| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"VTM Malkavian" |
| Date: |
30 Jan 2004 01:01:10 AM |
| Object: |
Question about the ACLU (and other things) |
What do you think about the ACLU?
Yes, I realize that's a vague, wide-open question, but I'm interested in
whatever you have to say. I'll explain why later on.
I would also like to read your opinions on the following situation.
I have a Deist friend (he would say he's a Christian, but his actual beliefs
don't really match up) who I always manage to get into disagreements with. He's
not fundamentalist or conservative by any means, but he hates the concept of
the "anything goes" liberals. He's also *very* unreasonable and unyielding in
his arguments.
His stance on the role of religion in government goes something like this: The
founding fathers of the United States never intended for Christianity to be
completely separate from the government. They only meant to prevent the
formation of a state church (i.e. "The Church of America" or something along
those lines). Since Christians compose the majority of Americans, they should
have the right to say whether or not they want their ideals to be apparent in
public places, be it on the side of a public highway or in a courtroom. You
can't please *everyone* so why not do what you can to make the *most* people
happy?
My responce was basically that the founding fathers' ideals are not the end-all
of the Constitution. They obviously had no problem with slavery, so is slavery
constitutional again all of a sudden? The question is not "What did the
founders believe 200 years ago?" but "What's best for society *now*?" We no
longer live in a time where being the in majority grants you superiority in
life, but Christian superiority is exactly the fundamentalists want from the
government. Public displays are just, as one a.a poster put it, "cracks in a
damn, which soon become fissures."
Furthermore, the majority cannot be allowed to rule unchallenged. If it would
make the majority happy to take all the members of racial, religious, and
political minorities and BURN THEM ALIVE, would that be constitutional or in
any way moral? Afterall, you're making the *most* people happy. His response to
this is "It doesn't cause anyone harm to post a religious symbol in a
courthouse."
Physical harm, no. Putting the Ten Commandments in a courthouse won't cause a
Muslim to burst into flames upon sight of it. It will, however, remind someone
that they're viewed as being inferior or evil in a place where they're already
going to be feeling vulnerable. Afterall, if you're accused of a crime, don't
you want to know you're being judged based on the evidence against you versus
that in your defense, without losing points automatically for belonging to a
different belief system?
Beyond that, the extremists who demand a Christian theocracy are, themselves, a
minority. Most Christians, even those who know *nothing* about other religions
(or even about their own) except what they're told in church, are content to
live and let live, and to allow the government to do its job *without* shoving
the Bible down everyone's throat. It's true, many polls showed that a large
majority supported keeping the Ten Commandments in the Alabama courthouse, but
how many of those were actively fighting for it, and how many just said "Sure.
Why not?"
So if the Christian superiority activists are, in fact, a minority, why should
one minority be given rule over other minorities in the name of the majority?
Moving on, in one of our arguments I made some brief comment about the ACLU, to
which my friend replied "***** the ACLU!" He then went on and on about the ACLU
defending NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Association) in a lawsuit and how
they promote pedophilia. He then challenged me to name one positive thing the
ACLU has done for the common good in the last ten years. Knowing little about
either the ACLU or NAMBLA, I was at a loss for words, which I could tell my
friend felt very high and mighty about.
I found several pages (by Christians) condemning the ACLU's actions (here's one
http://www.gostrategic.org/dtt/DTTP09B2000.htm), but could find nothing on the
ACLU's website about it.
So, my questions are really "What's your stance on the NAMBLA issue?" and
"What, specifically, has the ACLU done that's been a huge step in defense of
all Americans' rights in recent or past times?"
Thanks for your thoughts.
"The best way to get religion out of government is to insist that ALL religions
have EQUAL rights in a government context. Nothing scares the fundies more than
a 'devil inspired' but equally government sponsored religious service."
--Gregory Gadow
.
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Question about the ACLU (and other things) |
30 Jan 2004 01:35:24 AM |
|
|
"VTM Malkavian" <vtmmalkavian@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040130020110.13064.00000575@mb-m20.aol.com...
What do you think about the ACLU?
Yes, I realize that's a vague, wide-open question, but I'm interested in
whatever you have to say. I'll explain why later on.
I would also like to read your opinions on the following situation.
I have a Deist friend (he would say he's a Christian, but his actual
beliefs
don't really match up) who I always manage to get into disagreements with.
He's
not fundamentalist or conservative by any means, but he hates the concept
of
the "anything goes" liberals. He's also *very* unreasonable and unyielding
in
his arguments.
His stance on the role of religion in government goes something like this:
The
founding fathers of the United States never intended for Christianity to
be
completely separate from the government. They only meant to prevent the
formation of a state church (i.e. "The Church of America" or something
along
those lines). Since Christians compose the majority of Americans, they
should
have the right to say whether or not they want their ideals to be apparent
in
public places, be it on the side of a public highway or in a courtroom.
You
can't please *everyone* so why not do what you can to make the *most*
people
happy?
Tell him that the constitution is in place to specifically FORBID the
tyranny of the Majority. It's purpose is to prevent the majority from
trampling the rights of the minority. Would slavery of blacks be ok if the
majority composed of whites were "happy" with it? No. So clearly, as far as
the constitution is concerned, the majority can go ***** itself.
Atheists are second class citizens ALREADY, due to the influence of
Christianity in the USA. There doesn't need to be a "Church of America" to
deny non-believers their rights, just a cloying omnipresent religious
bigotry.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "sparkup" |
|
| Title: Re: Question about the ACLU (and other things) |
30 Jan 2004 05:06:36 AM |
|
|
"VTM Malkavian" <vtmmalkavian@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040130020110.13064.00000575@mb-m20.aol.com...
What do you think about the ACLU?
Moving on, in one of our arguments I made some brief comment about the
ACLU, to
which my friend replied "***** the ACLU!" He then went on and on about the
ACLU
defending NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Association) in a lawsuit
and how
they promote pedophilia.
Your friend seems to be fairly indoctrinated.
The ACLU are not defending NAMBLA's views or promoting their views, they are
protecting NAMBLA's (and, by proxy, every other American's) constitutional
right to free speech.
Press release here:
http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=8100&c=86
He then challenged me to name one positive thing the
ACLU has done for the common good in the last ten years. Knowing little
about
either the ACLU or NAMBLA, I was at a loss for words, which I could tell
my
friend felt very high and mighty about.
