents after living with them for 3 years because the birth mother wanted her back, we didn't want to deal with that heart-wrenching possibility.
Yeah, that is the rather unfortunate side of adoption. Always found it odd how adopting a child who needs a parents takes years of paperwork and thousands of dollars, but having a child yourself with no background check by the officals is perfectly legal...

Interacting appropriately--in a loving way to each other that shows respect for each gender and teaches children how men and women should be treated. I used to think we could teach things in a gender neutral way, but after 2 kids, I've discovered that their different genetic makeups mean they really are wired differently as boys and girls. They do need to learn how to interact with the opposite gender and learn how to treat each other and what's acceptable and unacceptable treatment of themselves.
Ah, gotcha. Makes sense completely, even though I'm more neutral than most people :P

We got married for love, yes, but we didn't have the same issues some others have. I honestly don't know what I would have done if I'd been The I was speaking about live together a lot of the time. In fact one of my dad's good friends lives with a woman in a pretty platonic relationship, but they haven't gotten married for financial reasons (alimony I think in both their cases). I've seen more than one patient who's in a relationship with someone else, and they've told me they wanted to get married but couldn't because they'd lose their Medicaid (we talk about a lot of things in my office :) ). In fact it was one of the concerns of my sister-in-law when she was considering marriage a few years back, because she has some serious health problems that require a lot of care and medications that she couldn't afford.
Yup, I'll agree with you that the medical stuff is a real pain. I'm more of, let everybody have the option of marriage and choose to have it or not. Nobody -has- to get married and a lot of people don't, but having the option out there for everybody is mainly what I want. Even if it was available to everybody, marriage really has no interest for me. Neither does having kids, so my personal opinion on this might be a little off.

Having a civil union affords the same legal rights--I never said they shouldn't have rights.
Maybe where you live, but not everywhere. And it's less of Civil union and more of Marriage for me. They are titles for sometimes the same thing, true, yet calling the "marriage" of another couple a civil union because it is "supposed to be male and female" seems rather absurd and possibly selfish to me. It's just a title, but the title means more to some than others. Hmmm, it's like saying (In some areas, not all) "that drink is soda!" and then turning to another can and saying "that is flavored bubbling water!". They are both soda, so why not call the second soda as well?

Anyway, sorry if I missread some of your posts. I understand what you are trying to say now... I think!

Prime
05-24-2007, 10:12 AM
Fox News is the only cable news network in the US that isn't slanted to the left which ticks off the Left-wing mainstream media[/color]But it is very much slanted to the right, is it not? So you have an issue with organizations slanted in one direction but not the other?

GarfieldJL
05-24-2007, 01:36 PM
Actually it wasn't slanted too far right, it was a lot closer to center than what some people would like to believe. Furthermore, Fox News has people from both sides of the Political Spectrum, also every mainstream media outlet would love for Fox to report something bogus so they could jump all over them and try to make a mockery of the network. However, when one of their own report something bogus they don't even report it.

Easy example is the memo-gate fiasco of CBS, the only cable media outlet that actually went after CBS on reporting false information (i.e. forged documents) to slander a sitting President is Fox News. NBC, MSNBC, ABC, etc., all refused to acknowledge it.

Yet they all went crazy towards Fox News letting the Swift Boat Vets account their time with John Kerry, and Fox News invited Kerry on to refute it. Letting people who are whom they say they are, give accounts cannot even be compared to using fraudulent documents to slander someone. Bush could have and arguably should have, pressed charges against Dan Rather and the man that created those fraudulent documents.

When I get back the book Arrogance by Bernard Goldberg from a person I loaned it to, I'll have additional examples to further prove my point.

lukeiamyourdad
05-24-2007, 10:52 PM
They were saying a bunch of brightly colored ceramic penises were less controversial than the American Flag in a Public Library in the United States... Excuse me but there is a problem.


In some country...it actually is. The comparison still is stupid. An art display has nothing to do with the American flag. Both can coexist peacefully and both can be separate without problem. In fact, the simple mention of the ceramic penises seems more like an attempt at making the entire thing sound more extreme to the eyes of good thinking Americans.



Because it ranks right up there with brightly colored ceramic Chia Pets. It's something my kids would make, for heaven's sake. At least do something that has real artistic value. The human body is an amazing thing and deserves better than something you'd find in the picnic section of the dollar store.

Wow, never thought there was a dollar store/sex shop somewhere in the world...

Seriously though. Still art and the brightly colored ceramic penises were obviously part of an art display. Whether you like it or not, whether you think of it as in good or poor taste, it still remains art.


