|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
OP
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
Why all the hatred for the ACLU? The American Civil Liberties Union is a good concept that defends rights. Do they get a little silly in who they defend sometime? Yeah.
But remember that unpopular speech is the true test of free speech. And as long as there are groups like the ACLU then free speech will be around.
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:Do they get a little silly in who they defend sometime? Yeah.
And I think this would be one of those examples of "silly" if it comes to pass.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
|
|
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801 |
All depends on how good the payoff is.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
|
|
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618 |
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
Why all the hatred for the ACLU? The American Civil Liberties Union is a good concept that defends rights. Do they get a little silly in who they defend sometime? Yeah.
But remember that unpopular speech is the true test of free speech. And as long as there are groups like the ACLU then free speech will be around.
Very good. I approve.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
Why all the hatred for the ACLU? The American Civil Liberties Union is a good concept that defends rights. Do they get a little silly in who they defend sometime? Yeah.
Uh, yeah. Good concept is all it is.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 480
At Risk Youth 400+ posts
|
|
At Risk Youth 400+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 480 |
How did this end up here?
Last edited by Anonymous One; 2005-11-23 12:51 PM.
Voted "Biggest Waste Of Space" On The Bat-Boards For "Multiple Reasons" Jerry Falwell On Rudolph The Red-Nosed Reindeer:"Those hollywood, homosexual, jewish types making a show about a reindeer who is 'different' and just cant 'hide it'. Everyone knows if he tries hard enough he can convert himself to a normal, black-nosed reindeer." I am 95% addicted to Porn. What about you?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
OP
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
Quote:
Pariah said:
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
Why all the hatred for the ACLU? The American Civil Liberties Union is a good concept that defends rights. Do they get a little silly in who they defend sometime? Yeah.
Uh, yeah. Good concept is all it is.
From Wikipedia:
Quote:
In 1925, the ACLU persuaded John T. Scopes to defy Tennessee's anti-evolution law in a court test. Clarence Darrow, a member of the ACLU National Committee, headed Scopes' legal team. The ACLU lost the case and Scopes was fined $100. The Tennessee Supreme Court later reversed the fine, but not the conviction.
pushed science over religion in the classroom.
Quote:
In 1942, a few months after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, the ACLU affiliates on the West Coast became some of the sharpest critics of the government's policy on enemy aliens and U.S. citizens descended from enemy ancestry. This included the relocation of Japanese-American citizens, internment of aliens, prejudicial curfews (Hirabayashi v. United States, 1943), and the like.
The U.S. government has formally apologised for the camps since then.
Quote:
In 1954, the ACLU played a role in the case of Brown v. Board of Education, which led to the ban on segregation in U.S. public schools.
Okay, I can see why you don't like them. But some of us don't mind black people sitting next to us in the classroom. Crazy liberals that we are, huh?
Yeah, they've had other cases, like I said they sometimes go after silly causes, but I like the idea of a group that is set up to protect our rights. I like the idea of a group that fights to preserve the seperation of Church and State and the rights to free speech.
Last edited by the G-man; 2005-11-23 4:20 PM.
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
I thought Ray's points about the ACLU deserved their own thread, so I did a "clip and ship" into a new topic.
From my perspective, and I'll expound more later, the ACLU's problem is that, for every legitimate action they take (see, eg, the Scopes Trial and Japanese Internment Camps--both of which are more than a half century ago), they take several more off the wall positions, in which they either invent rights out of whole cloth or serve as little more than a lobbying union for some of the worst criminals our country has (for example, terrorists and child molesters).
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657
1500+ posts
|
|
1500+ posts
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657 |
Going back to R3x's original post, it is about protecting the rights of everyone, even those who are despised. I recall the ACLU's decline in popularity began with the Skokie, IL case. The ACLU defended the rights of the American Nazi Party to March through the predominantly Jewish community. It alienated a large portion of their supporters and no doubt hurt their fund raising. They did it anyway because of the belief that all speech, even hate speech, should be protected.
They have worked hard at the seperation of church and state. To those of you that practice a Judeo Christian religion, having the 10 Commandments displayed on a court room wall seems like no big deal. But to those who practice another faith it is. We get your version of God thrown in our faces constantly. We don't need to get it in public buildings as well.
As for the child molesters and terrorists, they deserve due process as much as anyone else.