I found several pages (by Christians) condemning the ACLU's actions
(here's one
http://www.gostrategic.org/dtt/DTTP09B2000.htm), but could find nothing
on the
ACLU's website about it.
So, my questions are really "What's your stance on the NAMBLA issue?" and
It is not a NAMBLA isssue, it is a freedom of speech issue.
"What, specifically, has the ACLU done that's been a huge step in defense
of
all Americans' rights in recent or past times?"
Do either you or your friend know about the black civil-rights struggle
during the middle of the 20th century?
The ACLU was a major part of that.
The ACLU is also challenging the constitutionality of the Patriot Act.
The ACLU has brought several lawsuits that protect your privacy while you
are online.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Question about the ACLU (and other things) |
30 Jan 2004 08:03:19 AM |
|
|
And so upon Fri, 30 Jan 2004 07:01:10 +0000 didst VTM Malkavian speak
thusly:
Moving on, in one of our arguments I made some brief comment about the ACLU, to
which my friend replied "***** the ACLU!" He then went on and on about the ACLU
defending NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Association) in a lawsuit and how
they promote pedophilia. He then challenged me to name one positive thing the
ACLU has done for the common good in the last ten years. Knowing little about
either the ACLU or NAMBLA, I was at a loss for words, which I could tell my
friend felt very high and mighty about.
I've heard this one a lot but never found a citation of an actual *case.
In fact, a lot of what is said about the ACLU is sheer propaganda. Insist
on actual citations before accepting one of these "the ACLU did X" claims.
But it *is true the ACLU takes on cases nobody else wants. That's part of
the *point of the organization. The erosion of civil rights never starts
with middle-class ordinary folk everybody identifies with. It starts with
fringe groups. The marginalized. The ones the public won't identify with
and won't become upset when the group has its rights run over.
Such as the ACLU's most notorious case was defending the KKK's right to
have marches. While it *sounds pretty bad to defend the KKK, they weren't.
They were defending the rights of assembly, free speech, petition for
redress of grievances, etc.
It's a very, very slippery slope when the protection of rights is based on
your popularity. If rights aren't universal, you get into some very sticky
areas that can come back to haunt you.
It's like the old saying goes, "first they came for..."
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
"There is no system but GNU, and Linux is one of its kernels."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Harry Leopold" |
|
| Title: Re: Question about the ACLU (and other things) |
03 Feb 2004 02:08:44 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 8:03:19 -0600, Mark K. Bilbo wrote
(in message <pan.2004.01.30.14.03.17.876496@hoo.com-amikchi>):
From: "Mark K. Bilbo" <y@hoo.com-amikchi>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
And so upon Fri, 30 Jan 2004 07:01:10 +0000 didst VTM Malkavian speak thusly:
Moving on, in one of our arguments I made some brief comment about the
ACLU, to
which my friend replied "***** the ACLU!" He then went on and on about the
ACLU
defending NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Association) in a lawsuit
and how
they promote pedophilia. He then challenged me to name one positive thing
the
ACLU has done for the common good in the last ten years. Knowing little
about
either the ACLU or NAMBLA, I was at a loss for words, which I could tell my
friend felt very high and mighty about.
I've heard this one a lot but never found a citation of an actual *case.
In fact, a lot of what is said about the ACLU is sheer propaganda. Insist on
actual citations before accepting one of these "the ACLU did X" claims.
True, however the ACLU did go to court to protect free speech rights of
NAMBLA, as they should have. Even disgusting morons have a right to speak
their "minds," however disgusting those minds may be. (If they should act on
those thoughts, then they would be breaking the law and should be charged
under the law.)
If any group can have their rights removed just because most people find that
group disgusting than any group can find themselves in exactly the same
position.
Hell, the ACLU has even protected the rights of Christians many times, such
as a judge in the Pacific Northwest who protested against abortion, someone
tried to shut him up by taking him to court. He had always gone by the law in
dealing with cases that dealt with abortion, yet on his own time had marched
in protest. The ACLU fought to uphold his right to "peacefully assemble" and
protest as a private citizen.
I've worked for the ACLU, in a non-lawyer position, for about 7 years, as an
assistant moderator for their online forum. (I quit about a year ago, no time
and I lost my appetite for dealing with right-wing morons on a daily basis.
Now I dump on them when and as I feel like it, the right-wingnuts that is.)
--
Harry F. Leopold
aa #2076
AA/Vet #4
The Prints of Darkness
The Internet is full, we can not accept any more posts until further
notice. Thank you. - Kalinka Djnepropetrovska
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: Question about the ACLU (and other things) |
30 Jan 2004 11:43:24 AM |
|
|
Lo, many moons past, on 30 Jan 2004 07:01:10 GMT, a stranger called by
some (VTM Malkavian) came forth and told this
tale in alt.atheism
What do you think about the ACLU?
The ACLU exists to protect the Constitutional rights of all Americans.
All of them. Yours, mine, and the KKK's. They take cases without
judging the beliefs or aims of the defendant, but simply address the
infringement of rights.
I'm a card-carrying member. The group occassionaly takes on cases
that make my skin crawl, but that means they are doing the job right.
--
Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
Ezekiel 13:20 "Wherefore thus saith the
Lord GOD; Behold, I am against your pillows"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Carl Kaufmann" |
|
| Title: Re: Question about the ACLU (and other things) |
30 Jan 2004 02:42:12 PM |
|
|
Douglas Berry wrote:
Lo, many moons past, on 30 Jan 2004 07:01:10 GMT, a stranger called by
some (VTM Malkavian) came forth and told this
tale in alt.atheism
What do you think about the ACLU?
The ACLU exists to protect the Constitutional rights of all Americans.
All of them. Yours, mine, and the KKK's. They take cases without
judging the beliefs or aims of the defendant, but simply address the
infringement of rights.
I'm a card-carrying member. The group occassionaly takes on cases
that make my skin crawl, but that means they are doing the job right.
I forget who said it, but there is a saying "No one has to protect
popular speech."
Carl
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: Question about the ACLU (and other things) |
30 Jan 2004 07:26:35 PM |
|
|
On 30 Jan 2004 07:01:10 GMT, (VTM Malkavian)
wrote:
What do you think about the ACLU?