Actually it wasn't slanted too far right, it was a lot closer to center than what some people would like to believe. Furthermore, Fox News has people from both sides of the Political Spectrum, also every mainstream media outlet would love for Fox to report something bogus so they could jump all over them and try to make a mockery of the network. However, when one of their own report something bogus they don't even report it.

Yeah..."commentators" from both side of the spectrum. "Journalists" too...

I have no doubt that every human has a bias, it is rather stupid however, to believe in plot theories, without serious proof. Also, every "mainstream" media outlet is out there waiting for Fox to report something bogus so they can bash it? Seriously. One of their own? An alliance of the "liberal" media? No offense, but this is either one huge joke or...well, one huge joke.

Frankly, this is hopeless. You have your mind set on it and to further things, you read and listen to media only reinforcing your belief. I doubt you even know what the word "liberal" even means. Before I get accused of being a leftist, I'm actually more center-right, but this is Canadian center-right, which probably means something like raging communist in the eyes of the "American conservatives". This discussion should never have even started...

shamelessposer
05-24-2007, 11:21 PM
I have no doubt that every human has a bias, it is rather stupid however, to believe in plot theories, without serious proof. Also, every "mainstream" media outlet is out there waiting for Fox to report something bogus so they can bash it? Seriously. One of their own? An alliance of the "liberal" media? No offense, but this is either one huge joke or...well, one huge joke.

"Liberal media" is code for "Jewish media conspiracy," whether the person saying it knows it or not. I'm not about to say that GarfieldJL or anyone else who uses the phrase is a bigot, but he and others like him are perpetuating a myth used by bigots.

True_Avery
05-24-2007, 11:21 PM
Yeah..."commentators" from both side of the spectrum. "Journalists" too...

I have no doubt that every human has a bias, it is rather stupid however, to believe in plot theories, without serious proof. Also, every "mainstream" media outlet is out there waiting for Fox to report something bogus so they can bash it? Seriously. One of their own? An alliance of the "liberal" media? No offense, but this is either one huge joke or...well, one huge joke.

Frankly, this is hopeless. You have your mind set on it and to further things, you read and listen to media only reinforcing your belief. I doubt you even know what the word "liberal" even means. Before I get accused of being a leftist, I'm actually more center-right, but this is Canadian center-right, which probably means something like raging communist in the eyes of the "American conservatives". This discussion should never have even started...
QFE

Jae Onasi
05-24-2007, 11:42 PM
"Liberal media" is code for "Jewish media conspiracy," whether the person saying it knows it or not. I'm not about to say that GarfieldJL or anyone else who uses the phrase is a bigot, but he and others like him are perpetuating a myth used by bigots.
a. I'm glad you're not making the insinuation that someone is being a bigot, because calling someone that is flaming.
So let me be obvious--don't call people or make insinuations that people are bigots here.
b. Since when is 'liberal media' code for 'Jewish media conspiracy'? No one here has ever come close to implying this. What does being Jewish have to do with having a liberal or conservative outlook? You can be liberal and be Jewish, Russian, Chinese, Canadian, American, etc., etc., etc. You can be conservative and be Jewish, Russian, Chinese, Canadian, American, etc., etc., etc.


Wow, never thought there was a dollar store/sex shop somewhere in the world...Only in America. I actually found one on Beale St., but I can't discuss the items on the forum. Trust me, they were hilarious and tacky all at the same time, especially after a hurricane and 4 beers.

Seriously though. Still art and the brightly colored ceramic penises were obviously part of an art display. Whether you like it or not, whether you think of it as in good or poor taste, it still remains art.

Michelangelo's nudes are art. Botticelli, Raphael and Da Vinci made art. Brightly colored Chia-Penises are crappy kitsch.

I can paste the waste from my cats' litterbox onto a piece of green construction paper and stick it in an art display. That doesn't make it art. The colorful penises are indeed in poor taste. Just as important, if not more so, they're just stupid--nothing more than a giggling-kid-making-colorful-penis-models-to-shock-the-art-teacher
kind of stupid.

Wanna start an art thread? :D

mur'phon
05-25-2007, 03:08 AM
As far as I know, if something is called art, it's art. Like I can call this tekst a poem , I can call my dogs dropings art.

shamelessposer
05-25-2007, 08:18 AM
b. Since when is 'liberal media' code for 'Jewish media conspiracy'? No one here has ever come close to implying this. What does being Jewish have to do with having a liberal or conservative outlook? You can be liberal and be Jewish, Russian, Chinese, Canadian, American, etc., etc., etc. You can be conservative and be Jewish, Russian, Chinese, Canadian, American, etc., etc., etc.