Lapsed ACLU member.
"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives." John Stuart Mill
America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between. Oscar Wilde
He who dies with the most toys is nonetheless dead.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
ACLU: 'Plaintiffs Wanted'Six months ago, a senior at Jonesboro High School, Arkansas, gave a graduation speech that included an invitation to audience members to use the moment to accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. As you can well imagine, the ACLU of Arkansas has its knickers in a twist
The ACLU is frothing at the mouth to visit the Jonesboro school district with a hefty lawsuit, probably to the tune of millions of local taxpayer dollars. There's just one thing that stands in their way.
They can't find a plaintiff!
It's been six months, and in all that time, not a single member of the community has stepped forward to complain.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
|
|
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618 |
That article really doesn't say much.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
Quote:
magicjay38 said:
To those of you that practice a Judeo Christian religion, having the 10 Commandments displayed on a court room wall seems like no big deal. But to those who practice another faith it is. We get your version of God thrown in our faces constantly. We don't need to get it in public buildings as well.
Question: What do you find wrong with looking at the 10 Commandments? God, within the government, has been demoted down to a form of symbolism for justice and peace and not totally a spiritual presence. What within the philosophy of the 10 Commandments do you find so wrong or upsetting? How does it try to pervert your own views with your own religion?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,203
betrayal and collapse 5000+ posts
|
|
betrayal and collapse 5000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,203 |
You answered your own question, Charlie.
...you tell stories, we tell lies.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
I asked him how the philosophy of the 10 Commandments offends him......How did I ask and answer that?
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
Okay, I can see why you don't like them. But some of us don't mind black people sitting next to us in the classroom. Crazy liberals that we are, huh?
That's a masterful display of avoiding the subject.
Everyone has seen the success of the Civil Rights Movements and Worker's Unions IN THE FIRST HALF OF THE LAST CENTURY. The road to damnation is paved with good intentions (except in their case, they're just corrupt bastards).
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657
1500+ posts
|
|
1500+ posts
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657 |
Quote:
Pariah said:
Quote:
magicjay38 said:
To those of you that practice a Judeo Christian religion, having the 10 Commandments displayed on a court room wall seems like no big deal. But to those who practice another faith it is. We get your version of God thrown in our faces constantly. We don't need to get it in public buildings as well.
Question: What do you find wrong with looking at the 10 Commandments? God, within the government, has been demoted down to a form of symbolism for justice and peace and not totally a spiritual presence. What within the philosophy of the 10 Commandments do you find so wrong or upsetting? How does it try to pervert your own views with your own religion?
I'm not taking the bait P. You'll have to accept that I don't follow them and my faith doesn't either. The ones that command how I should worship, of which there are several, are particularly offensive to me and many others.
And I support your right to worship in any manner that you choose.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
OP
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
Quote:
Pariah said:
Quote:
magicjay38 said:
To those of you that practice a Judeo Christian religion, having the 10 Commandments displayed on a court room wall seems like no big deal. But to those who practice another faith it is. We get your version of God thrown in our faces constantly. We don't need to get it in public buildings as well.
Question: What do you find wrong with looking at the 10 Commandments? God, within the government, has been demoted down to a form of symbolism for justice and peace and not totally a spiritual presence. What within the philosophy of the 10 Commandments do you find so wrong or upsetting? How does it try to pervert your own views with your own religion?
Why do we need to have them there at all? Let's look at them in the context of the law and the government.
1. "I am the Lord your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt..."
This one has no real point to anyone who isn't one of the big three religions.
2. "You shall have no other gods besides Me...Do not make a sculpted image or any likeness of what is in the heavens above..."
This one specifically would violate the constitution as it is a government monument saying Yaweh is THE god, and that any other religion (or lack of religion) is invalidated. That specifically violates Church/State separation.
3. "You shalt not swear falsely by the name of the Lord..."
See above.
4. "Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy"
See above.
5. "Honor your father and your mother..."
Nice theory, but what if your parents abused you? What if they abandoned you? What if you're dad was Charlie Manson?
6. "You shall not murder"
This is already a law, always has been. Its also common sense and nothing special.
7. "You shall not commit adultery"
This falls under morals and is really not the court's place to decide.
8. "You shall not steal"
Again, already a law and not something that needs to be pointed out.