Yes, I realize that's a vague, wide-open question, but I'm interested in
whatever you have to say. I'll explain why later on.
I would also like to read your opinions on the following situation.
I have a Deist friend (he would say he's a Christian, but his actual beliefs
don't really match up) who I always manage to get into disagreements with. He's
not fundamentalist or conservative by any means, but he hates the concept of
the "anything goes" liberals. He's also *very* unreasonable and unyielding in
his arguments.
His stance on the role of religion in government goes something like this: The
founding fathers of the United States never intended for Christianity to be
completely separate from the government. They only meant to prevent the
formation of a state church (i.e. "The Church of America" or something along
those lines). Since Christians compose the majority of Americans, they should
have the right to say whether or not they want their ideals to be apparent in
public places, be it on the side of a public highway or in a courtroom. You
can't please *everyone* so why not do what you can to make the *most* people
happy?
My responce was basically that the founding fathers' ideals are not the end-all
of the Constitution. They obviously had no problem with slavery, so is slavery
constitutional again all of a sudden? The question is not "What did the
founders believe 200 years ago?" but "What's best for society *now*?" We no
longer live in a time where being the in majority grants you superiority in
life, but Christian superiority is exactly the fundamentalists want from the
government. Public displays are just, as one a.a poster put it, "cracks in a
damn, which soon become fissures."
Furthermore, the majority cannot be allowed to rule unchallenged. If it would
make the majority happy to take all the members of racial, religious, and
political minorities and BURN THEM ALIVE, would that be constitutional or in
any way moral? Afterall, you're making the *most* people happy. His response to
this is "It doesn't cause anyone harm to post a religious symbol in a
courthouse."
Physical harm, no. Putting the Ten Commandments in a courthouse won't cause a
Muslim to burst into flames upon sight of it. It will, however, remind someone
that they're viewed as being inferior or evil in a place where they're already
going to be feeling vulnerable. Afterall, if you're accused of a crime, don't
you want to know you're being judged based on the evidence against you versus
that in your defense, without losing points automatically for belonging to a
different belief system?
Beyond that, the extremists who demand a Christian theocracy are, themselves, a
minority. Most Christians, even those who know *nothing* about other religions
(or even about their own) except what they're told in church, are content to
live and let live, and to allow the government to do its job *without* shoving
the Bible down everyone's throat. It's true, many polls showed that a large
majority supported keeping the Ten Commandments in the Alabama courthouse, but
how many of those were actively fighting for it, and how many just said "Sure.
Why not?"
So if the Christian superiority activists are, in fact, a minority, why should
one minority be given rule over other minorities in the name of the majority?
Moving on, in one of our arguments I made some brief comment about the ACLU, to
which my friend replied "***** the ACLU!" He then went on and on about the ACLU
defending NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Association) in a lawsuit and how
they promote pedophilia. He then challenged me to name one positive thing the
ACLU has done for the common good in the last ten years. Knowing little about
either the ACLU or NAMBLA, I was at a loss for words, which I could tell my
friend felt very high and mighty about.
I found several pages (by Christians) condemning the ACLU's actions (here's one
http://www.gostrategic.org/dtt/DTTP09B2000.htm), but could find nothing on the
ACLU's website about it.
So, my questions are really "What's your stance on the NAMBLA issue?" and
"What, specifically, has the ACLU done that's been a huge step in defense of
all Americans' rights in recent or past times?"
Thanks for your thoughts.
Off on a tangent sort of - ask your friend if he was being accused of
being a member of NAMBLA and having child porn on his computer by way
of unconstitutional methods by a cop that hates him for other reasons
if he thinks the ACLU should not be willing to take his case.
Everyone is innocent until proven guilty and we have constitutional
protections to keep corrupt officials and over eager officials from
railroading those that are accused.
And then tell him Rush now LOVES the ACLU for helping him.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Question about the ACLU (and other things) |
31 Jan 2004 08:02:44 PM |
|
|
And so upon Fri, 30 Jan 2004 19:26:35 -0600 didst Kate speak thusly:
On 30 Jan 2004 07:01:10 GMT, (VTM Malkavian)
wrote:
What do you think about the ACLU?
Yes, I realize that's a vague, wide-open question, but I'm interested in
whatever you have to say. I'll explain why later on.
I would also like to read your opinions on the following situation.
I have a Deist friend (he would say he's a Christian, but his actual beliefs
don't really match up) who I always manage to get into disagreements with. He's
not fundamentalist or conservative by any means, but he hates the concept of
the "anything goes" liberals. He's also *very* unreasonable and unyielding in
his arguments.
His stance on the role of religion in government goes something like this: The
founding fathers of the United States never intended for Christianity to be
completely separate from the government. They only meant to prevent the
formation of a state church (i.e. "The Church of America" or something along
those lines). Since Christians compose the majority of Americans, they should
have the right to say whether or not they want their ideals to be apparent in
public places, be it on the side of a public highway or in a courtroom. You
can't please *everyone* so why not do what you can to make the *most* people
happy?
My responce was basically that the founding fathers' ideals are not the end-all
of the Constitution. They obviously had no problem with slavery, so is slavery
constitutional again all of a sudden? The question is not "What did the
founders believe 200 years ago?" but "What's best for society *now*?" We no
longer live in a time where being the in majority grants you superiority in
life, but Christian superiority is exactly the fundamentalists want from the
government. Public displays are just, as one a.a poster put it, "cracks in a
damn, which soon become fissures."
Furthermore, the majority cannot be allowed to rule unchallenged. If it would
make the majority happy to take all the members of racial, religious, and
political minorities and BURN THEM ALIVE, would that be constitutional or in
any way moral? Afterall, you're making the *most* people happy. His response to
this is "It doesn't cause anyone harm to post a religious symbol in a
courthouse."
Physical harm, no. Putting the Ten Commandments in a courthouse won't cause a
Muslim to burst into flames upon sight of it. It will, however, remind someone
that they're viewed as being inferior or evil in a place where they're already
going to be feeling vulnerable. Afterall, if you're accused of a crime, don't
you want to know you're being judged based on the evidence against you versus
that in your defense, without losing points automatically for belonging to a
different belief system?