It's been the case for decades, but I'm pretty sure it first started around the same time as McCarthy's HUAC hearings. It's since been assumed to be fact by people who are (hopefully) unaware of the origin.

Jae Onasi
05-25-2007, 10:34 AM
Well, let me set the ground rule then that using the term 'liberal media' is acceptable, using or implying 'Jewish media conspiracy' is not. We'll also set the ground rule that 'conservative media' is acceptable, while using or implying 'Fascist/Religious-right media conspiracy' is not.

Prime
05-25-2007, 11:13 AM
Actually it wasn't slanted too far right, Forgive me if I find that highly dubious. I am in Canada, so I don't have regular exposure to Fox News, but I did see a few days worth of sampling as a part of a free preview on satellite. I'm not sure how you can say they aren't clearly right wing. They didn't even seem to try and present themselves as anything but. Most interviews I saw (granted, a limited number) where there were opposing views had the journalist and the right wing proponent with the majority of the screen and when the right wing guy would speak he would fill the screen, but when the left wing guy spoke he remained in his little corner of the screen. The supposedly unbiased journalist/moderator clearly was taking the side of the right wing guy and they essentially ganged up on the other. I don't remember what the topics were, but even if the right side was more accurate, the way the debate was portrayed was clearly one sided. Again, they didn't even try to portray it as an honest debate with two sides and an impartial moderator. After seeing a few examples like that, I just couldn't take them seriously.

That being said, there are a lot of American news organizations that I can't take seriously. CNN seems very sensationalized, for example. IMO you should trust soley in any one organization, and you need to try and get views from all sides on any one topic.

it was a lot closer to center than what some people would like to believe. But should they be anywhere on the political spectrum? As a supposed news organization shouldn't they strive to present "just the facts" as much as possible?

Letting people who are whom they say they are, give accounts cannot even be compared to using fraudulent documents to slander someone. What does one have to do with the other? Misinformation is misinformation, and one incident does not alter the importance or severity of the other.

GarfieldJL
05-25-2007, 07:36 PM
Well the CBC has a pretty bad reputation for being slanted to the left, isn't the CBC also under control of the Canadian Government, or it had been for a number of years? Which the Canadian Government had been under control of one party for a pretty long time. I'll do some research to confirm or disprove it.

Hallucination
05-26-2007, 12:04 AM
The CBC is funded by the government, which was the Liberal party until about a year ago. However, the CBC presented a fair deal of information on the Sponsorship Scandal, which was done by Jean Chretien's Liberals and was used by the Progressive Conservatives under Stephen Harper to call an election (which they won), so they're not quite liberally biased.

The Source
05-26-2007, 10:18 AM
ACLU is just another control mechanism amongst more control mechanisms. If a person looks at our history, how we have changed over the past thirty years, you will notice a move towards complete 'political correctness'. ACLU and others try to keep the American freedoms out of politics. The only political correct change I am greatful for is how we call each other's ethnic background in this manner: Irish-American, African-American, Italian-American, etc... Beside that one specific change, I do not think the ACLU has any logical existance.

Remember, the government cannot impose or promote religion, but religion can get involved in political anything. The ACLU tries to flip that logic around. Any religious group can become apart of our government, but they cannot make laws to force people into believing in their religious beliefs. However, religious groups can make their descisions on a moralistic perspective, which derives from their religious background. At the end of the day, the constitution still has legs to stand upon.

Jae Onasi
05-26-2007, 11:18 AM
I am English-Lithuanian-Swiss-Swedish-Scottish-Native American-Irish-German-Norwegian American

Dagobahn Eagle
05-26-2007, 11:26 AM
Make up your mind already:).

GarfieldJL
05-26-2007, 03:43 PM
Jae Onasi is a typical American, whom can trace their origins from many countries.


Anyways the CBC is directly funded by the Canadian Government, and there have been numerous complaints of it having a left wing slant, even going after a political party directly.

Having seen the debates comparing the MSNBC Republican Debate to the Fox News Republican Debate (I've seen them both), it is in my opinion and many other people's as well that Fox News handled the Republican Debate a lot better even calling people on the fact they hadn't answered the question.

Totenkopf
05-26-2007, 08:27 PM
Having seen the debates comparing the MSNBC Republican Debate to the Fox News Republican Debate (I've seen them both), it is in my opinion and many other people's as well that Fox News handled the Republican Debate a lot better even calling people on the fact they hadn't answered the question.