9. "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor"
Don't lie essentially. Well, again that's morals or perjury. Either way its covered already.
10. "You shall not covet your neighbor's house..."
Again a morals thing that has nothing to do with the law.
Basically the commandments are either overtly religious or are redundant. They won't help anyone. No one is going to be walking by the courthouse and see them and say "Yeah, maybe I shouldn't kill that guy."
And they, worst of all, promote one religious idea. Which is strictly against what the founders of this country envisioned.
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,203
betrayal and collapse 5000+ posts
|
|
betrayal and collapse 5000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,203 |
Quote:
theory9 said:
You answered your own question, Charlie.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
Why do we need to have them there at all? Let's look at them in the context of the law and the government.
1. "I am the Lord your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt..."
This one has no real point to anyone who isn't one of the big three religions.
2. "You shall have no other gods besides Me...Do not make a sculpted image or any likeness of what is in the heavens above..."
This one specifically would violate the constitution as it is a government monument saying Yaweh is THE god, and that any other religion (or lack of religion) is invalidated. That specifically violates Church/State separation.
3. "You shalt not swear falsely by the name of the Lord..."
See above.
4. "Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy"
See above.
I noticed how you deliberately took the situations inside of the Bible along with the commandments themselves--Effectively merging the context of the Biblical past with the secular present. Nice deceptive wordplay. In the courts, they have plaques that contain the commandment itself and not the history behind the invention of the 10 Commandents. In that rite, you miss the point of indentifying with the term "philosophy" rather than simply "faith". Just because a philosophy has roots in faith, that does not mean the philosophy is illogical.
I already addressed the content of God as a symbol of justice and order by which the country should stand by as opposed to a spiritual being. All of them actually apply rather well. Why is symbolism so hard to absorb? Is it because other people interpret it differently than you?
1) This entire country's ideals and and ability to give people rights and opportunities stem from the notions concieved at its birth. We were born into a place that gave us the ability and right to live free and equal to everyone else. In effect, we came from it. So it's rather analogous--And before you try to bring up the presence of slavery in America's earliest years, I'd just like to bring up that this country's philosophy's been refining itself for quite a while (note I mean it's own philosophy and not simply the 10 Commandments, which was included later on). All thing's start out as concepts after all (a bit like those [civil rights movements/unions]--Except they went in reverse). I'd also go on to add that it was mainly when religion interceded on state that opinions on pro-slavery lost a lot of leverage. Doesn't say much for the seperation of Church and State.
2) Again, in terms of symbolism, there is analogy between the name "God" and the term of "justice". Do not pervert the country or world with ideals other than a "justice" and especially don't say that they are more correct than said justice.
3) God(Justice) isn't your scapegoat.
4) I was actually ready to concede non-secularity of the 10 Commandments when I got to obeying the Sabbath, but then it occurred to me its nature isn't simply as a day of the week. One of the primary purposes of the Sabbath is to teach/understand about what it means to follow the 10 Commandments. Keeping it, AND its purpose for thought and education, "holy" is the equivilant of keeping it "sacred". And keeping it "sacred" is the equivilant of keeping it "relavent" and, furthermore, "meaningful". It would encourage us to make time to consider the aspects of the philosophy and understand why it does for us exactly what it does.
Quote:
5. "Honor your father and your mother..."
Nice theory, but what if your parents abused you? What if they abandoned you? What if you're dad was Charlie Manson?
"Honoring" doesn't mean to do as they do if that's what you're implying. And again, it's an ideal that the parents be the guiding force for the generations to come. Time and time again, this has been the case. So it could be said that a mother and father aren't technically the individuals who birthed you, but the ones who specifically raised you and went out of their way to teach you. And again, because this is an entire philosophy, the child would be told to honor thy father and thy mother with all other commandments in mind as well. So it would do them "honor" to turn them into the police for wickedness just as it would do them "honor" to reward their raising you with love and wisdom by responding with affection and obedience.
Quote:
6. "You shall not murder"
This is already a law, always has been. Its also common sense and nothing special.
Common sense? Nothing special????? Again, you miss the point of the 10 Commandments as a philosophy. You can't leave anything out of its rules. And I also notice how, at this point, you draw away from your prior thesis that the 10 Commandments are too religious and simply say, "It's nothing special". Where exactly do you think that law came from anyway? If you think the 10 Commandments didn't have a hand its legal ratification, think again.