Beyond that, the extremists who demand a Christian theocracy are, themselves, a
minority. Most Christians, even those who know *nothing* about other religions
(or even about their own) except what they're told in church, are content to
live and let live, and to allow the government to do its job *without* shoving
the Bible down everyone's throat. It's true, many polls showed that a large
majority supported keeping the Ten Commandments in the Alabama courthouse, but
how many of those were actively fighting for it, and how many just said "Sure.
Why not?"
So if the Christian superiority activists are, in fact, a minority, why should
one minority be given rule over other minorities in the name of the majority?
Moving on, in one of our arguments I made some brief comment about the ACLU, to
which my friend replied "***** the ACLU!" He then went on and on about the ACLU
defending NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Association) in a lawsuit and how
they promote pedophilia. He then challenged me to name one positive thing the
ACLU has done for the common good in the last ten years. Knowing little about
either the ACLU or NAMBLA, I was at a loss for words, which I could tell my
friend felt very high and mighty about.
I found several pages (by Christians) condemning the ACLU's actions (here's one
http://www.gostrategic.org/dtt/DTTP09B2000.htm), but could find nothing on the
ACLU's website about it.
So, my questions are really "What's your stance on the NAMBLA issue?" and
"What, specifically, has the ACLU done that's been a huge step in defense of
all Americans' rights in recent or past times?"
Thanks for your thoughts.
Off on a tangent sort of - ask your friend if he was being accused of
being a member of NAMBLA and having child porn on his computer by way
of unconstitutional methods by a cop that hates him for other reasons
if he thinks the ACLU should not be willing to take his case.
Everyone is innocent until proven guilty and we have constitutional
protections to keep corrupt officials and over eager officials from
railroading those that are accused.
And then tell him Rush now LOVES the ACLU for helping him.
Won't work. People like that are *always convinced it'll *never happen
to them...
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
"There is no system but GNU, and Linux is one of its kernels."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: Question about the ACLU (and other things) |
01 Feb 2004 10:56:10 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 20:02:44 -0600, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<y@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote:
And so upon Fri, 30 Jan 2004 19:26:35 -0600 didst Kate speak thusly:
On 30 Jan 2004 07:01:10 GMT, (VTM Malkavian)
wrote:
What do you think about the ACLU?
Yes, I realize that's a vague, wide-open question, but I'm interested in
whatever you have to say. I'll explain why later on.
I would also like to read your opinions on the following situation.
I have a Deist friend (he would say he's a Christian, but his actual beliefs
don't really match up) who I always manage to get into disagreements with. He's
not fundamentalist or conservative by any means, but he hates the concept of
the "anything goes" liberals. He's also *very* unreasonable and unyielding in
his arguments.
His stance on the role of religion in government goes something like this: The
founding fathers of the United States never intended for Christianity to be
completely separate from the government. They only meant to prevent the
formation of a state church (i.e. "The Church of America" or something along
those lines). Since Christians compose the majority of Americans, they should
have the right to say whether or not they want their ideals to be apparent in
public places, be it on the side of a public highway or in a courtroom. You
can't please *everyone* so why not do what you can to make the *most* people
happy?
My responce was basically that the founding fathers' ideals are not the end-all
of the Constitution. They obviously had no problem with slavery, so is slavery
constitutional again all of a sudden? The question is not "What did the
founders believe 200 years ago?" but "What's best for society *now*?" We no
longer live in a time where being the in majority grants you superiority in
life, but Christian superiority is exactly the fundamentalists want from the
government. Public displays are just, as one a.a poster put it, "cracks in a
damn, which soon become fissures."
Furthermore, the majority cannot be allowed to rule unchallenged. If it would
make the majority happy to take all the members of racial, religious, and
political minorities and BURN THEM ALIVE, would that be constitutional or in
any way moral? Afterall, you're making the *most* people happy. His response to
this is "It doesn't cause anyone harm to post a religious symbol in a
courthouse."
Physical harm, no. Putting the Ten Commandments in a courthouse won't cause a
Muslim to burst into flames upon sight of it. It will, however, remind someone
that they're viewed as being inferior or evil in a place where they're already
going to be feeling vulnerable. Afterall, if you're accused of a crime, don't
you want to know you're being judged based on the evidence against you versus
that in your defense, without losing points automatically for belonging to a
different belief system?
Beyond that, the extremists who demand a Christian theocracy are, themselves, a
minority. Most Christians, even those who know *nothing* about other religions
(or even about their own) except what they're told in church, are content to
live and let live, and to allow the government to do its job *without* shoving
the Bible down everyone's throat. It's true, many polls showed that a large
majority supported keeping the Ten Commandments in the Alabama courthouse, but
how many of those were actively fighting for it, and how many just said "Sure.
Why not?"
So if the Christian superiority activists are, in fact, a minority, why should
one minority be given rule over other minorities in the name of the majority?
Moving on, in one of our arguments I made some brief comment about the ACLU, to
which my friend replied "***** the ACLU!" He then went on and on about the ACLU
defending NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Association) in a lawsuit and how
they promote pedophilia. He then challenged me to name one positive thing the
ACLU has done for the common good in the last ten years. Knowing little about
either the ACLU or NAMBLA, I was at a loss for words, which I could tell my
friend felt very high and mighty about.
I found several pages (by Christians) condemning the ACLU's actions (here's one
http://www.gostrategic.org/dtt/DTTP09B2000.htm), but could find nothing on the
ACLU's website about it.
So, my questions are really "What's your stance on the NAMBLA issue?" and
"What, specifically, has the ACLU done that's been a huge step in defense of
all Americans' rights in recent or past times?"
Thanks for your thoughts.
Off on a tangent sort of - ask your friend if he was being accused of
being a member of NAMBLA and having child porn on his computer by way
of unconstitutional methods by a cop that hates him for other reasons
if he thinks the ACLU should not be willing to take his case.
Everyone is innocent until proven guilty and we have constitutional
protections to keep corrupt officials and over eager officials from
railroading those that are accused.
And then tell him Rush now LOVES the ACLU for helping him.
Won't work. People like that are *always convinced it'll *never happen
to them...
So do you think Rush is still convinced it will never happen to him?
I'm serious.
Kate
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Yang" |
|
| Title: Re: Question about the ACLU (and other things) |
01 Feb 2004 01:59:13 AM |
|
|
On 30 Jan 2004 07:01:10 GMT, (VTM Malkavian)
wrote:
What do you think about the ACLU?