Well, let's face it, Chris Matthews is more interested in hearing himself than having his guests (in this case candidates) speak. A very poor choice for a moderator. What I find interesting is that the Dems are sooo afraid of appearing on Fox in the first place. Frankly, you don't get much more partisan than Chris Matthews, so what are the dems afraid of? That the favor would be returned?

lukeiamyourdad
05-27-2007, 01:41 AM
Well the CBC has a pretty bad reputation for being slanted to the left, isn't the CBC also under control of the Canadian Government, or it had been for a number of years? Which the Canadian Government had been under control of one party for a pretty long time. I'll do some research to confirm or disprove it.

Anyways the CBC is directly funded by the Canadian Government, and there have been numerous complaints of it having a left wing slant, even going after a political party directly.

So, where is this proof?

Though the CBC is funded by the Canadian government, it certainly isn't controlled by it. Frankly, it's quite "American right-wing" to hear "owned by the government" and equate it automatically to government propaganda machine. Ironic that you trust your army and president so much, isn't it the government?

As Hallucination mentioned, the liberals were defeated during the last federal elections and the CBC did report properly all the information about the sponsorship scandal even though it was against the Liberal party. If anything, you can accuse the CBC of being federalist and anti-separatist. Then again, who outside of Québec isn't? Finally, before you jump off your seat and take the word liberal for raging leftist, let me clarify that the Liberal Party in Canada seriously isn't left. It's more like dead center, sometimes leaning left or right, depending on the flavor of the month. The New Democratic Party is actually the real representative of a true leftist ideology in Canada, while the Conservative Party is the real right. Then there's the Bloc Québécois, who is composed of separatists, which has no real purpose in Ottawa, other then often holding the balance of power, but meh.

GarfieldJL
05-30-2007, 07:38 PM
Oh did anyone here aside from myself know about what is going on in Venezuela?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,276356,00.html

I have yet to see anyone other media outlet cover the situation.

ET Warrior
05-30-2007, 07:53 PM
Oh did anyone here aside from myself know about what is going on in Venezuela?.
Fascinating...
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/americas/05/29/venezuela.media/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/americas/05/28/venezuela.protest.ap/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/americas/05/28/venezuela.protest/index.html

2 second check at cnn got me those articles.

Yahoo:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070530/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/venezuela_chavez_vs_tv_48
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070530/ts_nm/venezuela_television_dc_10

Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/30/AR2007053001867.html

Yes, Fox News is the only place on earth to find out about it...

True_Avery
05-30-2007, 08:00 PM
Oh did anyone here aside from myself know about what is going on in Venezuela?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,276356,00.html

I have yet to see anyone other media outlet cover the situation.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18845585/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18924700/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18868158/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6679243.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/6697099.stm

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/americas/05/29/venezuela.media/index.html

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/05/27/venezuela-tv.html
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/05/30/chavez-tvstation-070530.html
http://www.cbc.ca/cp/world/070528/w052811A.html

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=3219913
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=3219094

That was easy. And yes, I did hear it before you posted on a channel other than Fox Noise.
I will never, ever, understand the kool-aid drinkers that Fox Noise(News) leads.

EDIT: Awww, ET got there before me.

GarfieldJL
05-30-2007, 08:56 PM
I've been paying attention to MSNBC news on cable, not the net, and they covered on memorial day Prisons in the US, while Fox covered Memorial Day services and the stuff in Venezuela. I'm surprised it is even on MSNBC's website to be honest.

vallo
05-30-2007, 09:13 PM
If I shouldn't support the ACLU, then who should I support?

True_Avery
05-30-2007, 09:42 PM
If I shouldn't support the ACLU, then who should I support?
I'd think the oposite would be an anarchist group. Not very good on organizations myself, but there are some other liberty movements.

Or, if you want to be a little more extreme, the christian church. Oh hell, any church. Even though you can do both they seem to dislike eachother.

GarfieldJL
05-30-2007, 11:04 PM
The opposite of the ACLU isn't Anarchists.

Many Churches aren't intolerant, it depends on what church you're referring to.

True_Avery
05-30-2007, 11:42 PM
The opposite of the ACLU isn't Anarchists.

Many Churches aren't intolerant, it depends on what church you're referring to.
True. What are other organizations besides ACLU anyway? I could look them up myself, but opinion helps as well.

GarfieldJL
05-31-2007, 09:21 PM
Personally I feel once the ACLU was necessary, but now I'm not sure that it is, at the very least it needs some serious reforms within it.