Quote:
7. "You shall not commit adultery"
This falls under morals and is really not the court's place to decide.
The philosophy put forth by the 10 Commandments is meant to insure a healthy lifestyle to you and those around you. Not simply push an idea of "morals" as if it was anything so trivial. The 10 commandments is the ground root of morals, but, unlike the defintion for morals, the 10 commandments itself isn't about helping your fellow man so much as its about maintaining a state of order. Although that I will admit the philosophy on its own is a hair's breath away from being about morality, there is simply not enough about it, as it stands, to qualify as such. Loving your neighbor and respecting his individuality is about keeping a harmonious relationship within a community. If one were to expand upon "Love thy neighbor" by saying, "It's the right thing to do", it would have crossed that thresh-hold. I reitterate, however, that it hasn't done that. One could say that because this philosophy is trying to establish itself as the proper way--The right way to live one's life so as to be healthy and righteous, that it is, in fact, claiming itself as, "The right thing". This, however, wouldn't be true since the whole concept of morality has not only the undertones of living properly, but also of righteousness. Secularly, this does not exist--Because, according to secularism, the assumption that there is no true "right" or "wrong" way of doing things is predominant. i.e. We are what we are and what we do is what we do, there's no use trying to label our actions. So in the end, "living properly" for sake of health and harmony (the purpose of following the 10 Commandments) is neither "right" nor "wrong", because it makes no assertions as being either "right" or "wrong". It just tells us how we should live for the sake of living.
Quote:
8. "You shall not steal"
Again, already a law and not something that needs to be pointed out.
9. "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor"
Don't lie essentially. Well, again that's morals or perjury. Either way its covered already.
10. "You shall not covet your neighbor's house..."
Again a morals thing that has nothing to do with the law.
Even if these are "morals things", do you think the law would want you to participate in them? If it's the court's and overall law's duty to help and encourage a better society, why wouldn't they want a decrease in, if not total destruction of, lies. Lies, envy, and adultery are what lead to things like murder and theft. Again, this is an underlying philosophy to law. i.e. "To obey the law to the best of your ability, make sure to follow the 10 Commandments." That is not a proclamation of un-secularity through the acceptance of ideals that originated within in; it is, in reality, a suggestion. Pure and simple. The entire philosophy of the 10 Commandments itself (and nothing less than the full ten) is the easiest and quickest way to a good life. No where in the court room did it say that it was the only way, just the best. In
Quote:
And they, worst of all, promote one religious idea. Which is strictly against what the founders of this country envisioned.
Uhhhhh.....No it's not. An idea that comes from a religious background is not overtly religious in nature. God, for example (your primary bane in life), has long since lost His meaning, within the government, as a spiritual presence, and has been rounded down to an ideal entity that we are encouraged to be like. Another example is the fact that killing someone is against the code of Yaweh, but it can also be against the code of a lawful government that doesn't believe in a god. That's essentially why the 10 Commandments, rather that the entire Bible, are singled out within the courtrom.
Also, promoting a certain God was not against the vision of the Founders.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
OP
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
Quote:
Pariah said:
Uhhhhh.....No it's not. An idea that comes from a religious background is not overtly religious in nature. God, for example (your primary bane in life), has long since lost His meaning, within the government, as a spiritual presence, and has been rounded down to an ideal entity that we are encouraged to be like. Another example is the fact that killing someone is against the code of Yaweh, but it can also be against the code of a lawful government that doesn't believe in a god. That's essentially why the 10 Commandments, rather that the entire Bible, are singled out within the courtrom.
First of all I just cut and paste the first list they had on wikipedia under 10 Commandments.
Second, my point is not God is bad (that's never been my bane, organized religion is the thing I don't like. Which is why I'm agnostic.) My point is that the only 10 commandments that are actually worthy of being laws (murder,stealing) are already laws. The others fall under morals and religious laws.
Explain to me why its necessary to keep the Sabath. Or how the Blind lady with the scales isn't technically a graven image.
Quote:
Also, promoting a certain God was not against the vision of the Founders.
Yes it was, otherwise it would be in the Constitution. A lot of them believed in "god" but didn't want it to be a certain religion's god. In fact they wanted god kept out of government after all the problems that had taken place in England with State run churches.