As a due-paying member? They're okay.
-----
Yang
a.a. #28
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Socerey Division
Proudly plonked by Lani Girl and Crazyalec
The Bush 'balanced' budget: -525 billion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: -3 million jobs and counting
The Bush Iraq lie: -518 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and mounting
Having Bush ***** up my country: Worthless
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "DJ Nozem" |
|
| Title: Re: Question about the ACLU (and other things) |
30 Jan 2004 06:54:58 AM |
|
|
On 30 Jan 2004 07:01:10 GMT, (VTM Malkavian)
wrote:
What do you think about the ACLU?
Yes, I realize that's a vague, wide-open question, but I'm interested in
whatever you have to say. I'll explain why later on.
I would also like to read your opinions on the following situation.
I have a Deist friend (he would say he's a Christian, but his actual beliefs
don't really match up) who I always manage to get into disagreements with. He's
not fundamentalist or conservative by any means, but he hates the concept of
the "anything goes" liberals. He's also *very* unreasonable and unyielding in
his arguments.
His stance on the role of religion in government goes something like this: The
founding fathers of the United States never intended for Christianity to be
completely separate from the government. They only meant to prevent the
formation of a state church (i.e. "The Church of America" or something along
those lines). Since Christians compose the majority of Americans, they should
have the right to say whether or not they want their ideals to be apparent in
public places, be it on the side of a public highway or in a courtroom. You
can't please *everyone* so why not do what you can to make the *most* people
happy?
The courtroom is categorically different from the highway. And
religious symbolism in the public sphere already abounds in America.
Think of the pledge, your money and the way the people in Washington
DC talk in speeches.
Needless to say, Christians themselves don't even agree on the ten
commandments, so much for the argument of getting the Christian ideals
apparent because the christians are the majority...
See http://www.positiveatheism.org/crt/whichcom.htm
My responce was basically that the founding fathers' ideals are not the end-all
of the Constitution. They obviously had no problem with slavery, so is slavery
constitutional again all of a sudden? The question is not "What did the
founders believe 200 years ago?" but "What's best for society *now*?" We no
longer live in a time where being the in majority grants you superiority in
life, but Christian superiority is exactly the fundamentalists want from the
government. Public displays are just, as one a.a poster put it, "cracks in a
damn, which soon become fissures."
That's how the fundies want it, at any rate.
Furthermore, the majority cannot be allowed to rule unchallenged. If it would
make the majority happy to take all the members of racial, religious, and
political minorities and BURN THEM ALIVE, would that be constitutional or in
any way moral? Afterall, you're making the *most* people happy. His response to
this is "It doesn't cause anyone harm to post a religious symbol in a
courthouse."
I don't even see how putting the ten commandments in a courtroom
should make Christians happy.
Physical harm, no. Putting the Ten Commandments in a courthouse won't cause a
Muslim to burst into flames upon sight of it. It will, however, remind someone
that they're viewed as being inferior or evil in a place where they're already
going to be feeling vulnerable. Afterall, if you're accused of a crime, don't
you want to know you're being judged based on the evidence against you versus
that in your defense, without losing points automatically for belonging to a
different belief system?
Equality before the law is essential. For this the court must avoid
every possible _appearance_ of partiality. If this doesn't happen the
legal system loses its credibility. The appearance of legitimacy is
highly important for people to follow the law, otherwise you only have
the threat of force.
(snip, don't know about ACLU and NAMBLA)
--
We give meaning to each other
DJ Nozem aa#1465
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rv Cloim" |
|
| Title: Re: Question about the ACLU (and other things) |
30 Jan 2004 08:02:49 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 07:01:10 +0000, VTM Malkavian wrote:
What do you think about the ACLU?
Mixed opinions. Sometimes I agree with them. Sometimes I disagree.
Overall, I'm glad they're around.
Yes, I realize that's a vague, wide-open question, but I'm interested in
whatever you have to say. I'll explain why later on.
I would also like to read your opinions on the following situation.
I have a Deist friend (he would say he's a Christian, but his actual beliefs
don't really match up)
"Christian" is a very vague term. It means many things to many people.
There are Christian deists, and Christian atheists.
<shrug>
who I always manage to get into disagreements with. He's
not fundamentalist or conservative by any means, but he hates the concept of
the "anything goes" liberals. He's also *very* unreasonable and unyielding in
his arguments.
His stance on the role of religion in government goes something like this: The
founding fathers of the United States never intended for Christianity to be
completely separate from the government. They only meant to prevent the
formation of a state church (i.e. "The Church of America" or something along
those lines). Since Christians compose the majority of Americans, they should
have the right to say whether or not they want their ideals to be apparent in
public places, be it on the side of a public highway or in a courtroom. You
can't please *everyone* so why not do what you can to make the *most* people
happy?
They did not create a pure democracy. They set in place a number of
"checks and balances" to prevent any one group from obtaining too much
power.
One of the groups that they wanted to guard against was the *majority.
That is one of the reasons for the electoral college. And for the
existence of the senate, the members of which were not originally voted
for directly, but chosen by state legislatures.
It is also the reason that the senate rules allow for filibusters. And
that constitutional amendments are not simple majority issues.
Many minority religions at the time, such as the Southern Baptists, urged
that the Bill of Rights include language to guarantee their "freedom of
religion".
"The intermingling of religion and politics corrupts both institutions"
The 'founders' originally intended that the states have a far greater
degree of autonomy than exists today. That changed with the Civil War and
the amendments passed after its conclusion.
Prior to then, a state *could have an established religion.
My responce was basically that the founding fathers' ideals are not the end-all
of the Constitution. They obviously had no problem with slavery, so is slavery
constitutional again all of a sudden? The question is not "What did the
founders believe 200 years ago?" but "What's best for society *now*?"
Yes, and no. The ideas that led to the constitution and its amendments
must be taken into account to understand what it does and does not allow.
Just because a law *can be written, does not mean that it *should be
written. And if the constitution does not allow for something that should
be done, then it must be changed *first.
We no
longer live in a time where being the in majority grants you superiority in
life, but Christian superiority is exactly the fundamentalists want from the
government. Public displays are just, as one a.a poster put it, "cracks in a
damn, which soon become fissures."