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657
1500+ posts
|
|
1500+ posts
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657 |
Quote:
1. "I am the Lord your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt..."
This one has no real point to anyone who isn't one of the big three religions.
You're the expert, P. Were there a lot of Celtic and Teutonic tribesmen running around in Egypt circa 1250 BC?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 41
25+ posts
|
|
25+ posts
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 41 |
From ME.... DUH!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
First of all I just cut and paste the first list they had on wikipedia under 10 Commandments.
Plaque on Wikipedia
Nowhere on that plaque, the alleged example of non-secularity within state, does it include anything else within the Bible but the Commandments themselves--There's no included context or history behind them included on the plaque. You chose not to follow the innards of this actual example and included context from the Bible to give your case more undue strength.
Quote:
Second, my point is not God is bad (that's never been my bane, organized religion is the thing I don't like. Which is why I'm agnostic.) My point is that the only 10 commandments that are actually worthy of being laws (murder,stealing) are already laws. The others fall under morals and religious laws.
And I covered that.
Quote:
Explain to me why its necessary to keep the Sabath.
Again, the Sabath wasn't simply a time of worship, but greatly a time of learning and recognition. When the Jews or Christians respected their individual Sabbaths, there'd always be reflection on what made law the law.
Quote:
Or how the Blind lady with the scales isn't technically a graven image.
Again, you were the one who chose to insert the context from the Bible. God's expanding on the false gods commandment with the comment on graven images isn't in the courts.
Quote:
Yes it was, otherwise it would be in the Constitution. A lot of them believed in "god" but didn't want it to be a certain religion's god.
Just because there wasn't a constitutional decree that the nation stood by God, that doesn't mean that God perverts their vision. They all had personal, and bitter, feelings towards the belief of God, but they weren't simply concerned with its potential as a belief, but rather as a de-equalizer.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
Quote:
BoonzaierBabe06 said:
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
OP
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
Quote:
Pariah said:
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
First of all I just cut and paste the first list they had on wikipedia under 10 Commandments.
Plaque on Wikipedia
Nowhere on that plaque, the alleged example of non-secularity within state, does it include anything else within the Bible but the Commandments themselves--There's no included context or history behind them included on the plaque. You chose not to follow the innards of this actual example and included context from the Bible to give your case more undue strength.
"I am the Lord thy God and thou shall have no other gods before me"????
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
OP
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Quote:
BoonzaierBabe06 said:
Also from the wikipedia article:
Quote:
After the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack, the Rev. Jerry Falwell remarked that the ACLU, by trying to "secularize America," had provoked the wrath of God, and therefore caused those terrorist attacks. (Falwell later apologized for the remark.) Other critics of the ACLU do not make such strong accusations, but claim that the organization pushes the concept of separation of church and state beyond its original meaning. The ACLU and Jerry Falwell sometimes find themselves on the same side. Notably, the ACLU filed an amicus brief supporting a suit by Falwell against the state of Virginia. The suit, which was successful, overturned the Virginia constitution's ban on the incorporation of Churches. In addition, the ACLU has defended the rights of a Christian church to run anti-Santa ads on Boston subways, the rights to religious expression by jurors, and the rights of Christian students to distribute religious literature in school.[24]
So basically Falwell blamed 9/11 on them and they still defended his rights.
There whole point is to keep church and state seperate, but they still defend the rights of religious groups, even christians.
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
OP
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
"I am the Lord thy God and thou shall have no other gods before me"????
Review my previous post.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
|
|
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801 |
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
good point, ray
Quoting yourself is a sign that people may have accidentally missed what you said. Congratulating yourself is a sure sign that people probably intentionally skipped what you said.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
OP
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
Quote:
Captain Sammitch said:
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
good point, ray
Quoting yourself is a sign that people may have accidentally missed what you said. Congratulating yourself is a sure sign that people probably intentionally skipped what you said.
I didn't quote myself. 
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
Uh, that was his point, Ray.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
OP
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
Quote:
the G-man said:
Uh, that was his point, Ray.