Furthermore, the majority cannot be allowed to rule unchallenged. If it would
make the majority happy to take all the members of racial, religious, and
political minorities and BURN THEM ALIVE, would that be constitutional or in
any way moral? Afterall, you're making the *most* people happy. His response to
this is "It doesn't cause anyone harm to post a religious symbol in a
courthouse."
Tell him if he wants to live in a democracy, then he should move to one.
We live in a democratic republic.
Physical harm, no. Putting the Ten Commandments in a courthouse won't cause a
Muslim to burst into flames upon sight of it. It will, however, remind someone
that they're viewed as being inferior or evil in a place where they're already
going to be feeling vulnerable. Afterall, if you're accused of a crime, don't
you want to know you're being judged based on the evidence against you versus
that in your defense, without losing points automatically for belonging to a
different belief system?
Beyond that, the extremists who demand a Christian theocracy are, themselves, a
minority. Most Christians, even those who know *nothing* about other religions
(or even about their own) except what they're told in church, are content to
live and let live, and to allow the government to do its job *without* shoving
the Bible down everyone's throat. It's true, many polls showed that a large
majority supported keeping the Ten Commandments in the Alabama courthouse, but
how many of those were actively fighting for it, and how many just said "Sure.
Why not?"
So if the Christian superiority activists are, in fact, a minority, why should
one minority be given rule over other minorities in the name of the majority?
Moving on, in one of our arguments I made some brief comment about the ACLU, to
which my friend replied "***** the ACLU!" He then went on and on about the ACLU
defending NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Association) in a lawsuit and how
they promote pedophilia. He then challenged me to name one positive thing the
ACLU has done for the common good in the last ten years. Knowing little about
either the ACLU or NAMBLA, I was at a loss for words, which I could tell my
friend felt very high and mighty about.
I found several pages (by Christians) condemning the ACLU's actions (here's one
http://www.gostrategic.org/dtt/DTTP09B2000.htm), but could find nothing on the
ACLU's website about it.
So, my questions are really "What's your stance on the NAMBLA issue?"
I don't know what the "NAMBLA issue" is. NAMBLA is a disgusting, perverse,
organization that the world would be better off without. But they have a
right to voice their opinions. And I have the right to tell them where
they can shove it.
and
"What, specifically, has the ACLU done that's been a huge step in defense of
all Americans' rights in recent or past times?"
They've fought on behalf of church-state separation, and free speech
issues. I've heard specifics, but don't keep track of them.
Thanks for your thoughts.
"The best way to get religion out of government is to insist that ALL religions
have EQUAL rights in a government context. Nothing scares the fundies more than
a 'devil inspired' but equally government sponsored religious service."
--Gregory Gadow
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: Question about the ACLU (and other things) |
30 Jan 2004 06:39:35 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 07:01:10 +0000, VTM Malkavian wrote:
What do you think about the ACLU?
The biggest difference between the "liberals" (including the ACLU) and the
Christian Conservatives is that the liberals act according to
*principles*, while the CC's are only concerned with "what is good for
promoting Xtianity." That is why the ACLU will defend both NAMBLA and
Rush Limbaugh: they are defending free speech, without regard to what is
actually being said. CCs will only defend speech that is pro-christian:
they will go to war to allow a public prayer at a high-school graduation,
but also fight against any public discussion of homosexuality.
As a general rule, whenever you hear the CC's slam the ACLU for "promoting
pedophilia", or some such nonsense, do not believe them. Check it out for
yourself (the Internet makes that very easy) and you will find that they
are defending someone's civil rights, even if it offends the CCs, just
like they are supposed to do.
--
MarkA
(still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all different)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jojo" |
|
| Title: Re: Question about the ACLU (and other things) |
30 Jan 2004 10:18:21 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 07:01:10 +0000, VTM Malkavian wrote:
What do you think about the ACLU?
Daft organization. Far to involved in affirmative action and gun control.
They should redirect those energies to real freedom of speech,
religion, and other civil liberties.
--
someguy
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Adam Marczyk" |
|
| Title: Re: Question about the ACLU (and other things) |
30 Jan 2004 03:35:03 PM |
|
|
VTM Malkavian <vtmmalkavian@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040130020110.13064.00000575@mb-m20.aol.com...
What do you think about the ACLU?
Yes, I realize that's a vague, wide-open question, but I'm interested in
whatever you have to say. I'll explain why later on.
I would also like to read your opinions on the following situation.
I have a Deist friend (he would say he's a Christian, but his actual
beliefs don't really match up) who I always manage to get into
disagreements with. He's not fundamentalist or conservative by any
means, but he hates the concept of the "anything goes" liberals. He's
also *very* unreasonable and unyielding in his arguments.
His stance on the role of religion in government goes something like
this: The founding fathers of the United States never intended for
Christianity to be completely separate from the government. They only
meant to prevent the formation of a state church (i.e. "The Church of
America" or something along those lines).
The problem with your friend's argument is that there can be such a thing
as a "church of America" without those specific words being printed
explicitly on the letterhead. There is such a thing as de facto
establishment, as well as de jure. If I walk into a courthouse and am faced
with a granite monument placed by the chief presiding justice stating,
"Thou shalt have no other gods before me", in reference to the Christian
god specifically, what is that but an establishment of religion? Would your
believer friend feel confident of receiving a fair trial if it was held in
a court run by an atheist judge who had plastered the space with the logo,
"There is no god", and the other party in the case was an atheist as well?
Since Christians compose the
majority of Americans, they should have the right to say whether or not
they want their ideals to be apparent in public places, be it on the
side of a public highway or in a courtroom. You can't please *everyone*
so why not do what you can to make the *most* people happy?
Because the purpose of the Constitution is to protect the minority from the
majority. The majority doesn't *need* to be protected. The idea behind the
Bill of Rights is that Americans have some fundamental freedoms which are
not up for a vote, and freedom of religion is one of those. This was
enacted because the founding fathers correctly observed that the inevitable
result of the intermingling of church and state is tyranny, oppression, and
denial of people's inalienable rights. Furthermore, their purpose in
creating America was not to create a state where the majority could
prescribe what is orthodox - America's greatest strength has always been
its diversity. If they had wanted state-sanctioned conformity, there was
plenty of that to be found in the European monarchies they left.
My responce was basically that the founding fathers' ideals are not the
end-all of the Constitution. They obviously had no problem with slavery,
so is slavery constitutional again all of a sudden? The question is not
"What did the founders believe 200 years ago?" but "What's best for
society *now*?" We no longer live in a time where being the in majority
grants you superiority in life, but Christian superiority is exactly the
fundamentalists want from the government. Public displays are just, as
one a.a poster put it, "cracks in a damn, which soon become fissures."
Furthermore, the majority cannot be allowed to rule unchallenged. If it
would make the majority happy to take all the members of racial,
religious, and political minorities and BURN THEM ALIVE, would that be
constitutional or in any way moral? Afterall, you're making the *most*
people happy. His response to this is "It doesn't cause anyone harm to
post a religious symbol in a courthouse."
It's easy for him to say that when the only religious symbols that might
conceivably be posted are of *his* religion. What if things were reversed,
and militant atheist judges ruled instead, as I described above? If the
United States was 85% atheist and the Pledge of Allegiance contained the
phrase "one nation under no god", would he be so sanguine if it was his
children who had to go to school each day and stand silent while throngs of
their classmates recited that negation? Would he accept his own "no harm"
argument if the symbol the majority wanted posted in the courthouses was
the Islamic star and crescent?
[...]
Moving on, in one of our arguments I made some brief comment about the
ACLU, to which my friend replied "***** the ACLU!" He then went on and on
about the ACLU defending NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love
Association) in a lawsuit and how they promote pedophilia. He then
challenged me to name one positive thing the ACLU has done for the
common good in the last ten years. Knowing little about either the ACLU
or NAMBLA, I was at a loss for words, which I could tell my friend felt
very high and mighty about.
There are some "great cases" listed here:
http://archive.aclu.org/library/75hits.html
I don't know much about the NAMBLA case specifically, but what I do know
(and this distinction is usually lost on bigots) is that the ACLU can
defend a group's right to put forth their message without actually
endorsing the content of that message. That was why they took that case
with the KKK a few years back - they recognized that infringement of rights
always begins with the unpopular groups and stopped it there, and I applaud
them for that. The KKK is, of course, vile, but the cure for a bad argument
is a better argument, not censorship. As regards the NAMBLA case, whatever
the other details, I sincerely doubt the ACLU was defending anyone's right
to commit pedophilia.
I found several pages (by Christians) condemning the ACLU's actions
(here's one http://www.gostrategic.org/dtt/DTTP09B2000.htm), but could
find nothing on the ACLU's website about it.
So, my questions are really "What's your stance on the NAMBLA issue?" and
"What, specifically, has the ACLU done that's been a huge step in
defense of all Americans' rights in recent or past times?"
Thanks for your thoughts.
I'm an ACLU member, though I do not agree with all their positions (in
particular, I strongly oppose their stance on campaign finance reform,
which seems to be that any restriction on donations to candidates infringes
free speech). However, when the President of the United States claims he
has the right to arrest an American citizen on American soil at any time
and detain them indefinitely without bringing charges or allowing access to
a lawyer - to name just the greatest of the frightening infringements of
the Constitution perpetrated by this administration - I feel that joining a
group whose primary purpose is to defend the Bill of Rights outweighs all
other considerations.
This was the incident that finally convinced me to join the ACLU:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/12/16/miami_police/
--
"We have loved the stars too fondly | a.a. #2001
to be fearful of the night." | http://www.ebonmusings.org
--Tombstone epitaph of | e-mail: ebonmuse!hotmail.com
two amateur astronomers, | ICQ: 8777843
quoted in Carl Sagan's _Cosmos_ | PGP Key ID: 0x5C66F737
----------------------------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Adam Marczyk" |
|
| Title: Re: Question about the ACLU (and other things) |
30 Jan 2004 08:43:36 PM |
|
|
VTM Malkavian <vtmmalkavian@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040130020110.13064.00000575@mb-m20.aol.com...
What do you think about the ACLU?
Yes, I realize that's a vague, wide-open question, but I'm interested in
whatever you have to say. I'll explain why later on.
I would also like to read your opinions on the following situation.
I have a Deist friend (he would say he's a Christian, but his actual
beliefs don't really match up) who I always manage to get into
disagreements with. He's not fundamentalist or conservative by any
means, but he hates the concept of the "anything goes" liberals. He's
also *very* unreasonable and unyielding in his arguments.
His stance on the role of religion in government goes something like
this: The founding fathers of the United States never intended for
Christianity to be completely separate from the government. They only
meant to prevent the formation of a state church (i.e. "The Church of
America" or something along those lines).
The problem with your friend's argument is that there can be such a thing
as a "church of America" without those specific words being printed
explicitly on the letterhead. There is such a thing as de facto
establishment, as well as de jure. If I walk into a courthouse and am faced
with a granite monument placed by the chief presiding justice stating,
"Thou shalt have no other gods before me", in reference to the Christian
god specifically, what is that but an establishment of religion? Would your
believer friend feel confident of receiving a fair trial if it was held in
a court run by an atheist judge who had plastered the space with the logo,
"There is no god", and the other party in the case was an atheist as well?
Since Christians compose the
majority of Americans, they should have the right to say whether or not
they want their ideals to be apparent in public places, be it on the
side of a public highway or in a courtroom. You can't please *everyone*
so why not do what you can to make the *most* people happy?
Because the purpose of the Constitution is to protect the minority from the
majority. The majority doesn't *need* to be protected. The idea behind the
Bill of Rights is that Americans have some fundamental freedoms which are
not up for a vote, and freedom of religion is one of those. This was
enacted because the founding fathers correctly observed that the inevitable
result of the intermingling of church and state is tyranny, oppression, and
denial of people's inalienable rights. Furthermore, their purpose in
creating America was not to create a state where the majority could
prescribe what is orthodox - America's greatest strength has always been
its diversity. If they had wanted state-sanctioned conformity, there was
plenty of that to be found in the European monarchies they left.
My responce was basically that the founding fathers' ideals are not the
end-all of the Constitution. They obviously had no problem with slavery,
so is slavery constitutional again all of a sudden? The question is not
"What did the founders believe 200 years ago?" but "What's best for
society *now*?" We no longer live in a time where being the in majority
grants you superiority in life, but Christian superiority is exactly the
fundamentalists want from the government. Public displays are just, as
one a.a poster put it, "cracks in a damn, which soon become fissures."