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
|
|
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618 |
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Quote:
BoonzaierBabe06 said:
Also from the wikipedia article:
Quote:
After the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack, the Rev. Jerry Falwell remarked that the ACLU, by trying to "secularize America," had provoked the wrath of God, and therefore caused those terrorist attacks. (Falwell later apologized for the remark.) Other critics of the ACLU do not make such strong accusations, but claim that the organization pushes the concept of separation of church and state beyond its original meaning. The ACLU and Jerry Falwell sometimes find themselves on the same side. Notably, the ACLU filed an amicus brief supporting a suit by Falwell against the state of Virginia. The suit, which was successful, overturned the Virginia constitution's ban on the incorporation of Churches. In addition, the ACLU has defended the rights of a Christian church to run anti-Santa ads on Boston subways, the rights to religious expression by jurors, and the rights of Christian students to distribute religious literature in school.[24]
So basically Falwell blamed 9/11 on them and they still defended his rights.
There whole point is to keep church and state seperate, but they still defend the rights of religious groups, even christians.
Good point, ray.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
They also defended NAMBLA....
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657
1500+ posts
|
|
1500+ posts
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657 |
Quote:
Pariah said:
They also defended NAMBLA....
That seems to be a recurring theme.
What did the defend that's objectionable. Promoting changes to statuatory rape laws?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
Quote:
magicjay38 said:
Quote:
Pariah said:
They also defended NAMBLA....
That seems to be a recurring theme.
What did the defend that's objectionable. Promoting changes to statuatory rape laws?
You may not be aware of this, but having sex with children is illegal. NAMBLA promotes illegal behavior. But I don't want to acctually have to explain to you why the rape of children is wrong. If you don't know then there's no point discussing it.
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
OP
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Quote:
magicjay38 said:
Quote:
Pariah said:
They also defended NAMBLA....
That seems to be a recurring theme.
What did the defend that's objectionable. Promoting changes to statuatory rape laws?
You may not be aware of this, but having sex with children is illegal. NAMBLA promotes illegal behavior. But I don't want to acctually have to explain to you why the rape of children is wrong. If you don't know then there's no point discussing it.
And I disagree with their defense of them. They were defending the right of Nambla to publish their literature. The ACLU seems to have a blind defense policy where they defend all first ammendment cases, hence their defense of Falwell after he blamed 9/11 on them.
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
Don't worry Ray, I know that YOU wern't the one confused as to what was objectionable about pedophilia. Of all your faults you've never demonstrated that you were a pederast.
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
Oh, that was a compliment, by the way. Feel free to quote it in your sig if you wish.
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657
1500+ posts
|
|
1500+ posts
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657 |
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Quote:
magicjay38 said:
Quote:
Pariah said:
They also defended NAMBLA....
That seems to be a recurring theme.
What did they defend that's objectionable. Promoting changes to statuatory rape laws?
You may not be aware of this, but having sex with children is illegal. NAMBLA promotes illegal behavior. But I don't want to acctually have to explain to you why the rape of children is wrong. If you don't know then there's no point discussing it.
And I disagree with their defense of them. They were defending the right of Nambla to publish their literature. The ACLU seems to have a blind defense policy where they defend all first ammendment cases, hence their defense of Falwell after he blamed 9/11 on them.
What exactly did ACLU MA do to raise such controversy? Here's an abstract of the case, Curley v. NAMBLA a civil suit filed in Mass. Court. There is no defense of criminal activity involved in this case. Once again we have the 'grain of truth' to the right's lies.
Curley v. NAMBLA The ACLU of Massachusetts is representing the North American Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) and a number of individual NAMBLA members in a civil lawsuit brought in U.S. District Court.
ACLUM's motion to dismiss the suit on the grounds that the claims were barred by the First Amendment was denied by the court, which noted that the complaint could be read to suggest that the defendants did more than to make available the material contained in their publications and on their web site.
In other words, a trial on evidence of complicity in crimes could go forward. IS THERE ANY SUCH EVIDENCE?
In a subsequent order, the court dismissed the claims against NAMBLA as an organization, holding that, as an unincorporated association, it could not be sued in its own name.
The court's rulings allow the remaining defendants to renew their request for dismissal of the suit based on a factual showing that their conduct was limited to the expression of ideas and information. Attorneys: John Reinstein, Sarah Wunsch.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
OP
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Oh, that was a compliment, by the way. Feel free to quote it in your sig if you wish.
Thanks man, that means a lot. If it means anything to you I never thought you were a pedophile either.
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