Furthermore, the majority cannot be allowed to rule unchallenged. If it
would make the majority happy to take all the members of racial,
religious, and political minorities and BURN THEM ALIVE, would that be
constitutional or in any way moral? Afterall, you're making the *most*
people happy. His response to this is "It doesn't cause anyone harm to
post a religious symbol in a courthouse."
It's easy for him to say that when the only religious symbols that might
conceivably be posted are of *his* religion. What if things were reversed,
and militant atheist judges ruled instead, as I described above? If the
United States was 85% atheist and the Pledge of Allegiance contained the
phrase "one nation under no god", would he be so sanguine if it was his
children who had to go to school each day and stand silent while throngs of
their classmates recited that negation? Would he accept his own "no harm"
argument if the symbol the majority wanted posted in the courthouses was
the Islamic star and crescent?
[...]
Moving on, in one of our arguments I made some brief comment about the
ACLU, to which my friend replied "***** the ACLU!" He then went on and on
about the ACLU defending NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love
Association) in a lawsuit and how they promote pedophilia. He then
challenged me to name one positive thing the ACLU has done for the
common good in the last ten years. Knowing little about either the ACLU
or NAMBLA, I was at a loss for words, which I could tell my friend felt
very high and mighty about.
There are some "great cases" listed here:
http://archive.aclu.org/library/75hits.html
I don't know much about the NAMBLA case specifically, but what I do know
(and this distinction is usually lost on bigots) is that the ACLU can
defend a group's right to put forth their message without actually
endorsing the content of that message. That was why they took that case
with the KKK a few years back - they recognized that infringement of rights
always begins with the unpopular groups and stopped it there, and I applaud
them for that. The KKK is, of course, vile, but the cure for a bad argument
is a better argument, not censorship. As regards the NAMBLA case, whatever
the other details, I sincerely doubt the ACLU was defending anyone's right
to commit pedophilia.
I found several pages (by Christians) condemning the ACLU's actions
(here's one http://www.gostrategic.org/dtt/DTTP09B2000.htm), but could
find nothing on the ACLU's website about it.
So, my questions are really "What's your stance on the NAMBLA issue?" and
"What, specifically, has the ACLU done that's been a huge step in
defense of all Americans' rights in recent or past times?"
Thanks for your thoughts.
I'm an ACLU member, though I do not agree with all their positions (in
particular, I strongly oppose their stance on campaign finance reform,
which seems to be that any restriction on donations to candidates infringes
free speech). However, when the President of the United States claims he
has the right to arrest an American citizen on American soil at any time
and detain them indefinitely without bringing charges or allowing access to
a lawyer - to name just the greatest of the frightening infringements of
the Constitution perpetrated by this administration - I feel that joining a
group whose primary purpose is to defend the Bill of Rights outweighs all
other considerations.
This was the incident that finally convinced me to join the ACLU:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/12/16/miami_police/
--
"We have loved the stars too fondly | a.a. #2001
to be fearful of the night." | http://www.ebonmusings.org
--Tombstone epitaph of | e-mail: ebonmuse!hotmail.com
two amateur astronomers, | ICQ: 8777843
quoted in Carl Sagan's _Cosmos_ | PGP Key ID: 0x5C66F737
----------------------------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Edgar A Pearlstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Question about the ACLU (and other things) |
30 Jan 2004 07:22:41 AM |
|
|
VTM Malkavian (vtmmalkavian@aol.com) wrote:
: What do you think about the ACLU?
Visit the website aclu.org, to learn about the national ACLU.
If you are in a city which has a local ACLU (look in the telephone
book), visit the office and get literature.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Question about the ACLU (and other things) |
30 Jan 2004 06:18:49 AM |
|
|
Yah, your pal has been listening to the fundamentalists too long . . . I
fear he may be lost for good, unless he has an epiphany . . .
One thing the ACLU took a lot of heat over was its defending the KKK when
some city government in Illinois denied them a parade permit. It seemed
the only reason the city wouldn't give them a permit was because there were
a lot of Jewish residents, and the city officials just didn't like what the
KKK stood for.
Well . . . the KKK got ahold of the ACLU, and they told the court that
city governments cannot deny groups of American citizens the same
opportunities they extend to other groups based on what their organization
stands for (well, that's the general gist of the arguement). And ya, while
I revile the KKK, they deserve the same rights as everyone else, period.
Once the gov't starts deciding what groups can and what groups can't have
parades, we're all in trouble . . . it may be that you belong to a group
that wants to parade or demonstrate or picket or whatever, and some gov't
bureaucrat won't let you because he just doesn't like you, or disagrees with
you, or whatever.
So . . . cudos for the ACLU on defending the KKK's rights.
I beleive they were also involved in the court case that said that school
districts couldn't send black kids to run-down schools and send the white
kids to shiny new schools. There's a lot of people around who think that
was a bad court decision, and to them, I fling a moist green ***** at them.
They've been involved in several cases that told school districts that they
could not require students to pray in school. Lots of people complain that
"They took the Bible and God out of school!" but that's hardly true . . .
most schools have dozens of bibles in their libraries, kids can pray anytime
they like (they often do before math tests), BUT preachers or parents or
school employees cannot organize the kids in a prayer.
The big deal here is that students cannot be required by anyone in
their schools to make them do religious things. And lots of people don't
like that . . . and to them, I fling two great big moist green boogers at
them.
Lots of schools have after-school clubs . . . chess clubs, latin
clubs, french clubs, etc. There are also Bible clubs and Gay/Straight
clubs, thanks to the ACLU. The law for these is basically, if your school
gets federal $$$, and if your school permits any after-school clubs at all,
then your school may not prohibit any clubs based on its subject matter.
There's been several school districts tell their student that they had to
cancel their chess, french, latin, and bible clubs because some other
student wanted to start a Gay/Straight club. Tough luck for the kids, but
that's what happens when bigoted adults run the school system. And to
them, I flick the green goo from under my toenails.
It's been a while since I looked at the ACLU website, but they used to have
a page where they listed some of their most significant cases, you might
check it out and see if you can bone up on what's what over there . . .
Take care,
--Tock
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
